Supporting Trump: Part One

There are two ways to defend the support of Donald Trump for president this November:  

1.  Promoting another four years of improvement of the state of the nation.

2.  Preventing another four years of destruction of the state of the nation.

Either presents a legitimate argument, a logical argument, a fact-based argument. 

As regards point #1, Trump's record as president begged for a repeat performance in 2020, and he was denied by all manner of fraud, interference, irregularity which resulted in the election actually being stolen from him.  His detractors pretend otherwise, as if his record of achievement wasn't enough.  As if his manner and eccentricities drove away intelligent voters.  Pseudo-sophisticates and the sanctimonious assert he was not presidential material, while those like me maintain that his record proved he indeed was, and then some.  

That record included tax and regulatory policy which resulted in a thriving economy, with growth beyond what the impotent Obama said was no longer possible.  We were told the weak growth rate was the new normal to which we needed to get used and that a magic wand was required to do better.  (Then of course, when better came to be, this same worthless bastard dared to claim the booming economy was due to his efforts.)  

It also included oil flowing like Niagara Falls to the extent that our costs were low and our exports were high.  And with his support for Keystone and other pipelines, jobs were as plentiful as the oil.  It also included a more reasonable cost of living for all, and inflation was low.  It included more and better paying jobs to the extent that the unemployment rate for black Americans was the lowest ever since they began tracking that, and the lowest in the nation since the early 1960s, and thus liberated nearly seven million people from food stamps.  He lowered drug prices for the first time in 51 years. 

It included actual work toward reigning in the number of illegal invaders flowing across our borders.  A wall which border agents confirmed was impeding the ability of illegals from crossing, making their jobs easier. 

It included pulling out of the Iran Nuclear Deal.  The former put a huge financial hurt on Iran and mitigated their ability to finance nuke production as well as terrorist activity (whereas both Obama and now Biden choose to fund both).  On that issue, Trump took out an Iranian military leader, Qassem Soleimani and ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi...two vermin responsible for all sorts of terrorist attacks.

It included the Abraham Accords which brought together Israel and Arab states as well as with us.  In doing so, he made it clear that the Jew-hating Gazastinian/West Bankers were not necessary to advance relationships in the region, and did not have to be a veto to every such attempt.  It included moving our embassy from Tel Aviv to Israel's capitol in Jerusalem where it should always have been.

It included supporting ASEAN over Chinese expansionism and fighting China's aggression toward its neighbors.  Even Vietnam professed its gratitude toward Trump in this regard. 

This is a really short list.  Trump's achievements, again, justified a second term.  There's no thinking person who voted against giving him one.  No thinking person would presume to assert he wouldn't continue on that path he started in his first term as there's no rational argument to suggest he wouldn't.  Some wish to speak of the debt increase during his presidency.  But as I provided for Craig, the debt has no only increased with every president since Nixon, it has increased in the second term of every two-term president.  That is, where the debt rose for Obam's first term, it rose again during his second.  And as I said, it was the same with every two-termer...Reagan, Clinton, Bush 43 AND Obama.  Thus, to hold it against Trump as if it mitigates all of the above good is inane.

Another criticism is the COVID "vaccines" and Trump's seeming continued support for them.  This is a legit gripe, but it fails due to the fact that so much is known about its inefficiency and harmful potential that it's doubtful too many are making their jab decisions based on his support of the "vax" alone, if at all.  And while detractors insist they aren't insisting on perfection in a candidate, it's these imperfections they scrape up to lament him as the GOP nominee and to rationalize withholding votes.

A far more egregious bit of nonsense is Trump's manner, his "mean tweets" and other such "stupid" things he says or does.  Let's forget all the good things he does and pretend none of it counts for judging his character.  Let's just focus on bullshit instead.  The "character" argument fails against his record of beneficial achievements.  This is serious shit here and whether he's cracking wise about some woman's looks or "hawking" a Bible, to pretend anyone should give this crap any real weight belies their claims of being sensible voters.  They aren't, and the future of the nation is too important to concern one's self with crap when real destructive policies are a guarantee with another four years of Dem control of the White House. 

And here's another thing which speaks to Trump's plus side:  He loves America in a tangible, substantive way which manifests in his willingness to take all the shit haters are throwing his way just to ensure America is Made Great Again.  The lawfare, the obstructions...none of it will stop him from doing right by us.  Those who pretend he only cares about himself have to be some of the stupidest assholes in the world in the face of all that.  He hasn't been enriched by public service as has most every other president and member of Congress.  Yet he continues on our behalf. 

It's not Trump who is Trump's worst enemy.  It is those who say this kind of crap when they should be assuring folks of why he should get their support, too.  But they are his worst "baggage" as they pretend anyone should be concerned about his less than perfect ways as if they matter against real issues which do.

ADDENDUM:  As luck would have it, today's edition of AmericanThinker.com provided the following article which aligns well with what I've begun with this post:

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/04/the_compelling_case_for_trump.html

New Rule

If men were angels, there'd be no need for government or rules.  Unfortunately, too many men are assholes.   

Because of a person or persons commenting here as if they were Dan Trabue (and really...who the f**k would want to be him?), I'm forced to enact another rule:

All commenting must be done by honest people willing to identify themselves in a manner which convinces me they are who they say they are.   

 I know there are those who for reasons of a personal nature fear identifying themselves.  For example, their jobs might be at risk if their employers or co-workers knew of their political/religious positions.  Frank Turec, our own Wintery Knight, are examples.  

Others are just insipid cowards, like feo and those who post under the name of another.  There are also those who won't open up a Blogger account simply to provide some legit means of identifying or contacting them to verify who they are.  They're trolls.  No one likes trolls.  

As always I reserve the right to allow anyone I choose to allow and discontinue posting comments from those who've proven themselves feo-like.  This recent counterfeit at least comments in an acceptable tone, and that might persuade me to allow such commenting.  But I won't allow the appropriation of another person's name.  Don't do it. 

Where Speaking Of The Past Protects Us In The Future

 https://arizonasuntimes.com/news/outcomes-of-the-92-election-cases-from-the-2020-election-reveal-that-judges-didnt-review-evidence-or-address-election-fraud-part-2/ralexander/2024/03/14/

I came across the above as the author is among those who still stay engaged with the election fraud issue from 2020.  Some whine when Trump refers to being robbed (a solid truth if ever there was one) as if we should just move along.  That's abject stupidity.  While I don't want Trump's presidency (assuming he wins in November) to be nothing more than getting even for that criminal act, I also don't want it to be forgotten, dropped, set aside or regarded as unimportant among all he could be spending his time resolving as president.  This is a national travesty and needs one guy to provoke action by 50 other guys...that is, all state governors...to clean up the crap Dems imposed upon us which made our current suffering the order of the day.  

This article speaks of 92 cases where the presiding judges chose not to deal with evidence at all.  This is contemptible in light of the many leftist assholes who pretend there was no evidence of fraud or election problems in 2020.  

Here's a helpful rule of thumb:  if a leftist's lips are moving, he/she's lying to you.  Start from there and force them to prove whatever it is they're saying is true.  As we see here on the blogs, they'll change the subject.

While I know there have been some states which have addressed election issues and protocols, I have no confidence enough has been done to ensure truly fair and honest elections.  I mean, shit, there are Democrats involved.  How fair and honest could they be?  How many state have cleaned up their voter roles?  How many have limited the "election season" to fewer days...if not back to simply one?  How many have strengthened anything having to do with election integrity?  

Scant few as we see the GOP looking to "do what the Dems do", when they don't mean cheating like Dems do.  They expect that somehow we'll benefit by early voting, mail-in, ballot harvesting....the talk about "banking your vote".  What morons!  Sean Hannity has been preaching this and the recent NYC special election to fill the George Santos seat was used by Hannity as "proof" that "banking" one's vote...voting early...is necessary because a snow storm on election day negatively impacted turnout.  Well, if there was no early voting, or mail-ins, both parties would be impacted in the same way.  

Cheating happened in 2020 and it manifested in a variety of ways, all of which together means that the election result was severely negatively impacted.  80+ million votes for a moron?  No fucking way.  That election was stolen.  Period.  92 cases could have put Trump in the White House where he belonged were it not for morally bankrupt judges refusing to consider evidence.

Dying By The Hands Of Their Own

 https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2024/03/92928/

The above is an essay dealing with the moral aspect of collateral damage.  The subject has come up in recent discussions regarding the slander that Israel is guilty of war crimes because of civilian casualties resulting from their just response to the murderous aggression of the Gazastinians.  Some would say the civilian people of Gaza are somehow not linked to the Hamas animals they elected to lead them and thus should not be considered the aggressors in this conflict.  That's abject crap.  While it's not to say that civilians should be targeted, or that hate for Israel would not increase were they to cease the incredibly Christian-like concern for them their military has and continues to show them, to lie about culpability being upon the IDF for Gazastinian casualties must be mocked as the willful and intentional lie it is.

BVMLTT

 The following contains a video of a black voice to which all should listen:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/02/mustsee_video_one_amazing_black_woman_gets_it_about_democrats_all_of_it.html


When a black woman regards most black women in power as stupid, it validates the reality seen by our own eyes.  I don't know every woman on Widburg's list, but I don't think there's a one who is not a Democrat or, as such people are now proudly labeled, "modern progressives".  Each is a moron in her own right and I think it's not at all a stretch to suggest their sex and race were the most important factor in installing them in their positions of authority, not anything akin to intelligence.  It's a sad state of affairs and I know there are bright and intelligent black women in this country, if for no other reason than the laws of averages and probability demand that there must be.  I would wager none of them are Democrats.

Just as true is the lack of intelligence of any other woman with a "D" next to her name regardless of color.  Tulsi Gabbard seems to have some smarts, or at least enough to git from the party while the gittin's good.  Pelosi ain't stupid, but she's evil and a moron for backing crap policies.  As she's never been in it to promote the general welfare anyway, her smarts ain't a bonus.  

But the woman in the video, who seems like just an average every-woman covers a lot of ground and nails it on every inch of it.  Her comments about Obama are priceless.

P.S.  I stole the title for this post from Craig.

Craig's Pro-Trump Posts: Chapter 5...The Finale

 This one will be the last, and I'm not sure if I'm prepared to scroll through the entire year or not at the moment I'm typing these words.  To go over the reason for this series once again, and with no concern for the absolute accuracy of how it went down (because I'm now kinda confused about it), I've been concerned about anti-Trump sentiment from Craig (and Stan, too, for that matter) and my position on Trump is simple and direct:  his record as president in the aggregate is such that he was entitled as any president has been of a second consecutive term, and now a second term in '24 since he was cheated out of it in '20.  Those concerns most of us had prior to his first election were, for me, proven to have been unrealized, save for his unique style which is not what has been common from presidents throughout the ages.  So to speed ahead, I was concerned that I never heard any positive comments about Trump from Craig who insists he gives credit when credit is deserved and I stated that I recalled no such posts to that effect with regard Trump.  Having stated I was willing to go through all four years of Trump's presidency and Craig's blog posts during that time to find these posts of Trump praise and he encouraged me to "feel free".  

Since that time, and in more recent discussions, a few curious things have taken place.  

1.  After posting the first few "chapters" of this series, I've been criticized for believing that Craig's post is the only place where he may have made these professions of support and praise.  My response was simply that I had no reason to suspect that any praise would not be posted somewhere among his many offerings, but that I probably would do the same with his Twitter archives and I know of no other such places where he might post such laudatory expressions.  That would have been nice info to have when I first proposed my search.  

2.  I had clearly recalled Craig stating on more than one occasion...and I admit at my more advanced age that perhaps I could be wrong in my recollections...that Craig doesn't support Trump and never voted for him.  Within the last month, however, he has stated he voted for Trump twice.  I was stunned.  Is my memory really that bad to be 180 degrees off on this point?  But then, not sure of where I had left off, I came upon this post:

"Thursday, September 12, 2019

“Your President”

I find this obsession with labeling Trump as “your president” laughably pathetic.  I have precisely the same relationship with Trump that I had with P-BO.    I didn’t support or vote for either of them during the election cycles, but once they were sworn in, I supported actions or policies I agreed with, and criticized the actions I didn’t."

Note that last sentence.  Now I'm confused again. 

3.  Also very recently, Craig stated that he finds the notion of posting on a president doing good things he expects a president to do is boring to him.  But this contradicts the claim that he applauds the good things done.  OK.  Which is it?  And were I to move on to Craig's Twitter archives, this statement suggests I'd be wasting even more time than I already have.  Was this the point?  To knowingly allow me to spend time in this fruitless search when a simple statement like this at that time could have prevented wasting the limited time I have left in my life?

I have a personal response to all of this which I'll save for later.  For now, I will proceed to the last year of Trump's presidency...or at least some of it, because I don't like knowing I'm wasting my time and wasting it anyway:

Sunday, January 12, 2020
"Random Tweets"

Not a support for Trump, but support for young blacks who support Trump.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, January 24, 2020
"Impeachment"

Here Craig isn't supporting Trump necessarily (he's good with any means of getting rid of Trump so long as it's legit), but defending him against the scurrilous lies of the Dems trying to impeach him.  But this should have been the attitude of all honorable Americans whether they supported Trump or not, so I'm not calling for a pat on Craig's back here.  Meanwhile, clearly, Dan proved what we already knew about him at the time, and further demonstrates it constantly.  He's dishonorable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, January 21, 2020
"Remember when..."
An acknowledgement of something good Trump did which wasn't acknowledged by the opposing party or their media sycophants.  Not praise for Trump's aid to Puerto Rico so much as criticism of his political opponents.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunday, February 23, 2020
"Hypothetically"
"Is there anyone in the history of the US who is so horrible and needs to be convicted of a crime so badly that they should be deprived of their right to be tried in front of a fair and impartial jury?

While we're on legal theory, is there ever a point where we can balance the current/recent actions of a person with the past actions/allegations and base judgement more on the recent?"

The above is the entire post for this date.  I'm most concerned with the second part, though the first isn't irrelevant to the point I want to make.  When I speak with Craig and/or Stan about casting their votes for Trump in the general, as they should have in 2020, this second paragraph is a question I've basically been presenting in support of the notion.  Apparently Craig, and ostensibly Stan, would answer "no" to this question, as they aren't truly basing their decision exclusively on the recent with regard to Trump...by which I mean his first term and how good it was.  This question, then, <i>demands</i> support for Trump in November, unless one wishes to pretend the insignificant overwhelms the significant.  
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sunday, February 23, 2020
"Saw this this morning"

Craig said,

"I’m noticing a trend among my friends.   We’d rather see bad things happen to our country, than see Trump win."

The irony here is that this is unintentional praise for Trump's record.  But it's also the position both he and Stan are taking in fact.  I can say this because so many bad things have happened to our country since they rejected Trump the last time, and if Trump is unable to get around or over all the many more hurdles put before him now, more bad things will absolutely happen to our country because of it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, March 26, 2020
"EASTER MASSACRE"

This one is supportive of Trump against the unChristian petition by less than Christian clergy.  Trump expressed optimistic hope and the clergypeeps referenced it as an actual date to open up churches.   So I appreciate the support for Trump expressing optimism.  One would think few shared that optimisism.  
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tuesday, April 14, 2020
"Another damn racist"
This is just a quote of Georgia State Rep. Vernon Jones—A Democrat--endorsing Trump for president and why.  I add it because the posting of it suggests praise for something Trump's done through the words of this black guy.  I'll count it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK.  I got through at least the latter half of July and I'm done.  I'm bored with this, especially given what I posted at the outset of this chapter.  Unless Craig has something in his mind which stands out as absolute support and praise for a specific Trump policy between July 2020 and Inauguration Day of January 2021, I think it's safe to say that there is no such thing, aside from that which I've posted in each chapter.  

As to my personal response, there's a lot more I intend to say in subsequent posts regarding the upcoming election.  How Craig may or may not have voted in the previous presidential elections matters not at this point, as my focus is on November 2024 and the denial of any Democrat from being sworn in in January of '25. 

Recently, it seems I've run afoul somewhat of both Craig and Stan, particularly as regards Trump as president, though with Craig on one or two other things as well.  Shit happens, but for me, I still look to both of these guys as allies and far better men than the sorry lefties with whom any of us contend.  Sure, that's not saying much, but that wasn't my meaning.  They're both great guys, I support them both and continue to follow their blogs.  They're allowed to be wrong now and then, and I'm told I can be as well, though I can't for the life of me think of a time...

Anyway, like the GOP, those of us on the right have no problem smacking each other around and when that happens it means very little to us to go through it, and more importantly, it means we give a flying fuck.  Unlike the lefties, we're not sheep.  We think for ourselves and are willing to defend ourselves as much against each other as we in defending ourselves against the likes of the demented, evil left.  It won't stop, at least not for me, for I seek to persuade or be persuaded. 

I Mean It...Leftists Too Stupid To Involve In Border/Immigration Policy Legislation

 https://www.fairus.org/senate-border-security-compromise-bill-crashes-and-burns-after-fair-exposed-it-sham

 

The above give details about the fraudulent "bi-partison" bill to screw the nation with more invaders invited in by Dems and RINOs.  So nice FAIRUS dug in to make sure enough Senators with some semblance of intelligence was well informed about what Senate assholes were expecting them to support, to the great detriment of We The People.  

In other news, I've been hearing about Biden having jetted in those looking to abuse the asylum system and make it even easier for them to do.  He was basically acting as a freakin' Uber service.  All the invaders had to do was use the app Biden provided, let him know where they were, and he'd send the info and a jet.  Not only that, he was giving them two years to work out their asylum claims and work visas among other things.  I'm sure those Americans looking for work will be happy to have more illegitimate competition likely to get a leg up on them.  I heard details on this travesty from Mark Levin whilst running a few errands tonight.  I saw something in an email I may have unintentionally deleted (because I can't seem to find it thus far), which I'm guessing cites the same article Levin was in reporting on this effort of the Dems to destroy America.  Apparently, he's shipped in about 320 million foreigners and shipped them to around 43 different airports around the nation without telling anyone.  If I can find the email, I'll like to the info below the link I've already provided. 

(I've set this post aside for longer than intended, but can't find the email. The only email I can find reporting on this egregious disregard for Americans is within a video with several other issues being discussed.  Don't know how to cull the heard to isolate the relevant info, but I've heard it discussed several times from several TV and radio sources, so the info's out there if you need to see it.)

Now, with the SOTU address still reeking in our memory, I can add the dust-up over the wonderful Marjorie Taylor-Greene (R-GA) and her reference to Lakan Riley shouted out to President Moron, and his desperate attempt to appear as if he gives a shit.  I won't belabor his mispronouncing Riley's first name, as I don't think it's a big deal for an old guy to mispronounce this particular name, even with it written down and the button or pendant he pulled from the podium, likely as a prop should something like this come up.  Old and cognitively diminished people do such things.  But what's really annoying, aside from his again pretending his son dying of cancer is anything like having a college aged daughter brutally murdered for apparently no reason but she was there and the asshole felt like it.  (No, Joe.  You DON'T know what it's like!)  It's his third mistake which is illuminating and it validates this post.  

During Joe's tap-dancing around that he really is a man of compassion for the real pain and suffering he caused by reversing all the Trump policies which led to the flood of invaders trespassing on our national property, he made the mistake of referring to the murderous piece of shit who beat Lakan Riley's head in as an "illegal".  OH.  MY.  GOSH!  how the asshole lefties pulled their heads from their asses to whine about how awful it is to refer to foreign invaders as "illegals".  "NO HUMAN BEINGS ARE 'ILLEGAL'!" the dumbasses cry!  THAT is the important thing.  Not one of our own being murdered by one of the illegals...and one of the criminals with whom intelligent people have been most concerned.  

Of course none of these illegal foreign invaders is as great a danger to our nation as the Jackass Party which swings wide the gates, who erases our sovereign borders to posture as people filled with compassion for the downtrodden.  Liars all. 

UPDATE:  More evidence the left can't be trusted on border/immigration issues:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/03/california_lawmaker_introduces_bill_offering_free_legal_aid_to_fight_deportation_to_illegals_convicted_of_violent_felonies.html

 

Hateful Revelry?

 Just because I feel like it, I'm going to opine further on Craig's weird comments on my "Sports Things I Hate" post.  First, I hope he was just being snarky.  While I feel satisfied with my rebuttal to the "defining one's self by what one's hate" goofiness, I'm still shaking my head in confusion about the notion of "reveling" in hate.  What does that even mean?  Is it just another way of saying "wallowing" in hate?  If so, that's more goofiness as listing pet peeves and expressing a level of hatred for those peeves does not suggest that I spend tons of time thinking about them.  No.  Like most people, I'm annoyed by a host of things I encounter in life and I don't believe it's the least bit unusual to occasionally speak of those things as things I hate. 

Maybe it's just that I chose to speak of them on MY blog.  What is a "blog"?  It's an online journal.  An online diary.  An online log.  It's short for "Web Log".  I'm pretty sure Craig knows this.  Is it unusual for those who keep a log or journal or diary to write about things which peeve or piss them off or even enrages them?  I would say that constitutes a large portion of all the blogs I've ever seen.  There's such a good amount of it that it seems appropriate to say that most people, including Craig "revels in hate" as much as I do, even if they don't express their negative feelings about an issue or topic in term of "hate".

But again, this "revel" thing is most curious.  Are we "reveling" in hate when we live by these teachings:

https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Hating-Evil

Is God reveling in hate for hating behaviors listed in Proverbs 6:16-19?

If one is asked about a series of bad behaviors, ideas, policies or laws, is one reveling in hate to affirm one hates them?  Go ahead.  Tell me there aren't a number of each of those things that you would deny hating!  Tell me there are no songs which, when they come on the radio you quickly change the station thinking or saying, "I hate that song!"  Or a commercial on TV.  Tell me there are no commercials you hate.

Of course, while some behaviors...like child abuse...enrage and would be considered...I presume..."OK" to hate, there are a host of minor offenses and annoyances which provoke an "I hate that" response.  Whether one creates a list of such things on "hates" or responds to a list presented by someone else which turns out to be things one "hates", how is the expression "reveling" in hate?   I just don't get it.  

In these cases, such as my post of sports things I hate, "hate" is just an expression of the mostly reflexive negative response to exposure to those things.  I don't see how listing them can be considered "reveling" in hate, "wallowing" in hate, being consumed or obsessed with those things one says one hates.  Even serious things...like child abuse...is not something with which I'm consumed 24/7.  But I most definitely hate it.

I guess what I'm saying is that I hate that Craig felt the need to give me shit about my list of sports things I hate.  What is he "reveling" that he felt that need?  Was he still taken aback by my lack of ecstatic joy over the Chiefs' Super Bowl victory due to a stupid and unnecessary rule change provoked by whining...which I hate?  Is he simply insisting I must have the same level of regard or disregard as for things as we see Dan insisting we do?  Really.  I'm flummoxed!  I hope this post doesn't upset him!

Please tell me you were just being snarky. 

SC Primary Thoughts

 Here in South Carolina, Nikki Haley got crushed again.  So far, this makes three times she lost to Trump, once to DeSantis at the same time and in a fourth contest, she was second to "None".  Yet on she goes to Michigan because, by golly, she's what this country needs.  Don't quite see how.  

One site I looked at about an hour ago showed her having been beaten by something like Trump 59%, Haley 39.something% , with both DeSantis and Ramaswamy getting small percentages, too, despite not being in the race anymore.  Those who voted for the last two are goofy, but being it was a primary, people can vote as they like with no concern for the fact their choice has no chance in hell.  

But such people bring up a true concern.  Are they among those who won't vote for Trump if he's the nominee?  Then they're assholes who don't care about their own families, much less their fellow Americans.  More on that later, perhaps.

As to not caring about America, Haley is freakin' John Kasich at this point, running with no chance.  Now, one might say that there is a chance as most states haven't had their primaries, yet.  But those who are now over have validated all data which suggests Trump's overwhelming support among GOP voters.  With each passing primary, it becomes more an issue of us against them..."them" being the Death Cult/America Sucks Party of the Democrats.  Worse, of her less than 40% of voters, that percentage includes Dems who have no intention of voting for her in the general election.  Thus, her percentage of support doesn't reach that lofty 40% mark, and in a primary situation, that's bad when there are only two people left and she's the one spending all the money to drum up that woeful number.

I liked DeSantis and while he was still in the race, I did not rule him out as the candidate for whom I was likely to cast my vote.  In a way, I was relieved his dropping out absolved me of the hard choice.  I would have felt exactly the same if it was Trump who folded, which would have made my vote for DeSantis a slam-dunk no-brainer.   Now, his dropping out meant Trump was the guy.  

And of course, like Tim Scott, DeSantis had the smarts and integrity to encourage his supporters to throw their support to Trump, because he's the best candidate remaining by a wide margin.  

So why is Haley in the race still?  One can refer to her reasons given at her concession speech last night, but I find them all really self-serving rather than America-serving.  She claims the real issue is Biden (or I'd say, by extension, the Dem party and whomever they end up having as their candidate).  That's certainly always been the case, but it doesn't remain a certainty at all that she had any better chance of beating Biden than did Trump.  People like her are a big reason Trump would have any difficulty at all, aside from the taken-for-granted expected cheating to steal another election.  Biden has no record on which to run.  The Dems don't either, given their standing behind every stupid thing Biden's done.  Trump had a great record which should have secured his second term in 2020 were it not for the combination of massive leftist fraud and cheating and dumbshits who refused to support Trump for a second term.  We're under that very same dark cloud now, and it's darker than before due to the many bullshit indictments Trump must weather.  The left will do anything to win!

Then some wonder if she's just sticking around in case Trump dies or gets incarcerated on any of the many lies in these bullshit indictments.  But then, would it simply go to the "runner up", or would a GOP convention choose to nominate someone, among whom could be one of those who've ended their primary campaigns, like either of the aforementioned Scott or DeSantis?  

Haley's said she would refuse to be Trump's VP, so some wonder if she's sticking around to be a third party moron once the primaries are over.  Yeah. That's thinking about the nation.  She'll still only get around a third of the vote at best, and likely only a hunk of the center-right vote.  That means that Biden/theDemreplacement wins.  She's not serving America by her continued assaults against Trump.  

She likes to say that Trump draws chaos.  That's crap.  Chaos is drummed up to obstruct Trump.  These indictments, for examples, exist for no other reason than to prevent him from holding public office, not because he's a danger to the nation, but because he's a danger to the left and anyone who looks like them, including RINOS and/or establishment Republicans (if that's not too redundant) who make up the Uni-Party.   

Trump's sole focus has always been us.  Period.  And even when some policies were sketchy in terms of benefit to the nation, the intention was to provide benefit to the nation.  Those lying assholes who like to pretend Trump only cares about himself are lying for the leftist cause.  Who would put up with what Trump's had to since he first threw his hat into politics in 2015, defer his presidential wages and continue seeking to serve us who only cares for his own self?  That's patently absurd.  

I don't know how Michigan plays the game.  Do they run open primaries?  Can Dems vote for Haley?  Can independents vote in a primary without declaring they will vote for that party's candidate?  I don't even know if indies are ever so obliged anywhere, to be honest, though they should be so obliged everywhere.  So however many Haley manages to pick up in Michigan, how many of them will be Dems who won't be voting for her OR Trump in the general, like those Dems who voted for her yesterday?

In any case, she's 0 for 4 so far and by a wide margin.  We're as yet way too far from the total of delegates needed, but Trump's ahead by a lot.  I'm told SC is a winner take all state, which means he got 50, though his win percentage gets him 44 for sure.  How will he do in other winner take all states?  How many of them are there?  As his lead has been so strong among GOP voters so far, only pockets, like Charleston and Columbia put Haley in front, but they were overwhelmed by the rest of the state.  At this point, I can't see it being any other way anywhere else. 

Sports Things I Hate

Craig and I have been going back and forth about the NFL's wussy overtime rule.  His team benefited so he likes it (YEAH!  THAT'S WHY YOU LIKE IT! 😆).  Clearly, it's a rule for pansies who weep when their team loses in OT under the more logical Sudden Death rule.  

But it made me think of some other things I hate in sports aside from the move toward the NFL being a flag football league if recent rules changes over the last decade or two are any indication.  It's a rough sport and was meant to be so.  It can't work without the violent collisions.  It's what's always made it so attractive to the male half of the American population.  It's just so cool seeing so many incredible examples of almost ballet-like athleticism with the potential of getting one's ass kicked into the next century.  

--First, I hate soccer.  I like watching my granddaughter play the game, because she's really good at it.  But the sport itself I don't need.  It has no appeal to me.  But then, I could say the same for a number of sports not called American football, baseball, basketball or hockey (which I don't watch so much, but don't hate).  Many love the game and clearly it's very popular worldwide.  One only needs a ball, so I get how it became globally popular.  Given the flopping, one would think LeBron James would be a soccer player.

--Speaking of the NBA leading flopper, I'm not keen on James.  Can't say I hate him because I'm not supposed to hate anyone.  He does sicken me, however.  Greatly.  He's a moron of a human being.  He's a racist and given more credit than he deserves.  If one plays a game for a hundred years, it means nothing to hold scoring records or assists records or any other.  As he's constantly compared to Michael Jordan, I would have loved to see them both competing against each other in their prime.  More fun would have been to see James play during the era of the Bad Boys of the Pistons and see him whining all the time.  He's a big baby.  

--In the NBA, I hate how many people like James can run people over....defenders who are moving away from him... and not be called for charging. 

 --I hate how in the NBA, someone like James can be "fouled" by the slightest touch, while a rookie can be criminally assaulted and not get a call.

--I hate how in both the NBA and the NFL a player can be penalized for any inadvertent touch to the head of the opposing player, even when the touch causes not the slightest problem to the player touched.  This is especially egregious in football when one might have to hurl one's self to try to tackle someone and be unable to perfectly control himself to account for any unexpected movement on the part of the person being tackled.  

--I hate the MLB allowing a team to simply "walk" a batter by simply having him go to first base without throwing a single pitch, just to "speed up the game".

--I hate that the MLB found it essential to the existence of the game to speed it up at all, with timers on batters and pitchers.  The slow pace of baseball is only a negative characteristic to morons who have a crappy attention span.  This isn't to say that allowing batters and pitchers to take all day should be permitted.  But discretion on the part of the umpire is a better method of dealing with such intentional delays.  As stated earlier, I have no problem with how long a game lasts given the stupidly high prices of tickets, hot dogs, beer, pretzels, peanuts and Cracker Jack at a sporting event.  Not only will they rape me financially, they'll hustle me out out as quickly as possible.  Screw that.  I've never been to a Major League baseball game and worried about how long it was taking.  I was enjoying the experience and I never cared if I ever got back.  

--It goes without saying that I hate the expense of going to any sporting event.  It wasn't me who thought it a good idea to give any player tens of millions of dollars per year to play.  Now that I'm pretty much retired, I don't know if I'll ever find it worthwhile to put out the cash to go to a professional baseball, basketball or football game.

--I hate the woke shit so common these days in professional sports.  I don't like athletes trying to tell me I'm wrong to regard immoral behaviors as the immoral behaviors they are.  I don't need teams forcing athletes to promote immoral behaviors.  I don't need anyone trying to pretend there's more than one National Anthem and that I must stand during the performance of any song which isn't the Star-Spangled Banner.   I don't need athletes who have more money than I'll ever have interrupting my enjoyment of a game in order to posture as an activist on my dime.  They've got millions.  They can rent time on any TV station or magazine or newspaper to spew their racist crap.  I don't need any team celebrating anything other than the game they're playing.  No black history month, no MLK day, no Asian history month and absolutely no damned "Gay Pride" shit.  Play ball.  Don't do anything more.  (Pitches for actual charities like cancer research or St. Jude's Hospital are absolutely OK).

--I hate athletes and sports broadcasters on sports talk stations getting political, as if it's appropriate or that they know their ass from a hole in the ground on such subjects.  I don't listen for their political opinion in the same way I don't like politics at the Oscars...which I no longer watch for such reasons.  What's more, nobody cares.  In my case, I'm so turned off that morons like LeBron James piss me off more because he thinks he knows a damned thing about politics and current events.  He doesn't and he's way too stupid to be approached by anyone for his opinion on such matters.  He's too stupid to believe Jordan isn't still more qualified to claim the title "GOAT" than he'll ever be.  I've seen a sports guy leave sports reporting to get into political forums.  They're intelligent people.  One that clearly isn't and should never have left sports is Keith Olberman.  He's a completely unhinged asshole who is clearly politically stupid.

--I totally hate end zone celebrations and dances.  I think it was Da Coach, Mike Ditka who said one should act like they've done it before...like they do it all the time, like it's nothing to celebrate because that's the freakin' point.  I believe in football there's supposed to be some regulation of such, but it seems to get worse every year.

I may add more as other things I hate come to mind.  What I've got so far seems to be enough to suggest maybe I should give up pro-sports.  The woke crap alone should be enough.  As it happens, I rarely watch games which don't involve my teams.  I used to watch almost any football or basketball game, especially when I used to wager in confidence pools for football, which I don't do anymore.  I did watch the Super Bowl after insisting I wasn't going to because of the continual presentation of the so-called "Black National Anthem"...an insult to the nation in so many ways.  But I did, and what a shitty game it was.  Anyhow...

UPDATE:

--I though of another.  While I'm cool with what's known as "slaughter rules"...ending the game if one team proves obviously dominant by scoring tons of points while the opponent can't score, I'm totally disgusted when a team whines about the other team running up the score when the game appears to be decided with little chance of the losing team catching up.  It's supposed to be sportsmanship to refrain from running up the score, but to me it's insulting.  While I may feel humiliated as a victim of such play, I can think of no better incentive to practice harder to prevent it ever happening again.  Imagine being the goat and then becoming the G.O.A.T.!  That's the perfect response to one's opponent running up the score.

Craig's Pro Trump Posts--Chapter Four

There wasn't too many posts Trump related at all during 2019, but as always, there are some comments in various threads one might regard as "supporting Trump policies".  But that's a more subjective opinion depending on the comment.  There was one during December which could have arose as support for Trump policies had Craig made the connection between any of them and the subsequent reduction in unemployment.  But alas...

 Wednesday, January 23, 2019
"Leftist lecturing"

In the comments following this post, Craig states he's attempted to get lefties to prove Trump policies are inherently racist
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, December 21, 2018
"Reactions"

I'm not quite sure if Craig is supporting either of the two Trump policies mentioned here or not.  The point is leftist reaction to them, but as far as Craig's...?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, February 19, 2019
"I just saw... "

I think we've got a winner!!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, July 17, 2019
"The best evidence"

This was about Ilan Omar, but became another opportunity for Dan to attack Trump as a racist.  Craig opposed that attack, so I'm counting it as Craig supporting Trump's opinion about Omar.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Tuesday, July 2, 2019
"Who has more credibility?"

Within the comments section of this post, Craig does great work in relating info about the relationship between Trump and Epstein which shows there wasn't one...that Trump behaved as good men do when a scumbag acts like a scumbag in his presence.  Kudos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, July 19, 2019
"Prognostication"

Supportive of Trump policies in a very general way...nothing specific, but enough to acknowledge he was doing rather well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Craig's Pro Trump Posts--Chapter Three

 This year reviewed produced little at all about Trump...barely a mention.  There is one possibility highlighted among the entries.  

I want to again state that I don't read every comment attached to every post.  I pretty much skim them looking for any mention of Trump and then will peruse it and surrounding comments for evidence of support or praise of anything Trump had done.  But truly, so far I'm not seeing anything except for the odd case of refuting an attack on Trump or some hypocritical opinion.  I appreciate defense of Trump against false leftist attacks, but that's not the same as supporting or praising Trump policies or actions.  Two more years to go.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

January 16, 2018
"Immigrants"

A defense against distortion of Trump's immigration policy preferences.  
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 4, 2018
"November 10, 2017"

Same as above.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 2, 2018
"I wonder"

Wow!  This looks like actual support for Trump's work...or at least an acknowledgement that improvements took place because of them.  This would suggest a reason to support him in the next election all by itself.  But alas...

Just noticed a comment which kinda mitigates any notion he was being supportive.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 6, 2018
"African American Unemployment"
Wow.  From January to June!  But this is just a list of the rate of unmployment of the black community, without any specifics as to how it came to be.  Yet, it is something others have noted was a consequence of Trump's presidency.  Is this support of a Trump policy?  I'm going  to count it as such.

Reject Leftist Involvement in Immigration Policy

 Just saw this over at Wintery Knight's blog:

https://winteryknight.com/2024/02/15/how-is-dont-judge-compassion-working-out-in-denver-colorado/

In reading this, it came to mind fallacious arguments about how much we benefit financially by hordes of invaders flowing across our border.  It was never a matter of comparing the value of actual legal immigrants, be they those on work visas to those who seek to become Americans and live here forever.  It was always a question of the illegal aliens and the alleged value to our nation lefties insist they provide.  It's never been the case.  It's far, far less so now.  There's only one solution to the massive costs to We The People...We The Actual Citizens Of The United States of America...and that's to close off the border in whatever way not only prevents illegal crossings, but to dissuade foreigners from believing it's worth the trek to try.

Closing the border is the only way.  That doesn't mean no immigration, just that anyone who chooses to come here, to work or to become an American, must come it only through the front door, AKA: official ports of entry.  Thus, if we put up more razor wire, as in Texas, or finish the border wall started by Trump, or finish the border wall started by Trump but with razor wire on top of it, the main thing is to prevent invaders from entering, or make especially difficult to try.  That means monitoring for tunneling and caving in any tunnels which exist or are under construction.  Just think of it:  if we cave in a tunnel, and cartel assholes die, who would want to try to come in via a criminally constructed tunnel?  

We also have to send back any and every illegal now in the country.  It doesn't matter if we'll succeed in finding them all.  But if we send back everyone caught, regardless of how long they've been in the country, and send them back with just enough of their money to feed themselves for a few days, weeks or months (I'm easy), odds are many illegals will begin making arrangements to return home, rather than be put out like the cat with nothing but their collars.  

This is what's known as "just consequences for bad behavior"...the bad behavior being ignoring our sovereignty and immigration laws.  All of them...man, woman or child...especially all those military aged young men...need to be ejected immediately with extreme prejudice.  This needs to happen until such time that the thought of trying to enter our nation illegally is widely regarded as not worth the risk.

"What of those fleeing danger?" knee-jerk asshats will ask.  They'll be dealt with as they always have...on a case by case basis to determine who is really in danger versus all those who simply say they are.  And if we ever err in accurately determining one from the other, the blame is on all those who lied to exploit that avenue of entry, not on us.  

Once again, our government's priority is us, not foreigners.  Never foreigners over us as is happening now.  

Over and above all I've suggested so far, that which towers in importance over all of that good stuff, is to never, ever allow any leftists to take part in determining border policy, immigration law or who can enter and why they should be allowed to do so. 

I Don't Get These People

Some years ago, Dan had some dude who was in many ways allied with him, at least in his wacky leftist outlook about Christianity, with whom I attempted to engage in dialogue over the homosexual in the church issue.  Naturally, being like Dan in this regard, he sought to defend abomination and those who engage in it and eventually banned me from his blog on the laughable excuse that I was "monopolizing" the discussion, as if that's even possible on a forum in which people engage via the written word.  No one was obliged to read a word I had written, but the dude couldn't really cope with my many questions and critiques of his stance, very much the way Dan is lacking in that regard.  (Can't really blame them as there is no defense they could possibly muster.)

Anyway, this same dude...and I'll have to do some research to get the name of his blog, if not his name as well (not sure I care enough to make that effort, but will if I need to do so)...did a piece about washing people's feet during Sunday service, something his church instituted on at least one occasion.  The dude was really smitten by this engaging in this act and somehow felt holier as a result.  

I thought about this dude when coming across this PSA during the SuperBowl, and it's garnered much attention by knowledgeable Christians who basically saw it and thought something along the lines of "Wha....?"  Here's Matt Walsh commenting on it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5U4cw4vm_00

Walsh's commentary pretty much covers all the bases, but the most worrisome aspect of the spot is how it wastes the opportunity on something so vapid and empty.   

This isn't the only "Jesus Gets Us" spot we've seen, but it is arguably the most ludicrous.  And I agree with Walsh that it is likely put forth by those lacking true Christian knowledge and understanding, or worse, they're leftist "Christians" like Dan and his ilk.  Their point of view is a mockery of  Christ, His Message and the reason He came to exist among humanity.  

Given the attention this particular spot has drawn, I'd be surprised to see many more of them.  At least I would hope there would be no more of them.  The nation needs real Christianity.  Not this crap.

Hold Your Horses There, Folks!

 Give how the democrats regained control of the 3rd congressional district of New York in the recent election to fill the seat vacated the disgraced George Santos, who should never have been elected in the first place, given his leftist character of perversion and lying, there seems to be what I regard as undo alarm resulting from the loss of the seat to a Dem.  Any seat lost to a Dem is extremely unfortunate to say the least, but this situation shouldn't be considered more than it is.

First, of course Santos was stupidly elected.  I wonder how many leftists voted for him because of his sexual disorder?  But as I understand it, being it's New York, it's likely a left-leaning district in the first place, so holding any seat in that state is difficult.

Then, there was the issue of how elections are run these days, and this is the real point of this post.  With early voting, voting by mail and ballot harvesting, Dems are said to have an advantage over Republicans who rightly maintain the only proper way to hold an election is by voting in person on a single day set aside for the purpose.  Unfortunately, with most Dems already having "banked" their vote, they didn't need to deal with heavy snow which hit the district on election day, which made getting to the polls difficult.

As I was driving about today, I heard Sean Hannity lament that his encouragement we conservatives take advantage of the "new rules" for voting in order to win against Dems was shown to be justified with the result of this election.  

But it wasn't.  What's the likelihood that a significant weather event will occur on election day everywhere?  Not very high, to say the least.  

Without such an interference, what's the real difference between voting early, by mail and harvesting, versus voting as voting was intended to be done?  Cheating.  That's what separates left from right and gives the left a true advantage.

These new "rules" are custom made for lefties who aren't shy about cheating, and without these rules allowed, cheating is much easier for them, as the last two elections have proven perfectly.  Look at it this way:  if there was no cheating and elections were as fair and pure as the left so falsely claimed 2020 was, then it really doesn't matter how early votes are cast, whether they're cast in person or by carrier pigeon or whether they're collected by a single person delivering the batch to election HQ.  If there are 200,000 Democrats who vote, and 200,001 Republicans, it doesn't matter when the votes are cast or how.  The GOP candidate will win by one vote.  

But it never quite works that way, does it, because Dems cheat.  They're legendary for it.  It's part of their party's history.  And they don't care or else they wouldn't object to cleaning up voter registration rolls or having representatives of the opposition party have a clear look at how the counting is going or to instituting Voter ID everywhere and a host of other proposals put forth to ensure election integrity.  

So, if we look back at the 3rd congressional district of New York, and all those new "rules" were NOT put into place, what would have occurred?  ALL voters would have the same problem getting to the polls and only those who cared enough to deal with the weather would have shown up.  If the majority of those people were Democrat (not likely, as they're lazy), the result would still be the same.  

While one can't truly disagree with Hannity's concern regarding dealing with the new rules, so long as cheating is easier, there's not much hope conservatives/the GOP will fare any better by taking advantage of early voting, mail in and harvesting.  

There's far less hope Dems will win elections if these fraudulently installed rules are rescinded and we go back to voting as voting was intended to be done.

Craig's Pro Trump Posts--Chapter Two

 Basically going year by year, I've not found anything thus far which is especially supportive of Trump or his policies, with the exception than some comments defending Trump against moronic lefty attacks can either be regarded as support of Trump or exposure of moronic lefty attacks.  

And once again, this was provoked by what I saw as weak defense against supporting Trump for president in the upcoming election, which to date shows no sign of being a choice between either Trump or whatever moron the Dems put up against him.  To say one has supported Trump's good moves means little against all the complaints about the guy, many which do little to convince one to withhold support for him over the aforementioned likely moron of the left.  So anyway, here's what I found from 2017:

 January 16, 2017
"The wrong questions"
Here, Craig gives a nod to Trump's consistency "on wanting to improve the economy so that all sorts of people will be able to provide for themselves."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 15, 2017
"Accusations"

No real positive comments at all about Trump.  I just posted it for the foolish suggestion Pence would've been a better president than Trump.  As one who tries to dig deeply into those likely to garner significant support for whatever office is sought, I was already quite against this guy for his spineless response to objections to the Freedom of Religion act he initially supported as governor of Indiana.  Here's an alleged man of faith who hadn't faith enough to defend a Constitutionally protected right to religious freedoms, and yet that anyone would think he has spine enough to withstand the pressures from the opposition on our behalf as Trump did is laughable.  His cowardice on Jan 6 further supports my contempt for his being given the time of day.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 4, 2017

"Hysterical much"

Here, Craig appears to giving Trump some slack on the illegal alien situation, being somewhat approving of what Trump is about to do at this time.  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 31, 2017
"Literally, unprecedented"

This one presents a defense of Trump against charges that he be more psychic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 November 10, 2017
"Kill ‘em all"

This one suggests support or approval of Trump's restrictions on entry to the country by muslims of certain countries based on the actual intention of those restrictions.  Without reviewing all previous entries, this suggests the first evidence of actual support for a Trump policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 29, 2017
"Not sure what to think."

I add this one because of the last comment in the comments section (I haven't been reading all comments in any of these posts, but rather skimming for references to Trump to see if any support him or his policies [mostly policies].)  The comment in question references a policy of Trumps and quotes from the administration:

 "Like other nations that have merit-based immigration, President Trump is fighting for permanent solutions that make our country stronger by WELCOMING THOSE WHO CAN CONTRIBUTE to our society"

The rest of the comment suggests someone other than Craig.  I don't know if that's the case, but as the quote is labeled a clarification, it does suggest a defense and possibly support.  If Craig so chooses (not obligated, by the way), he can clear things up.

An Item Or Two...Maybe Three...Maybe More.

I was not going to watch the SuperBowl.  Having done so, there was not much to commend it, apart from 49er Moody breaking the SuperBowl record for longest field goal, only to have his record broken not long after by the Chief's Butker.  That was cool.  Neither team played especially well, far below what I expect to see in such a climatic finish to the season as all such events are meant to be:  "The Two Best" vying for the ultimate prize of the sport.

Anyway, there's much to justify never watching professional sports again, just as there to justify rejecting Hollywood films and TV shows.  But I love sports and can't always help myself.  I watch my teams...typically the Bears and Bulls, but don't watch games between other teams if one of them isn't my own.  During the playoffs I'll watch some of the games, and pay more attention to the conference finals deciding the SuperBowl contenders, though I didn't this year.  I do similar with the NBA.  

That said, the reason I wasn't going to watch because they again chose to foist upon the fans and nation a performance of someone singing "Lift Every Voice and Sing" by referring to it as the "Black National Anthem".  I hate this crap.  There is no "white" national anthem.  There's only the National Anthem of the United States of American, known as the "Star-Spangled Banner".  It's the anthem for an entire population of people who each regard themselves as citizens of the United States...and actually are.  Thus, for one segment of our population to presume they're worthy of their own anthem they can refer to as a "National" anthem is divisive in a most racist manner.  

I have no problem with the song itself.  I'm thinking of doing a cover of it myself in either Bluegrass or Headbanger style.  (I haven't decided yet).  It's a nice tune and the message is a good one.  No freakin' problem at all with it.

I don't even have a problem that the song is held as especially meaningful for a particular segment of the population.  I'm rather partial to Grand Funk's "T.N.U.C" for example.  It speaks to me.  I'll even go a step farther and say I don't have a problem with black people regarding the song as a "Black Anthem".  But they don't get to call it a "national" anthem, because they have no nation.  They are Americans, not "African" Americans or "Black" Americans or any other thing as if they are separate and apart from the non-black fellow Americans.  We are all the same in God's sight and as such, it's not at all something toward which MLK Jr was striving.  And we've just been inundated with high praise for that guy as if he was a president or an Apostle of Christ.

I had wondered if we'd see people sitting or players kneeling for either song.  I didn't notice anything like that during Reba's rendition of our one true anthem.  I saw a bunch of folks still looking for their seats, as well as people sitting during Andra Day's tortured performance of "Life Every Voice.."  I say "tortured" because she grimace in a variety of ways while singing.  I had muted it when it began, because I wasn't interested and went about doing other things.  But when I would check the tube, there she was appearing to be in pain.  Now, I'm guessing she was wailing on as if giving praise to God or as if someone shot her dog.  I didn't notice Reba doing that.  She looked happy and proud for the opportunity and did a good job.  I'm sure this Day chick can sing like nobody's business, but again, on principle, I wasn't interested.  (And then there was this "Post Malone" dude singing "American the Beautiful".  What the hell is his problem? ) 

The performance of this song, as if it is actually a national anthem, is no more than pandering to the morons who run the bullshit narratives about how oppressed black people are by white racists in this country.  I get it, Day and all those black football players are suffering daily simply because they're black people.  God help them.  They just must weep all day long in their mansions.  But hey...if we can continue to stoke racial division, then let's have everyone sing their anthems before the games.  Wake me when it's over.  I wanna watch football.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When, say, the White Sox play the Blue Jays in Toronto, they play the Canadian anthem first and the Star-Spangled Banner second.  When they play in Chicago, the play our anthem first.  At least this is how it happens during the playoffs.  I believe they do it in the NBA and the NHL, but I'm not sure.  I haven't paid attention.  I just recall that happening in MLB.  Anyway, why the hell is "Lift Every Voice..." performed before the actual National Anthem?  I think it's because Roger Goodell and the team owners are nutless panderers to the BLM types who aren't worth the time of day.  There are real and serious problems in the black community, and we only hear about the assholes who make their bones on it rather than actually doing black people any good.  The accusations by dumbshits like Colin Kaepernick and LeBron James are lies, though they're not bright enough, honest enough or mature enough to truly learn.  They're chumps for the cause promoted by race-hustlers like Ibram X Kendi, Al Sharpton and the like.  "BLM" type slogans painted on football fields or Washington DC streets don't to damned thing to improve the lives of those who are suffering. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I haven't heard at this point, but I am keen on seeing continue low ratings for the SuperBowl, as compared to what its traditionally compelled in days past when men played the game.  I don't have cable service, and I don't have standard television.  We're doing the streaming thing, mostly via Firestick.  I don't know the details of how all that works.  It could be there's some manner in which viewers through these types of streaming service are counted along with every one to determine just how good or bad viewership was.  In my case, because I now live in S. Carolina but still wish to watch Chicago sports teams, I use an "IPTV" app loaded on through my Firestick.  Thus, this seems to be another layer which I'm unsure as to whether it is recognized by those who do the counting of viewers.  I'm hoping that's not the case so I can continuing watching my teams without being added to those who by their viewing support or are complicit in the woke shit promoted by pro-sports these days. 

This is another of those things wherein if I could get what I want and need without supporting assholes who promote evil and immorality, I'd continue to do so without a single care.  But with each purchase, with each viewing, with each radio station which gets my ear, I wonder if the provider is a lefty jackwad or a spineless right-winger.  It's clearly a case of being in but not of, but it still bothers me to know that I'll drive myself crazy trying to find only those I can trust are companies of real character. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My last item relates to my state of S. Carolina.  I get emails from a number of my reps and my state senator Sean Bennett sent one which listed a number of things which happened in the senate.  Among them is what appears to be both House and Senate agreeing to what is known as "Constitutional Carry", by which any law abiding person who can legally obtain a firearm (not a felon or lunatic, for example) can carry that piece as they choose without permission from the state government.  A concealed carry permit will still be available for those who wish to carry their weapon in other states who will honor that permit (as every state honors one's driver's license), but knowing one can carry within the state borders means one's every day life can be a bit more protected from harm and a permit so one can carry in other states can be handled as needed.  

This is a good development and at this point I believe it still awaits the governor, Henry McMaster's signature to close the deal.   Should he do so, I believe that would make us the 27th state with Constitutional Carry.  For the modern progressives out there, that means more than half the states in the union do less to infringe upon our God-given right to defend ourselves, than do shitholes like Illinois, New York, California and the most disappointing to me personally, Hawaii.

I haven't read the bill yet.  The quick version sounds reasonable, as it adds to the penalties for illegal use of firearms.  That's OK with me, so long as they're dedicated toward knowing the truth of why one chose to use their rod.  At the same time, I also haven't heard from local 2nd Amendment groups who have been sending me emails about the progress of this push for Constitutional Carry.  (Bennett referred to it as "permitless carry", or some such wording)  Such groups would get specific about whether the bill goes far enough, whether it is a watered-down, impotent bastardization of what it should be, or whether it's a true victory for Americans.

From here, the next step would be to begin working toward national reciprocity.  This means getting the stupid in states like those I just mentioned to push their moron leaders to get with the program for the benefit and safety of all Americans.  Hawaii...again, most disappointing to me...will be a severely tough nut to crack as they just has a ruling which basically said the US Constitution is NOT the law of the land and that they don't have to abide it or SCOTUS rulings regarding the 2nd Amendment and how it should be understood.  It's like Hawaii is run by people like Dan.  It makes me wonder how they can enjoy the immense beauty of that state with their heads rammed so solidly and deeply up their asses.  

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, getting back to the SuperBowl, I'm really hacked about the current OT rules for this sport.  Could there be a more wussy-fied league of huge dudes engaged in a contact sport?  From the first they enacted this rule change, I've been outraged at how whiny it is!  In the good old days when men played the game, if one could not win the game, and instead only tied, Overtime was played in a "Sudden Death" manner, which meant the first to score...regardless of how (touchdown, field goal, safety)...would be the winner of the contest.  Somewhere along the line, some girly man insisted both sides should have a chance to score...as if that wasn't always the case.  Back then, if one won the OT coin toss and chose to receive the kickoff, that team could possibly end the game with a field goal or touch down.  Indeed, all one had to do was get into field goal range, which take less effort that it does to score a touchdown.  But what of the other team?  As was true of the entire regulation period of play, that team's defense has the job of preventing the other team from scoring any points.  That's as important as having a good offense.  If the defensive team succeeds, their offense then has the opportunity to score and end the game in their favor.  There should be no whining given each team had the opportunity to outscore the other during regulation.  Now that each team failed, their opportunities still result in an outcome based on which team had a good offense and/or defense.  

The 49ers got a favorable coin toss and elected to receive the kick so that their offense can get busy.  They marched down and scored a field goal.  In the old days, when men played the game, that would have been the end of the game with Frisco being the league champs this year.  But NOOOO!  The Chiefs have to have a chance to score, too!  Had they only been able to score a field goal, the OT period would proceed. It's stupid!  There are two acceptable options to bring a little sanity to a game which has been horribly sanitized over the last few decades: 

1.  Go back to the Sudden Death plan.

2.  Play an entire OT period of whatever time limit chosen for overtime and let each team score as many points as they can.   The team with the most points wins.  Period.  This would be like how the NBA does OT and, more importantly, HOW FREAKIN' REGULATION WORKS!!!

It's like they don't want fans anymore!

Craig's Pro Trump Posts--Chapter One

 I don't usually do posts about one is as much allied with my way of thinking than Craig.  I like Craig.  A lot.  So much so I don't hold his support of the Kansas City Chiefs against him (Go 9ers!).  But in a recent and somewhat ongoing conversation with Craig, I suggested I might go through his archives to find all those places wherein he claimed to give Trump credit for good things he's done.  I did this in kinship with my claim that he focuses only on things Trump didn't do well enough in his mind, and in doing so ignored all the good things he did, as my position is that in the aggregate, Trump's good stuff far outweighs the bad.  Craig said, "Feel free."  So here it is.  This is the first of it, covering 2016.  I was going to begin in 2015, and if there's anything good Craig said about him in that year, well, he'll have to provide it. I've been doing this off and on all day and now it's 02:34 and I gotta throw back the rest of this Port and hit the rack.  So, without further ado:

2/5/2015  A post about candidates insisting they're not "establishment"
Trump

I'll just point out that he's admitted giving contributions to politicians on both sides of the aisle to get them do do what he wants them to do, as well as his love of eminent domain.   Oh, and anyone who can say, "Well I just got a 1 million dollar loan from my dad...".   Enough said.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 27, 2016

You mention Trump in this post about character, by suggesting his lack of it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 19, 2016

The first post I found about Trump, entitled "Trump".  The best you've said about him is that there are some things he said with which you agreed.  You go on to mention he made promises you didn't think he'd be able to accomplish without listing any of them.  Many thought he'd fail to accomplish a number of things he intended to od, and yet he did.  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 2, 2016

"LIberals Are Idiots"

Not exactly high praise for Trump here, suspecting the libs would be best trying to promote Trump to better result in a Hillary win, or a better GOP candidate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 24, 2016

"The Choice We Have For President"

The best one can say here is that Craig seems to regard Trump as less vile than Hillary. Not really glowing support for Trump, but the election hasn't happened yet at this point.  He had a commenter named "Alec" or "Alex" who posted something from another person who basicially gave the same reasons for not voting for either Hillary or Trump.  The problem is that what he said don't match what Trump would eventually do.  That's OK.  I had similar concerns at the time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 29, 2016
"First impressions "

This is the first one I've seen which actually seems to defend Trump, but in a very peripheral manner.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 October 31, 2016
"Election stuff"

Sorta defending Trump, but by attacking what's said about him.  Ironic given how often my "support" for Trump is no more than criticizing that which is said about him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 27, 2016
"Polls"

Another post which mentions Trump quite a bit, while not actually being about Trump.  I just thought I'd add it since he is mentioned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

October 8, 2016
"NEWS FLASH !!!!!!!!!!!!"

This post is mostly about the Billy Bush tape and what it means prior to the election.  It took a while to find any comments of my own, but I'm feeling good about how consistent my position has been between then and now.  Craig doesn't really speak well of Trump here, though he gives Dan crap for the leftist perspective of overhyping the seriousness of the tape, even though he regarded it seriously himself, as I did as well.   Not having compared it to Dan's blog of the same period, it still stands as one of the first instances of Dan exploiting this tape in the typical dishonest manner intending to demonize Trump beyond reality.  Sadly, at the end, we can see the possibility that Craig with withhold his vote on "character" grounds, thereby allowing the greater of two evils to succeed.  He contends his focus is better spent on down ballot voting to rationalize his unforunate choice.  
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 6, 2016
"Hypocritical"

This one is supportive of Trump in the sense that Craig defends Trump against charges related to his legal use of the codified tax code.   But again, it's more of a slight against Trump's accusers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 10, 2016
"Anybody recall..."

To a degree, somewhat favorable toward Trump.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 November 9, 2016
"Post election fallout "

OK!  Craig's point four actually is laudatory.  He's giving Trump a degree of props here!


Yeah, I know I started with a post from Feb of 2015, but it was shortly thereafter I decided to 86 that year and get closer to the time Trump would actually have done something for which anyone would commend him.  I probably should have started from Jan 2017 when he was actually president, but now that I've gathered it all, I'm freaking posting it. 

I would note that in one of the final posts, Craig speaks of not voting for Trump and instead focusing on down ballots given his blue state being as freaking blue as it is.  At the time, I was still an Illinois resident and had absolutely no GOP reps in either the House or the Senate  and no freaking chance of that changing simply because I don't vote for assholes.  It doesn't freakin' matter how blue one's state is.  Vote for the least leftist person running for any office, including and most importantly the presidency. 

(As far as most important, it's really one's local school board.  One really needs to pay attention there and be sure to vote to make sure sexual deviates don't win.)

This Is What Comes From Voting Democrat

 The title of this post is a mantra of sorts.  It's something I find myself saying upon reading or viewing of  some evidence which justifies it.  Below are just a few examples of what provokes that mantra to run through my head, out my mouth and to the keyboard to express it to others.  Each one is just one manifestation, or a collection of them, of problems which can be directly tied to Democrat policies, the assholes who promoted those policies and the morons who voted for those assholes.  These are examples of how Democrats...politicians and those who supported them with their votes...have fundamentally transformed our once great nation into a shithole.  It ain't getting better, and the continued election and re-election of Democrats will impede our ability to restore our nation to at least a path to better times for all.  Dems and their voting supporters would rather pretend Trump is some kind of threat to us, the short list below proves who the true threat to our nation is.  And they ain't satisfied yet!

 

 https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/02/a_cnn_news_team_is_stunned_to_learn_that_imprisoning_criminals_works.html

  https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/02/nyc_prepares_to_hand_out_53_million_in_taxpayer_money_to_illegal_aliens.html

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/02/walgreens_getting_out_while_they_still_can.html

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/02/the_us_is_going_off_the_rails.html

https://www.intellectualconservative.com/articles/whos-the-real-tyrant-wheres-the-threat-to-our-republic

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2024/02/03/elderly-chinese-mans-violent-encounter-says-everything-about-the-state-of-san-francisco-n2634508

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFHUHK91h34

https://amgreatness.com/2024/02/02/group-of-states-file-brief-in-lawsuit-to-force-veterans-affairs-to-cover-transgender-procedures/

As I said, it's a short list.  I may add to it, as so much floods the news services to confirm the truth I present above.

https://thefederalist.com/2024/01/19/ballots-cast-without-proof-of-citizenship-exploded-after-lawfare-crippled-arizona-election-laws/

https://www.libertynation.com/weaponizing-banks-the-treasury-flags-maga-transactions/

Sure enough, it doesn't take much to find more, such is the extent of Dem corruption and anti-Americanism.

https://thefederalist.com/2024/02/02/if-democrats-love-democracy-why-do-they-attack-election-security-measures-voters-want/

The following is especially good:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=dL_tmAfjQgk&si=8YYhtiGFW6rC-BM7

 https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/02/oregon_is_finally_figuring_out_that_legalizing_hard_drugs_in_a_moral_vacuum_doesnt_work.html

Curious Contradiction?

There are those who regard states like Colorado seeking to remove Trump's name from the ballots as guilty of true voter suppression.  Their excuse for denying him is his guilt for that which he was found not guilty of having perpetrated.  And I agree with this.  It truly is voter suppression.  

But what of term limits?  Is that not also denying a place on a ballot to one deemed no longer eligible simply for having served?  That seems far worse than denying one for an alleged crime...whether it was committed or not!  Indeed, it's punishing them for having ostensibly served the nation honorably.  

Some who righteously oppose the Colorado type suppression at the same time support term limits.  It's among the items brought up when seeking support for a Convention of States under Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution.  

 Of course, we already have term limits for the office of POTUS, so if Trump survives his many fraudulent attempts to keep him from the White House in November, he'll still be unable to seek a third term.  If he performs no worse than he did while in office the first time, which was far better than the performances of either Obama and certainly the current moron falsely claimed to have actually won the position, I would be inclined to want a third term for him as well.  Why not (setting aside for the sake of conversation how much older he'd be)?  When George W. Bush completed his second term, and we were looking at either Obama or McCain, I was at that time willing to have given Bush a third term if it was legally possible (running as an incumbent without a primary challenger).  Unlike way, way too many, I had looked into Obama and recognized his lack of intelligence and character and saw him as a threat to the good of the nation...a fear fully realized, as it turned out.

I don't want anyone telling me that an office holder with a great record can't be re-elected if that person is willing to continue serving.  I can decide for myself if I think an office holder needs replacing.  

Term limits is true voter suppression.

Justice Denied

 I just read where this E. Jean Carroll hag sought $24 million from Trump for defamation for his response to her wholly unproven accusation of rape from 100 years ago...something the details of which she couldn't remember, nor were any witnesses of any kind brought to bear in support of her allegations.  Instead, however, the jury awarded her over $83 million.  If anyone was defamed here, it was Trump, given her inability to prove her allegations enough to get a guilty verdict in criminal court.  This suggests that civil trials held in order to rob a defendant who isn't convicted of an alleged crime is a problem.  In short, they should not be allowed.  I can see a guilty person being made to compensate monetarily a victim of an actual crime.  But to go after somehow judged not guilty seems unjust in a very real and extreme sense.  

But hey...so long as Trump is the one made to pay, who cares, right?  This is what comes from a nation which has rejected truth and morality.  The real assholes of society will presume to "know" that Trump is guilty, simply due to their irrational hatred of the man.  I can present Dan Trabue as an example of this perversion of humanity.  I personally can't say with any confidence that Trump is either guilty or innocent of raping this person.  While his history of adultery and womanizing isn't a newsflash to anyone, none of the provides any reason to suppose he'd rape anyone at all.  Yet, the haters accept that notion as all but assured and proven.  It's an indictment on so many of their moral corruption.  This is particularly true of those who posture as Christian.  Actual Christians and real Americans don't assume guilt "just because".  

This case is one of the several which should never have seen the inside of a courtroom.  They each are no more than personal attacks...political attacks...on a guy who actually Made American Greater than it had been prior to his time in office.  I can't understand why that's such a problem to any who pretend to care about this nation.  How can anyone who did as well as Trump be so constantly attacked and vilified, especially after so many accusations and allegations against him have turned out to be bullshit?

God save us from the evil who acts this way against a guy who clearly cares more about the nation than his own personal fortunes.  God bless him for caring enough to continually suffer so many unjust indignities thrown his way by a segment of our population which has become horribly vile and contemptible.

Trump is a flawed human being.  Of this there is no doubt and no argument from anyone.  He is nowhere near the degree of flawed human being far worse people continually insist he is.  They hate him because he's done what they can't or won't do.  They hate the nation, while he loves it and wishes to see it become what it was meant to be, not what his haters and detractors are lowering it to be.  

Now he's more likely than ever to be the GOP nominee.  He may maintain support for president regardless of whether or not he falls to the bullshit attempts to criminalize him.  There's not a single Democrat that fucked up and evil party is willing to put up who would serve the nation anywhere near as well as Trump will.  They're all scumbags. 

I'll happily support and imperfect Trump over the best of the left any day.  They are what's wrong with America right now, and some Republicans are as well.  Trump represents those of us who want better than what these assholes have done and will continue to do.  And one thing the left represents without question, is the destruction of a just society.  May the left get what it deserves.  We'll get it, too, if we allow Dems to win in November.

Dan being Dan

It seems little Danny won't play here anymore, and he won't play much at Craig's blog.  You can't imagine how awful I feel.  To lose out on the comedy he brings to the table with each and every spewing of failed leftism is tragic.  One has to go straight to his blog where he'll make demands that one supports a claim one's never made while refusing to support his own claims under the guise of "it's common knowledge" or some other dodge like that.  

In a recent exchange, he made one of his standard claims that we conservatives are a violent lot, looking to cause all manner of death and destruction...because that's what the left is told to believe.  Dan cites some goofy source to validate his claim, and most likely because that's what's implied by the headline of the sourced info.  But the info itself doesn't prove or suggest that at all, even while making the same claim.  The question asked of respondents (a lefty survey is what it is) was basically, "Today, nearly a quarter of Americans (23%) agree that “because things have gotten so far off track, true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country,” This is portrayed as "support" for violence rather than what truly is the case, which is that true Americans fear violence is what it will take to prevent further erosion of the nation by the Dan Trabues in power relentlessly mucking things up.  It's not like anyone desires taking up arms even against lefties.  Why they didn't simply ask if a respondent is looking to be violent isn't explained.  They simply ask one question, and present it as if it means something the question doesn't affirm.  And Dan runs with it like a happy little girl with a popsicle!

These kinds of distortions of actual conservative/Christian sentiment appears in pretty much every "survey" by "experts" Dan presents to validate his perverse world view and hatred for others.  Another questions the definitionally accurate regard for illegal aliens as "invaders", and even uses the term "invading force" as if they're seen as an army.  While no one suggests an army when justly accusing illegal aliens of invading our country, they accurately represent the very definition of "invaders". 

Elsewhere I saw something which perfectly illustrates the immoral corruption of words and terms in Dan's effort to disparage better people as regards the word "immigrant".  That word implies someone who came legally, not someone who intentionally rejected proper protocols for entering the country.  "Migrant" might work for both, but "immigrant" is not an accurate term for the illegal aliens invading our country.

Dan likes to use this argument to paint better people as "xenophobic", or akin to "white nationalists" who oppose the invasion of illegal aliens because they don't like foreigners.  But these types of people....leftists, mostly...don't like actual immigrants who did indeed follow our laws and protocols.  

So anyway one looks at it, one sees Dan manifesting his blatantly morally corrupt character once again.

As to that, Dan listed his many good works to refute the notion that he's morally corrupt.  He does this ignoring that he ignores the many good deeds Trump has performed (and I've presented them for his edification and like I said, he ignored it) in favor of calling him the most corrupt guy ever.  Doing this is just another way Dan presents as a hypocrite, thereby adding validation to the fact of his corruption.  

But hey...this is among the many reasons few visit his blog and/or allow him to comment at theirs.  He's a pistol!

BIG NEWS!!

 https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/01/ron_desantis_calls_it_quits.html

According to the link above, DeSantis has bowed out!  Sad news in my opinion.  I would much prefer it be Haley (and Asa Huthinson...I didn't even know the dude was still trying!).  

Well...this makes my decision easier when I get to cast my primary choice.  I won't have to vacillate and then second guess until the first year of Trump's/DeSantis' first year is over (I waited for Trump's first year of 2017 for the other shoe to drop, but was relieved to find I made the right choice).  

I've seen it said that DeSantis in the race makes things harder for Trump in terms of beating Haley.  Kind of a stretch, but I get it.  I doubt too many DeSantis supporters will now get on the Haley Train.  Intelligent observers would not suggest that he's not more like Trump than Haley in being non-establishment as well as on actual policy similarities.  

I would hate to think that any of his supporters would refuse to support Trump in the general.  Such people aren't intelligent given what happened the last time Trump was denied.  More importantly, They would be acting contrary to DeSantis' own wishes at this time, that his supporters should rally around Trump.  Here's the link to his concession speech (also linked in the article above), and it's a good one:

https://twitter.com/RonDeSantis/status/1749159384112845285

Now, however, the strife Trump now endures becomes, in my mind, more important than ever.  No one should believe that his luck is without end and that the force allied against him aren't so convicted in their evil desires that they won't up the ante yet again.  All of his legal troubles are no more than fallacious political attacks...not legitimate charges against which anyone else would suffer from these scumbags.  They are enabled by various members of the judiciary, justice system and the great enemy of the people, the mainstream leftist media.  

So our job now becomes to increase our own efforts (assuming we've all been making any effort at all) to keep in regular contact with our senators and reps to support Trump as well and push the America 1st sentiment always.  If you happen to be in a state as I was, where both senators and my rep, were Dems, push them too (as I did) to further truth, justice and righteousness rather than their modern progressive bullshit which has been eroding our way of life for the last fifty years or more.  

Trump...NOT Haley...MUST win in November 2024!