Amazon

Less Hot Air at the Republican Debate

I am looking forward to tonight's debate. There will be considerably less hot air. Donald Trump's feeling were hurt during the last debate and has decided instead to stay home. His supporters of course will keep bowing to the idol of a man who says what he wants, when he wants it and usually gets it. Trump takes it even further and has become a cult hero. Anyone who criticized him, must be really stupid or not listening to what he is fully saying. For those who are supporting Trump and did vote for Mitt Romney in the last general election, I strongly disagree with your support of Trump. If you did not vote for Romney, or voted third party and are supporting Trump now -- go blow it out your --

This is what would have been said by Megyn Kelly tonight.


Before I go ahead and post this, let me save the Trumpers some time. I must be a stupid RINO, bush loving, establishment loser who wants to see Hillary win.

HEY JOE COLLEGE: FEEL LIKE HATING? CHOOSE A JEW.

Recently, in England, a pro-Israeli speaker tried to give a talk at King's College in London. Protests at such events is SOP on college campuses these days, in Europe and the US. But this one got particularly violent:

Chanting “Free Palestine,” “Viva Viva Palestina” and “From the River to the Sea Palestine will be free,” angry demonstrators smashed a window of a room where an event hosting a former Israeli security official was being held.... One of the event’s organizers, Esther Endfield, co-president of the KCL Israel Society, was physically assaulted by anti-Israel activists, who also ran up and down the four stories of the building in which the event was held, repeatedly setting off its fire alarms.

No information about what happened to the protesters. Were they arrested, or at least removed, so the event could continue? Were they charged with something? Or were they let go with a warning—or maybe not even a warning? Was it the event and not the protest that had to be stopped, and was it the speaker, and not the criminals, who had to be escorted out?

There was a follow-up article in today's Jerusalem Post. Three guesses as to whether anyone got into trouble over this.


England has become a dangerously dhimmified country. You only have to look at the scandalous coverup of  rapes committed by Muslim men in Rotherdam to understand that in England, job #1 is not to keep people safe, but to keep Muslims from looking bad.

But wait, you say. This happened on a college campus. Aren't college campuses all about diversity and inclusion? Don't they all have "safe spaces" where nobody is ever to be offended? Don't professors have to give "trigger warnings" to the delicate snowflakes who might experience "microaggressions" when they are exposed to new or disturbing ideas? Don't administrators walk on eggshells—and sometimes have to resign—because students claim to be traumatized by insensitivity to things like Ferguson or the "cultural appropriation" of the dorm cafeteria serving fried rice or the lack of diversity on the "great books" reading list?

Well, yes. And that's why I say, if you feel like hating on someone, make sure it's a Jew. Because while all other "minorities" on campus must be treated with kid gloves, it's apparently open season on Jews. Like these protesters in London, or the kid at Temple who sucker-punched a pro-Israel student, or the "activists" at the U of M who put fake eviction notices on Jewish students' doors, I promise you will not get into trouble.

And that is a tragedy.

The rebirth of George Wallace. *Enter Trump*

Donald Trump, love him or hate him we have realized through joy or irritation he is here to stay. What we do not know yet is what actual effect he will have in the election. We hear "horserace news" constantly about this poll said this and this poll said that, heck, CNN even has a poll of polls, are you serious? Trump has dominated the media circuit and the polls throughout the early election cycle but what will his lasting mark be in history on the 2016 election. My assumption is he will have the similar type of fate as George Wallace. You might remember Mr. Wallace from history tests in high school or college. The governor from Alabama who fought against the establishment with the sole purpose of making America great again by denying the civil rights to African-Americans. Sounds pretty close to Trump does it not? All that's needed to change is the switch of misfortune from African-Americans to Hispanic-Americans and Muslims. In 1968 Wallace was a third party candidate that took a few southern states but did not do enough damage to control the inevitable outcome of Richard Nixon becoming the President.  Similar to the fate Trump could face with Hillary Clinton assuming the role of the inevitable opponent and victor in 2016. Trump unlike Wallace has the opportunity to be the nominee or force an awkward moment that will likely conclude with a brokered convention but that's for another day, let's get back to it. Trump, like Wallace traveled across small pockets of the south listening and feeding off his "traditional America" rhetoric blaming minorities for the problems and making controversial policy proposals if he were elected. On election night Wallace had a quiet, you could say uncharacteristically death that night the complete opposite of his campaign through that year. I expect Mr. Trump's to be no less than ridiculous if he is the nominee or if he runs as a third party. Though I admit, until we see the first caucus and primary votes, it will be hard to tell if Trump will be able to see results and delegates in his favor. We've been talking about this election for over 6 months now it's time to see what's really going to happen and not what we think. Ready or not here we go America.

The Western Pivot Towards Right Wing Politics: Good or Bad?

http://newsjunkiepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Europe-Drifts-Right.jpg
The western world has met this new age of right, right wing movements across the western world have gained momentum and the fate of international control and stability may not see a moderate approach any more. We start with the example of the election in the United Kingdom, 2015. The UK responded with 3.88 million votes, 12.7% of those voting, voting for UKIP, the UK's resident right wing party. This election saw a almost 4 times increase from 919,471 votes UKIP got, 3.1% of those voting in 2010. We also saw Poland, which dethroned its powerful centre-right party in favor of a right wing party, by a surprising 7.69% swing by the right wing party. France recently in the mids of December saw Front Nationale, its far-right party gain 27% of the vote, or 6.8 million french in amount of voters. The only reason the socialist party in France has a holding is because the far-right party is separate from the centre-right party. 67% of the French voters in the regional elections either voted centre-right or far-right making the US stereotype of France being widely socialist a big bust. The European Union Parliament polls have shown that right wing and far-right coalitions are gaining momentum as well.

Why is this happening? What does this mean for the future? Is this temporarily and how far will it go?....These are all questions people are pondering, and it takes some research to get the answers. Let's first break down the global status. We have Russian Aggression in the east, annexation of a part of a nation forcefully. We have the rise of ISIS and radical Islamic movements centralized in the middle east with terrorist cells all over. We have western economies remaining at low growth, and eastern economies booming. We have eastern military building up faster than western military. Only 14.4% of the world's countries, 12.5% of the world's population, are under full democracies according to the Economist Intelligence Unit. Times are not pleasant, especially in the west. People are going to seek forceful actions, having a stronger military, and more skepticism about open borders and unions, such as the EU. This is a possible direction to combat these problems, however it's not the most efficient and its not the only one. People can revert towards more moderate approaches and tackling issues by uniting rather than proceeding in isolationism. It takes time for Diplomacy to work, but in the end it will succeed. You need skilled people, dialogues, and compromise but in the end its beneficial towards the world all together rather to shut our nations up, lock the doors and do our own things. The world is becoming globalized whether we like it or not, and looking past our nationalities and borders to see the common goals of humanity rather than the lines drawn on the maps may be a step we must take in order to truly continue our evolution towards the future.

Trump is Following Obama's Lead

People have been "outraged" and disgusted by the Trump campaign. This time it was after a performance by young girls dressed patriotically doing a routine before a campaign stop. I keep reading folks on the left calling it Nazi like propaganda and other inflammatory things. Here is the clip and I will let you decide.  My opinion, they are both creepy.




But.......How soon we forget this gem from Barack Obama in 2008.



8 Hot Jewish Republican Women

I started compiling a list of good looking Republican women. I have to say, that this article took way longer than I expected. Not because any of the ladies mentioned below aren't pretty, it's because there are very few of them. The Republican Party is doing a very poor job at the demographic of Jewish women. That will be for a different article and hopefully someone can put their two cents in.

In the mean time let's take a break and appreciate some of the finer things in life. Even if you decide not to vote Republican this year, we can all agree that they are beautiful. 

Enjoy!




Ivanka Trump: How much more do I need to say about Trump. She is a powerhouse in her own regard and classy. This New York woman waves the Trump, Jewish and Republican banner. Not too shabby.












Jenna Jameson: The former porn queen converted recently and while it may not be safe at work to look at some of her pictures, her kosher recipes on her Instagram should be checked out.











May Golan: Of course the list would not be complete without a super tough Israeli. And no one knows more about security and immigration than May. I have a feeling if she did vote in the US, she would probably be voting Republican.



















Sabrina Schaeffer: Sabrina is a no nonsense lady who serves as the Executive Director of IWF. As a conservative, she has been at the forefront of women's issue.











Pamela Gellar: This tough Republican will put anyone in their place. I am putting her on the list because, I am very much afraid of her and well, she is good looking if you can get past some of her over the top issues with Islam.







Jennifer Rubin: Jennifer is a Washington Post writer who may look like the girl next door, but her writing will teach anyone a lesson. She is a no nonsense Republican and also witty and funny on Twitter.








Alexis Levinson: Move over Jennifer Rubin, Alexis may seem sweet and innocent, but this National Review writer has sharp insights and makes our list.







Ann Bayefsky: To be fair, I am not totally sure if she is a Republican, but if I had to guess. This brilliant lawyer is at the forefront of human rights and has a laundry list of degrees form prestigious places.


























Of course this is just a small list. If you think I missed anyone feel free to respond below. 
**I had Michelle Field on the list. Unfortunately, I was mistaken and have corrected the list. Sorry folks.

The Messiah IS Coming: Counterpoint


"EZRA, YOU IGNORANT SLUT!"
My fellow blogger Ezra Drissman recently posted a provocative rant, entitled "The Messiah's not coming; quit waiting." The post set out to show that the concept of believing in a messiah is ruining religion—and a whole bunch of other things.

Some of the worst atrocities in the world have been committed in the name of ushering in a Messiah," he says.

Really? Name a few.

I mean, I agree that loons who unthinkingly follow other loons can be dangerous. (Hello, Trumpistas!) But what's up with all the faith-hate

Ezra includes cult-like secular groups—eg Nazism and Communism—in his messianic mix. But Hitler didn't kill Jews because he thought it would bring about the end-times, he killed Jews to "save" Germany.

The Rapture is also noted. But c'mon, Ezra: how many people have been murdered by Christians hoping to hasten the return of their savior? Not only does this not happen, but I don't know of any verse in the New Testament that commands Christians to slaughter the unbelievers so Christ will get back here faster.

As for the 12th imam: I'm no fan of Islam, but the Iranian mullahs don't slay the infidels in order to bring the Mahdi back. They just enjoy slaying the infidels. It's like those Geico commercials: if you're a radical jihadist, that's just what you do.

Messianism, Ezra says, "detracts from the overall message of most religions, which in general is to be good to one's neighbor." Well, I guess so. Although that's rather a generic affirmation of religious faith. Sort of like being a Unitarian.

Fact is, belief in Moshiach is CENTRAL to Judaism. And belief in the return of Jesus is central to Christianity. You can't really ignore that. Does Ezra want Christians to stop hoping Jesus returns? There goes their whole religion. Should Jews not bother to look forward to the time when Moshiach comes to make things right? Why bother, then, to defend Israel? It doesn't really matter, right?

Ezra ends by asking "all religions" to be more "introspective." But if he's trying to stop the killing, there's really only one religion he needs to be talking to, and we all know which one that is. The problem has nothing to do with imaginary messiahs, and everything to do with very real terrorists.

Madam Secretary showed Chris Christie's "I'd shoot it down"



When asked in the CNN Debate if Chris Christie would enforce the no-fly zone and shoot down a Russian plane, he responded with "Not only would I be prepared to do it, I would do it." This was met with support from the audience. Before this debate, Madam Secretary aired an episode where a unstable Russian president went on with the invasion of Ukraine and violated a US no-fly zone in Ukraine and was met with a stone hard permission granted to shoot down Russian planes. The episode ended as this video ended, and the next episode showed US fighters eliminating Russian jets, enforcing US air superiority. The Russian President didn't put his finger on the nukes, or call a invasion of the US because that's not reality. I bring this TV show in the light because it shows what really would happen. Rand Paul tried to elevate himself saying it would cause a massive war, but Madam Secretary nailed what a response would be. The Russian President just then shook it off and proceeded with land force as Russia was better on that front rather then in the air where the US has superiority.

So no Rand Paul, enforcing a no-fly zone would not spark all out war because a few jets are knocked out of the sky because America's unquestioned air power is known by the Russian Federation. This rings a reminder of how we need someone like Chris Christie who was the only one up on the stage capturing the strength and upfront responses the American people and the world need.

Millenial Libertarians Are Completely Insufferable

One of my musical heroes, John Lydon (a.k.a. Johnny Rotten), lead singer of the Sex Pistols and Public Image Ltd., has said on numerous occasions, when pressed about his political views, that he doesn't lean right, left or center; he's above all of it, not willing to dedicate himself to one political party or viewpoint.  He voted for Obama twice.  It's a big monkey off your back when you grow up and realize that some of your favorite musicians are full of shit.  But, aside from making the general point that you shouldn't ascribe to your artistic heroes' political views, the bigger and more important point I want to make is that you should be EXTREMELY cautious of any person who claims that he or she doesn't go by the "left/right paradigm."

There is no politics outside of the "left/right paradigm" and, if you think there is, you're fooling yourself.  The whole struggle for a better world is contingent upon how much freedom you're willing to sacrifice for how much safety.  You can believe in 100% freedom and zero safety, resulting in a Mad Max, Social Darwinist world.  You can believe in zero freedom and 100% safety, resulting in an Orwellian style world where you live for the the state.  That's it; you can use all of the mental gymnastics you want to try to get out of the "left/right paradigm", but you'll only be talking in circles and coming back right to where you began.

Take, for instance, the least controversial topic I can think of; driving safety.  Unless you're a sociopath, you probably believe that driving rules exist because how you drive effects everyone else.  Therefore, most agree that strict, draconian measures should be taken against drunk drivers and that certain infractions should be policed and penalized.  Therefore, if driving safety was a parallel for society, you would say that views towards driving safety are very left wing and heavily policed.

Unfortunately, millennial Libertarians don't think in those terms.  Like John Lydon, they see themselves as rebels and mavericks, combining a mish-mash of views into a weird stew that indicates a complete lack of political understanding or reading of the facts.

This is the world as I see it; the lunatics currently run the asylum.  We're heading out of control into an abyss that threatens to irreversibly turn the country leftward to the point where, in a few short years, the United States will begin to resemble Europe.  Taxes will be incredibly high, affirmative action will make sure unqualified people get into higher echelons of business, speech codes will be enforced, the country will be balkanized into little nation states of non-English speaking foreigners with curiously different cultures that highly contradict our own and the government will regulate EVERYTHING.

However, we are also at a point where we can SAVE the U.S. from such a fate.  In fact, we're one or two terrorist acts away from convincing the public that their only safe bet is to elect a Republican, someone who actually CARES about national security, will close off the border from illegal immigrants while shipping many of them back and will not under any circumstances allow 10,000 Syrian "refugees" into the country because they know that they cannot be vetted properly.  Not to mention will multiply and create dangerous all Muslim no-go zones like they have in Europe.

There's only one problem; Gary Johnson.

I'm already furious with pussy-ass cuckservative wannabes like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio for not dropping out of the Presidential race.  I think a Trump/Cruz ticket would be the best thing for the country right now and this asshole Gary Johnson decides to run as a third party candidate.  That wouldn't matter to me anyway because I don't think the angry, white, middle aged demographic, the demographic the Republicans should have been aiming for in the first place, really gives a hoot who this Gary Johnson fellow is, but I do have a problem with how he callously ignores the big picture.

For instance, the highly overrated Libertarian personality Julie Borrowski said in one of her Facebook updates that she didn't vote for Mitt Romney in 2012 because he didn't "earn it."  How didn't he "earn it"?  Isn't not being Barack Obama enough to "earn it"?  How will a GOP candidate "earn it" this time?  I was so beside myself with annoyance that I tweeted something like "How do we get horny Libertarians to not listen to @JulieBorrowski when she tells them to not vote GOP because they didn't "earn" it."  Borrowski didn't challenge that her horny, blind followers will do what she says; instead she asked, "When will the GOP listen?"

That's why Libertarians annoy the living crap out of me.  Listen to what, exactly, Julie?  Borrowski has some sound views; she's against radical feminists (what sane person isn't these days?), pro gun rights, for low taxes and against corporatism, but some of her comments leave one to pause.  She said one time that some of the things Republicans say about immigrants are disgusting (like what? they should be legal?), another time she complained about conservative women using their sex appeal to sell their views - if you're an attractive woman, your sex appeal will always sell your views - and another time talks about Syrian "refugees" as if it's a problem only with the so called "extremists", rather than seeing the entire thing as a problem unto itself.

And her viewers... my god... some of them ARE feminists, some believe in open borders, some complain that the GOP is too concerned with social issues as if anyone in the GOP has ANY power to make gay marriage illegal or reverse Roe vs. Wade, some feel "institutional racism" is a big problem and that cops unfairly harass black people, some feel that the most pressing issuetoday is abortion "rights" or legalizing marijuana (as if only the dumbest people don't get caught doing it), some feel we should legalize ALL drugs, some are hardcore Chomsky supporters who feel that government should be out of everything EXCEPT healthcare and environmental issues.  Even Borrowski posted this article about how blacks are using guns to fight back against "police brutality", as if they didn't already do that on the streets of Chicago or Detroit (albeit with less than legal firearms).

DO THESE SOUND LIKE LIBERTARIANS?!

My view of these people is this; they're essentially weirdos, freaks, geeks, subculture folk that aren't content with rebelling against the mainstream crapola of shitty pop music and romantic comedies and also feel the juvenile need to find a political identity outside of the mainstream.  They don't want to be labeled as left wing or politically correct, they claim they "hate" the government, so they call themselves "Libertarians."  These clowns claim they love Ron Paul, but hate Pat Buchanan.  They like Paul because he's against corporatism, but then support Ralph Nader or Bernie Sanders because they TOO are against corporatism in spite being socialists.  They support open borders because they feel everyone should be able to experience low taxes and the American dream.  In fact, they feel borders are a form of government oppression.

And arguing with them is impossible.

That is why, henceforth, if someone asks what my label is politically, I'll call myself conservative - no caveats like "but I'm socially liberal", no "but I have gay and female friends", no "but I support drug and marijuana rights and hate the war on drugs", none of that pandering, cuckservative nonsense.  It's a given that I treat everyone with respect and as an individual and I believe everyone should be treated equally under the law.  If that doesn't equate to Libertarian views, then a conservative I shall be.

The Messiah Isn’t Coming: Quit Waiting

There is a famous parable in Judaism about a big giant bucket filled with Mitzvoth (Commandments) that people have done. The water from mitzvoth is right at the edge and one person’s deeds could be the drop that pushes the water over and the Messiah will come.

While I think that my religion has the healthiest view (s) on the Messiah, it still somewhat misses the point. Biblical religions believe, to varying degrees, in some sort of “end of days.” Many utopian movements also believe in a sort of end of days as well; Communism, Nazism . The difficulty may be to find the difference between religious utopias and utopian movements. Just because we say it is in the name of religion doesn’t necessarily make it any better.

These religions and movements accept the belief or notion of a Messiah—human or otherwise—who will bring about a heaven-like or perfect world if their adherents follow or do x,y,z. Yet some of the worst atrocities in the world have been committed in the name of ushering in a Messiah. The argument I am making is that the world would be better off if religions or utopian movements would disregard the belief in a messiah, be he human or divine.

The reason that I am so against the belief in Messianism and an end of days is that I feel it detracts from the overall message of most religions, which in general is to be good to one’s neighbor. However, if in the back of your mind you think that your neighbor won’t make it into the messianic stage, or they are not part of your religion and are “different”, you are going to treat them differently. Maybe you will be civil, but will you treat them truly as a friendly neighbor. Does your concept of Messiah skew the way you act towards people who don’t share your belief system?

Seemingly, Pope Francis seems to think that relationships with others should trump theological divides. The statement went on to call Catholics to not try and convert Jews to Catholicism Jews. In response the Godly and human outreach by the Catholic Church, a large group of Rabbis responded with a very public letter calling on a new relationship between Jews and Catholics. This profound change happened because both sides looked past the “messianic” issues and worked towards mutual friendship.

There are a few points that I would like to point out about this. Messianic belief is worse when it becomes a national or community based belief. What individuals believe for the most part is irrelevant. If it helps them act better, than I wouldn’t care less. When a country acts in order to bring a “Final Solution,” an end of days, a 12th Imam, a Mahdi, a social transformation, the rapture, etc.; it usually ends tragically bad.

On the individual level however, one should probably reexamine his or her beliefs. If you Messianic beliefs, regardless of how sacred, are keeping you from being human towards another without ulterior motives, shouldn’t they be changed?

Somehow and somewhere, this concept of the Messiah has been taking away from core religious beliefs. The belief in God is severely damaged by this belief in an end of days.

In the cases if the Biblical religions, the goodness of the bible is able to somehow temper the badness of what happens at the transition period into the end. However, where there is no goodness grounding, ie. Nazism and Communism, the results have been the murder of tens of millions of people. Today we happen to be facing religious zealots that believe in actively murdering in order to bring about a 12th Imam. Either way, this belief must end. All religions must take some major introspection and rid their beliefs of this concept.

There is no magic potion. There is no quick fix to bring goodness and kindness into the world. There is only action. The individual must act accordingly to bring these things into the world. He should do so not to bring about the Messiah, but to be good and Godly. -- Can the individual outweigh the national messianic beliefs? Who knows, but if we focus on the here and now and not the "Messianic Era" than maybe we will see God’s blessing in this world.

DRUNKBLOGGING THE NSA

Luddite Blogger doesn't drink much anymore, but everybody needs to go out and have a martini or four sometimes. Last Wednesday was such a night, and that pleasant little buzz I felt when I got home helped me digest the latest horribleness from the Obama administration: catching Congress in the spy-net it set for Israel.

After the Edward Snowden leaks showed that the administration had been spying on "friendly nations," Obama apologized and promised it wouldn't happen again. But apparently Israel wasn't considered friendly enough, so the spying on Bibi et al. went on.

But that doesn't really bother me. I pretty much assume that everybody is spying on everybody else. And so what if Obama did it to make sure Israel didn't know about his secret meetings with Iran? What else can you expect from him? We now know that this administration will literally say and do anything to push their Iranian nuclear deal forward.

No, the scandal,  as Jonathan Tobin writes in Commentary,

"isn’t just the unsavory practice of eavesdropping on a friendly government but the way the practice extended to contacts between Israelis, pro-Israel groups, and members of Congress. In doing so, the Obama administration made clear not only that — contrary to the assurances it gives pro-Israel Democrats — it regards the Jewish state with great hostility and suspicion, but that it is not afraid to use the immense power of the security establishment to spy on Congress, a practice that ought to have both security hawks and libertarians sounding the alarm about possible abuse of power."

So the executive branch is spying on the legislative branch. This is overreach Nixon in his wildest dreams couldn't have imagined.

Will there be any consequences? If it wasn't Barack Obama there sure would be.

"As a veteran of the George W. Bush White House," says Elliott Abrams, "I’m persuaded that had we done this, the Democrats in Congress would have called it a major scandal and held endless hearings designed to attack the administration."

Oh, you betcha.

2016 Election Analysis

The Obama Presidency And What It Means For 2016


President Barack Obama, leader of the Democratic Party hasn't had a "good" presidency. Rarely has he had above a 50% approval rating, when we was elected, and when he was elected again where the only times in which is popularity boomed. Obama is a "elections" guy, he can work them in his favor and he has good charisma, he has reflected back towards us he is a modern and calm person but where he gains in charisma he lacks in other key areas. Obama has brought the executive branch towards status quo, he doesn't act big, and he doesn't have great "umph". Many of you may say what about Amnesty or Obamacare! His amnesty measure was movement without movement, he brought it forward, but he didn't work on it or put much more into it. If you are going to do something, you ought to stand behind it and campaign it. Sell amnesty to the people, don't write it off and do it in your backrooms. The Republicans fed on it, and reversed it against him because he failed to show full devotion towards the measure, he didn't sell it to the American people..he could've. He did a bit better with Obamacare, and it has better approval among the American people than amnesty. Obamacare captured real reform and pulled in the liberal bloc, but he failed to sell it towards the conservative bloc. Obamacare brought approval in all with the liberals, but again he failed to campaign his idea with the conservatives which is better than his amnesty measure which was on the minds at some politicians but the populace wasn't very informed or given much attention. President Obama had a mandate, he could've pushed his charisma, appeared more often in the public, talked with the public more and not give the public the traditional "politics" speeches when he did. In America, in this day in age you must be a people's person if you want the presidency now. People have gotten the traditional "political" speeches too much now, its overused and won't work any more. It's not democratic to speak like that. You must be direct, you must have a plan, you must work that plan. Yes plans change, and things pop up but that means you lay out a detour plan. You must be direct, I cannot emphasize that enough. President Obama was politics wrapped in a man, with the human taken out. Does this mean we need to drop PC, and all this right now in then and get a crazy person in office? Absolutely not. There is a difference between being direct and affirmative versus being a radical no-filter person. 2016 is the calling for a people's person, direct and planned. The Obama Presidency may effect the democrats, but not as much as you think because it is either side that can put forth what Americans truly need.

Finally we are here, in the great melting pot of multi-billion dollar presidential elections. Who will lead America while the tides are violent. America's next president is going to have to be a direct and affirmative person, who drops the traditional politics speech. That person must also be professional, presentable, and friendly. Trump is not going to be President of the United States. Whilst the US is indeed seeking a direct, no sugar-coated approach it still wants a professional person, it wants someone that can hold the office with respect. Trump is gaining his lead because he fills half of the requirements and he has gained a lot of attention, but I will tell you right now, that whoever is going to be president will fill all the requirements. Bernie Sanders is the Trump of the left, he fills half the requirements too, he is direct and affirmative and doesn't sugar-coat things. Trump and Sanders are getting popular and around the 30% mark because they fill those roles partially but when it comes in reality and everyone is going out to the primaries it won't be those two that come out as the nominee. 

Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and John Kasich

The Four Moderates, showing professional, direct, presentable and friendly personas. One of these candidates will become President of the United States in 2016. Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush have not however broken fully out of their "political" speeches and persona which they need to do if they want to win. Chris Christie has offered all of it recently, he has been moderate, not sugar-coating, but he is professional. He isn't radical or dropped his professional attitude. Chris Christie is friendly, and hasn't beaten on any minority group or attempted to get partisan. John Kasich is a lesser-known version of Chris Christie. Kasich would be a good cabinet member, but he isn't someone who will be able to work up to the top. Chris Christie takes the professional, political, and friendly attitude of Jeb Bush and combines it with the direct and non sugar-coating aspects on Donald Trump. Chris Christie brings the best of both words, and is able to hit every requirement. Now I am no political ad, but I like to consider myself independent, smart, and a researcher and I am saying from a intellectual base of reviewing US politics that its going to be a man like Chris Christie that has a chance at presidency. The democrats aren't offering someone like Chris Christie and are sticking with Hillary Clinton, who is too close to Obama in being "political". Hillary Clinton can't win at 2016, she definitely could any other year, but this year it will be on against the political atmosphere of avoiding anything direct, and heavy establishment personas. I am being optimistic when I say I think the RNC are smart enough to see this, I think that they will turn around in the end that this Trump wave is just a holding spot for greater combination.

Let's Have a Shout Out to the TRUE King of Rock 'n' Roll

One of the dorkiest and most annoying things that right wingers try to do is rationalize how it's possible to hold conservative views and still be a rock 'n' roller.  They write stupid articles like this National Review piece about progressive rock, this list of the top 50 conservative rock songs or this article about Republican Grateful Dead fans.  What a dumb way to tell people who don't give a shit that you're "one of them."  It's even dumber when some Republican brags about how he's a Rage Against the Machine fan; who cares?  Rage Against the Machine sucks ding dongs.

I'm assuming the majority of the readers of this blog are not super knowledgeable about the secret, guerrilla history of rock 'n' roll.  When asked who the king of rock 'n' roll is, most people will probably say Elvis, the Beatles or the Rolling Stones and, while those are all great performers/bands, they really don't hold a candle to the one and only Ian Fraser "Lemmy" Kilmister, the unstoppable, long haired, bearded, side burn sporting, leather and bullet belt wearing, Rickenbacker slingin', mole faced, hoarse voiced singer/bassist for Motorhead.  Like the Ramones and AC/DC, Motorhead were known for their consistently pleasing, hooky and LOUD brand of rock 'n' roll.  Some call it metal, some call it rock, some call it punk, but to Lemmy this meant NOTHING.

The history of rock 'n' roll can parallel the history of the world - after society was born, it broke apart into various factions, some warring, some united, and driven by copious amounts of revolutions, counter-revolutions and counter-counter-revolutions.  Punk against prog, metal against punk, hardcore against new wave, grunge against glam metal, rock against disco and so on and so forth...

Lemmy was the grand ambassador.  In the late 1970s, when punk rock came to dominate the underground London rock clubs and give the middle finger to the older generation of aging hippies cum prog musicians who packed arenas with drugged out, long haired nerds and played endless songs utilizing mountains of expensive musical equipment, there was Lemmy who paid allegiance to no scene.  One day he would pal around with big time, multi-platinum selling theatrical art rockers Queen and big time metal act Black Sabbath and the next day he'd hang out with Joey Ramone or attempt to teach the bass to Sid Vicious, who never got it down, but joined the Sex Pistols anyway.

As the years and trends passed, Lemmy became friends with virtually anyone who wasn't a dick; a google search would produce a bunch of photos of Lemmy hanging with, well, anyone!  Motorhead superseded all of the trends - punk rock, the New Wave of British Heavy Metal, thrash metal, death metal, black metal, glam metal, grunge, garage rock and continued to release album after album after album of brilliant satisfying rock 'n' roll until his passing a few days ago on December 28th at the age of 70.  Lemmy's death came as a shock only because, in the world of rock 'n' roll, Lemmy seemed virtually unkillable.  Other musicians toned down their partying, started families and bought expensive pieces of real-estate to make sure they would have a nice pot of gold once they finally hung up the guitar.  Or, as the Rolling Stones, AC/DC, ZZ Top and Aerosmith have done, would pat themselves on the back for how long they've been going at it, yet only release an album or tour once every decade.  What DO these guys do in their spare time?  Oh, yeah, tend to their real-estate careers or play golf.

Not Lemmy; he lived, ate, drank and breathed rock 'n' roll from his teen years to his death.

Born on Christmas of 1945 in Stoke-on-Trent and raised in North Whales, Lemmy was abandoned by his preacher father after only three months, which might help explain his blatant disdain towards the Christian religion and his developing atheistic viewpoint.

At age 14, he saw some rock 'n' roll people on TV and all of the girls screaming at their feet and decided that was the career for him; as Lemmy once quipped, that, for some reason or another, any time a guy a picks up a guitar, he'll have women swarming around him.  Done deal.  A few years later, Lemmy was slingin' axe for local groups the Motown Sect ("I hate that soul shit") and the Rockin' Vickers, the latter who recorded a solid cover of "Dandy" by the Kinks.

But, what's really fascinating is that Lemmy witnessed the Beatles at the Cavern club in 1962.  Anyone who thinks of John Lennon as a long haired, peacenik married to Yoko Ono and singing the 1970s version of "we are the world" called "Imagine" probably isn't aware that, in the early 60s, Lennon was a cussing, fighting, fried chicken chomping, teddy boy, who wouldn't hesitate to drop his guitar, walk off the stage and kick the crap out of some heckler.  The big misconception is that the Beatles were the "nice" band the Stones were the brooding, bluesy tough guys.  The Stones were upper middle class blokes who traded blues and early rock 'n' roll 45s and posed like 60 year old blues men - essentially they were the "wiggas" of their time.  Some might even call what they did "cultural appropriation."

Anyhow, by 1967, the rock world changed; hair got longer, drugs got trippier and psychedelia was the name of the game.  The class of '67 includes the Doors, Hendrix, Pink Floyd and Joplin.  Lemmy was a small player, but a charming fellow on the London underground scene, roadie-ing for and dealing acid to Jimi Hendrix, who Lemmy still thinks is THE best guitarist of all time (maybe he's right?).  In 1968 Lemmy played guitar, sang and wrote all of the songs for Sam Gopal, a tabla percussionist from Malaysia, on his extremely druggy, hippie-delic album Escalator before joining the mediocre Opal Butterfly.

His big break, however, came in 1971 when, at age 25, he joined the space rock band Hawkwind; I consider them to be the musical equivalent of Dr. Who before Dr. Who became popular in North America.  In other words, Hawkwind is an institution in its own right, a cult phenomenon that began in 1969 and is going to this day, releasing albums and creating a science fiction world through their music, lyrics, art work and expansive stage show.

Lemmy replaced his guitar with a bass, to which he applied his aggressive playing style and helped give Hawkwind a major kick in the ass, helping to create the driving "space rock" sound.  According to Lemmy, Hawkwind was NOT about peace and love, but about attacking you with lights, lasers, unfathomably loud sounds and a big breasted, nude dancer named Stacia.

Unfortunately Lemmy's tenure in Hawkwind lasted less than four years.  After singing lead on the group's only hit "Silver Machine" and playing on four albums - Doremi Fasol Latido, Space Ritual, Hall of the Mountain Grill and Warrior on the Edge of Time - he was unceremoniously dismissed from the band.  Accounts differ as to what actually happened, but two things remain clear; Hawkwind were like a nation in that they had so many members that a civil war of differing interest was inevitable and that, with Lemmy's departure, Hawkwind would never be the same again.

Lemmy once humorously said that he had been fired from so many bands, he started one of his own to prevent that from happening again.  In 1975, at age 29, that's exactly what he did.  Starting in the bohemian Ladbroke Grove district of London - an area where naive hippie types drop acid, rage against "the man" and worship Socialist and Anarchist losers - Lemmy formed Bastard.  According to manager Doug Smith, a band with a name like that was never going to get anywhere; of course these days people wouldn't bat an eye lash with the existence of bands like Anal Cunt and Nunslaughter, but 1975 was a different time!  So Lemmy changed it to the slightly less offensive Motorhead, named after the final song he wrote for Hawkwind and based on his love for amphetamines.

I'm not going to go into the extensive history of Motorhead since that would be tedious and has been covered elsewhere.  I'm here to discuss what their music means to me and why I believe Lemmy is the true king of rock 'n' roll.  After a few missteps, Motorhead was flying.  Over the course of its 40 year existence (which is officially over according to current drummer Mikkey Dee), the group released 23 studio albums, numerous live albums, compilations, singles and EPs.  Like AC/DC, Slayer and the Ramones, many accuse Motorhead of making the same album over and over again.  This assessment is both lazy and false.  The group stuck with the heavy blues rock format, but kicked up the speed to unfathomably fast tempos, their albums were consistent in sound and tone, the album covers all look the same and Lemmy stuck to mostly the same themes in all of their songs, but mindless repetition it was not.

It's just that the band's sole intention was to make good rock 'n' roll at three to four minutes a clip (with the very occasional epic making it to six or seven minute length) and nothing more; they never made a double concept album with an elaborate story about a boy's journey to be a hero in some fantasy land, they never made an acoustic album, they never did an all covers album of old jazz favorites and they never went through phases to prove to people that they vigorously changed in chameleon like fashion to adapt to trends that would be outdated six months later (ahem, David Bowie).  They were just a good time rock 'n' roll band who believed in the CRAFT of writing good - nay GREAT - songs that delivered instant pleasure and immediate gratification.

Lemmy's outlook on life was painfully simple; as Viv Shrimpton said in This Is Spinal Tap, "have a good time all the time."  Lemmy also claimed that Motorhead are not a political band, but then slightly contradicted this statement when he said, "if I see things as fucked, I'm gonna tell you they're fucked."  What did Lemmy see as "fucked"?  War, religion (well, Christianity specifically), politicians and businessmen (basically anyone who wore a suit and sat in an office for a living) and would occasionally attack some of society's other demons, such as media corruption ("Talking Head"), censorship ("Brave New World") and child molestation ("Don't Let Daddy Kiss Me").

What did Lemmy see as "not fucked"?  Sex (sometimes with underage girls), rock 'n' roll, gambling, touring in the U.S.A. and telling various versions of "the man" to shove it.  Oh, and did I mention sex?  The only time in the group's career where they caused controversy was in 1991 when some feminist harpies complained that the song "I'm So Bad (Baby, I Don't Care)" is sexist.  This surprised Lemmy more than anyone else, who wondered why they didn't pick up on other, more blatant songs such as "Jailbait."

But sexist Lemmy was not; how could he be when he gave full support and backing, not mention collaborating with contemporary, all-female metal band Girlschool?  Lemmy wasn't racist either, nor was he homophobic.  In fact, in one case, he tricked drummer Mikkey Dee, a good looking glam rocker into hanging out at a gay bar.  Don't let the hairspray and makeup fool you; Dee was PISSED! But that's how you build tolerance, by submerging someone in another world.

And yes, I can forgive Lemmy for advocating for the election of Barack Obama in 2012 under the hilarious pretense that Romney would make abortion illegal just like that.  I can understand the concern; when your sperm is floating around in 1,000+ women, abortions probably would save you from going bankrupt.

Above all, Motorhead were a fan's band.  You either were part of the cult or you weren't. Motorhead never released an album that sold as much as Back in Black, Appetite for Destruction, Metallica's self-titled black album or Nevermind.  Their most popular album is still their 1980 masterpiece Ace of Spades and, if I'm not mistaken, it hasn't even gone platinum!  Indeed there are hundreds of thousands of little bands crawling in the underground that are infinitely less popular than Motorhead, but, what makes Motorhead unique is that they have remained just under the radar, possibly the world's most popular underdogs and the band that everyone's favorite bands listened to.  Metallica site Motorhead as a primary influence, name dropped them in just about every interview, performed at Lemmy's 50th birthday party and even covered several of their songs.  Did this make Motorhead any more popular?  It truly makes me wonder about the taste of the average music fan.  Ironically Motorhead's one Grammy award came from a cover of the Metallica song "Whiplash."

In a way, it's kinda cool; I feel like I'm part of a secret group within a group.  It didn't matter what sub-sect of the underground you were a part of because Motorhead appealed to all of them.  A Motorhead audience could consist of long haired metal heads, spiky haired punk rockers, pompadour sporting rockabilly dudes, just anybody who enjoys good rock 'n' roll.

And, after a long day of work, isn't that what everyone needs?  In a world where we're bombarded with threats of terrorism, politicians who want to take away one right after another, high unemployment rates and a media that distorts stories and plays up special interests to drive a narrative, isn't that what anyone wants?  To sit back with a beer and crank up some loud, ear damaging rock 'n' roll music?

Oh and, their logo/mascot, known as either "Snaggletooth"  or the "War Pig" looks hella cool on t-shirts!