What is up with the obsession some conservatives have with cuckoldry?

This is part 9 in a series of 35 questions. It is based on a series of questions answered by John Hawkins for Townhall.com: here, and here.


9. What is up with the obsession some conservatives have with cuckoldry?

I have no answer for this. I’m simply going to quote John Hawkins original answer:

“That’s a weird cultural thing that has become popular with the Alt-Right. If you see someone calling someone else a “cuck,” there’s about a 90% chance that you’ll find something on their timeline praising Hitler or freaking out about Jews. Online, it may seem like a lot of people, but they seem to be a small group of people in the real world.”

Why are conservatives against an investigation of Donald Trump’s Russian ties?

Why are conservatives against an investigation of Donald Trump's Russian ties?

This is part 8 in a series of 35 questions. It is based on a series of questions answered by John Hawkins for Townhall.com: here, and here.


8. Why are they so against an investigation into Russian ties with Donald Trump?

I’ll be honest. I don’t know a whole lot about the supposed ties between Russia and Donald Trump. The little I do know, I’ve blown off as hysteria from the Left. Did he have business dealings with Russia? I assume he did; he had business dealings all over the world. Will that, or did that, have an effect on how he deals with some of those countries now? Maybe. Maybe not. It depends on whether he uses them for personal gain or U.S. gain. Did they help him get elected? Maybe. Did he collude with them to do it? I seriously doubt it.

The thing I find infuriating is the Left’s focus on this, and the lack of interest–an understatement–in Hillary Clinton’s ties with Russia. Yes, I’m talking about the Uranium deal that she approved while head of the State Department, while taking millions in donations through the Clinton Foundation, which by the way, shut down shortly after her failed Presidential bid. Here are a couple of recent articles covering the details:

Sticking with the Hillary Clinton narrative, let’s talk about WikiLeaks. Russia is/was being blamed for the hacks. WikiLeaks says Russia was not involved. The evidence for Russia’s involvement was, at the time, dubious, and might I add, convenient. It steered people away from the content of the emails, and the Mainstream Media was more than happy to drive. If WikiLeaks had published hacked emails from Donald Trump the media would have plastered them across the front page of every newspaper and news site across the globe regardless of the source. They would have done it with glee. They wouldn’t have cared if Russia had interfered. I found it hard to take the Russian hacking seriously when it felt like a diversion from the contents of the emails.

What I am against is the hypocritical screaming from the Left regarding Trump and the silence regarding Clinton.

In the end, am I against an investigation? Not necessarily. If there is evidence–REAL evidence–of Russian interference, than yes, there should be an investigation. Meddling by any foreign government is unacceptable, but I suppose that could cut both ways. We need to not meddle in other countries politics as well.

If conservatives believed in the marketplace of ideas, wouldn’t they want everyone to vote?

If conservatives believed in the marketplace of ideas, wouldn't they want everyone to vote?

This is part 7 in a series of 35 questions. It is based on a series of questions answered by John Hawkins for Townhall.com: here, and here.


7. If conservatives believed in the marketplace of ideas, and observed voter fraud is low, wouldn’t they want everyone to vote?

First, Conservatives are more open to allowing opposing ideas than liberals, even hateful ones! We do not try to shut down opposing views, even when both sides agree on what constitutes hateful speech. The difference is that conservatives would rather discuss the issue and try to prove our point, with the ultimate goal of changing people’s mind for the better. Liberals end discussions they are/will lose with name calling, and more recently, rioting and vandalism. How many discussions are ended by a liberal simply by calling the other person a racist or homophobe?

Second, the issue of voter fraud has been covered. You can read that here. The bottom line is that conservatives what the people who are supposed to be voting are the people voting. Voter fraud is unacceptable on any level.

Finally, While I want everyone to vote that has a right to vote, I also think EVERYONE should pay taxes. I don’t think it’s fair for people that don’t pay into the system to have a voice in the system. Seriously. Why should people who don’t pay taxes have a say in how much taxes people should pay? Liberals like to talk about fairness, so I ask, is that fair? People who don’t pay taxes can vote for politicians who support ever increasing taxes and welfare benefits, but who cares, because it doesn’t come out of their pocket–at least directly.

Should non-citizens vote? Absolutely not! And like Hawkins pointed out, if you don’t pay attention to politics, should you really be making political decisions? I see people on Facebook: “I don’t pay attention to politics,” they say. How do you make a decision on who to vote for then? Do you vote based on what’s between a person’s legs? Their hair color? Their age? Whoever is promising the most free shit? Do you vote for whoever Bruce Springsteen says to vote for? If you’re not paying attention, how the hell do you know what you’re voting for?

In an idealist world, I want everyone to vote. In the real world? No. Voters scare the hell out of me.

How does one square pro-life and anti-welfare?

Abortion is not an answer to poverty.

This is part 6 in a series of 35 questions. It is based on a series of questions answered by John Hawkins for Townhall.com: here, and here.


6. How do conservatives square a pro-life abortion policy with persistent attacks against the welfare state?

I have a hard time squaring the idea that these two things are related in conversation. Apparently, liberals feel that it’s justifiable to kill a human being that may be born into a welfare system. Is being dead better than being poor? Is that what you think about poor people? They would have been better off had they been aborted by their mother? Seriously, has no person ever escaped the welfare system? This isn’t a caste society. The two are unrelated, and it sickens me to hear this argument.

Killing an unborn, defenseless human being is wrong; regardless of the reason. The only permissible time is when the mother’s life, not her mind, is in danger, for example, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy.

The welfare system is wrong and abortion are wrong. Using one wrong to justify another wrong is evil.

New SCIENCE on when life begins: Science, Embryonic Autonomy, and the Question of When Life Begins | Public Discourse

Doesn’t President Trump alarm you?

Doesn't President Trump alarm you?

This is part 5 in a series of 35 questions. It is based on a series of questions answered by John Hawkins for Townhall.com: here, and here.


5. Doesn’t the president alarm you? What do you think about mass resignations & attempts to silence agencies?

President Trump does not alarm me. He certainly isn’t a polished politician, but that’s one of the reasons I like him. I also like the fact that he’s doing the things he said he was going to do while on the campaign trail.

I like the mass resignations, especially when considering the fact that the ones resigning are most likely liberals that hold views in opposition to the President and views in opposition to me and common sense. Let’s face it. The government is too big anyway. I support the hiring freeze as well. Draining the swamp from top to bottom is a good thing, and if they leave of their own free will, the better.

I also don’t have a problem with the attempt to silence agencies. The government should be on the same page, and despite politicians being political, the agencies should not. It doesn’t matter if an agency is tweeting facts, if it’s being done to incite opposition to the government, or to undermine the President, they need to be silenced. The only exception to this, is if something illegal being done, in which case, there’s a path for whistle blowers.

The Deportation of Guadalupe Garcia de Rayos

The Deportation of Guadalupe Garcia de Rayos

A married, mother of two, illegal immigrant was deported and it’s her fault, no one else’s.

“The undocumented immigrant was detained Wednesday and deported within 24 hours to her native Mexico…1

Since “undocumented immigrant” doesn’t clearly describe her status, let me: Guadalupe Garcia de Rayos committed the crime of entering the U.S. illegally in the mid-1990s at the age of 14. A more accurate term for undocumented immigrant is illegal immigrant.

Later, in 2008, she was convicted of using a fake Social Security Number (felony criminal impersonation). While it’s true that she probably wasn’t “a threat to nobody,1” it doesn’t matter. She broke the law. Twice.

Now she’ll be the face of Trump’s policy. She’ll be the face of families being torn apart, and the beginning of the attempt to blame this on Trump. The fact of the matter is, this is her fault, and her fault alone. She knew she was here illegally when she got married, and she knew she was here illegally when she had children here. She knew they were legal citizens, and she was not. She knew there was the possibility of being deported even in those circumstances, and her children would have the option of staying. That’s not love; that’s selfishness.

Unfortunately, she had help. Enablers, if you will. Sanctuary cities, and liberals who don’t give a damn about who comes across the border ILLEGALLY. States that give illegal immigrants driver’s licenses and allow them to vote in certain elections. People that gave her hope that her crime would be ignored.

I wonder though, in this particular instance, why was she the first one deported? I almost feel like this was done intentionally to show the new policy in the worst possible light. Was this another botched rollout of an Executive Order, or was Guadalupe Garcia de Rayos a pawn to get the left to, once again, come unhinged.

While it may be true that illegal immigration has not resulted in high profile terror attacks, crime is still an issue. Worse, are those caught and then released only to commit more crimes and even murder.

But crime isn’t the only problem. The financial cost to taxpayer’s is tremendous:

If we stop sending money to sanctuary cities, we’ll have more than enough to pay for the wall.

Finally, you may not like the definition of criminal, but it’s really rather simple:

a person who has committed a crime

Being here illegally is a crime. That makes all illegal immigrants criminals. And they know that. They also know illegal immigrants can be deported. This isn’t a surprise; it’s the law.


  1. Almasy, Steve and Grinberg, Emanuella and Sanchez, Ray (2017). Mom deported in Arizona immigration case has no regrets – CNN.com. CNN. Accessed: 10 Feb 2017. 

Why do so many people say Trump isn’t racist?

Why do so many people say Trump isn't racist?

This is part 4 in a series of 35 questions. It is based on a series of questions answered by John Hawkins for Townhall.com: here, and here.


4. Why do so many people say Trump isn’t racist? Or say they voted for him despite that and feel ok with it?

First, as Hawkins said, I know of nothing that he has said or did that was racist. I know about the Mexican comment he made, but I don’t believe it was racist. It was hyperbole and it was effective at getting people’s attention. In case you haven’t noticed, Trump uses a LOT of hyperbole.

I’ve said this before, although I haven’t written it, but Trump is now taking the brunt of the anti-conservative impact because he’s become the figurehead of “racist” America. If Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, or Ted Cruz would have been the nominee and won, they would have been racist too. If you pay attention, 49.8% of Americans are racist; that’s everyone that voted for him, including me. But liberals think everything is racist and hateful: wanting a wall, protecting our borders, school choice, voter ID, standing against Affirmative Action, standing for traditional marriage, understanding that psychological disorders aren’t genders… Basically, opposing any idea held by liberals can get a person branded a racist.

If a liberal calls me a racist, based on their twisted definition, it actually makes me feel better about myself. Why? Because it confirms that I’m on the right side of morality. Because in the real, true definition of the word, I am not racist. I believe everyone should be treated the same regardless of their race, and no race is better than any other race.

How can I be okay voting for Donald Trump despite the fact that so many people think he’s racist? First, as I said, I don’t believe it. Second, liberals have screamed racist so much that it means nothing to me. Third, the alternative, Hillary Clinton, was worse:

Despite President Trump’s weaknesses, I’m glad I voted for him, and I’m pleased with his efforts so far.

How can a Christian deny Arab child refugees?

How can a Christian deny Arab child refugees?

This is part 3 in a series of 35 questions.


3. If you’re a Christian how do you reconcile Good Samaritan/Sermon of the Mount with Trump denying Arab children safe passage?

Let me start by saying there’s going to be a little speculation here, but I’m not going to base my position on one or two passages of Scripture tossed out like a mic drop. While there are several passages that speak of treating foreigners well, there are also passages that infer wariness and caution.

First, God did not treat all foreigners the same. The most obvious, and the most controversial example, is God’s order to essentially exterminate the Canaanites. The wickedness of the Canaanites reached such a level that He used the nation of Israel to execute justice on every man, woman, and child. It should also be noted that this was not a rash decision. He actually waited 400 years before He decided it was time.

Second, God created the NATION of Israel. He set for them, specific laws that made them different from the surrounding nations, and He expected the Law to be followed. Sojourners did not have the same rights as the Israelites, despite the command to treat them with respect. If they did become part of the nation, they were expected to assimilate in ALL ways, i.e., follow the Law. Likewise, I see nothing wrong with expecting people who come here to be American citizens (legally), to assimilate to American culture.

Reading history indicates that immigrants coming to America have always tried to assimilate and become Americans. This phenomenon of the last twenty years or so, where immigrants come to America expect us to assimilate to them is foolish. Israel did that and was punished by God. We’re going to do that, and get punished by Islam.

Children are not the only age group looking for asylum. Unfortunately, the actions of adult refugees are hurting the safe passage of children. Simply Google ‘europe no go zones youtube’ and you’ll find plenty of reasons why so many people are not interested in helping people from the Arab countries: violence against women, violence in general, no-go zones, and not just a refusal to integrate but an insistence that we adopt their culture.

Other questions that need to be asked are, are the children traveling alone? Are they orphans? Where will they go? There needs to be a vetting process, and it appears that what vetting process there is, is substandard. Donald Trump’s TEMPORARY travel ban is supposed to address the vetting process.

Perhaps the most tragic thing of all, is that there is a good chance those children that do come here, will not adopt our culture either, but that of their parents, and they will grow into part of the problem.

Further Reading:

Why are conservatives anti-progress?

Picture of astronaut and lunar module on moon.

This is part 2 in a series of 35 questions.


This is quite a vague question. I wish Hawkins would have asked for clarification because my first thought is: define progress.

Conservatives love progress just as much as liberals do; the difference is how and what we define as progress. Some positions that liberals hold as making progress, I view as backwards and retrogressive.

If you view abortion as a woman’s right, blah, blah, blah, as progress, I would say, yes, I’m anti-progress. But I don’t see it as progress in the first place. I see abortion as regress, barbaric, and uncivilized. See what I mean about defining progress?

I see better, cheaper, cleaner ways to burn fossil fuels for energy as progress. I’m pro-progress. I don’t see solar and wind power as progress; I see stagnation, higher energy costs, and hurting the poor. That’s not progress.

I view the mountains of regulations championed by liberals as anti-progress.

You know what I’d like to see? I’d like to see a base station on the Moon, where we mine helium-3. It is said, that two shuttle bays full of helium-3 could power the United States for a year. That’s progress.

Do Republicans honestly believe voter fraud is a real issue?

John Hawkins of Townhall asked:

“I’m doing a Townhall column where I’ll honestly, w/out sarcasm, answer liberal questions to conservatives. Any libs want to ask questions?”

He actually wound up writing a second column as well. I enjoyed both very much, but as I was reading, I found myself thinking about how I would respond to those questions if they had been asked of me. So I decided this would be a golden opportunity to provide another perspective from another conservative. There’s nothing wrong with Hawkin’s answers, but I thought it would be fun, and a good writing exercise to answer each one from my point of view, with my additional thoughts, and in a couple places, where we differ.

1. Do R’s honestly believe voter fraud is a real issue and not just a blatant excuse to suppress min vote. Please provide proof.

Hawkins provides a good list of proofs; plenty to get you started. The only thing I would add is that an investigation needs to be conducted in Detroit because of discrepancies that were found when the recount began. If the recount wouldn’t have been canceled, many votes wouldn’t have been allowed because of discrepancies.

On the other hand, I don’t think that Hawkins did a good job addressing the accusation of conservatives wanting to suppress the minority vote. First, conservatives do NOT want to suppress the minority vote, they want to suppress voter fraud, even if it is minimal. They want to make sure that the people who are voting are the people who have a RIGHT to vote, not illegal immigrants, multiple voters, or dead people. Creating laws that minimize the ability for fraud to occur, such as proving you’re who you say you are with a picture id makes sense and applies equally to everyone regardless of skin color. Recently, according to the National Review, the United Kingdom and United states were the “only industrial democracies that don’t routinely require voters to show an ID1.” However, that’s changing in the United Kingdom2. The United States needs to follow suit.

I would turn the question around and ask, why do liberals think minorities are less capable than whites to obtain an id? Is it racist to ask a minority for id when they want to buy alcohol? If we can’t require an id to vote because it’s racist, then we need to stop requiring an id to buy alcohol, or for that matter, a gun. The idea that it’s harder for a minority to get an id is ridiculous, and quite frankly, racist.


  1. Fund, John. 2015. Voter ID: Other Countries Require It. National Review. Accessed: 4 Feb 2017. 
  2. Mason, Rowena. 2016. Voters in local elections will be required to show ID in anti-fraud trials. The Guardian. Accessed: 4 Feb 2017.