Brexit: It's Good As Done

It was guessed that maybe Brexit wouldn't go through, that the Conservatives wouldn't be able to muster the electorate after the calamity of former PM Theresa May's inability to finalize the Brexit negotiations.

Alas, after her resignation, the new PM Boris Johnson mobilized the party, ousted possible defectors, and rallied the electorate as a show of force in response to Labour's attempts to quash Brexit and force another referendum to undo it all.

The political implications of such a electoral landslide are many, some with more outlier views of the impact itself of the effectiveness of the European Union and some with international implications. One of these is the upcoming U.S. 2020 Presidential/General election, which is fiercely polarized the nation with bombastic language from both sides, such so culminating in an attempt by House Democrat majority to formally impeach and attempt to remove President Donald Trump from office (see future post: Impeachment Isn't The Way Forward).

Election Info By 2019

The main question for this issue is how it effects global Conservative movements in geopolitics. I compiled this information from various sources about the composition of the political makeup of each European Union country as of this date, including the UK since it has not officially left the EU. The picture shown does not include the attitudes of like and dislike to the EU as a whole. The picture shows a stark contrast to political views among Americans who would say that Europe is a complete socialist region. It, therefore; begs the question, if political conservatism is on the rise, especially in the UK, could it be that Socialist ideology and programs aren't favorable anymore? It's possible, but not completely. The next question we need consider is: why is this impact so great that Democrats seem worried about 2020 electoral prospects?

First, let's consider that Progressive politics had been on a steep rise after the Bush Era ended in 2008 with the election of President Barack Obama and a filibuster proof Congress. Enacting policies that are Progressive, in relation to the policies of Bush, were the cornerstone of Obama's election, promising vast changes to make America more in line with European socialist policies of Universal Healthcare, immigration, taxation, etc. While President Obama had a clear mandate of power, his decision to focus solely on Healthcare overhaul cost him his only political capital he had. After his midterms, Congress was divided. Then after his reelection, the Congress switched to Republican majorities. This swift reversal of political persuasion can be attributed many ways from Obama not maximizing his political capital across multiple fronts, to risky ventures on foreign policy, to high risk domestic policies. The election of Trump is one of the most surprising changes of political power. The dynamic of politics around 2016 became more polarized in policy division and increased calls for more "radical" policies of both the Left and Right.

Through this galvanizing of radical policies, we've reached our central concern for the USA: will this aid in Trump's reelection of 2020? In many ways It is very possible that a resurgence of Conservative politics could make it more prominent. Influx of immigration, coupled with the stagnation of the economy, heightened taxation, mandated healthcare penalties if you chose to not use it, and other various issues made Conservative politics more upfront. However, it also gave rise to many far Left policies. In this struggle, it will be important to understand the effects of how European Conservative movements have made some of the most prominently Leftist countries to fall to more populist Conservative ideologies. Radical immigration and taxation are two of the most important for Europe. For America, it also includes immigration but also the largest issue, is Freedom of Speech and how it will play an integral role in the election. Americans must decide whether or not the party they want in power will actually be for true Freedom of Speech, or a version of Freedom of Speech.

Within these issues, these policies, Far Right policies have also surfaced, such as strict bans on illegal immigration and changing current forms of allowable entry to be tougher or near impossible to achieve to allow someone in. Hyper vigilance in some respect isn't always good. The main factor to me, is that are the policies of the Far Left coming up going to supercede the policies of common sense or moderate plans of action; further, are the policies of the Far Right going to supercede the policies of common sense or moderate plans of action? That's what is going to be more difficult to understand. It should be noted that these policies in Europe are currently not boding well for many Progressive Left parties in the EU, their grasp on power is slowly turning away from Leftist politics as one can easily see in the most recent general election in Great Britain, who now will effectively leave the EU on Jan 31st. It will be an interesting election cycle in the USA as we begin to see the primary for the Democrats begin shortly. My prediction is if they pick a Far Left, it may not go well for their efforts to unseat President Trump. 

Senator John S. McCain III (R-AZ)

In politics, everything is game: reputation, power, influence, money, corruption, true beliefs, patriotism, self-centered patriotism. All of these can be descriptors of any politician at almost any time in history. Only a few have ever maintained their convictions in the face of political expediency, rise to power, and will power to do what is necessary.

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) was one of those men. His power, while not always in popularity, was consistent. Many regarded him as a Liberal Republican, a designation that allowed him to move seamlessly through the political persuasions of American politics. Senator McCain had a strength that only a few could possess and one that now is extinguished and will be remembered as one of the last remaining in society. I have waited some time after his death because I felt that it was too soon to comment, but I cannot wait anymore.

First, let me say that I was fortunate enough to have met Senator McCain in the halls of the Senate offices while doing lobbying for a bill that would help those who needed medical equipment to get around in society. I was able to take a picture with him, a memory now that will remain as one of the greatest memories of my political life. Senator McCain is and was a force of nature. His presidential campaign was one that, while I may say was too short, now is synonymous with class in the face of political opposition.

Second, I am thoroughly dismayed by some of my friends and colleagues in the political arena, and by virtue--aspects of society, who would smear his name in any sense. We now ask ourselves how can we have gone from that compassion and esteem to where we are now. Unfortunately, it starts right here with how we treat those of our political opponents. I get asked many times how "compassionate conservatism" became extinct, which i say starts with how we treat political opponents in debate, conversation, and in friendship. It is abhorrent to me to see just how much we have fallen apart as colleagues of political philosophers. It is utterly disgusting to see members of society to joke about the late Senator's death by cancer. It is disgusting to see what type of people we have devolved into where calling our opponents names that may or may not be accurate and then conversely expect our opponents to play political decency when the tables are turned. I make this bold statement, that should you believe it is acceptable to become vile and indecent about your political opponents, then you should discontinue our friendship with immediate effect.

Third, if I am able to be lucky enough to serve the Commonwealth of Kentucky I will model my career after him. I will stand for my principles, even in the face of adversity. I will show that compromise, in the best way, is important. Yet, I will never forget where I came from and how it made me who I am. Principles matter, even when we think it's easy to make ourselves more politically malleable. 

Free Speech v. Censorship

Free speech is something we all have come to know, enshrined in the First Amendment of the US Constitution to allow citizens the unhindered right--on a federal level--to the ability to assemble, protest, and speak on issues. Yet, in today's climate of political and governmental discourse, we are being volleyed with claims of shutting down hate speech and speech that runs counter to some, and some to which they agree with said speech. The primary issue, in my opinion, is whether or not we as a society can and should suppress (censor) speech that some view as "hate speech."

 So, the real question becomes: what is defined as "hate speech" and when can you prevent it? First we must understand the case law that brings us to this pivotal moment. Whitney v. California (274 U.S. 357) is the first case where government attempted to restrict speech in a sense. Anita Whitney was charged and convicted of a felony under the California Criminal Syndicalism Act of 1919, where she was a part of the Communist Labor Party (CLP) who was attempting to teach criminal syndicalism, assembling with, and being a member of the CLP, according to the charges. The Supreme Court upheld that the CCSA was constitutional, but refuted that the act itself could punish someone with no imminent danger perceived. In his majority Concurrent Opinion, Justice Brandeis wrote:

This Court has not yet fixed the standard by which to determine when a danger shall be deemed clear; how remote the danger may be and yet be deemed present, and what degree of evil shall be deemed sufficiently substantial to justify resort to abridgement of free speech and assembly as the means of protection. To reach sound conclusions on these matters, we must bear in mind why a State is, ordinarily, denied the power to prohibit dissemination of social, economic and political doctrine which a vast majority of its citizens believes to be false and fraught with evil consequence.

 Later on, in Brandenburg v. Ohio (395 U.S. 444), the Supreme Court dealt with a Klansman who was charged and sentenced under the Ohio Criminal Syndicalism Act. They then overturned his conviction because Ohio's Criminal Syndicalism Act forbade advocacy of the KKK. Thus, they overturned Whitney. From this case came the "Brandenburg Test" or known as the "imminent lawless action test" which consists of: intent, imminence, and likelihood. The main example of this is the falsely yelling fire in a theater. It would later be applied in Hess v. Indiana (414 U.S. 105) which upheld that an antiwar protester who yelled "We'll take the fucking street later (or again)," could not be punished because the language did not adhere to the Brandenburg Test. Thus, the government could take action against him for speaking against the war and not push for an imminent threat of force or harm.

Now, you may rightly ask yourself, why does this matter? Well, in our current climate, we have the people who are protesting for the suppression of voice from a group that it believes to be harmful to society. While another group announces that it is only speaking out because it is a right, and that any speech, regardless of view, should be allowed to say it. Ultimately, we now come to whether or not censorship is acceptable for one, but not another. The real question of whether or not someone can speak out against a view, either vehemently or calmly, and not be censored? The only way to do this to apply the speech, from both views, under the Brandenburg Test.

I will add, that whether or not you agree, you cannot censor a view because you view it as "racist" or "fascist." These terms do not adhere to the Brandenburg Test
and cannot be silenced. Should you attempt to silence a view through force, it is against the law and should be punished--no matter who caused the harm from the force. If, a person does advocate for an action that is imminent,  with intent, and has immediate likelihood, then that person or group should be arrested and charged for inciting violence and disruption.

Now, I know you may balk at my view of how this is to be treated and it is your right to do so, I cannot stop you from it, nor can you stop me from it either. You should never make it your opinion to silence a view solely because you disagree. If their view is one that is bad, let that voice be heard so your own arguments can be better and more reasoned to overpower that opinion of which you believe is to be incorrect--which it may or may not be.

Finally, free speech is protected. Hate speech, or speech that is different than your view is allowed, unless it aligns with the Brandenburg Test; then, and only then, can you push for silencing speech. 

The Election Review

The Emperor is sending the fleet to ascertain the truth. 

The First Debates: Seeking Approval from Emperor Palpatine

The Empire's reorganization was the epitome of political and social manipulation. Now, the American public is seeking it's own Moff--or Governor in English, to rule over the USA. As of today, there have been a complete set of Presidential and Vice-Presidential debates. I will examine both and give a verdict on the winners of each set of debates.

Remember, the point these debates are to influence the voters, whether it be already decided voters or undecided voters. So, with out adieu, cue the Star Wars main theme and let's begin the analysis!

The Presidential Debate:
The much anticipated meet came out as expected. Within about 30 minutes, the devolution of the candidates began. First, we must accept that the first 30 minutes were in the Trump favor, hitting hard the record of over 20 plus years of service, both as First Lady through to her tenure as Sec. of State. These moments, should have played out for the Trump playbook for the entire 90 minute strategy, yet, when Clinton began the race-baiting attack, Trump folded like the younglings in the training room to Darth Vader. The attacks began, back and forth, both hinting at grave errors from both candidates. Very little policy was discussed from either candidate as it was the "how much more baiting can I deliver to my enemy. It remains to be seen if any real damage can be done to the Trump campaign over his remarks, as the Republican Primary season specifically pointed out those very issues and he still won the Primary for the RNC. Clinton's missed opportunities were to maintain her "policy driven" debate. She should have stuck to calling upon her policy and asking if Trump's policy had a better solution, which it would have shown that it doesn't hold up much. Trump's missed opportunities were to stay away from the race-baiting charges and to focus on showing the voters how Clinton's policy is the exact same as every single failed idea. He should have continued his attack on her "establishment" nature and failure to push or fix the issues now, which she has alluded to in her own remarks that things are bad. In the end, Clinton did come out on top with this debate, because she outsmarted Trump into goading him into needless issues and didn't focus on the larger picture.

The Vice-Presidential Debate:
While not many were expected to watch this, the debate did highlight a few specific things. One being, despite Democratic hatred towards Mike Pence of Indiana, his manner towards the onslaught attacks from Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va). He outsmarted the attacks with warm platitudes and a response in least aggressive and antagonistic responses. It's clear Kaine was attempting to rattle Pence and fish for reactions much like Trump's in the first debate. Pence denied Kaine any real ammunition for attack. Kaine ultimately was too agressive and to antagonistic to really impact the high bump in Clinton's rating spike in most polls + forecast in FiveThirtyEight assessment of the first debate. Regardless, Kaine seemed less likely to speak about policy and its direction under his tenure at the Senate, as I expected to hear. Even in the most conservative of assessments of this debate would not had Kaine a likely win, in fact, he seemed more "Trump" like in this debate, and maybe it's a tactic to show calm in Clinton over a presiding officer of a Senate that has an equal chance of staying in the control of Republicans. Overall, Pence had a slight marginal win in a debate over much of the debate while Kaine flopped on many chances to attack and left his vulnerabilities to open for attack, either direct or indirect.


It should be noted, that this analysis is comprised of only events prior to the Oct. 7 video release of the Trump audio/video debacle, 

Who Would Emperor Palpatine Choose: Clinton or Trump?

“Once more the Sith will rule the galaxy, and we shall have peace,” the Emperor uttered right before Jedi Temple was sacked and the Separatist Council was eliminated by his agent of evil, Darth Vader. The political climate of the pre-Galactic Empire, was utter turmoil, both with Separatist planets and Republic planets still believing that their goals were to be met by their armies.

Over the course of the next 19 to 26 years, the Empire would shed its Republic notions and legal framework and begin to see the final stages of an Imperial government. By A New Hope, the Emperor dissolved the Imperial Senate and thus ushering in the era of peace long desired by the Republic and its adherent bodyguards, Jedi. While the Empire is regarded among most of the Star Wars fanatics as evil and diabolical, it does warrant merits of the ushering in peace and justice—just not the way the Jedi Council and Republic Loyalists would have argued and petitioned.

If we meld our world into the Star Wars universe, we’d probably be living in the Mid Rim, Outer Rim or the Unknown Regions. Suffice it to say, let’s posit that we’re in the more approachable Mid Rim, where our loyalties lay with the Confederacy of Independent Systems and say we’re close to Kashyyyk. After Order 66 and the subsequent elimination of the Separatist Council leaders, our planet is invaded by Imperial forces, and with their clone army and vast superior force, we fold. (Also, we must meld our planet into a single body of governance, so for arguments sake, we have a one world government.)

The great question of our time: who would Emperor Palpatine chose to control Earth, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. Now before you begin to shout one over the other, we have to take into account the politics and nature of the Imperial “New Order” program and just how each candidate would fit into the “New Order.”

Let’s take Donald Trump first. Some of the more key components for the Emperor wanting Trump would be for his favoring the military and its capacity to function, as such, his spending would encourage a larger Imperial Navy and Army. His immigration policies would also be a key factor as the Emperor believed in forced slavery of any species that wasn’t human. In as much as we can gather, the social issues aren’t much of a concern as the knowledge of what actually takes place in their society (i.e. marriage, same-sex marriage, abortion, pay, jobs, etc.) We do know that healthcare is provided, prior to the Clone Wars, and this Trumps health plans would not be in alignment with the Emperor’s. We’d also have to believe that the Emperor would somewhat favor Trump in criminal issues as the Internal Security Bureau would have almost the same capacity of an enlarged quasi-FBI-CIA-KGB mix agency to do with terrorists and enemies of the State.

The Emperor would probably agree more with Clinton on her domestic policies of restriction of guns, the “No-Fly” list ban for guns. She’d also be in agreement with the taxation of specific economic classes, and supporting a general standard of education throughout the planet in accordance with Imperial Law. However, while we cannot say for certain how much the Emperor would allow for Clinton to be a Moff, since we cannot ascertain whether or not the society itself would have allowed it. Yet, she would be loyal to the Emperor and would be more easily controlled Moff. Her foreign policy and immigration stance would not be in agreement with the Emperor’s and would therefore be very problematic. Her and Trump would gain points for the application of the Death penalty, as the ISB would be using this most along with the Imperial Navy for rebellious planets who did not agree with Imperial rule of law.

I would say that while each of the candidates have just an equal amount of merits and demerits as candidate for Moff, the Emperor would probably chose neither in the end. In fact, I’d believe that Trump would be executed by the ISB for not following Imperial orders. I also believe that Hillary would be replaced due to her continual pushes to change the stances for the planet, or by certain unrest planet wide in which the Emperor would send more troops to quell the rebellion and execute her for her ineptitude and inability to squash the rebellion herself.

Trumpist Regime and the Conservative Movement

I've said it before, and today, I'll say it again: the Republican Party is dead. The Trump regime, under his mob-like, dictatorial, Stalin-esque style of Party politics has done irreparable damage to the once great party of Lincoln.

Trumps Politburo has condemned sanity, rationality, and quite frankly, core Republican values enshrined from our greatest leaders: Lincoln and Eisenhower (no Regean was a factual sellout and 'RINO'). We owe this great debacle to several key factors: the failure of actually progressing the ideology of limited government, simple taxation, and cronyism/nepotism.

Trumpist Politburo surrogates have become tantamount to megalomania and Putin-esque oligarchic "if you're not with us, you're against us and you will die." Granted, this notion far precedes any current candidate and even prior to the usage from George W. Bush. Nevertheless, Trumpist surrogates have become the epitome of the far-right/alt-right movement who see sanity and compromise as the antithesis of reason and rationality, much like the Leftist regime of SJWs and the kind who say "if you disagree with me your: misogynistic, bigoted, transphobic, and Islamaphobic" as their only reasonable retorts to factual evidence and mathematical principles of law.

Let me be clear that in no way or form am I saying that I'd vote for Hillary, which could be another post! However, in regards to the Party that I've identified with for much of life, it has become the very evil we once stood against. The principles of Conservatism are for everyone, the application of these principles have been highly neglected by the Far Right and the Christian Right. This fierce opposition which started with Regean and culminated into what is now Trumpism, is the very antithesis of pragmatic conservatism and truthful Republican ideals....in the words of Queen Amidala, Ruler of Naboo, "If this body is incapable of action, I suggest new leadership is needed. I move for a vote of no confidence in Chancellor [Trump's] leadership."

No truer words have been so pivotal in this election than the error of the party allowing the Trump arrogance seep into our party politics. Reince Priebus has become a mockery of a leader. Only the true Republicans, who are seen by the Alt-Right/Christian Right/Far Right as the epitome of evil. This is barbaric in rhetoric, and quite frankly, arrogant.

This Party must break apart to become better. The new forces of rationality, sanity, and compassion based on Lincoln's and Eisenhower's ideologies can only make this--and should I dare say--new party become more powerful! The Left must be stopped for the overreaching PC culture, their dominance in education, their failure to actually fix the issues. Clearly, Europe's "peace, love, and inclusion" has made for even the President of France to question his actions. After 5 attacks under his tenure, is it any real solution to just allow unfettered access to their lands? No, even the Jedi knew that allowing everyone to have their rights as people be limited to damaging others (inciting violence and death).

Hillary is just as bad as Trump, just as vile, just as powerful in total hegemonic demagoguery. Her and Trump are two forces that must be taken down. We can ill afford a Presidency that does more damage to the populace than aid it. Many of the population will learn, when there is nothing left, that our two leaders of the Party--which have strayed so far--are the very evil we stand against.

I suggest we create a new party, a moderate Conservative party, that can and will do everything to become what the Democrats and Republicans are severely failing to accomplish.  

The Republican Party of Kentucky: A Failure

(Note: This was originally, in part, written before the 2015 elections and after the 2011 elections in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. It has been modified accordingly for accuracy) 

Fact: The Republican Party of Kentucky lost most of the offices it ran for in this election.

Fact: The Republican Party of Kentucky failed its constituents in electing Republican candidates.

Let me explain these two premises above in this article. While I am a conglomerate of ideals, I locate myself in the Republican party sights. Now I may occasionally veer towards the center or right of this spectrum in some cases--on a rare occasion I have crossed to the other side. Now, setting that aside, let's talk about the real problem of the Republican Party of Kentucky.

As a Republican, it is usually a hard campaign to fight in a trending state that goes Democrat on the state level, but Republican (except for the first term of Clinton) on the national level. However, it is possible for a Republican to attain control of an office. The problem laid with the Chairman and the people coordinating the front for GOP candidates. While the Chairman and the Party attempted to prepare certain people with the fortitude and capabilities to campaign, they failed miserably.

The most important thing for a political party to do in an election is show that their candidate is out there and make the news want to see it. Political advisors, managers, and strategists know all well that one key point is name recognition. In this cycle, c. 2011, the Republican candidate was known. However, he was known for the state pensions debacle and other notorious little things that have slanted the Senate President's chances of taking the Governor's office. Even from the other offices that could easily have been Republican wins, were lost because of ineptitude from the Republican Party of Kentucky.

The only candidate to win the 2011 state election was the Agricultural Commissioner. Granted, the opponent had made disparaging comments about his own constituencies had a dramatic effect on his election chances. Let's be reminded of some of the most important factors for elections, and these factors can be integrated into any cycle of election.

1. Name Recognition and Public Relations: This is one of the most pivotal things in elections besides money. This area is one that needs to be reaffirmed by any candidate of choice by the Republican Party of Kentucky. Even if their candidate did not have any recognition whatsoever, it would have been more profound to do "media bombs" to introduce the new candidate during strategic moments of air time. Further, to make any kind of advance into Democratic territory, we need to move forward in the internet age. If we fail--which we have--we may not be able to gain our momentum in taking what used to be our territory. 
2. Finance: Money is key, but not completely so. Some campaigns have been well planned with low finances. Now, several key Republicans have been able to use their money effectively and garner much needed funds. Now Senator Rand Paul used a style of "money bombing" to effectively recruit supporters to provide random sums of money. This technique proved valuable and useful for his campaign and winning the election. 
3. Technology Revolution: The KYGOP stays in its door to door mentality when most voters are not at home much, they are the epitome of the Techno Era. They log more hours now on Twitter, Facebook, and Vine than ever. To reach max efficiency, the KYGOP must vigorously ramp up its social media arm and attune to its voters. It needs more bloggers, more flash-mob recuritment, and need to enhance the College Republicans to deal with college students on their own campus while the main party must focus on in-state voters who meet the criteria. 
4. Quality Candidates: We need candidate who match the overall electorate, not what the party thinks it needs. We need candidates who are more moderate, yet principled, who can value their assets and yet call on the opposition--when necessary. A Tea Party candidate would not necessarily fair well--except for Rand Paul, inside a state election.We need candidates who can appeal to all the citizens. 

The KYGOP has failed for too many years because it does not look forward, for the near future or even the future! The Party must shed its visage of the decadent past and mobilize working people to rally for a better Commonwealth that makes us better in all aspects. 

Trumps Exit Will Save The GOP

The party is dead. The party needs a unified front. The party needs rebranding. The party is dead.

These phrases have been the pinnacle of the GOP politics since 2008, nearly a decade of disunity and failure, or so the pundits say and yell. Countless weeks and money has poured the media waves with the so called end to the Republican Party. Since 2000, it's been said the Party has died and with it, its power to compel voters to elect them to office. Enter 2006, when Democratic control reigned absolute and without contest. Presiding over it, Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) and Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), whose neoprogressive politics had absolute authority.

The major theme of the last 8 years of presidential politics and last 6 years of congressional politics has been the Party, meaning the Grand Ole Party/Republican Party, surely must be dead after George W. Bush's term of office and the loss of prestige of power--both soft and hard, to two wars costing nearly $1-trillion. So, let's talk Party politic and what it means for the 2016 election:

Q. IS THE PARTY DEAD?
If the party is dead, shouldn't Rep. Pelosi and Sen. Reid be in firm control of Congress from 2006-current? The problem with this thinking is that no party can control an area without some reaction force, i.e. Democratic control of the south and Republican Reconstruction. This may seem anecdotal but in 2010, it swept Republicans into Congress and in two years after, Republicans took control of the Senate. Controlling the aspect of the Tea Party movement, the Republicans maintain a solid power, not an overwhelming one but a solid one.

Q. THE TRUMP SHALL END THE PARTY?
Trump is the greatest problem of the democratic system. His wins in the primary season have made for a great error of the Republicans; however, I disagree with the notion that all Republicans disapprove of the Republican Elite. If, every single Republican hated the elite, wouldn't they have already ousted them, regardless of campaign promises and Super-PACs! Here's where I will stipulate that the Party would actually be better if Trump loses the Nomination. If he loses, that means the mainly strong religious and far-right movement would leave because they feel the elite have accosted their ways, when in all actuality, the "RINOs," as the far-right sees it, are saving the party, because it is the more moderate and likely of the old era of Republican dominance. Trumps exit would free the Party to do more, to capitalize on moderates and independents who do not share the same view as the far-right.

Q. WHAT DO WE DO NOW?
We wait and hope that the Party Elite will take Trump and have him nose dive out of the GOP and with it, the arm of the GOP that has hindered the Party's electability for nearly three decades. We must relish in our attempts to stymie Trump and to make this Party stronger and more capable then the fractured DNC. We must fight to stop Trump and in essence Cruz from being the nominee!  

Trump v. America

"In the matter of Trump v. America, this high court...."

This line could easily be from a future lawsuit if he becomes the nominee, and possibly if he becomes the next President.

Like this post assumes, Trump is bad for America. He's bad for Democrats, Republicans, and Independents (whom could be affiliated on farther left or right). Here's a man, who is as other pundits say, a Populist. Populism is "a doctrine that appeals to the interests and conceptions (such as hopes and fears) of the general population, especially when contrasting any new collective consciousness push against the prevailing status quo interests of any predominant political sector."

Populism can be used by any political philosophy and as such Donald Trump has used a national populism against most policies of the Obama Administration and presidency. Trump has made very seemingly derogatory, inflammatory, and degrading words and statements.

I cannot stand as a conservative gay man, in this political discourse, to allow a man, who has no temperament. I cannot stand with or aside Donald Trump. I refuse. I explicitly refuse that I will ever vote for him in the Republican Presidential Caucus of Kentucky.

I will fight, alongside my fellow Republicans and moderate Democrats to defeat Trump, as I have from the very first Republican caucus.

Do not chose Trump. Do not vote Trump. He is, without a doubt a free radical who will do untold damage to the America we know. In fact, I'd go so far as to say George W. Bush would be better than Donald Trump, because we know George W. Bush, but we do not know or care for Donald Trump.

If you agree that Donald Trump will do greatness, Vladimir Lenin, Benitio Mussolini, Mao Zedong, Adolf Hitler, Fidel Castro, and countless other leaders who did unspeakable things in the name of greatness.

The bottom line is that if Donald Trump wins the nomination, American politics will shatter. 

The French Effect

In less than 10 months, the French people--Parisians, specifically--witnessed the destructive nature of radicalized terrorism under the guise of Islam. Regardless of the view of the which part of Islam, or if any, are viewed as more harmful than other religious or spiritual sects, the major question is: what will the French response mean for the rest of the world

In the wake of the Fifth Republic of France being hit twice, the world sees this as either an opportunity to unify the world under a single goal, much like the goal of Reagan's to oust Hussein from Kuwait in the Iraq War, or to fail to respond correctly to the ballooning epidemic of ISIS. Francois Hollande's quick and decisive reaction saved the French from more catastrophic casualties. The sealing of the borders and the state of emergency has allowed them to protect their people and find and capture the conspirators.

Yet, in light of the information we now know, what will the French governments response. Their immediate response came on Sunday as French fighter jets launched a massive air assault on the capital of the Islamic State, Raqqa. More importantly, what will their goal be now. And would it mean intervention from more nations, including the United States--Frances long time ally and friend, despite the political differences and issues from Bush to now. It's very possible, depending upon the French governments reaction, that news sources have claimed that France may invoke Article 5 of the NATO alliance, which states:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

This would mean that all member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which includes the U.S. would have to legally intervene on behalf and concert with the French government in which would be necessary for the security of France to be restored. In this sense, the total annihilation of ISIS would only bring the safety of France back to balance.

If they choose not to invoke Article 5 of NATO, their policy on action would dictate a much larger role in the global response to the problem. American candidates would have to either agree to the terms of engagement because an ally of ours was directly attacked, or they would sour the relationship of the Franco-American ties. Particularly, this would hamper any Democratic nominee because of their hands off approach, or Obama Doctrine, would intefere with their goal of achieving a sense of US retreat from world affairs. Unfortunately, this would mean that several key regional leaders would fill the vacuum of power: the Russian Federation, People's Republic of China, and the Islamic Republic of Iran, all of which are opposing to US power, both soft and hard. Their engagement would pin the world into a difference of opinions not seen since the Cold War. Russian agression in the Caucus', Georgia, and east Ukraine would allow for Syria to become a satellite of Russia, Iran could take areas of Iraq and China would be able to beef up its military power in the Asian area without check. These events could only occur if France's decision to ask for a coalition of force to deal with ISIS and the US wouldn't agree to therms under the current Administration.

Either way, the French policy of how they will deal with ISIS, as descrobed by the President and Prime Minister of France, it is an "act of war." It will mean more engagement from French warplanes and highly probable French troops engaging in a war in Syria to defeat, occupy the IS and then  the government of Syria, either under Assad or under a new government. If Assad is removed from power, Russia will complicate these matters since it has engaged in aiding the Assad government.

Only time will tell about how much the French will engage, react, and prepare for war and whether her allies will engage as well or not.

The Rand Paul Effect

"KRS 118.405: No candidate's name shall appear on any voting machine or absentee ballot more than once, except that a candidate's name may appear twice if he is a candidate for a primary or a regular election and also a candidate to fill a vacancy in the same office required to be filled at a special election, when the special election to fill a vacancy is scheduled for the regular election day."

Kentucky has strict laws about the governance of how a Senator or Candidate should be allowed to run for office. In the Commonwealth, the rule of law states that no candidate can be on two different ballots, as shown above. However, Senator Rand Paul, has requested that Republican Party of Kentucky (RPK) Leaders change its own rules of Primary elections to a "Caucus" so that he may in essence, double dip on the ability, should he: prevail in the National Convention, fail in the National convention, or prevail in the Senatorial election.

However, let's look closer at this concept of changing party rules. To do so, would require first that the State Legislature would need to introduce a House Bill and Senate Bill to amend the Election rules, which is currently split in party control (the House by Democrats, Senate by Republicans). Then, if it was passed by the Legislature, the Governor would need to approve of the Bill or veto. Current leanings would indicate that that would never pass. Since the House has been under the control of the Democrats for nearly 100 years, it would never pass committee. Secondly, it would also require the State GOP to ratify the change to their own rules 8.04, to be exact. Then it would need to clear the RNC Rule 16.C.1, which states that no caucus, primary or convention may be earlier than March 1 unless they are Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, or Nevada.

These are just rules, the facts of the matter. However, as noted in the Boston Globe piece by Jeff Jacoby, that in a Bluegrass Poll conducted from August 25 to August 27, 2014, if the Kentucky Law should be changed so that Sen. Paul may run as both President and Senator, it was 27% Yes, and 66% No, with only 7% saying Not Sure. The data clearly expresses that members of the Kentucky Commonwealth do not want Senator Paul to change the rules.

So, what would be the problem? Well, in a Caucus, that would reduce the amount of people who can vote in the election of the candidate for president, because instead of the collection of registered voters casting a ballot, a select few would allowed to vote, then an even less number of those would be allowed to sit at the Convention for the election of the Republican candidate. It's surprising, that a man of Libertarian leaning would wish for the de-valuation and deselection of voters to hold a chance to win the Nomination, Yet, like most politicians, power is everything. If it is one thing that the fictional character Frank Underwood has taught us, it's that power is everything and that he wants that power, even though, his ideas would be destroyed by any seasoned Democrat in office, No polling or popularity within the fringe element of the Libertarian caucus, would ever gain the strength to eliminate such a candidate, because while many want a freer world, the devolution of the strength of the US soft and hard power would be the asking price.

As it seems the Majority Leader McConnell has signed off on this theatrical display of power, the Chairman  of the State Party and the other members would look idiotic and arrogant in the eyes of the state and national party! Why would anyone want to risk us loosing our votes? Or risk losing our ability to vote? Why would Rand Paul decide that this is a good thing?

So many questions revolve around this process, and I hope, as a voting member of the Republican Party, they defeat this notion and defeat the possibility of running on two ballots. The law that was put in place is a proper law, one that prevents overreach and keeps politicians in Kentucky honest, or is honesty no longer Senator Paul's vision? Senator Paul isn't moderate enough to win over the core of the moderates in the Party and those in the Middle, but he can definitely win the Fringe voters, who would undoubtedly hijack his platform and ruin his career, unless that is his plan.

I urge every Kentucky Republican to call the State Party and tell them No Caucus!

The Marriage Debate

Oh, how I wish this were a topic of lesser proportions, but alas, it cannot be and never will be, Where did the marriage concept, legally speaking, become the dominant force for social and other policies to become so ingrained into a cataclysmic problem?

Over the course of history, marriage became a more spiritual and religious component to a more legal standing. Where and when the precise moments of that change are not easily found. Thus, it must be that during the mid to late 20th century, in America that such a concept was adopted: that marriage was descriptive of a legal point of view and under the purview of the government.

Now, I am no proponent of the government telling me that their description of marriage is absolute law. Before you begin to think, he's ok with bestiality or polygamy!, I do say that there are certain limitations that should be collectively argued as irreconcilable with society and the general welfare of the people.

With the growing approval of same-sex marriages from the repeal of DADT and DOMA (United States v. Windsor), it seems inevitable. With the 6th Circuit of Appeals defending the state constitutional bans in contrast with the 9th, 10th, 4th, 7th, 11th, all either overturning and staying decision for appeal to the Supreme Court or overturning and not staying for appeal, it created a split decision for a full Supreme Court hearing.

With the legal stuff behind, I looked to other things affecting the concept of full marriage equality. Unfortunately, there not much basis for a differing opinion for escaping this issue, unless common law marriages, civil unions, or eliminating marriage from the law are in concert with your beliefs.

I once discussed this issue with an old friend, who unfortunately since passed away from horrible circumstances, and while it was a lively debate, I do not regret this debate.

As a New Age Conservative, there are realities that we must get behind, and marriage equality for all, save the outlawed portions that are as previously stated not good for society and its general welfare, is going to be one of them.

It is a reality because, as I have stated in other posts, the hyper-religious and extremist far-right, have become the anti-morality of our time. They embody the things that are wrong with my party. Marriage has and always be a spiritual component of life, regardless of religious affiliation. Before the creation of many of the monotheist religious, homosexuality was once a common practice, with much of the Ancient  World never mentioning it because it wasn't an important topic.

Many of my Republican friends will most likely excommunicate me and cry foul, but that doesn't matter anymore. We have larger battles to deal with than marriage--to which I firmly believe is something that should be extended to all peoples. And yes, this a complete 180 from my belief of a few years ago.

My beliefs are my own, they can change and can be altered, However, one notion that I cannot stand, is Democrats and Republicans saying that I am a traitor to my party or a person who is "idiotic and stupid" for being a Republican or even a New Age Conservative. 

The Race Game: Aristocracy v. Commoners

Alexis de Tocqueville once wrote, "the surface of American society is covered with a layer of democratic paint, but from time to time one can see the old aristocratic colours breaking through." 

The presence of racism hasn't be abated and reconciled. Fore it was told to us that a certain president would change the course of history, to devolve the evolution of centuries of racist and bigotries enacted from the forefathers and theirs before them. Yet, from what it shows, the division of the racist and bigotry of the American way has perpetrated to larger extent. 

I conclude, that this issue stems from a three fold problem: the continuation of a self-inflicted racism, a doctrinal error of failure to establish a productive baseline of equality, and failure to comprehend the past as a cautionary tale.

It was in Plato's Republic that one understood the complexities of the government. Too much of one thing led to oligarchy, or aristocracy, dictatorship, monarchy, or democracy and his counter, the republic. Now while Pluto's basis for the evils and woes of each, democracy held the lowest of the forms of government that succeeded. His analysis rested upon the Athenian democracy model. From Plato to Aquinas, Hegel, Locke, and Tocqueville the errors of to much democracy was perilous. The Framers attempted to craft Plato's famed republic, which took from the best of all the aristocracy, monarchy, and democracy and attempted to quell the beasts of the oligarchy, dictatorship, and democracy demagogue. Now, we see the Europeans as a baseline of equality, yet do you know that France outlawed the burka because it failed to comply with the separation of religion and the secular state? Did you know that it passed with a majority of the French National Assembly? Probably not. And France is to be one of the most well graded for espousing, enacting, and performing equality. 

The United States is in a continual cycle of racism, not because it is one person over another, in a sense that a person is always lower. While this generalization can be made, it can and is at a point false and invalid. In the game of racism, it takes two. One must accept the racism and one must make it. To enact change, it also takes two. One must rise above and one must accept the rise. This change or differential vector that makes racism near null, must be done in two-fold, an error the Republican Party and Democratic Party fail to do: change the mindset of being equal on the outset, that one can rise above their own and push through with their own effort and their own backing; and the government must find a way to prepare the individual for self-extermination of racist beliefs. It isn't just one that can be accomplished. Ferguson, MO teaches us that we have not been teaching and that we have not been providing the correct tools. This does not mean to spend wildly on things that have a zero-metric evaluation, such as more spending on projects and funding that have failed to actually produce the betterment of the person. We must establish a precedent and program that gives each person the value internally and externally that their "rank" is changeable upon their own actions. One must remember that actions of the negative must be met with an equal or greater reaction to either deter or to create a situation in which one believes they must change.

We look at our history and we fail to break the cycle of events. While we have learned, we haven't grasped the greater themes and sometimes, it goes to not just our own history. As a nation, we are one of the youngest and to have made major strides prior to and before our predecessors of Europe are congratulatory. In the nearly 1200 years France has been a nation, they have gone through monarchies, dictators, emperors, and 5 republics. In less than 300 years, the United States has had one government, continually, constantly, and without failing. So what is our cautionary tale? It is to become better than Europe and others in a much quicker time. To my critics who say we haven't progressed quick enough: compare the 1200 years of France to less than 300 of the American society in an objective manner and not a subjective state of self-induced consciousness. 

"Virtue is a state of war, and to live in it we have always to combat with ourselves."                                                                    -- Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Game of Thrones: Senate Edition

The rolling hills of Kentucky is a vast land, with 120 small municipalities tied to the Iron Throne of the Commonwealth. Alas, the Iron Throne was ousted to move closer to the Capitol, District of Columbia. A Governor now sits on the once majestic throne of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

If only politics were such a game of throne, oh wait, it is. Today's match pair the embattled senior Senator to a recently elected Secretary of the Ballot box. (I use these terms to make this dialogue funny, not to make the actual post degraded or less important.)

Each candidate had the floor to debate the core issues of this state/commonwealth, whichever you prefer--albeit the Commonwealth is the correct term. This debate gets a star rating of 0.5/5 for it performance.

Why? Isn't it clear? No? Well shame on you! Because it is quite clear that neither one of the candidates shone bright like a diamond.

Each candidate sucked beyond belief. This wasn't a debate, it was a televised version of who can be more than the other. Both candidates waited for the last moments to actually strike like the Death Star Mk. II in the Battle of Endor. It was beyond silly.

Let's take each candidate briefly:

I'll start with Sir Mitch McConnell R-KY, Senate Minority Leader. [Caveat, if you continually cry that he's old, look at the Democrat Party for an equal if not more longstanding Senator whose older than Merlin.] Here's Mitch's problem:

1. Obama.
2. Obama
3. Obama
4. Grimes
5. Obama
6. Grimes
7. Obama
8. He can't articulate anything of value, except for,
9. Obama
9a. And his policies which have spent a trillion dollars in less than 2 years (which Bush-43 did in over 8 years combined, excluding certain factors.)

Obama is the mainstay of the Party line for all things. Why? Because he's our villain. He's the Jedi to our Sith, just like we're the Jedi to the Democrats Sith. (Or was that reverse in the Sith to our Jedi?) Either way, the drastic and rather ramrod of a platform of excessive spending, cap and trade, taxation without deficit reduction, and a whole host of things have made the Republican Party become anti-Obama because it works, it worked in 2012 and it will most likely work in 2014. The major problem for Republicans the spending without restraint, attempting to buffer a collapsing Medicare and Social Security that will flatline and bust in the mere decade or less. With the Welfare State rising so high, devaluing the true value of the original programs and their whole worth, the United States will end up like Greece: a royal cluster of so much debt that even a conservative austerity measure will bring the country to its knees.

Alison Grimes, Secretary of State- KY, Democratic Candidate for US Senate. Here's Alison's problems:

1. Mitch
2. Mitch
3. Mitch
4. Mitch
5, Mitch
6. Obama
7. Mitch
8. Mitch
9. Obama
9a, the EPA.

Mitch and the Republicans are her enemy, they are the Empire to her Rebellion, her Targaryen to Baratheon/Lannister. Either way, she wants the Republican Party to end up like Ned Stark or the Targaryens. The constant battle of having to show that Republicans are so out of touch with a can of sardines, tires her. It makes her cringe every time she hears that of all of the polls, only the Bluegrass and Courier-Journal have her up by two points and within the margin of error. Her case of defeating the tenured Senator relies on escaping from Obama's policies and running just to edge of the Party that when she wins, she can race right back and do what she thinks (or the Party Leader). Her fear is that we'll end up like Mussolini's Italy, where the darkness of evil runs deep in fascism and racism against the ones who dirty the blood lines. (Ok, even that was difficult to write because frankly, fascism is so far down the spectrum of the Right, even the Fringe doesn't want it.) But nevertheless, the small government, tax limited society, the return of the 50s. the Dark Ages, are all things this candidate feels will occur if the Republicans recapture control.


Here are a few facts, mostly because my fingers are tired of typing:

1. Neither Party had stood for what it believes. The Republicans abandoned the spirit of Lincoln and his practices. The Democrats ran from their hatred of Blacks in turn to pay them to be quiet in the form of Welfare and the Great Society. The Democrats have done little to nothing to protect the minorities. The Republicans have done nothing to protect the middle class. The Democrats have joined with Republicans in polarizing their philosophies.

2. The Commonwealth of Kentucky hasn't voted for a Democrat on the national election since Clinton's first term--which they voted against in his reelection.

3. The Commonwealth is still stuck in the Southern Democrat mentality of things, that until they escape, the votes will always be Republican on the national level and Democrat on the State level.

4. Claiming in one or two ads that you're against the EPA, for Coal Country, and the NRA, doesn't make you better than your candidate.

5. Records of voting must be taken into full account, not based on one particular amendment that you like and they didn't.

6. Don't wait until your final 30-second closing arguments to say your opinions/goals of your term. Do that in the beginning.

7. If you have to take a cheap shot at an accidental video mistake, you deserve a punch to the face for lowering your standards.

8. Your record shows everything, and when you have none to back your claims on, it hurts you.

In conclusion, neither is a best option, but do educate yourself on your candidates and if they have a record, look at it...if not, good luck.

MH17: A State Sponsored Terrorist Attack?

Just around noon today, Malaysian Flight 17 had lost contact with the towers. Moments later, all US news broke in to report that Interfax, a non-governmental news agency based in Russia claimed that Pro-Russian militants and rebels had shot down the flight in an attempt to attack a Ukrainian warplane or barge transporting items to the region.

What does this all mean for the world? With all the passengers and crew--totaling 295 humans, it means that there is a clear problem with the regional stability and the actual conflict that has been fought for months between Russia and Ukraine. The international community, to date, has done excessively little to help or aid in the problem. No UN peacekeepers or peace enforcers--two totally different things--have yet to be sent in. In essence, the world has not acknowledged that any such actions have existed. This is a world issue, with Russia--under the power of Putin, a longstanding KGB officer, it has become a kettle pot of intrigue and devastation as it attempts to rebuild its former bloc states to "protect" itself from the West. (Russia did this in response to the invasions from years past, including the French invasion under Napoleon)

As for America, this poses a unique and horrible outcome. Should this attack be linked to the Pro-Russian rebels and that they were armed with the weaponry built by and funded by the Kremlin, the first hand story of state-sponsored terrorism has been shown. This type of terrorism leads many to believe that through state sponsorship, many action may be carried out with the ability to say, "we had no idea they would do such a thing." Another problem is that reports of the manifest show that 23 Americans were on that flight to Malaysia. Compounded with the notions of terrorism as the Ukrainian Ministry of the Inteiror and Defense Ministry claim, this could pull the United States into a conflict with Russia.

Many will say that this is wrong, citing a casus belli to make or affirm public support for the use of force in the region is not warranted. When this action by the Russian government is far from being just a single reason for just cause.

The Ukrainian government has repeatedly asked for international support for a war that has been in their own backyard. Their European allies have failed them, the US has failed them. The entire world has failed them.

We are at the brink of a regional war that will compound into two regional wars. With the failure of the US Department of Defense and the State Department to actually do something productive in Syria, to the near total loss of Iraq to a Al-Qaeda compatriot called ISIS, who is more radical and irrational than Al-Qaeda, and this global over reach by the Russian government, we cannot keep the peace.

Isolationist views, from the current Administration and from other Senators, would have us not worry, that this will be all fixed when we have no entanglements and no worries about the outside. That refocusing every last resource to doing nothing for the international community would be the best for the country is beyond reprehensible.

I am not saying we should entangle ourselves in the Russian conflict with Ukraine, but if it is a terrorist attack from Pro-Russian  rebels who had authorization from Putin, the deaths of those reported Americans will now be a determining factor.

This could also become a key issue in the November mid-term elections.

The 300 Military Advisors

We all know what happened to the 300 Spartan warriors who gave their life in a valiant, yet quasi-illegal move against the Spartan leaders, to defend their nation off from a massive invasion force of the grand Persian empire.

Today, we are sending just 300 men, military advisors to help a nation, Iraq, retrain and reaffirm that they are incompetent enough to win their own full scale civil war. In many ways, this is quite similar in nature to Darth Sidious/Chancellor Palpatine's massive plot to be the ruler of the galaxy. While we don't have massive naval space ships or laser cannons to demolish each other, it is imperative to note that we cannot do anything of real value to help them.

300 advisors cannot and will not do a damn thing to aid them, even if we agree to do targeted bombing from drone strikes--which was highly controversial when we started to drone strike. Secondly, what can we do?

Here are your options:

A) Nothing at all. This option seems like the most "popular" option because we are war weary and cannot move another muscle to do anything.

B) Avoid the possibility of intervention with standard issue placation of blame for anything that could go wrong. We are the most powerful at doing this option until it becomes so much that we just are blamed into action.

C) Send in "advisors" who will amount to the Spartan 300 and will achieve nothing and allow the government of Iraq fall, which "some allies have called for removal of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki" as USA Today wrote in their piece. Is this viable for an Obama Admin? It's hard to say because we can only do so much before it become too late to do any real action that would prevent another all out war.

D) Follow the ancient Rumsfeld Doctrine and reinsert a proportional amount of troops that is relative to the mission with maximum technology and limited boots on the ground. This doctrine, which was primarily used to invade Iraq in the second conflict that precipitated the original invasion for the 2001 attacks created by the Al Qaeda network. Using this option would actually result in the same current crisis from ISIS and other insurgents 

E) The Powell Doctrine. This option is very powerful, because it expects that your objective is complete and total dominance over your mission, whether it be incursion into a territory or to occupy and control the entire country. While this is a Cold-War tactic and when we used "military v. military" tactics for a 1.5 war concept. Here, the Powell Doctrine could be used to reassert control and would be quick, it would be an investment of possibly a few years because the deployment of the current Iraqi troops would be reassimilated into the training process, the outcome is as unknown as it was when the Rumsfeld Doctrine was utilized, but it could be said that either way, the outcome could be the same. 

While these options aren't the most exhaustive list, and others would or could be an alternative option, these options are probably the most viable options that will be discussed in our current and future cycle of elections. 

Coming Together After Tragedy

The greatest horror isn't what we imagine to be, it is the end of someone’s life that we know. The horror that we must live without them in today’s society, alone. We cannot fathom the idea of our loved one, our friend, a person we knew who has such a bold and thriving life, just disappear.

This past week, that occurred.

A fellow Kentuckian, Dino Dizdarević, was suddenly and quickly taken from this world in a senseless way. His death, untimely as it is, reminds all members of the gay community, and even the heterosexual community, the fears and hatred of all kinds still exist.

I had the great pleasure of knowing Dino from our time at the Commonwealth program called Governor’s Scholars Program, a five-week intensive program designed to bring together the greatest minds and diverse people from this Commonwealth and to teach them. Dino was a fellow GSP member of the 2006 class at Centre College.

His death, and the many before it with the many—unfortunately—more to come, only reminds us too well that we are not safe in society.

Yes, we can identify those that would do such a thing and we can also label them a specific kind, and sometimes, we accidentally put good people in that label. No, I’m not saying that we can’t despise their hatred of us, but what I am saying that sometimes, we can look too narrowly.

Death is a terrible thing, especially when we don’t see it coming and when we never expect it. But what does it highlight for us as a community? We know and see the vitriol of hatred that spews from radical right-wing and some more right of center members, but no matter what the issue, we as a community must come together.

We also need to remind ourselves that we can take precautions to protect ourselves and loved ones. We just need to remember that we can make a difference, we can be more than what a small, fringe population believes. And yes, it is a small fringe group that hates and demoralizes us, but as is with history, things fade in to the back. Yet, at what cost.

My friend’s death brought me to a place that I haven’t felt in a very long time, and it scares me. It scared my parents to see me like that. But the one thing that I can take away from this tragedy is that our fight is far from over and it is not a lose-lose scenario. We can make a difference, and we will.

Dino’s death taught me to live life, no matter the cost, because that’s what he did. He lived and even though it was short, he lived those years with purpose, as should we.

Remember, watch your surroundings, trust your instincts, tell someone—even if it’s a text or a quick phone call—of where you’re going and when to expect you again, and always look out for others, even if you don’t know them.

Evil is the product of the ability of humans to make abstract that which is concrete. – Jean-Paul Sartre

Evil exists, but we can extinguish it. We can take every death and make them proud of the accomplishments we make.

State of the Republican Party

Origins: Whig, Free Soil Party
Date: 1854-
Status: Unknown

"There’s no one reason we lost. Our message was weak; our ground game was insufficient; we weren’t inclusive; we were behind in both data and digital; and our primary and debate process needed improvement."

-- National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus

The Grand Old Party, is, and possibly will be, in tumult, until the realignment of the Party policies are done.

To date, the Party has lost major hold on the American voters, whom seem to have shed some of the old views of the country ideals. The GOP, unfortunately, is failing to remind itself on major issues that it could be more proactive and relent on some.

The Party, is failing in its current stance. Why? Because it is losing its current power structures. And that is good.

Yes, you heard me, I am happy the current leadership is slowly crumbling. It isn't too hard to see that very different leaders are emerging and they see it as an opportunity to make the party better. And fortunately, I see that change occurring in many of my contemporaries. The Party, is, and was, hijacked by a group of neo-conservatives, who are far too reactionary to see that their policies are only burning the Party to the ground.

As a man who has studied political science and lived through some very unique arguments as a Republican/Conservative prior to coming out, I held my own with my more liberal friends and colleagues. Yet, there is something to be said. The Party has made relatively only a few shifts in the history of the Party, that once founded itself upon individualism and giving the people the capabilities to succeed.

The Party needs to change and amend some of its high valued stances and some of which are very hard to discuss. The majority of the issues are social and some fiscal issues, but without a unique perspective and a way to understand how to make these changes work, the Party will continue to fall slowly into the fire that consumed its hijacking from the Far Right-Wing of the Republican base.

I am a man. I am gay. I am a Conservative. And the Party needs to address the issues that will not only secure the voters in the long term, but ensure the Party's continual existence and to readdress its original values and to stand firm and be the beacon that made me agree with the Republican Party.

While it is possible that my party could fail, I am ready, and willing to launch a revised form of our party if it implodes--as many of my liberal colleagues have insisted that it would occur soon (some indicated that its implosion and ultimate fall was a few years ago) and that, I being a gay man, could not follow the Republican Party solely on that issue. To that, I say you have ultimately failed to see the reality of individualism and have tried to pioneer a collectivist vision that rests on an idealistic viewpoint that you can make others do what you want.

My final conclusion on the Party is that it is drawing to a fork in the road, one in which it needs to be prepared to make a choice to fail or succeed. And even with success, it will also need to make changes for the better and for the people, it was so desperately created for back in 1854. And should it fail, I shall call upon all of my friends and colleagues who believe in the Conservative views and help rebuild our Party into a New Conservative Party. 

Being Gay and Republican

As a gay man, who recently came out to my friends and family -- who by the way took everything perfectly, considering our long standing and near perfect record of voting Republican-- almost needs to re-identify myself into the way I am. Unfortunately, I can't change my political views, nor do I want to. As a "Gay Republican" I'm now in the cross hairs of both Liberal and Republican strategos, one that would more than likely try to upend my name. Yet, I'm not here to defend my title as a Republican or Gay.

No, tonight serves as a particular item of rebranding. As I am now openly gay and a proud leader on my campus, I've definitely come in contact with those who need to classify me as a particular side, yet I cannot be contained in that nor can I reevaluate the reality of my choices. So, what does all this mean? Its simple. I am no different than that of my fellow man.

I AM A HUMAN AND I'M PROUDLY GAY!

Some of my friends have abandoned me but the strong friends and the more resilient and trustworthy ones lasted and still remain. They are worthy of a multitude of thanks and bravery as the traverse this world with me in the quest to find balance of friendships, love interests, and familial relations.

I'm not saying that all is bright and cheery, I still have my issues and still fear the times where I won't be lucky to have the consistent backing of my friends, fraternity, and family. Each person is unique but should you need help, I'm here to listent and to provide guidance to ANY that need or want it...