Category Archives: Uncategorized
As a loyal, and vocal, member of the #CruzCrew…with the impending nomination of Donald Trump…I have officially decided to leave the Republican party and pledged to do everything in my power to make the GOP a “third-party” in the future.
After much thought, research, and prayer, I have decided that I will be joining the Libertarian Party.
I will be casting my support for Austin Petersen, who faces an uphill battle to win the nomination at the end of May 2016.
Here is my reasoning on voting for Mr. Petersen instead of Mr. Trump:
When faced with a choice between a small government candidate versus a candidate who is in favor of eminent domain and Universal Healthcare…
I choose Austin Petersen!
When faced with a man who wants us to pay as little tax as possible, and has a “Penny Plan” to reduce spending versus a man whose tax plan will ADD $10 Trillion to the National Debt…
I choose Austin Petersen!
When faced with a decision between a pro-life candidate versus someone who has been pro-choice most of their life and STILL supports federal funding for Planned Parenthood…
I choose Austin Petersen!
When faced with a choice between someone who is a strong proponent of the second amendment versus someone who just recently “evolved” to a (mostly) pro-2A stance…
I choose Austin Petersen!
When faced with a choice between a huge reduction in immigration spending verses a MASSIVE expansion in federal powers and workforce within the immigration department…
I choose Austin Petersen!
When faced with someone who will limit our foreign aid and foreign wars versus someone who is already threatening to use nuclear weapons…
I choose Austin Petersen!
When faced with a choice between a pure defender of Religious Freedom versus a man who wants men to be allowed to use women’s restrooms with our daughters inside…
I choose Austin Petersen!
To be fair, some of Mr. Petersen’s stances are not directly aligned with mine, but he is a strong proponent of the 10th amendment, and will not force his views on the country. His sole goal is to “Take over Government to leave everyone alone”.
I am officially (and proudly) endorsing Austin Petersen for The Libertarian Party’s Presidential Primary!
I encourage all of the CruzCrew to contact his campaign at www.austinpetersen2016.com to see how we can help him defeat his competitor at the Libertarian National Convention later this month.
Please consider casting your vote for the only pro-life, small government candidate left in the 2016 presidential race. Thank you!
Michael Bloomberg is currently evaluating an independent run in the 2016 presidential race, and is willing to spend up to one billion dollars to win the election. Popular wisdom would say that it would be nearly impossible for a third-party candidate to win a General Election. The rumor is that if Donald Trump, and Bernie Sanders, win the Nominations, Bloomberg would run as the only pro-gun control candidate, and would run a nationwide campaign to win the Presidency. I am going to lay out a way where Hillary Clinton could go up against Donald Trump (much more likely scenario), where Bloomberg could spend far less money, win only three states, and still become the next President of the United States of America.
A little known fact, since we have not had a really serious third-party candidate in some time, is that if no candidate meets the 270 electoral vote threshold, the election will be decided by the House of Representatives. An even lesser known fact, is how that secondary election works. Basically, the top three finishers in the Presidential election will enter this House of Representatives Election. Currently, there are 246 Republicans, and 188 Democrats in the House of Representatives, but the secondary election is not nearly that simple. Each state gets only one vote in this special election, meaning Delaware has the same amount of voting power as California. The House votes, and each state delegation gets one single vote, a Candidate needs 26 votes to win. If no candidate gets 26 votes, then another vote will be taken…over, and over, again until someone gets 26 votes. Currently, if the House of Representative delegations voted based on party lines, there would be 33 votes for republican, 15 votes for democrats and 3 votes with evenly split delegations.
How does this lead to Michael Bloomberg winning only three states, and being elected as our next President?
First of all, Donald Trump (who, as a constitutional conservative, I will never support) will need to win the Republican Nomination. Hillary Clinton will need to win the Democratic Nomination. Donald Trump, and Hillary Clinton, will enter the General Election as the two candidates with the highest unfavorable ratings in the history of Presidential Politics. Unfortunately for Donald Trump, one large group who hates both of them are the constitutional conservative base of the Republican party. Very much like what we saw with McCain, and Romney, Republicans will lose all of the swing states if the conservative base stays home. In a nutshell, the Democratic Candidate is likely to win all of the swing states, and walk away with the election if Donald Trump were to run against them, with no significant 3rd party opposition. If Bloomberg were to run in all 50 states, conventional wisdom is that he would likely siphon off more votes from the Democrats, than from the Republicans. In a year where both the Republican and Democratic candidates have high unfavorable ratings, this would set up a politically-intriguing, wild-west, 31-way showdown for the Presidency…But, this is not his smartest move.
The smartest move Bloomberg could make is to run in just three states: New York, New Jersey, and California. If Bloomberg were to get on the ballot in just these 3 states, he would force the Republican and Democrats to continue to spend most of their money trying to win the key swing states, while Bloomberg could focus his one billion dollar campaign war chest on winning just these 3 states, and their 98 electoral votes. By not getting on the ballot in the other 47 states, he would maintain the Electoral College equilibrium, each of the candidates would win the states that they are supposed to, and Hillary Clinton would beat Donald Trump in the swing states. This will stop Donald Trump from capturing the 270 Electoral votes that he would need to become the next President of the United States.
Why should Bloomberg get on the ballot in these three states? These states are all huge gun control states, which would play right into Bloomberg’s hands, and winning these consistently Democratic states would allow him to stop the Democratic Nominee from capturing 270 Electoral votes. On top of that, Bloomberg would get far more than the 2 million votes likely needed to become the third largest vote-getting in the 2016 Presidential Election, which would qualify him for the secondary election inside the House of Representatives after both major nominees fail to meet the 270 Electoral Vote requirement, even without getting ballot access throughout the rest of the country.
We will put those three states aside for a moment, and assume that the 2016 Presidential Election goes into the secondary election within the House of Representatives. As I mentioned, there are 33 states with Republican delegations, so won’t they just vote for Donald Trump? Well, only 1 of 435 current congressmen have endorsed him so far, and he rails against their ineffectiveness (as he bashes them all for being establishment) every single chance he gets. After he alienates the conservative base, and they don’t show up to the polls in November, a number of the conservative republicans will lose their seats, potentially along with their Republican majority. In short, there will be a lot of angry Republican congressmen who blame Trump for how badly this election went for the Republicans, and will be looking for a way to punish him, without electing a Democrat. Bloomberg offers them a chance to elect a fiscally conservative former Republican, instead of electing a former Liberal Democrat who just lost them control of the House of Representatives.
There is literally no chance that the Democratic candidate can win 26 votes, as Republican delegations will never be able to look their constituents in the face again after voting for a Liberal Icon. There are only 15 states with Democratic constituencies, which leaves them 11 short of the 26 state requirement to have their candidate elected. Let’s assume all of the Republican delegations split evenly between Bloomberg and Trump (best case scenario for the Democrats), the Democratic candidate would still only secure 22 states, which means there is virtually no reason for Democrats in Congress to back their own nominee, when they could flip their support to Bloomberg and be part of the larger group who could say that they ended Trump’s hopes of the Presidency.
Bloomberg would need 26 state delegations to back him in the secondary election in order to get elected President. An important part of this plan, is that the 15 states with Democratic delegations realize that their candidate cannot possibly win, and resolve to vote for Bloomberg, since he would be better for them than Trump. In an interesting twist, the smaller state congressmen actually have the most power during this entire process. For example, Congressman Kevin Cramer, the only congressman in North Dakota, has as much power as the 38 congressmen in Texas combined. If Representative Cramer votes for Bloomberg, he wins the state, it’s that simple. If the Democrats back Bloomberg, there are 17 states with Republican (or evenly split) delegations who would only need 2 (or less) Republican congressmen to back Bloomberg, instead of Trump, in order to win that state’s vote. That is more than enough, alone, to hand the Presidency to Bloomberg. Less than 30 Republican Congressmen could wind up handing the Presidency directly to Michael Bloomberg after he wins only three states. That said, I would actually anticipate many of the larger delegations to swing in his favor, after Trump spends the rest of the year alienating the “Establishment”, helping make incumbent Republican’s lives difficult, and after he moves further to the middle after he wins the nomination.
Bloomberg, of course, is a polarizing figure among Republicans, so this is not a slam dunk. Republican Congressmen would need a very good reason to hand the Presidency to someone who is not the Republican Nominee. I believe that between Trump’s polarizing statements, his tax returns, the Trump University Fraud case, and other misstatements that he makes throughout the campaign, will be enough to drive a wedge between him and the sitting Congress. Of course, there is one wild card in this plan. The whole reason that these three states are ideal for Bloomberg to win is because of his strong support of gun control. There would be a huge push by the NRA to pressure its members to vote against Bloomberg as President. The NRA is extremely influential within the Republican congress, and it would be hard for them to vote for an anti-NRA nominee. This is probably the largest roadblock that he would have in order to execute this plan.
Bloomberg will need to name a pro-gun, pro-life VP, to show that he wants both sides represented in every policy debate in Washington. This will send a message to conservatives that he is serious about listening to their concerns on social issues. In the end, whoever Trump picks as his VP candidate would win the VP election (not covered here, but the Senate would vote separately for the VP among the top two candidates, rendering Bloomberg’s VP choice essentially meaningless). Conservatives will be able to sleep well knowing that Trump’s strong pro-gun, pro-life VP will keep Bloomberg in check, and Bloomberg will have to make promises to make the new VP extremely active in policy decisions. Conservative Republicans will argue that they need a proven fiscal conservative, who helped turn around New York City after 9/11. They will be able to look their constituents in the eyes, say they stopped the nightmare of a Trump Presidency, while still putting a fiscally conservative businessman into the White House. Bloomberg would be able to spend one billion dollars in just three states, and capture the first presidency decided by the House of Representatives in over 100 years.
After hearing about the “Daddy Wars” firestorm after Matt Walsh (blogger) wrote an article which defended Stay-At-Home-Mothers (SAHM) against Working Mothers who looked down at them, I felt obliged to write an article of my own. In Matt’s article (http://themattwalshblog.com/2013/10/09/youre-a-stay-at-home-mom-what-do-you-do-all-day/), he describes a few instances where Working Mothers have looked down on SAHM’s. I thought the instances were a little exaggerated, and that he might be making a mountain out of a mole hill….until I read the comments on his blog post (more than 8,000 at the time of this article).
The comments ranged from supportive, to downright anonymous internet trash where people went ballistic about the stance he was taking. Everyone seemed to immediately look at the scoreboard, trying to figure out if Working Mothers or SAHM’s had a harder job, which I thought was very interesting.
There were basically 4 groups of people who were commenting:
1. Angry Working Mothers – “How can staying at home possibly be harder than going to work AND raising a child?”
2. Angry Single People – “Every time I see SAHM’s, they are relaxing and barely watching their kids while I am working my ass off.”
3. Appreciative Working Mothers – “I agree with everything you said, and I hate when people look down on my decision to stay home with my children.”
4. Appreciative Working Fathers – “I agree with everything you said and I don’t tell my wife often enough how much I appreciate her.”
I, quite obviously, fall into the fourth category. I am a working father, who is fortunate enough to have the type of job where my wife has the option to stay home with our children if she decides she wants to. I wanted my wife to stay at home, though I left the decision up to her, because I wanted our children to have the very best childhood possible, and I have never met a better person to raise my family than the woman who I married.
She deals with dirty diapers, temper tantrums, bruises, bumps, messes, emergencies, and disasters. In addition, she has decided to run her own business from home, which makes a modest income, enough to pay for a few vacations and a few updates to the home each year.
Does she get to sleep in a little longer than me, and take an occasional nap during the day? Sure.
Do I have to change a diaper when I am suffering from morning sickness because my husband knocked me up again just as I was recovering from my C-Section, starting to teach my young son Spanish and English (along with crawling, walking, sharing, and a million other things), all while finally getting the hang of raising a child full time? No
So, how about we stop keeping score?
Is her job harder than the women who work full time? Who really cares?
Seriously…Raise your hand if you care?
I work as a Senior Manager in a Fortune 500 company, and I run a collection of businesses that comprise nearly a billion dollars in sales every year. If I walked around comparing everyone’s job and stress level to my own, I would not appreciate the contributions of very many people who I run into throughout the weekend. Luckily, I don’t do that. It takes all kinds of people to make this world turn, and I can be just as proud of the single mother supporting her kid by pouring my coffee at McDonalds as I can of the Working Mother who has climbed the corporate ladder when the odds were not in her favor. I am just as proud of my wife, who is spending her mid-twenties making sure that my children, and future children, grow up to be amazing people.
How many people in their mid-twenties had a job that was that important?
Life is not a contest, and raising kids is not an easy job…Neither is being a Working Mother…
There are no easy jobs worth doing…Period
Working Mothers have the stress of going to work every day, leaving their baby with someone else, knowing that they have to do all of their invaluable mothering in the few hours between the end of the work day and bed time.
SAHM’s have the stress of being the sole person responsible for raising a child successfully, not getting any recognition or any paycheck, all while having one of the only jobs where you are, quite simply, never allowed to quit or take a sick day.
Working Fathers will never understand what Working Mothers or SAHM’s are going through, and judging by the comments on Matt Walsh’s blog, we are not allowed to have an opinion on the issue anyway.
Stay-At-Home-Fathers (SAHF) are a special breed who are bucking an enormous social norm, while offering their child a unique experience that not many children get. In short, I do not want to get hate mail from you guys, I have almost as much respect for you as I have for my wife (and that is as good as it is ever going to get in my book).
To sum it up, the only thing that Hillary Clinton and I will ever agree on is that it takes a village to raise a child. That village consists of Working Mothers, SAHM’s, Working Dad’s, SAHF’s, along with working single people…
The only thing that village does not have is a scoreboard…and that is how it should be…
- S.A.H.M. vs. Working-Mother? Aren’t we one in the same. (lovelifeandlemonade.com)
- Moms Rock (What I Learned During My Paternity Leave) (matthewruttan.com)
- SAHM vs. Working Mom. Who is the better mother? (irishsison.wordpress.com)
- “You’re a stay-at-home mom? What do you DO all day?” (lipstickandsuperheroes.wordpress.com)
I recently wrote a tweet stating “President Obama, there are only 45 words in the 1st amendment, please take sixty seconds to review it.” It was obviously written a little tongue-in-cheek, targeting Obama for his recent attacks on the free press. After that, I decided that people might be interested in his grades so far on protecting our Bill of Rights:
1st Amendment – F Free Speech
Obama has not only had reporters investigated, but he has threatened to charge a respected Fox News reporter as a co-conspirator. On top of that, he has had the IRS target Tea Party groups in order to limit their speech during an election.
2nd Amendment – F Gun Rights
Not much evidence is needed here, Obama’s $500 million proposal to limit 2nd Amendment rights says it all.
4th Amendment – D Search & Seizure
We don’t know if Obama had a warrant, but e-mails are typically found to have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Obama likely used the ECPA and several NSLs to get around the 4th Amendment, therefore we are giving him a “D” for creatively undermining our rights in a way that he wouldn’t be found guilty.
5th Amendment – A Right to Remain Silent
Lois Lerner invoked the 5th Amendment when Congress tried to question her on the IRS Scandal…guess she has something to hide. At least Obama is respecting one of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights!
6th Amendment – F Civil Right For Anyone Accused of a Crime
Obama’s team has killed 4 U.S. Citizens with attack drones. I would not have a problem with that if they were in the middle of a hostile action, or if they had been convicted of a crime and sentenced to death, or if they were involved in a capture mission that went wrong…but none of these were the case. The killing of American Citizens without a trial is the act of terrorists, not Presidents.
The bottom line is that the more we learn about the AP Scandal, the Fox News Scandal, the IRS Scandal, the Benghazi Scandal, etc etc etc….the more it should become apparent that Obama is not protecting the rights that Thomas Jefferson described as “is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference”.
- Rand Paul On IRS Scandal: “Someone Needs To Go To Jail” (dprogram.net)
- Hilarious! Top official to plead Fifth Amendment protections after targeting constitutional groups that taught the Bill of Rights (webabuser.blogspot.com)
- IRS Was Afraid of the Constitution, the Obama Scandal Suggests (nysun.com)
Inspired by Jay Mohr’s rant against the IOC’s decision to eliminate Wrestling from the Olympics, I decided to write me own post about how wrestling impacted my life…
Wrestling is unlike any other sport out there…
During High School, how many folks woke up before 5am, put on a plastic suit and worked out hard for an hour before going to school?
How many folks limited their meals to Wednesday, Saturday, and Sunday each week, so that they could make weight twice a week to compete?
I wonder how many folks out there know what it is like to wrestle five matches after losing 21 pounds over the past 72 hours?
Every time you walk out onto the mat, your opponent wants to intimidate you, dominate you, hurt you, outsmart you, and outwrestle you into a victory…
Your victories are extremely painful, and your losses are downright unbearable…
I feel sorry for the folks who have never stood in front of hundreds of people, getting your hand raised by the referee, after leaving everything you had on the mat…
I feel even worse for the folks who have never stood in front of the same hundreds of people, bleeding and injured after being destroyed by a stronger opponent, watching him get his hand raised as the crowd cheers while you stand there in front of everyone….humiliated…
Most people could not handle that…Most people would just quit…But wrestlers are a different breed…
I was an average wrestler. I won more than I lost. I was a 4-year Varsity guy in school, won all-area honors three of the four years, and I wrestled in national tournaments during college in one last gasp effort to see if I had what it took to get to the next level. I still lost over 60 times throughout my career..
60 times, starting at the age of 13, I stood in front of a cheering crowd, angry and humiliated as the referee raised the other guy’s hand..
Every one of those 60 times, there was only one person to blame for that loss – and that was Me…
If there is one thing that Wrestling teaches you more than anything else…It is accountability…
Every mistake hurts…Every delayed reaction hurts…Over-thinking something hurts…Under-thinking something hurts…Losing is unbearable…
Could you imagine how much harder you would work if you knew that every time you lost a point of market share, someone was going to come up and bloody your nose while your competitors and their families stood up and cheered?
I have only found one thing that can motivate you in life more than that feeling during that moment…and that is how good it feels to win…
Winning is what makes the sacrifice worth the pain…
I suffered three concussions, I hyper-extended my right elbow over 20 times, I dislocated my jaw (and finished the match), I had over 10 procedures to fix my cauliflower ear (wrestling injury), and I had two knee surgeries…all before I was 21 years old…
And I promise you this – I gave worse to my opponents than I got in return…
Simply put, I left it all out on the mat…
On the mat is where I learned how to succeed in life when adversity strikes…
On the mat is where I learned that if you don’t get what you want, you have nobody but yourself to blame…
On the mat is where I learned that there is always someone out there who is bigger, stronger, and who is working harder than you…
On the mat is where I learned that you are entitled to nothing, and you have to earn everything you seek in life…
In Wrestling, there is no pro – Kids begin wrestling so that they can make Olympics…We continue wrestling because it gets in our blood…
If the IOC were to take wrestling from the Olympics, it will begin to disappear from College Campuses, which will slowly cause it to disappear from High Schools and Youth Groups across the country.
The population of the entitled, coddled, and lazy people in the United States is growing at an alarming rate. Please don’t take away the leading educator on accountability, work ethic, and toughness.
Please forward this to every wrestler you know, and post your own story on how Wrestling impacted your life. Keep Wrestling in the Olympics!
- Gold medalist Angle says wrestling won’t vanish from Olympics (triblive.com)
- Olympic Gold Wrestler Gardner Takes IOC to the Mat (ireport.cnn.com)
- Wrestling answers IOC wakeup call with massive push to remain in Olympics (azcentral.com)
I applaud Senator Rob Portman, who dramatically revealed his change of heart on the issue of Gay Marriage this past week. Portman’s decision was based on a very personal story where his son revealed to him that he was gay, and the Senator realized that he wanted his son to have the same opportunity for happiness and marriage that his other children will have.
Portman’s decision was slammed in the twitterverse and in the mainstream media as self-serving, with people turning this deeply personal change of heart into something much more sinister. Rather than embracing the converted Senator, Gay Marriage supporters rained insults down on him and his political party, ranging from calling him a flip-flopper, to asking if he would change his mind on the minimum wage or abortion if his children ran across hard times financially or were involved in an unplanned pregnancy.
Many of their comments, not listed here, were completely disgusting and disheartening.
Personally, I am a recovering NeoConservative, who is beginning to lean more and more towards WackoBird Libertarianism. The issue of Gay Marriage is one that I have struggled with for a long time, and I have participated in several spirited debates with my friends and family throughout the years. While I am capable of making a full-throated defense of the Republican Party-Line, it has been years since my inner-argument amounted to much more than a slippery slope debate which I was not overly passionate about. That being said, until recently I have not found the motivation to sit down and really dig into the issue to see if my overall opinion had changed.
Rob Portman changed that for me. After hearing his announcement, I was surprisingly not angry, as I typically would have been if a Champion for one of my political positions had changed their mind. I began looking back at the years of debates, thinking about how the strength of my opinion had decreased over time, and I dove deep into the issue. My position hasn’t changed over the last 48 hours. However, over the past 48 hours I have realized that my opinion has definitely changed over the last several years.
I now support Gay Marriage.
While you likely won’t see me marching on Washington, or screaming at those who advocate against Gay Marriage, I thought it was worth posting this online to show that it is okay to change your position on key issues and we should not demonize each other when that happens. Whether you change your opinion based of something that happens in your personal life, or whether it was a slow evolution over time, Political advocates should welcome these new converts with open arms.
Whether it’s Gay Marriage, Abortion, Death Penalty, Gun Control, Minimum Wage, Tax Policy…
On these issues where each side has the support of around 50% of the country, how will your side ever become a clear majority if you don’t embrace those who are willing to let their opinions evolve over time. The only way to guarantee effective Political discourse in this country is to be respectful of each other’s opinions, and to allow people to change their mind when they have heard a good argument.
I now proudly support Gay Marriage – I challenge each one of you to take a look at some of your own Political Positions this week. In a world where people are allowed to change their mind on key issues without being demonized, would there be any issues that you might like to alter your stance on?
- Senator Rob Portman reveals he has a gay son, now supports same-sex marriage (thesunnews.typepad.com)
- No gay-lo for Rob Portman: Many libs lash out at senator for ‘evolving’ on same-sex marriage (twitchy.com)
- Rob Portman And The Politics Of Narcissism (huffingtonpost.com)
John: “Rich people should pay more in taxes and poor people should pay less.”
Socrates: “How much more should the rich people pay?”
John: “They should pay their fair share, since they are making so much more than us.”
Socrates: “Define their fair share for me.”
John: “Well, if someone makes ten times as much as me, they should pay ten times as much in taxes.”
Socrates: “How much money do you make John?”
John: “My wife and I make $45,000 a year.”
Socrates: “So, if you two paid $10,000 in taxes, someone who makes $450,000 a year should pay $100,000 in taxes?”
John: “Yes, that sounds about right.”
Socrates: “Okay, so what I am hearing you say is that people should pay their fair share?”
John: “Exactly! I honestly don’t know how anyone could really argue against that point!”
Socrates: “So, someone who makes $45,000 should not be allowed to pay zero in taxes?”
John: “Of course not! Following our logic, they would be paying way less than their fair share.”
Socrates: “So, if a group of people make 45% of the total income, they should not have to pay over 70% of the taxes?”
John: “Obviously not. Following our logic, they would be paying way more than their fair share.
Socrates: “So, if there was a tax code that forced people who make up 45% of the total income pay over 70% of the taxes AND allows 47% of income-earners to pay zero taxes, that would not be a fair system?”
John: “Of course not! That would be way too far in the other direction, you are trying to make me look like a Radical Communist!”
Socrates: “So, in that system, you would actually want the rich to pay less and the poor to pay more?”
John: “I guess, if that system was actually in place, I would be arguing for the rich to pay less and the poor to pay more.”
Socrates: “But John, the system I just described is the current system in the United States. I thought you said the rich don’t pay enough today?”
Socrates: “True wisdom comes to each of us as we realize how little we understand about life, ourselves, and the world around us.”
WordPress does some pretty cool stuff for their bloggers, and I thought I would post this to encourage others to use this site. My blog’s 2012 in review has some interesting takeaways:
This blog drew viewers from 85 different countries
My most commented on article was about the history of the federal income tax (who knew that could be so exciting?)
This blog drew almost 5,000 views during 2012, far exceeding my expectations
Here’s to a great 2012, and a better 2013. I hope you all continue to follow, and I wish you all a Happy New Year!
Here’s an excerpt:
600 people reached the top of Mt. Everest in 2012. This blog got about 4,900 views in 2012. If every person who reached the top of Mt. Everest viewed this blog, it would have taken 8 years to get that many views.