Is Ted Cruz a Charlatan?

By Aaron

Note: This is not an endorsement of any other candidate. However, with it becoming apparent that the primary will continue well past Indiana this cycle, I feel it’s very important that my fellow conservatives and libertarians understand who Ted Cruz is.

Who is Ted Cruz? Most people I know believe him to be a lover of liberty who is “steeped in the constitution.” I wanted to believe this. Especially with Rand Paul out of the race, I desperately wanted to see a liberty loving, constitutionalist whom I could support in the primary. However, being a veteran of behind the scenes politics and more than a few campaigns, I never take a politician’s word for it. Thus I was compelled to dig into the real Ted Cruz, and I didn’t like what I found. Under each category below, I have summed up why it is I cannot support Ted Cruz.

The Lies

Cruz’s entire pitch is that he is the trustworthy, true, conservative outsider. His slogan sums it up with “TrusTed”. That’s clever, but it’s also farcical. First, in the debates, Cruz lied and said that he didn’t support TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership) but supports the TPA (Trade Promotion Authority). The TPA is the fast track bill that will allow TPP’s passage. Supporting the TPA is supporting the TPP. (It’s kinda like saying you don’t support the robber but you approve of unlocking the door for him.) Moreover, he even wrote an op-ed in the WSJ,**** along with Paul Ryan, in support of the TPP. Second, Cruz both hid his loan from Goldman Sachs, and then lied about it on national television. I’ve worked on too many campaigns to believe that you could forget to disclose a million dollar loan that made your campaign possible. Later it turned out that he also “forgot” to disclose his Citibank loan. He’s either an attorney who is terrible at legal paperwork, or he was trying to hide who was supporting him. Third, he mislead Megan Kelly when he told her his amendment to the gang of eight bill didn’t “mention” legalization for illegal immigrants. He’s technically right.  The amendment didn’t contain the word “legalization”.  It just would have made legalization possible.  Finally, when it came out that he lied about Carson dropping out of the race in Iowa, I didn’t like it, but I accepted it as one of those nasty things that happens in a campaign. Now I believe he just lied purposely. But don’t worry; I’m sure he’s not lying about anything else. You can “TrusTed”.

The Constitution and Liberty

Ted loves to tout his love for the Constitution and liberty. Yet his positions denote a different belief system. As mentioned above, Ted voted for the TPA and supported the TPP. The TPA allows congress to bypass the constitutional requirement for two thirds of the senate to approve the treaty known as the TPP, which is being sold as a “deal”. Sound familiar? Far from “free trade”, TPP is a crony-capitalist trade deal, negotiated in secret between corporate lobbyists and Obama, where we surrender yet more of our sovereignty, and millions of jobs, to international banks, tribunals, etc. Does that sound like a free-market, constitutional position to you?

Ted Cruz also called Edward Snowden a traitor and said he should be tried for treason… after calling him a hero. Snowden worked diligently to assure that no information was leaked that would expose us to harm. He simply dumped enough data to prove that the NSA was illegally spying on us. Snowden made no money and no enemy nation profited from it. I somehow doubt he left behind his six figure income, his lover, and his cushy lifestyle in Hawaii just to be labeled a traitor. Ted claims to be informed on this subject. Ergo I can only conclude that he wants to apply the age-old, statist charge of “treason” against Snowden for political gain. Speaking of surveillance, Ted openly endorsed the collection of all of our phone calls and text messages during the GOP debates.

Everyone also seems to believe that Cruz would be great at selecting Supreme Court justices.  I find this dubious.  Remember John Roberts appointment?  At the time Cruz wrote in the national review: “But, as a jurist, Judge Roberts’s approach will be that of his entire career: carefully, faithfully applying the Constitution and legal precedent.” Whoops.  There are some who claim that Ted actually helped recruit Roberts. This makes sense as they had previous connections, however I can’t prove it. Ted denies this, but you’ll have to forgive me if I don’t take his word for it. Moreover, Cruz launched an attack ad against Trump for the use of eminent domain while he himself supported eminent domain for foreign companies to build pipelines.  Trump is the devil if he wants to build a parking lot, but it’s totally cool if it’s a foreign oil company who wants to seize land from private property owners, right?

Of course we haven’t even begun to speak about Cruz’s desire to continue our interventionist foreign policy, which has been the primary vehicle for the destruction of our civil liberties and expanding our debt. His foreign policy is not conservative at all, and no one ever questions him on it because of the red-meat lines that he throws out.  Carpet bombing Syria to destroy ISIS and intervening against Russia in Eastern Europe may sound like “leadership” to the base, but it’s also incredibly stupid foreign policy.  Last time I checked, carpet bombing Syria would create more homeless people, more innocent deaths, and more radicalized refugees pouring into Europe and the USA.   Sticking our finger in Russia’s eye, in a region of the globe where we have no legitimate business and no realistic hope of winning a war against Russia, also sounds like terrible policy.  These are simply not the positions of a liberty loving conservative.

His Connections and Detractors

Ted and his wife were members of the Council on Foreign Relations, or CFR. The CFR is a leftist think tank whose globalist policy prescriptions are an anathema to both U.S. sovereignty and individual freedom. (Does his support for TPP shock you now?) Ted was an advisor to George W Bush, and his wife was a top advisor for Condoleezza Rice. His wife is a VP at Goldman Sachs. His campaign finance chairman is Neil Bush, and somehow we’re supposed to believe this man is an outsider in D.C.? Speaking of Neil Bush, that man was at the very center of the Savings and Loan Crisis. He cost the tax payer 1.5 billion dollars by his actions alone, pocketed at least 100,000$ personally, and was never held to account because of his name. Ted made this man his finance chairman. Remember, the Bush family does not fight on the behalf of the people, and it certainly doesn’t allow one of its sons to help an insurgent. They are deeply involved in the establishment, and would never support a man who would threaten the establishment’s power. Then there are Cruz’s detractors. Why did Ron Paul say that Cruz has more in common with Hillary Clinton than Rand Paul? Why does Rand Paul refuse to endorse Cruz? Why did Senator Jeff Sessions endorse Trump instead of Cruz? Are we supposed to ignore these voices? I think at the very least, these men, who have been proven right time and time again, should cause us to pause and ask questions.

What Does This Add Up To?

We know that Ted has a habit of lying. He has supported crony capitalist trade deals, the surrender of congressional authority to the executive, and embraced the illegal surveillance state. He supports punishing whistleblowers, and has a neoconservative, interventionist foreign policy. We know that he has strong connections to groups and individuals who cannot stand the principles of liberty and limited government. This hardly makes him a lover of liberty. It makes him a neoconservative, establishment republican.

We also know that Cruz has invested millions of dollars into data acquisition and voter identification. It is my sincere suspicion that he is using this data to tell the conservatives exactly what we want to hear. It is also my suspicion that his voting record in the senate reflects his understanding that the Tea Party got him elected, and thus he skirts the line of what he knows he can get away with.  He won’t have such constraints in the Whitehouse. Ergo, in this light, I now see his failure to show up to fight for the Audit the Fed bill as just more political maneuvering… or did you think that original cosponsors of bills just skip voting on the legislation in which they so ardently believe?

There’s this meme out there that the establishment hates Cruz. I haven’t found any real evidence of this. The Bush family is helping him. Rubio is set to endorse him. His closest advisors are establishment insiders and neoconservatives. If the establishment does oppose him, it’s because of personal preference, not real policy differences. Neoconservatives, like any other political ideology, come in different shades. Perhaps Rubio got establishment support because he was just a closer fit. People I know who have met Cruz claim he is not a personable man. Perhaps the elites think he’s a jerk and don’t feel like they could control him. Regardless, you will not see any decrease in government, increase in the freedom of the markets, or expansion of individual liberty under this man’s watch.

If you like the idea of a Bush retread wrapped in a Gadsden flag, support Ted Cruz, but don’t support him because you think he’s a “conservative”, “loves liberty”, or is a “constitutionalist”.

**** I didn’t realize that the damning information with Cruz supporting the TPP was behind a subscription wall.  I’m currently looking for a better link for the data.  I know it’s out there.  I’ve seen it, and Cruz is pretty bad at covering his tracks….because he knows most people won’t bother to look.

Men Crying and What Women Say They Want

John talks about men crying and what women say they want versus what they go after in seeking a man

Men Crying and What Women Say They Want

This is What We Are On…

John rants and vents his frustration on the behaviors he sees in the mindsets that many Christians hold

This is What We Are On

Mixing the World and God’s Word in Dating

John talks about how you can’t mix what God says about life and what the world says about dating…

Mixing the World and God’s Word in Dating

I Didn’t Know the Problem Was This Deep

John talks about how he didn’t that certain problems in the Christian community were as deep as they are

I Didn’t Know the Problem Was This Deep

When Should You Get Hitched? Part 1/2

By Aaron

NOTE:  If you’re easily offended, don’t bother reading this post.  I don’t sugarcoat things. It’s not because I don’t love you. It’s quite the opposite.  I give cold, hard facts so you’re armed with the best information possible to make informed decisions.  I am a clinical lab scientist and a political operative. I tend to boil things down to their most basic elements, no matter how politically incorrect they are. If you’re cool with that, proceed. Also, as this article became too long for just one post, I decided to split it into two.  First, we’ll just focus on the girls.  In the second article, we’ll talk to the guys. We will also address some of the fallacies that people believe in concerning when they should settle down.

Marriage is one of the biggest decisions that you will make in life, and it’s a decision that has the potential to either wreck or vastly improve your life.  Thus it baffles me that young people receive basically no instruction on when to get hitched.  Most people will receive no help beyond the Hollywood nonsense about “soul mates meeting when the Universe decides” or “finding yourself first”.  After a prolonged bachelorhood (29 years wedding ring free), I’ve picked up a few observations as I watched my contemporaries get married, get divorced, or stay single. I’ve learned two things.  First, the optimal time to settle down is based entirely upon attraction (more on than in a moment). Second, the timing is different for guys and girls respectively.

Girls

Ladies, you’re probably the most lied to and, as a result, damaged by the advice our culture gives you on this topic. It amazes me that we claim to be this “feminist” society, and yet we give women absolutely terrible advice. Then we just shrug when these poor girls are met with the devastating consequences.  So let me explain something to you that was probably skipped in your women’s studies and sociology classes.  The best time to get married is determined by attraction. The time period you are the most attractive to the opposite sex is when you will have the most people interested in you. Ergo that means you will have the most (and best) options for potential mates. AKA you won’t have to settle for someone below your standards. Well, what do men find attractive? And when do you have it in the most abundant supply?

Attraction, for both sexes, is all about the babies.  This is inarguable, scientific fact.  For men, what makes a woman attractive is fertility. Classical, universal beauty standards reflect this.  Good teeth, symmetrical bodies, and well shaped thighs, butts, and breasts are all signs of health and fertility, meaning you will produce multiple, strong offspring.  But do you know what also denotes fertility to a man?  Age.

Oh I know.  No one wants to hear that, but it’s just a fact of life you’re going to have to accept.  You were born with a set amount of eggs. Those eggs have an expiration date. Then they don’t work. Period. That’s it. There’s no arguing that medical fact. Men have been hardwired at a subconscious level to understand this, and this is a major reason why men tend to go for younger women with symmetrical features, clear skin, and a full set of teeth. Yes, some men will deny this.  Remember that in our current culture it isn’t politically correct for men to admit that, so they’ll lie in order to win brownie points.  But actions speak louder than words. How many 30 year old men do you see looking at women their age or older?  Not many. So what does that mean for you?

Well, most importantly, it means that you hold all of the high cards when you’re young.  You get to start off your adult life with the most leverage.  When you’re 18-25, you can date guys your age, or guys older than you, which makes up a huge percentage of the male population. You will never have more potential to attract a mate than at this time, so use it wisely.  Do not.  I repeat.  Do not assume that this will last.  The biggest trap girls fall into is believing that it will always be this easy to attract men.  If you take care of yourself really well or have extra special genetics, you can extend it a few years. However, young women forget that they won’t be this young and hot forever, and, in our current female-centric culture, they aren’t reminded about what men actually want.  Never forget, given the choice between a 22 year old hottie, and a 30 year old hottie, the 32 year old guy will pick the 22 year old girl. (Assuming she’s sane and wants to settle down.)  Why is that?  Because after 35 the idea of safely having healthy children becomes problematic at best, and downright impossible for some women.  His caveman brain is wired for babies, so he’s going to go with the girl who will give him 15 good years of production instead of 5.  So, do yourself a favor, and don’t waste your youth riding the carousel. This is assuming that having a high value husband and healthy babies is on your list of life goals. Maybe it’s not.

Now you can choose to delay if you wish, but understand this: nothing comes free.  In order to buy yourself more time, you’re going to have to trade in the high cards you had when you were 18-25 for a lesser hand. Also, not only will men progressively begin to find you less attractive, but your dating pool will begin to shrink drastically. Why is that you ask?  It’s very simple.  You may have heard that your available pool of singles actually expands until you’re about 50 years old, and that’s true….if you’re male.  Women, as a rule, do not date below their age. (After seeing how some of these young men act, I really don’t blame them.) Men however, are perfectly willing to date below their age.  Ladies, that means that every year you defer picking a mate, not only are the other girls your age getting first pick of the men in your pool, but so are the women younger than you.  Every day more girls turn 18 (or whatever his minimum age requirement is).  That means your competition is getting fiercer and more numerous every day, whilst your own “stock value” is going down. As a result, if you choose to continually defer, you will eventually be left with a dating pool that has been depleted of its high value men, and it will be a lot harder to get the high value men leftover.  AKA, you will likely have to settle for a beta male who is just happy to have a woman, or you will have to give in on something else that is important to you.

Moral of the story?  Don’t decide to “find yourself” in your 20s, thinking that you can start seriously dating at 27, and settle at 30.  Don’t “focus on your career” when there is a perfectly good guy sitting right in front of you.  The work will always be there.  He won’t be.  Do not decide that “marriage” or “serious dating” can wait until you’ve finished your PhD in women’s studies, if you want to land the best possible guy.

But maybe marriage isn’t for you.  Maybe you really just aren’t interested in the whole family dynamic and you do just want to have a career.  Ok cool. By all means, “do you.”  Here at the Gen XY we’re pretty libertarian.  We want people to chase their dreams. Just don’t wake up a 35 wondering “where did all the good men go?” and complain about it.

….After you decided to spend five years studying biology in the Galapagos, they married those girls you used to baby sit when you were in high school.

Next up: When should guys settle down?

 

4 Epic Fails That Handed Trump The Nomination

By Aaron

Since I published my previous political article, everything from the New Hampshire Primary to the Nevada Caucuses has gone as poorly for the establishment as it possibly could.  But it didn’t have to be this way for the elites.  Their own arrogance brought this about.  Here is where it all went wrong.

Epic Fail #1-Rules Change:

I want to start off by making a correction.  Went I wrote my last article on The GOP nomination, I was working off of the 2012 GOP Primary rules.  I knew that the schedule had changed and that the amount of states awarding proportional delegates, but I didn’t realize that the new RNC chair had reduced the number of “unbound” delegates.  This has greatly hampered the ability of the RNC to pull shenanigans with the delegate totals, and lowers the percentage of delegates Trump needs to win via direct election.  While I certainly applaud making our primaries a far more democratic process and wouldn’t change it, from their perspective, this decision has blown up in their faces.  With the new rules, Trump just has to keep pulling in his previous average of 30% of the votes, and combined with the “winner take all” states, he’ll garner just enough delegates to win outright on the first ballot. If he increases his vote share, he wins. (BTW the CNN poll yesterday has his national support shooting up to 49% of the vote.)  If Cruz drops out after March 15^th, he likely wins.  If Rubio implodes, he likely wins.  Moreover, I keep hearing how the Trump ground game has been doing everything it can to get Trump loyalists sent as delegates to the convention. This is to prevent convention chicanery from screwing him.  If that his happening in meaningful numbers, he’ll win.

 

Epic Fail #2-John Kasich:

Kasich got second in New Hampshire.  There couldn’t have been a worse candidate to get second if you’re an elite looking to contain the peasant uprising.  He doesn’t have the following of the establishment vote, he doesn’t have the nationwide campaign structure, and he doesn’t have the money to be a real factor in this campaign.  He’s not even winning in Ohio, where he is the sitting governor.  They really needed MarcoBot  Marco Rubio to grab a second place finish there. However, after his programming malfunctioned in the debate, he finished in a paltry 5^th.    If they were depending on a 2^nd place finish in New Hampshire to propel Marco to 1^st in SC, how did they not notice that Kasich was building his campaign around New Hampshire and thus needed to be taken out?  To be fair, they’re really more at fault for backing Marco…which is a great segue to our next epic fail.

Epic Fail #3- The Boy Senator:

After Bush was destroyed by Trump, the mega-donor class and the RNC scrambled to find a candidate and put all of their chips on Marco Rubio.  Their return on investment? He epically failed to rally support and emerge as the anti-Trump vote.  His 3-2-1 plan (place 3^rd in Iowa, 2^ndin NH, and 1^st in SC), is now being mocked as the 3-5-2 plan, and he only got half the votes Trump did in Nevada. He even failed to get Jeb Bush’s voters once he dropped out of the campaign, and he’s currently losing to Donald in Florida, where he is a sitting senator, by 16 points. How they thought betting the farm on a one term senator who looks like he’s my age was a great idea, I will never know.

Epic Fail #4-Not backing Cruz:

As I said before, the establishment’s best bet to defeat The Donald was to cut a deal with Cruz.  They could have backed him behind the scenes with cash, and cut Rubio’s funding, forcing him to drop out.  In their own stubborn arrogance they refused.  Now The Donald has been launching attacks against Ted Cruz’s character.  During the SC debate he started hitting Cruz on the liar angle. I immediately looked at my friends and said that he was going for the evangelical vote.  It worked.  By the time the SC primary rolled around, enough evangelicals were voting for Trump that Cruz was landing in 3^rd place.  Cruz can’t afford continual 3^rd place finishes.  Polls in his home state of Texas are all over the place.  One poll has Cruz winning handily.  Another poll has Trump just one point behind.  If Cruz doesn’t win in Texas, he won’t be in the race much longer, and Rubio can’t beat Trump one on one.  But even if Cruz does win Texas, that just means he hangs on.  It won’t slow Trump at all.

There was this ridiculous narrative that Trump has hit his “ceiling of support” and that “his negatives are too high” because 60% of the voters “don’t want him to win”.  That’s been proven false as a slew of well-timed endorsements, ranging from the establishment governor Christie to the conservative senator Sessions, has now propelled Donald to 49% support nationwide.

The debate on Thursday was another huge failure.  Calling Donald “not a true conservative” is a meaningless attack, no matter how true the charge is.  Donald’s supporters know he isn’t a conservative.  That’s not why they’re backing him at all. Trying to call him a liar is meaningless coming from politicians known for lying.  Moreover, the entire tone of the debate made Trump look good on a subconscious, emotional level. Yes, Cruz won on substance, but his negative tone became like nails on a chalkboard.  Nobody believes Marco is a conservative on immigration, and his sneering after each one liner made him look like a petulant child. Trump in comparison looked like a Titan among men as he stood tall, fighting the two wolves on either flank. That was a powerful subconscious, emotional image, and that’s all 90% of people will remember.

From the day Trump entered the campaign, I never saw this end coming, but this could honestly be over by March 15^th.   To put this into perspective, Trump has more delegates than either Romney or McCain did at this point in the campaign. Barring finding a video of Trump strangling a hooker, assassination, or some unforseen shady manuever, Trump will be the nominee.

 

Maybe Trump can air a “Cabinet Apprentice” to select his department appointees….

Why Your Parents’ Dating Advice Doesn’t Work

By Aaron

If you’re old enough to be seriously dating, chances are your parents are Baby Boomers or early Gen Xers.  While these well meaning people have their uses, giving sage dating advice to today’s young person is not one of them.  Why is that?  Surely, if nothing else, people in their fifties and sixties have life experience, and can pass that on to us.  That seems like it would be a logical conclusion. It is also dead wrong.  It’s very simple.  Yes our elders do have a lot of sage advice to give us, and we would be foolish not to avail ourselves of it.  However, when it comes to modern dating, our elders totally lack relevant experience.

How could that be? Because, back when they were dating, they lived in an entirely different world. Most of them would have met and courted in the 70’s and 80’s.  Whilst feminism and the sexual revolution were certainly in full swing, they were not yet the dominate forces of influence over our society. The social pillars of the old society from the 1950s were still standing. People communicated face to face or over the telephone.  Your dad didn’t have to compete with your mother’s IPhone to get her attention.  Your mom wasn’t receiving “dick pics” in her inbox on her “Christian Mingle” or “Match.com” account.  Your father wasn’t regarded as “creepy” for trying to get the number of a beautiful woman he didn’t know. Your mother wasn’t actively encouraged by popular culture to view every man on the planet as a dumb animal who thought with his penis.  Nor was she propagandized from birth that she should pursue her career, her masters, or “find herself” before finally settling down at thirty and putting up with a “bumbling idiot” known as a husband.  Women generally wanted to get married young, and, despite what the bra-burning feminists tell you, they didn’t resent men or feel the need to “compete” with them.  No, men were expected to be men, and women didn’t mind being their feminine supporters.

Divorce wasn’t nearly as common as it is now, let alone considered to be “totally normal”.   Your dad wasn’t dating women who had slept with 10, 20, or 30 men.  Many women were virgins at the alter, and most had not been with more than a few “serious” boyfriends before their wedding night.  Your mother certainly wasn’t into “rape fantasy”. She hadn’t been with so many men that standard sex no longer did it for her, thus requiring increasingly kinky things  in order to find sexual gratification whilst warping her married sex life.  One night stands were relatively rare occurrences, and, if they did happen, people kept it quiet out of shame.  There certainly wasn’t the possibility of photos or videos of last night’s activities being posted on Facebook.  In your father’s day, women didn’t grow up being infantilized and filled with ridiculous expectations by Disney movies for twenty years before dating him.  Nor were romantic comedies and sitcoms filling boy’s minds with lies and outmoded ideas about how to win a woman over. Your dad, thanks to the lack of the internet, didn’t have to compete with the advances of every pathetic , thirsty guy in the city to get a date with a moderately attractive girl. Merely being a provider, a gentleman, and displaying a couple male characteristics was enough for your dad to land dates. Moreover, there were a lot more healthy, attractive people for your parents to choose from because not every other person was overweight or obese.  Your mom and dad didn’t have to deal with the inherent narcissism present in so many millennials today.  Your dad didn’t date women who, on average, felt entitled to Prince Charming while not offering anything in return that men actually value. On the other hand, in your mom’s day, men didn’t grow up being emasculated at every turn. There wasn’t a flood of effeminate, male homemakers who know more about baking than how to protect them with a firearm. Nor were her only alternatives uncaring douchebags.

In short, the entire foundation of what governs male and female interactions has changed more than “drastically”.  We live on a different planet in a parallel universe.  What possible, relevant, dating tactics could your parents offer?  The changes wrought by technology alone invalidates much of what they would tell you.

To the Christian readers who make up a large chunk of my audience, don’t think for a second that somehow the Christian community has been less affected by this.  Don’t believe that somehow, because churches officially condemn much of the activity I listed, Christian habits and attitudes about dating have created a better environment.  No, in fact things are worse. As a direct consequence of the sexual revolution sweeping the nation, the “I Kissed Dating Goodbye” movement surged through Christianity as its insane, just as extreme, conservative counter balance. People like Eric Ludy or Joshua Harris may have been well intentioned, but their teachings on how to find a mate were not simply how to avoid the pitfalls of the sexual revolution. They were attempting to create an entirely new match making system that is simply incompatible with Western culture. The result was legalism.  Onerous rules and unbiblical teachings like “saving our hearts for marriage” and “Jesus is my boyfriend” were foisted upon millions of young Christians. This then stifled their emotional growth and their social skills with the opposite sex, creating effeminate beta males, and frumpy, charmless little girls.

Here too your parents cannot help you, even if they believe this stuff and actively encourage you in it. Sure they may have some great, pie in the sky ideals of how dating should go down between Christians. However, they’ve never “courted” or dated in this environment. They were never taught this new system, and they won’t have a shred of experience to guide you through it.  They’re making this up as they go, completely ignoring how these ideas go against the basic, primal nature written into our DNA by God.  They’re embracing it because it sounds good, nothing more. They never had to live by these new rules and fanciful guidelines they’re giving you, heck, neither did the authors of those books. To their credit, they just don’t want you to suffer the fait of those who participate in the culture created by the sexual revolution.  Unfortunately they’re falling into the trap that somehow man can create a perfect, sinless system if he just tries hard enough.

Thus, if you’re dating in the church, you have to deal with a bifurcated culture. The legalist group features adults in their twenties acting like they’re twelve.  The other group is made up of kids who have by default adopted the attitudes and behaviors of our now feminist culture.  Think I’m over stating it?  Take these two examples from my own life.  I remember one girl I dated from the more conservative side.  Despite being attractive, she had made it to the age of 24 without ever having a boyfriend.  She actually ran from me when I tried to hug her at the end of a date. She later explained she was afraid of her own feelings, didn’t know what to do, and panicked. (For some reason I let that one stretch out for another two dates before ending it..curiosity I suppose.) On the other extreme, another girl I went out with told me about the orgy she had participated in the previous weekend, which was a not so subtle invitation to take her back to my place.  Both of these girls attended the same bible study with me.  Both of these girls appeared to be perfectly normal on the outside…which is exactly what modern Christians excel at doing. These two groups are not small minorities in the church either. ( I have more stories, I just don’t want to keep writing) Together they likely make up a majority. There is a smaller, “middle” group of people.  However, “middle” does not always translate into “healthy”.  Rather, many have simply adopted one or more characteristics from both extremes.

So how can your parents advise you on this? How does “just be yourself, it’ll work out” help you when “being yourself” means continuing the habits you were taught by your culture that don’t work? How can someone who barely knows how to send a text message coach you in “text game” with the opposite sex?  When society changes this drastically in the thirty years since they’ve been dating, how do parents advise you when the culture they operated in no longer exists?

The simple answer is they can’t. They can no better advise you on the dating process than you can advise an Arab man on finding a good Muslim wife.

But luckily there is hope. Though they are few, there are people who can help you. Look to those late Gen Xers and early Gen Ys who had to figure this out on their own. Guys, look to men who had to learn “the game” over an extended period of bachelorhood.  If you don’t have someone like that in your life, there is an unprecedented amount of online resources for you. For Christian guys, your approach will be a little different as your goal is marriage, not building a harem. However common sense will guide you through, and it’s sadly better than the advice you’ll get at church. Girls, you’re going to have to do a heart check. What lies from third wave feminism and/or legalism are you believing? Are you maximizing what you have to offer men, or are you putting in the minimum effort? Do you actually know what a quality guy is looking for in a woman? Look to a wise man and ask him. Find a girl who successfully attracted men early and was able to lock one down at the altar.

The most important part is to have some humility. If deep down you know you act like a beta male with women, own up to it. I freely admit to the embarrassing beta phase I went through in college. If you’re in your 20s and have little to no experience with the opposite sex, you’re at huge disadvantage. Recognize that and stop pretending you have all the answers. If your relationships keep blowing up, perhaps your doing this wrong…in short, it’s time to start questioning yourself and your mindset.

For more detailed discussion on the topic of problems in Christian dating, check our previous two discussions in our Social issues, Relationships, and Faith section.

https://thegenxy.wordpress.com/2016/01/04/problems-in-the-christian-dating-world-conservative-side/

https://thegenxy.wordpress.com/2015/12/22/problems-in-the-christian-dating-world-liberal-side/ 

The GOP Nomination: The Establishment Strikes Back

By Aaron

Up until now, I purposely hadn’t commented upon the GOP nomination process simply because it has been so wild.  However, now that the campaign is taking shape, it’s time I weighed in on what to expect in the coming months.  I’ll admit my bias right away.  I supported Rand Paul.  Ted Cruz was my second choice.  I view Trump as a total wild card, and every other politician on that stage, both Democrat and Republican, either belongs to our ruling oligarchy and does not have plans to benefit the average citizen, or isn’t qualified.  Now that we have that out of the way, onto my analysis.  Despite the media punditry surrounding the “issues”, this election is really about one thing: The “average Joe” rebelling against the “establishment”.  Or, if you’re an elite,  the peasants rebelling against their rightful masters.  It’s easy to divide the candidates into their respective camps. You have the anti-establishment candidates like Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, Rand Paul, etc.  Whilst you have the establishment candidates like Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, John Kasich, etc, and each one is vying for the support of their respective side.  At first glance, the rebellion should be encouraged.  Around 65% of the votes cast in Iowa went to anti-establishment candidates.  However, despite this development, the establishment is still winning.  Let me tell you why.

The Anti-Establishment Candidates

Of the “rebellion” candidates, there are really only two viable candidates left, Cruz and Trump. Unfortunately for the rebellion, these two will likely stymie each other.  It’s just math.  Conceivably, now that Cruz has won Iowa, he may be able to rally people in New Hampshire and South Carolina.  If he can place well in NH and SC, he could conceivably become the “anyone but Trump candidate” and build a coalition to grind out wins. At this time however, I do not believe this will happen. Cruz, not learning from the mistake of Jeb Bush, made the strategic error of attacking “The Donald”, which cost him standing in the polls.  He won Iowa, but in winning that battle, he may have lost the war.   If the establishment hadn’t taken the “my way or the highway” approach to this campaign, they would have admitted that the easiest way to stop Trump was by cutting a deal to support Cruz for the nomination.  However, the oligarchy seems to have a rule:  You cannot be a blue blood and then make votes in the senate that hurt them. Thus they seem to be willing to cut off their nose to spite their face as far as Ted Cruz is concerned.  Thus, things don’t look good for Cruz. He has to cut into Trump’s conservative support.  Meanwhile, he needs a RINO to surge and cut into both Trump’s moderate support and Rubio’s, thus ensuring a decent finish in New Hampshire.  This is a tall order.

Then there’s Trump. Now that Trump has failed to defeat Cruz in Iowa and knock him out of the campaign early, he is an underdog for the nomination, though his chances are better than that of Cruz. (This surprised me as I figured that a 50% increase in turnout, over the previous record, would mean victory in Iowa for Trump, and then a steam roll.) The Donald now has to destroy Cruz , and then Rubio, in order to win.  That will be tough.  Cruz has a dedicated following of evangelicals and constitutionalists, and, so long as he’s receiving delegates by placing 2^nd or 3^rd, he has no reason to quit the race until after Super Tuesday.  This gives Trump very little room to expand.  Thefirefight between him and Cruz seems to have turned off the squishy moderates and undecided votes.  That will cost him dearly.

The Empire Strikes Back

 

I really don’t care how many states the Donald is winning in, and the people who run the our political parties don’t care either.  Do you understand how the nomination process works?  To win the nomination, you have to get at least 1,237 delegates out of the 2,472 delegates that are up for grabs.  However, of those 2,472, only 2035 will be awarded via a straightforward election.  The rest are either “unbound”, meaning they vote for whomever they want, or are selected by other means. Of the 437 delegates not directly tied to election results, 126 of them are RNC party officials, or “Superdelegates”. (That’s about 5% of the total delegate count.) Care to take a guess who those Superdelegates won’t be supporting?  Furthermore, there are plenty of ways to pull shenanigans and get many of remaining 311 delegates to vote for the establishment’s pick. Now it is conceivable that, through grass roots activism, many of the “unbound” delegates could be won by the rebellion.  However, to my knowledge, most people don’t even realize that these unbound delegates even exist.  Ergo the large majority of these “Superdelegates” and “unbound delegates” will go the establishment.   That means, without their support, you have to get 60% of the delegates up for grabs in “straight forward” elections in order to be ensured victory on the first ballot of the convention.  After the first ballot of course, the delegates you have no longer have to vote for you.  Then it’s a free for all where the establishment has a 90% chance of pulling it out for “their guy”.

This is where Rubio comes in.  Rubio seems to be the pick of many elites, and that’s all that really matters.  He’s in major personal debt, and he has a giant question mark over his behavior as a young man.  Ergo he is a perfect pick for a plutocratic establishment who wishes to have a president they can buy, blackmail, and control.   While the establishment vote alone cannot win you the nomination, splitting the anti-establishment vote at the same time can.  I know he isn’t currently winning a single state, but that doesn’t matter.  If the “mega donor” class continues to funnel him money on a large scale, he will continue to get votes and thus he will get delegates.  So as long as enough votes get split up between him and the other candidates, he will siphon off enough delegates to prevent Trump or Cruz from getting the necessary 60% of the delegates. At which point we will have a split convention, and the results will be a foregone conclusion.

Now, this article was begun before the debates on Saturday.  At this point I was going to predict that the Jeb, Christie, and Kasich were going to come out swinging on Rubio in order to knock him off the establishment pedestal, but I didn’t get it finished in time.  However, that’s exactly what happened. They all can do math. They all want to be “the guy” for whom the establishment decides to rig a brokered convention.  Rubio took a real beating, but was it enough to blunt his media  hyped “surge”?  Today will tell us.  However, a Kasich or Bush 2^nd place finish in NH doesn’t necessarily mean Rubio is gone.  You could very well see four or five candidates still fighting it out until Super Tuesday and beyond.  That too works in the establishment’s favor so long as each candidate is siphoning enough delegates from Trump and Cruz.

The real questions that I’m pondering isn’t “will the elite rig the competition for their guy” but rather “how blatantly is the establishment willing to rig things to get their guy?”.  If it’s blatant manipulation, what does the rebellion do then? They’re already in such open revolt that they’re supporting men like Donald Trump for president.  If the establishment forces a brokered convention with Ted Cruz and Donald Trump holding a combined 60% of the vote, and magically Rubio or Jeb Bush comes out as the nominee, how many people will have an aneurism? How long is it until Trump announces his third party candidacy in that scenario?  Do you see the GOP collapse the way the Whigs did?  What happens in four years when the rebellion has had all of that time to grow and get angry?

So, if you are one of the 65% of primary voters who wants to finally stick it to the establishment at all costs, your best bet is for The Donald to destroy Ted Cruz quickly and hope that Jeb, Christie, and Kasich stick around for a long time, sucking up Rubio’s vote totals and denying him the 20% threshold he needs in many states in order to get any delegates at all.  That’s a possible scenario, but I really wouldn’t bet on it.  So while a good 65% of you don’t want it, you might as well get used to saying “President Rubio, Kasich, or Bush” now.  That way you won’t be disappointed when it happens, or, alternatively, you’ll be ecstatic when it doesn’t.

 

So there you have it.  The real state of the race.  This is why I stick to local and congressional elections.  It’s the slower, but much surer path to fundamental change in government.

Obvious Voter Fraud in Iowa

By Aaron

If you actually think that Hillary won in Iowa, I have a winged unicorn to sell you. Don’t believe in such “conspiracy theories”?  Then please explain the following “oddities”.

Winning six coin tosses in a row for all six unassigned delegates:
For those of you who don’t know, the democratic caucus system is about as insane as it gets.  If a precinct has a tie vote, they’ll literally flip a coin to give the odd delegate to one of the candidates. How you leave something as important as who is going to be your next presidential nominee to a coin toss boggles my mind, but whatever.  Here’s the thing…how do you win six coin tosses in a row? The chances of that are about 1.6%.  To give you an idea of how unlikely that is, no team in the history of the NFL has ever won six kick-off coin tosses in a row.  No candidate has ever won six of the delegate coin tosses in a row.  Yet, just when Hillary needs those coin tosses in order to beat Sanders, she magically wins all six!  What a miracle!….Or what well weighted coins.

The official results are missing from NINETY precincts in Iowa:
Ok.  So let’s just say for argument’s sake that Hillary is just a lucky gal and that 1.6% chance came through for her.  She oughta go to Vegas…right after someone explains how the democrats didn’t staff NINETY precincts and cannot verify what the actual results were to all said precincts.  That’s about 5% of the vote.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/02/02/sanders-campaign-says-it-was-informed-by-iowa-dem-party-that-results-from-90-precincts-are-missing/

Yeah. Ok.  That reminds me of when a political mentor of mine told me that, in her experience, you need to win by at least 5 points to ensure the election isn’t stolen. But, what did she know about fraud? She only campaigned in Illinois for decades…

Then there’s this little doozy from C-SPAN:

The explanation of what you just saw from a participant:

“So basically in the caucus they have to hand count everyone depending on what side they’re sitting on. Well when it came time to do the second count the numbers were off. The first vote breakdown was like this

FIRST VOTE: 215 Sanders 210 Clinton 26 O’Malley 8 Undecided 459 TOTAL

And this is the SECOND Vote: 232 Clinton 224 Sanders 456 Total

So somehow they lost 3 people but Clinton’s vote went up by 14.

So basically what had happened was Hillary’s team didn’t take the time to do a full recount instead she just added the new people who joined the second vote. Which clearly wasn’t an accurate count.”

Finally, we could talk all about Microsoft so nicely providing a free app to “help count the votes”. I’m sure it doesn’t matter than their employees have given hundreds of thousands of dollars to Clinton’s campaigns while the company itself has given lots of money to the Clinton foundation…oh wait.  Conflict of interest much?  Maybe for the sake of propriety that shouldn’t have been allowed for either the GOP or the Democrats? (Microsoft is Rubio’s number two donor)

Nothin’ to see here..