Ben’s 2016 GOP Presidential Candidates – Pros and Cons


I’ve been asked to give my thoughts on some of the “top” candidates in the Presidential race. These are simply my opinions from what I’ve researched and paid attention to the last few years; focusing on candidates who always “hinted” at running for POTUS. I’m positive I have missed things, so feel free to comment with your thoughts, or critiques on any candidate. In alphabetical order:


Jeb! Bush – Jeb! Bush is considered the ‘Establishment’ candidate. And that’s pretty bad. In fact, that’s actually worse than being labelled a ‘Moderate’ in the GOP field. Bush has been in the top three in the polls according to most polls. However, honestly, I can’t say that I’ve seen more than a handful of people who actually support Jeb! in the primary. Jeb! has raised over 103 million dollars in SUPER PAC money, which can, definitely influence opinions in polling outcomes. (See where I’m going with this?) I’ve literally asked people online whether or not they would actually vote for [another] Bush for President if he does get the Republican nomination, even if he goes against Hillary Clinton. With over 2,000 responses, 80% said no. 80%… said… no. Why not? Well, again, he’s part of that Washington ‘Establishment’ many of us are simply tired of, for one. Two, he is boring, dull; he doesn’t bring any energy or passion to his campaign. I’ve listen to every one of his MAJOR speeches, as I do most candidates, and he doesn’t seem like he even wants to do this. If you want my 100% opinion, I believe if Jeb!’s father, #41 was not living today, he probably wouldn’t be running. But that’s neither here nor there. On issues, I will say, he had a pretty conservative record while Governor of Florida. But since, his weak stance on immigration (amnesty), Common Core education, and various statements he’d made about how he would govern turn off A LOT of conservatives. And don’t even get me started on the fact that he’d be the THIRD Republican, ‘President Bush’ in a row, even though good ol’ Jeb! would like you to forget that part. If that doesn’t smell like dynasty, I don’t know what does. We’ll see how his campaign plays out, but polls aside, his popularity hasn’t gotten better since he’s announced his candidacy. And I’m fine with that.


Ben Carson – I like Ben Carson… a lot. I think it’s because he is very articulate. He’s a Washington outsider, and he is not afraid of political correctness – something he’s campaigned on for the last two years. (Sorry, Trump, you’re actually late to the anti-PC party.) Carson has come out as very strong on multiple issues, particularly social issues like PC, religious freedom, etc. He’s pro-life, and has a great message for why every baby deserves the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. From my research, Carson hasn’t exactly laid out an outline of his plan to lower the nation debt, according to his website, he states, “We must ratify a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution in order to restore fiscal responsibility to the federal government’s budget.” …so, yeah. Carson is against Common Core education and has been vocal on how the federal government should not dictate education. On this, he stated, “This must stop and Common Core must be overturned.” Carson is also vocal about religious liberties, and believes, “The First Amendment enshrines our freedom to practice whatever faith we choose from any government intrusion. Our Founding Fathers never meant for the First Amendment to be used to drive prayer out of the public square.” I’m not too sure where Carson stands on foreign policy at this time, as that doesn’t seem to be his major focus; other than some criticizing President Obama on ISIS and what not. Where Carson can turn off people, myself included, is when he opens his mouth about homosexuality. Now, I’ve given him a pass, after reading his book, ‘One Nation,’ that his comparing homosexuality to bestiality was taken out of context, and he actually explained the book. Then… fast forward months later, this happens: “A lot of people who go into prison go into prison straight — and when they come out, they’re gay. So, did something happen while they were in there? Ask yourself that question,” said Carson. This is when I *ultimate facepalm* myself! If he would stop talking about this issue, he’d probably attract more people, but for now, just stick to everything else. Oh… almost forgot: the 2nd Amendment. He’s pretty weak on it if you ask me. How? Carson has made statements basically saying certain guns should be legal only in specific places in the country. Wha.. huh? When asked whether people should be allowed to own “semi-automatic weapons,” the doctor replied: “It depends on where you live.” “I think if you live in the midst of a lot of people, and I’m afraid that that semi-automatic weapon is going to fall into the hands of a crazy person, I would rather you not have it,” Carson elaborated. However, if you live “out in the country somewhere by yourself” and want to own a semi-automatic weapon, he added, “I’ve no problem with that.” …I do, Carson. I do. -_-


Chris Christie – Christie is probably one of the most disliked people in the Republican field right now. Somewhere down there with Graham and Bush (contrary to Jeb!’s poll numbers) I won’t spend too much time on Christie because he will never be President, IMO. Aside from his “I’m a New Jersey tough guy” attitude, the mere fact that he’s an, anti-constitutional “Security before liberty,” kind of candidate and uses his fearmongering (and 9/11) to scare people into giving up their 4th Amendment rights, should be enough to turn anyone off – especially other millennials. To quote Rand Paul, Christie, “Go hug Obama!”


Ted Cruz – Ted Cruz is one of the most consistent and principled conservatives in the 2016 race; there’s absolutely no doubt about it. When the man speaks, he speaks with passion, conviction and can make you feel like you’re the only person in the room, and he’s talking directly to you. On issues of immigration (amnesty), abortion, foreign policy, fiscal responsibility, standing up for the constitution (although he’s not perfect on NSA spying – I will admit), traditional marriage, etc. he’s certainly also one of the [few] in the race who has a proven record of standing up for these and many other issues – with little to no record of flip-flops like many others. Cruz is branded as the ‘Tea Party’ candidate of the primary race. As a matter of fact, he and Donald Trump probably have similar minded supporters when it comes to being upset with Washington. (At least Cruz has the record to back it up, however.) Ted Cruz, recently, called out what he calls the “Washington Cartel.” This, as he describes it, is basically the Washington elite politicians (McConnell, Boehner, etc.) with their backroom deals and lies to conservative voters, and fellow Republican politicians. On the issue of same-sex marriage, Cruz has kind of let go of the “Marriage is between one man and one woman” throughout the country stance, and has actually loosened his view to “Let’s let the States decide.” (Something we’re seeing among most GOP candidates running now.) Cruz has been a big challenger of Obamacare, and also stood for hours on the Senate floor to stop this unconstitutional law. The media blamed Cruz for the government shutdown in 2014 and called it a “low point in recent Republican history.” They said it would give Democrats the push they needed in order to keep the Senate majority. Clearly, that wasn’t true. And after Obamacare passed, it all came to fruition that it was one huge lie: You couldn’t keep the plan you liked. You couldn’t keep the doctor you liked. Your premiums did go up. …and so on. Now, why I think Cruz cannot win in the general: His message does indeed resonate with many people in the Republican Party… at least, the more conservative and/or Tea Party wing(s). However, that’s the only base he really has. I truly do not think he has the ability to garner the votes needed from Moderates, Youth, Blacks, Hispanics, Women, Libertarians, etc. outside of the GOP. When I debate people and include ‘Independents’ in that list, some say, “Well, I’m a registered Independent and I would vote for him.” The difference is, these Independents are only [recent] Independents who only registered Independent because they were (are) upset with the current Republican Party. I’m talking about long-term, middle of the road Independents. I just don’t see it happening for Cruz. The reason why? Because Cruz, although again, very principled, sees any form of working with the other side of the aisle and/or compromising as capitulation. He has a record of “I’m going to hold my ground and I’m not going to budge!” Well, that’s good, if you’re say 80%-100% aligned with his ideology. But it would, will hurt, you to get support from those who aren’t that aligned with you. I think Cruz would be best where he is currently – in the Senate, for now; then, maybe in the Supreme Court? We’ll see.


Carly Fiorina – Carly is a bit of a spitfire if you ask me – and that’s a good thing, because she doesn’t do it in a bully type way where she would come across as arrogant and narcissistic. Instead, she explains her positions in detail and lays out a realistic plan on several issues, as well as calls out one Hillary Clinton – and who doesn’t love girl on girl fighting! Lol. Carly doesn’t have the best track record when it comes to her time Hewlett-Packard, but she’s defended her record on many occasions. She’s pro-life, pro-Israel, prides herself on having a strong foreign policy when it comes to relationships with foreign leaders, and she claims to be the [real] champion for women’s rights – counter Hillary Clinton. Carly isn’t afraid to ask tough questions, but even better, she’s not afraid to answer them either. Carly has business experience, started off as a Secretary, and became the first woman to lead a Fortune 50 business. When it comes to taxes, Carly has stated, “We have a tax code that’s about 75,000 pages. We need to get it down to three. My blueprint: Lower every rate, close every loophole.” Until the first GOP debate, unless you lived in California, not too many people knew who Carly Fiorina was. (“In 2010, Carly took on one of Washington’s most entrenched liberals, Senator Barbara Boxer, from the deep blue state of California. Just two years before, President Obama received 61% of the vote in California. Carly knew that she faced an uphill fight in the race for the U.S. Senate.”) She was a clear winner of the debate because she was clear, concise and handled herself very well. That, along with the GOP forum that took place the Monday before, she has certainly peaked, and the polls are showing it. Although I doubt she will make it to say, the top three/four, she has certainly proved that she is a strong person for a cabinet position. Possibly veep?


Mike Huckabee – Huckabee was probably the winner of the first GOP debate, IMO. And I don’t even really care for the guy. But he was strong, and debated rather well. Of course, he’s had this experience before as he ran for President in the past, so he’s somewhat polished in the realm. Realistically, Mike Huckabee is too much of a social conservative and incorporates too much of his religious beliefs into governing to ever be taken serious as a presidential candidate. He was the Governor of Arkansas. I don’t recall how good of a Governor he was, but regardless, the country is not Arkansas, with all due respect. Be a preacher or a President, you can’t be both.


John Kasich – Common Core and Medicaid expansion ….that’s it.


Rand Paul – I like Rand Paul. I mean, I like Rand Paul… a lot. I believe the GOP field has great potential, and a diverse group of candidates running. For me, however, Senator Rand Paul stands out the most when it comes to multiple issues: Social, Economic, Foreign Policy, Immigration, etc. Of course, I do have some instances where I differ with the Kentucky Senator, which I’ll also dive into. Rand Paul, and this is obviously my opinion, is doing what no other politician is doing, or have done in many years; he’s breaking the party line. By this, I mean he votes policy over party. Take for example, the prison reform, and drug reform work he has been doing with Democrat Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey. Paul has said, “If we’re the party that doesn’t want everyone to be on welfare forever, let’s be the party that lets you expunge your records so you can get a job again. It’s hard to get a job if you have a criminal record but many of these are youthful offense, that it wasn’t a violent crime committed. We can reintegrate these people back in.” When it comes to taxes, an important issue to me, Paul says, “Apply a 14.5% flat tax to personal income and to businesses. Cut deductions. Watch the economy roar.” The plan would: Replace today’s complicated personal income tax with a simple 14.5 percent flat tax. Replace today’s complicated corporate taxes with a new 14.5 percent value-added tax. Eliminate the payroll tax. Eliminate all estate and gift taxes. Eliminate all excises and tariffs. Eliminate (most) credits, deductions, and loopholes. Eliminate (most) double-taxation of income. Eliminate (much of) the IRS. Ummm… *drops the mic* Now, I’ve only attended two Rand Paul events since he’s announced, but I can tell, as I’ve been following his speaking events — before and after his presidential announcement, that when I look into the crowd and see his fans, I see a mixture of faces: black, white, asian, hispanic, younger, older, men, women, etc. I, as a gay person have supported him for the last year and a half; while keeping an open-mind on other potential candidates as well. I have plenty of other friends, who are gay, who would say Rand is their #1 pick as well. Moreover, Paul appeals to many factions of the GOP base, even if he is not their first pick: the libertarian wing, moderates, independents, some Tea Partiers (who still believe in what the Tea Party was [originally] intended for when it started: being ‘Taxed Enough Already’), youth voters, even and especially some Democrats who are on the fence with Hillary Clinton. Paul is a STRONG 2nd Amendment supporter, and is Pro-Life, as we saw in his effort to lead the fight against the federal government funding Planned Parenthood. He’s also strong on the 4th Amendment and simply getting the government out of our lives. If you’d like to see where Paul stands on specific issues, see my previous blog when I first announced my support for him: Where I differ with Paul is that he needs to be a better speaker. He needs to energize people. He needs to be bolder in his words. He needs to stand out and shout his message of LIBERTY from the roof tops! His conservative record (which has never been lower than 90%) speaks for itself, but in this world of soundbites, media spin and rhetoric, this is where Paul struggles. He also is in a bit of a dilemma when it comes to “branding” himself. I don’t believe he has his father’s mentality when it comes to war. Thank God. (I was not a huge fan of Ron Paul’s FP. – Sorry) Unfortunately, for Rand, some of his father’s “purist” libertarian followers consider Rand to be a “neocon” (I know right? Lol) But this just goes to show that Rand is his own person. Then you have the “war-hawkish” people in the GOP who think he is not “neocon” enough!!! YIKES!! The focus of Paul has been foreign policy. Because on the issue of economy, civil rights, liberty, etc., he soars! Paul needs to be more outspoken on his foreign policy, because clearly, his message is not resonating with everyone who is skeptical of it.


Rick Perry – As of 3-4 days ago, news broke of the Perry campaign struggling with finances, and they even stopped paying some of the campaign staff, according to reports. I’m going to admit, I’m not the biggest Perry fan, although I do believe he has done some great things for Texas, as I have tons of friends there. I’ve even said, if I didn’t live in conservative Orange County, CA, my partner and I would probably be in the Lone Star State. However, I just don’t see Rick Perry as a strong leader who would represent ALL Americans. I mean, come on, in 2012, the then Presidential candidate even put out an ad calling “gays who serve openly in the military bad.” Really? You had to go to that great extent? Lol. Now, anyone who knows me knows I’m a huge champion for religious freedom and I openly and actively work to defend peoples’ religious beliefs. And I’m not directly offended by an ad like that, but it does show that he’s not willing to at least see/hear an alternative side on an issue (that is generational, mind you) at all. It also turns off others who don’t care about issues like this. Have your beliefs, that’s fine, but stop making it a focal point. Now, that was then, this is now… who knows where he stands on things like that, but it does paint the GOP with a broad stroke, thanks to the liberal media. -_- Overall, I wish he would have made the first “main” GOP debate, with the other top GOP candidates. But I don’t think he did very bad in the debate he was in. I just don’t see Perry picking up much steam. But we’ll see.


Marco Rubio – When Marco Rubio announced his candidacy for President, I’ll admit, I was “wowed!” His message of his upbringing was similar to mine, and I’m sure many of yours. I also read his book, “An American Son” when it came out in 2012. His inspiring story resonated with me. Aside from that, he just feels like a “Jr. Establishment” to me. Lol. On foreign policy, he speaks boldly, and lays out his plan on ISIS, Iran, etc., but I just don’t feel like there is much of a difference between him and past Republican Presidents we have. I may be completely wrong, but is Rubio a fresh face, yes, but he just seems like the same ol’ same ol’. He stands with Israel and makes that clear. He is pro-life. Before the SCOTUS ruling on same-sex marriage, he said, if they did rule in favor of SSM, he would not be happy with it, and the next POTUS should ultimately come up with an Amendment to leave marriage to the states, but he realistically, “doesn’t see that happening.” On the debt in our country, Rubio says, “First, we need to reduce spending. This begins by reforming the two biggest drivers of our debt, which are a pair of vitally important programs: Social Security and Medicare. If left unreformed, these programs will be bankrupt by the time my generation retires, and they will bankrupt our nation in the process. We need to reform Social Security and Medicare to save them for future seniors, and we need to do so without affecting the benefits of current seniors or those nearing retirement. To reduce spending, we’ll also need a balanced-budget amendment to compel Washington to live within its means, as well as smaller-scale solutions such as the REFUND Act, a bill I am reintroducing today that will give states the ability to return unused federal funds for the specific purpose of paying down the debt. The second solution to our national debt is vibrant economic growth. A growing economy will create more jobs, more taxpayers, and more prosperity. It is the only way to get the tax revenue we need to begin chipping away at the $18.1 trillion we owe.” Rubio is up and down in the polls. And that’s probably because once he’s up, people remember his failed “Gang of 8” amnesty bill, which failed – and ultimately led him to be against amnesty again. (Mind you, on Rubio’s website, under “Issues,” he does not mention Immigration.)


Donald Trump – Has anyone even heard of this guy? …kidding. Trump Trump Trump… where to begin. OK… Two evenings ago I was at a Young Republicans event in Orange County. There were also people in their 50s and 60s, however. Towards the end of the event, we took a presidential straw poll. Rand Paul won with the most votes; Donald Trump was among the very bottom. Most of the people who voted for Trump were the older attendees. Once Senator Rand Paul was announced the winner, a Trump supporter asked, in a respectful manner, “I’d like to know why you Rand Paul supporters support him. (ah oh… shouldn’t have done that. LOL!) Well, we’re not exactly a room full of Kim Kardashian, Miley Cyrus fans, and with all due respect to other candidates’ supporters, Rand Paul supporters have been some of the most educated when it comes to researching issues, candidates, news stories (not just the headlines), policies, etc. (Don’t get me wrong, there are a few of you weirdo conspiracy theorists too. Haha) My buddy Richard was first to respond, and he did a great job pointing out the outreach Paul has done to broaden the party – something no other GOP candidate is doing. He also mentioned how Paul is [beating] Hillary in 5 key swing states that Obama won. Then, after Richard, I was handed the mic. I discussed basically everything I listed under my Rand Paul analysis, and then some. (Don’t ever give me a microphone. Lol) Turning it over to Donald Trump, I stated why I could not see myself supporting him in the primary race. I told her that Donald Trump has certainly tapped into an anger that many of us have with Washington, its elite, and Establishment. We’re tired of electing people who go to Washington only to be no better than Democrats. I get that. I understand that, I said. But there are far better candidates in the GOP field who are also tired and fed up, but actually have a record, a conservative record, of fighting against the elite. I told her about Trump saying, “He’s always believed the economy does better under Democrats.” That he basically donated to the Clinton Foundation as a way to bribe Hillary to going to his wedding. That he blamed the financial crisis in 2008 on Republicans. That he came out a few days ago (after the videos were released) stating he would still have the federal government fund “some of the good things” Planned Parenthood does. Sorry, but after the videos emerged, and now that we “Obamacare,” there is absolutely no need for the federal government to fund PP. Moreover, Trump seems to have people fooled that he is some “anti-Political Correctness” candidate. What’s worse is people think the ridiculous statements he makes, making fun of other people are considered to be just “fighting the anti-PC crowd.” No, sorry, there is a huge difference between being anti-PC and just being classless in some instances. And as I stated above, Ben Carson has been fighting the PC police much longer than Trump. But that’s Trump’s “get out of jail free” response, and his supporters, sadly, fall for it, and now even mimic it. I ended my response to the Trump supporter, once again, saying that I agree with what Trump says about the elite in Washington. But I told her, if you’re not persuaded by what I’ve said about Rand Paul’s record – who I believe is the strongest in the race, then at least look to say someone like Ted Cruz for the primary. I also included that Trump does not even have an “ISSUES” page on his website. Therefore, although the rhetoric is nice and touches one’s emotions, who knows where he really stands on most of the issues going on in our country, and what his plan is. I’ll tell you right now… for the majority of the issues, other than, “Trust me… I’ll get it done” talk… I’m not seeing much. (Upon looking at his site again, to place his website below, I just discovered that he just recently added an “Immigration Reform” in a newly added “Positions” page. …That’s it? Just one issue?) My message to Trump supporters is this: being anti-Trump is not being pro-Establishment or pro-status quo. You want a political outsider, fine; look to Carly Fiorina, look to Ben Carson for all I care. But a message of ANGER should not be the reason to nominate any Presidential candidate; a proven record along with realistic plans for our country, however, should.


Scott Walker – I really and truly liked Scott Walker before and after he announced. He was actually my #2 for a while. It wasn’t until he came out in support of the Patriot Act when it was being debated, his statements on not ruling out another Iraq war, and going from, his March of 2013 stance on same-sex marriage, where Walker started suggesting that opposition to gay marriage was “generational,” and that it was wiser for Republicans to focus on economic issues to now, after the SCOTUS ruling, suggesting an Amendment to put the marriage debate back on the table. Now, these issues haven’t ruled him out completely, because I do think Walker has been tested, vetted, has a strong anti-union stance, and survived a recall. Talk about getting all the skeletons out of the closet. Liberals went after Walker in that recall with everything they had and tried to dig up every piece of dirt they could… and failed, miserably. He’s also succeeded, and prides himself in defunding Planned Parenthood in Wisconsin, long before the recent videos emerged. His problem among women would be that he is not in favor of abortion with the exception of rape, incest or life of the mother. Um… YIKES. There’s not much of a “WOW” factor when it comes to Scott Walker, I’ve noticed. But that’s not necessarily a bad thing. He just strikes me as someone who could be your friendly, normal neighbor. I have a few conservative friends in Wisconsin, and they have said some pretty harsh things regarding Walker’s record as Governor of Wisconsin, which is a blue state. I suppose I’ll have to dig deeper. Walker too lacks an ISSUES page on his website. He’s been doing pretty good in the GOP polls against the other GOP candidates.

So here’s my overview, or “sum-up” of these candidates:

If you want a Constitutional candidate: Rand Paul
If you want a Tea Party candidate: Ted Cruz
If you want a political outsider candidate: Carly Fiorina
If you want an anti-political correctness candidate: Dr. Ben Carson
If you want a social conservative candidate:  Mike Huckabee
If you want an Establishment candidate: Jeb Bush
If you want a candidate who gives hugs (ask Obama): Chris Christie
If you want a real Texan candidate: Rick Perry
If you want an anti-union candidate: Scott Walker
If you want a Jr. Establishment candidate: Marco Rubio
If you want a common core & medicaid expansion candidate: John Kasich
& If you want a liberal Republican candidate: Donald J. Trump

Look, none of these candidates are perfect to me; even I may differ on some issues with my 2016 pick, Rand Paul. However, I do believe the Reagan philosophy of “The person who agrees with you 80% of the time is a friend and an ally, not a 20% traitor.” But when the person who agrees with you 50% or below is your best candidate… it may be time to start looking for a better candidate. Thanks for reading. Comments are always welcome. Godspeed!


Same-Sex Marriage And The Supreme Court Say, “I DO!”


First and foremost, let me just state, to anyone who supports traditional marriage, or leaving it up to the states to decide, please note, you are not a bigot, you are not homophobic, and you are not intolerant. I support a person’s right to their own belief, especially on an issue like this. And it’s unfortunate that too many in our society today do not feel the same way. Equality is a two-way street, and if someone disagrees with you, that is their right to do so. It is also what makes us one of the most diverse countries in the world. I believe that as long as no one is causing physical harm to others, one should never apologize for standing up for their beliefs, traditional or other. NEVER!

The Supreme Court of the United States today ruled in favor of same-sex marriage (SSM). Now, being gay, obviously some people will feel that we automatically are in favor of same-sex marriage or have some bias on the issue…that’s not true, although it can be difficult to properly express our opinion on this issue without “offending” one side. And to make it clear, I do not speak for everyone who is gay and registered Republican. My beliefs are my own. However, I have had many other gay conservatives agree with my stance on this and other LGB issues. Today’s ruling also told us that all Americans should receive equal benefits and rights under the law. As someone who also holds libertarian leaning views, I would like most of the government out of the marriage business as possible. With that being stated, I just wish the debate on marriage equality could have been done through the judicial process, not the legislative process. I do not agree that a Court can or should redefine marriage, because this, like yesterday’s Obamacare ruling, can take the power away from the American people, and leaves these important life issues to 9 black-robed men and women. If this can happen, what about our 2nd Amendment rights? Can that be stripped away as well, with the vote from a handful of people? Moreover, I also believe that this issue of same-sex marriage is the responsibility of the people, and should have remained with States and with the voters of these States. An important issue like same-sex marriage is a conversation that should be discussed within our own communities; in our homes, our churches, our city meetings, etc.

I’m sure we can all see that today’s ruling disappointed millions of Americans who believe in traditional marriage. Some of whom had their voices silenced on this issue. And with this disappointment also shows that the Supreme Court has now, and probably forever substituted its will for that of the people and States. I’ve read multiple politicians and/or people on social media website suggesting issuing a constitutional amendment to stop same-sex marriage. Although a good idea in the eyes of some, we’re a year and a half away from the 2016 election, and I truly don’t see that happening as we move forward. I have plenty of gay and straight friends who may disagree with me on that, but as Ronald Reagan once said:

“No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear.”

… What is done is done, and although it may be hurtful to read for some, more people favor same-sex marriage than do not, as we’ve seen in multiple polls across America. It truly has become a generational issue, as Scott Walker of Wisconsin once stated. I see it when I’m sitting in one of my college classes, and the question of SSM is raised.  Moreover, we had more States that had legalized same-sex marriage then did not, prior to this ruling. I do not see our country going back to States rights on this issue, but one never knows.

I think we now need to focus on the important issues of Church rights and Religious Freedom in America. Anyone who has been following me in the past knows, I do not, by any means, believe a church or business owner should be forced to conduct a same-sex marriage, or provide a service that goes against their religious beliefs. As I’ve said before, using the brute force of government to make a church or business do something that goes against their religious beliefs of marriage, should never be tolerated, and I will continue advocating for these beliefs. I also hope that these beliefs will be protecting by law, just as other protected classes are here in America.

In my closing, and on a more personal side note, to see one, Hillary Clinton, who was against same-sex marriage up until recent years (Yea right!), use same-sex issues as a means to pander for votes is truly sickening. This is a woman who [accepts] donations from bigots in foreign countries who kill gays  as well as accepts charities of up to $10 MILLION in donations, from African churches which called homosexuals ‘devils.’ It’s sad that many gay-Left refuse to believe these decisions the Clinton foundation made. I will also say this, the issue of same-sex marriage has been a wedge issue for a long time, Republicans have an opportunity to seize this moment and use it to say, “Hillary, you claim to be a champion for these issues. Well, what’s done is done on SSM, and you can’t hide behind this issue any long… What else exactly do you stand for?” She simply runs on social issues as she has absolutely no accomplishments to run on.

…Seize the moment, GOP!

Bruce Jenner vs. The Gay-Left Bigots

Wow! So, if you haven’t been hiding under a rock the last few hours, you’ll have heard about Bruce Jenner “coming out” …as a conservative Republican. (Oh, there was something about him being transgender too.)  And in these last few hours, social media has been on fire with this story. Again, more-so about him being a Republican. With this, comes the hypocrites I so dearly love to call out. Yes, I’m referring to those “Equality for all,” “Just be yourself,” “Don’t judge” liberals known as the ‘Gay-Left’ …a term I coined for them as a means to separate those of us, for the most part, with true tolerance and open-minded thinking. And if I do show some intolerance (I mean, it happens) I’m going to justify my reasoning, and not hide like most of these cowards. OK… I’m upset, clearly. Why? Because I’ve read some of the most vile things about Jenner being a Republican while being transgender. In a sense, I’m glad the gay-Left come out of the woodwork and show their true colors on issues like this. They are consistently proving to be their own worst enemy. This is a “community” that once embraced others, in or out of the gay “realm” to simply attacking anyone who holds different beliefs, political, religious, other otherwise, while defending their bigoted tactics and words with a rainbow flag. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Bigotry wrapped in a rainbow flag is still bigotry.



Megyn Kelly posted a story with snapshots of a few people tweeting their response (these aren’t so vile) to Jenner’s ‘out & proud’ Republicanism entitled: 

“Gross,” “Disgusting Way Of Life”: Bruce Jenner Blasted For Coming Out As Republican

If the ‘gay-Left’ continues this form of bigotry, and I am almost certain they will, without any gay community leaders calling them out on it, they’ll only continue to disgrace those who [truly] fought for equality and tolerance against the opposition, years ago. I’m ashamed of what too many of these so-called gay-Left activists stand for today. They use their sexual orientation as a weapon, a defense to justify their narrow-minded thinking. People may call me a sell-out, self-loathing, etc., which only fuels my fire to continue to call out their faux-equality stance, but if these lefties think they can continue this assault on free speech, freedom of belief, and/or traditional values, or just plain open rage and hatred to someone like Bruce, a person who they supported and embraced for having the courage to “come out” as a transgender person, but then turn their backs on him for “coming out” as a Republican, and get away with it, they’re sorely mistaken. Many of us (gay and straight) won’t tolerate [their] intolerance any longer. They don’t speak for me as a gay person, and I hope Bruce Jenner, and everyone else watching pays attention to the hatred they spew. As you could imagine, I’ve been asked for my thoughts on this issue by my online buddies, to which my typical response is usually the same: “Well, there’s a saying I like to say: ‘When it comes to discussions, I’d rather be gay in a room full of Republicans than a Republican in a room full of gays.'”


(Note: If you’ve read my other blogs, you’ll know I’ve made it clear that I acknowledge intolerance on both side of the political spectrum. So, yes, I’m aware of “haters” in my party as well. The difference between the intolerant Left and the intolerant Right is that there are also people on the Right who actively call out those on our side. Where are the gay Democratic “leaders” and activists when it comes to telling these bigots on the Left to knock it off? …anyone?)

‘Rand Old Party’ – Why I’m Throwing My Support To Senator Rand Paul



…Yikes… The media has certainly been on an anti-Rand Paul kick since he announced his candidacy to run for President of the United States. The interesting thing, however, is, some of these are coming from the Right-leaning media outlets, as much as the Left. Is this bad? Not necessarily.

Rand Paul, and this is obviously my opinion, is doing what no other politician is doing, or have done in many years; he’s breaking the party line. In other words, he’s voting policy, not party. Wait, what? But wouldn’t that make a politician a ‘RINO’ or ‘DINO’ …or whatever other lame words are used to describe someone who truly believes in the greater good of the country, rather than just party? Allow me to do my best and break down several key issues the Kentucky Senator is being attacked on, but first, before I get into the specifics, Rand Paul appeals to a broad range of people. “Well, who exactly?,” you might ask. I’ve only attended one Rand Paul event since he’s announced, but I can tell, as I’ve been following his speaking events — before and after his announcement, that when I look into the crowd and see his fans, I see a mixture of faces: black, white, asian, hispanic, younger, older, men, women, etc. I, as a gay person have supported him for the last year and a half; while keeping an open-mind on other potential candidates as well. I have plenty of other friends, who are gay, who would say Rand is their #1 pick as well. Moreover, Paul appeals to many factions of the GOP base, even if he is not their first pick: the libertarian wing, moderates, independents, some Tea Partiers (who still believe in what the Tea Party was [originally] intended for when it started: being ‘Taxed Enough Already’), youth voters, even and especially some Democrats who are on the fence with Hillary Clinton. Bill Maher… *sigh* here it comes, “I think it’s only good for America when I’m not sure who I’m going to vote for next time,” the liberal talk show host told Paul after a conversation where the two found common ground on the war on drugs and prison sentencing reform. I admire other candidates like Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Ben Carson, but realistically, can ANYONE name more than say, two or three factions of people who they appeal to? (Comment box is below… I’ll wait.) But allow me to save you some time… they don’t. …Well, maybe Scott Walker. (Who is my #2) Rand Paul is also polling (for now) closest to Hillary Clinton. Is it very early? Of course, but he’s doing better than any other GOP candidate because he’s actually reaching out to voters who don’t typically vote Republican…


…see, told you. He’s going to liberal colleges to make the case for the conservative and libertarian ideology. He’s going to black and Hispanic communities to ask what Republicans can do to help these communities’ lives better. (Speaking of black communities) A quick tidbit, as many conservatives are up in arms with Paul meeting with one Al Sharpton. Paul is accused of being a racist, because of the media twisting his words on the ‘Civl Rights Act.’ Now, don’t people realize that Paul can use this meeting with Sharpton as a means to [easily] debunk that vicious rumor by saying, “I’m a racist? Why then, would the leader of the black community take any moment out to sit and talk to a “racist” like me?” Strategy, it’s all a strategy, and as the saying goes: “Did I not destroy my enemies when I made them my friends?” Lastly, Sen. Rand Paul was a doctor before he was a politician and he spends part of his spring recess in the operating room, keeping in practice for what he says is the day he returns to medicine. As I once read from ABC, Since Senate ethics rules prohibit Paul from practicing medicine for profit while he’s in Congress, Paul has performed several pro-bono surgeries over the past few years. The senator told Politico that performing the surgeries was a nice break from his work on Capitol Hill. “Nobody is arguing about anything today. We just decided what was wrong and we all came to the same conclusion pretty quickly and we worked together. It’s kind of unfortunate [that in] politics we don’t get a little more of that,” he said. Now, with all of that out of the way, I’ll get back to breaking down some significant issues being discussed. Immigration is always a great starting point, so I’ll start there…

Immigration: On the eve on Rand Paul’s announcement, he joined Sean Hannity, who asked, “Immigration is a huge issue. You said that it’s impossible to get comprehensive immigration reform. So your position now is?” Rand’s response: “My position always has been we should do little bits of what are doable and what, really, people believe in. Right now, we have 11 million people in the country who are said to be here illegally. Well, if you do nothing, you’ll get 11 million more. So I think having no immigration reform is a non-starter. You need immigration reform. But the first problem is, you have lawlessness on the border, and there’s also a national security risk to people who just walk into our country. So the first thing you have to do is secure your border. I think there’s a vast consensus on that. And if we had a bill to secure the border, it would pass. The first thing you have to do is secure the border. You know one thing that protects us from illegal immigration? Legal immigration.” …In June of 2014, Paul also stated, in a Breitbart exclusive, “REAL border security is necessary before any reform. I will [not] let journalists characterize my position as “amnesty.” That is simply untrue.” …now, many people on the right will still see Paul’s position as simply, “HE’S FOR AMNESTY!” And let me question them: What, really, has… ANY Republican really done in recent years to actually follow through on deportation of illegal immigrants or to secure the border? Actually, Jeff Sessions is really the only one who comes to mind. The rest of the “secure the border” Repubs have only spouted the typical rhetoric. Which even I’m guilty of falling for.

Same-Sex Marriage: Rand Paul is a traditionalist, who supports marriage between a man and a woman. However, he also doesn’t believe in government dictating who can or cannot get married. So again, Paul favors traditional marriage, but has said States should determine their own marriage laws. Now, interestingly enough, this is a stance that is [much] more open and accepting to the LGBT community than Barack Obama had when he first ran for President in 2008. If you recall from my other blog, where he publicly stated: “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix…” – April 17, 2008 …and didn’t Democrats, gay and straight, still support him even while running on that “anti-gay” stance? Hm. Actually, if we look at the facts, most conservatives running today believe in leaving the issue of SSM to the States, not the government. “I don’t want my guns registered in Washington or my marriage. Founding Fathers all got married by going down to the local courthouse. It is a local issue and always has been. …The bottom line is, I’m old fashioned, I’m a traditionalist,” Paul said. “I believe in old-fashioned traditional marriage. But, I don’t really think the government needs to be too involved with this, and I think that the Republican Party can have people on both sides of the issue.”

Voter I.D.: You may or may not have seen the link with the headline, “Rand Paul: Republicans Need to Soften Stance on Voter ID because it’s “Offending People” …I know I have, because most people who have shared it with me, can’t get passed that headline. Paul’s position when asked about it is as followed, “I know about voter fraud and that there have to be rules and states have the ability to do it,” Paul said. “But I’ve also said Republicans should be emphasizing the good things we’re trying to do to try to help minorities vote instead of the things many minorities feel is directed at them, rightly or wrongly. … So I do object to overemphasizing something that is turning people off.” …and I agree. Republicans go crazy over voter I.D., (I’m for it, by the way.) But obviously, people aren’t making a clear case on the issue because, we don’t have voter I.D. laws in every state. I hope we do make it so.

Department of Education: I stand with the Kentucky Senator when he would support shutting down the Department of Education. Rand has stated, “I would pay some teachers more but I’ll would pay some less and I would fire some. But you need to allow that kind of structure to occur where the one who has their with their feet on the desk reading the newspaper and doesn’t do squat for the kids needs to be out the door. Education historically was a state and local subject and I think that what we’ve seen is since we’ve spent about a hundred billion dollars in the Department of Education each year and that’s been going on since 1980. I’m not so sure we’re better off than we were before. You see, the one thing. David Axelrod then asked, “So you would vote for a budget that would eliminate most of that,” to which Rand replied, “Well what I would do is I would have its spent on the state and local level. I wouldn’t take it up there at all, I’d leave it at leave it at home. So you’d spend the money. You might still spend the money in your state government, but education even now, 90, 95-percent of your education dollars are state and local. That $100 billion gets rolled around in a big bureaucracy. They sent rules down that don’t help education, they hinder innovation. I would cut them out of the loop. I don’t think you’d notice if the whole department was gone tomorrow.”

Foreign Policy: Rand is called an “Isolationist” because he doesn’t believe we need to police the world. People like syndicated columnist, Charles Krauthammer has said Rand’s foreign policy is similar to that of Barack Obama. Whereas, Michael Reagan, the son of the great Ronald Reagan has stated that the Kentucky Senator’s FP is actually closer to his father’s Foreign Policy:

Screen Shot 2015-04-14 at 6.44.06 PMand Paul agrees… now, the foreign policy debate can go on for days and days, but because time is of the essence right now, all I’ll say is, Paul is clearly not a neo-con/warhawk, and cherishes the lives of the men and women who serve to protect our country. But he also looks at war constitutionally…


…Look, I’m not going to sit here and say Paul is the savior of the country, the greatest man to hold political office today, because quite frankly, they all pretty much have plenty of negatives. However, Rand is not afraid to think outside of the GOP box. Nor is he held to one political ideology. Paul considers himself to be a “Constitutional-Conservative, Libertarian-Republican. I can relate. And as Ronald Reagan once said:  “If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals — if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.”

I left the Democratic party in 2010, and I have to say, the party, since John Boehner was sworn in as Speaker of the House (that same year), I, and many others, have not been so proud of this GOP. Paul makes me proud to be a Republican, because he incorporates different points of views in the bills and policies he presents in Congress. He’s not just playing partisan politics which is all we have in Washington today. He’s relatable, principled, and some may say he’s “not your grandfather’s Republican,” …but, maybe he is, because the the idea of true limited government, independence, and fiscal responsibility is actually what the GOP should be, right? Paul just wants more of these principles with an expanded following. I’m supporting this, ‘Rand Old Party,’ and hope that you will too! (…more issues to be added soon.)


Mozilla CEO’s So-Called “Anti-Gay” Stance…? PLEASE!

My blood begins to boil whenever I read these ridiculous stories about something bad happening to a heterosexual man or woman, Christian or not who stand for traditional marriage. The gay-Left and their straight allies make every effort to boycott companies or have these people, who have every right to support what they want, given harsh punishment for standing by their believes. Equality to the Left, whether they’re gay or straight means you have to play by their rules.

If you haven’t heard, Brendan Eich’s reign as CEO of Mozilla, developer of the popular Firefox web browser, ended Thursday. He was done in by the news that he had donated $1,000 in 2008 to support Proposition 8, the traditional marriage measure on the California ballot that year. Mind you, as a California resident, and former Democrat who protested after Proposition 8 passed, candidate Barack Obama also ran on this “anti-gay” proposition as well. …Left-wingers reaction… *crickets* …I’ve since learned the hypocrisy of the Left, which helped in my decision to leave the party in 2009.

Fast forward to 2014, the Mozilla chief learns, if you don’t support gay marriage, you don’t deserve a job.

The gay gestapo has given me even more reason to call out [their] BIGOTRY and HATRED toward anyone who disagrees with their definition of marriage, or disagrees with homosexuality in general. It’s no wonder some heterosexuals dislike gay people; one cannot  disagree on an issue without being labelled “homophobic.” Not everyone believes in SSM or homosexuality, but that’s their right to say so. Dear gay-Left and their allies, here’s a newsflash: As a gay Conservative, I’m here to tell you, you don’t get a pass on being a bigot simply because you’re gay.



Why More Gay Conservatives Should Support Traditionalists Like Ben Carson

In a comment made to me yesterday, on a Facebook political thread, in response to my going after the ‘gay-Left,’ and my quoting (and praising) Dr. Ben Carson’s firm and admirable stance on traditional marriage, someone replied with, “It’s not about Left or Right, it’s about human rights.” …Be that as it may, the definition of “Marriage” has indeed always been between a man and a woman. Believe it or not, I know some gay people who do not support redefining the word, but still advocate for the [legal] aspects for all men and women, no matter their sexual orientation — as Dr. Carson clearly included in his speech at this years Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) event.


As soon as I finished watching the clip of Ben Carson on youtube, I immediately googled Left-wing pages that would have certainly put a spin into Caron’s speech, making him out to be “anti-gay.” Sure enough, they didn’t disappoint. From, Slate.Com, The Huffington Post, to, of course, gay-based pages, they brought up a speech in 2013 Carson gave, where he stated,

“It’s a well-established, fundamental pillar of society, and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality — it doesn’t matter what they are — they don’t get to change the definition,” he said in a Fox News appearance.

Even then, the Left took that statement, and focused on the word “Bestiality.” Spinning it into words like, “Carson believes homosexuality is the same as bestiality.” “Carson attacks gay people.” And so on…!

Carson also defended these accusations in the 2014 CPAC speech, in that that was not what he meant, but the Left took his words and labelled him a “homophobe.” Even when visiting these pages who criticized Carson’s CPAC statement that, “…Gay people don’t get extra rights.” They, of course, didn’t put nearly enough emphasis on his words before that sentence, which was, “Of course gay people should have the same rights of everyone else…” The Left took these words and labelled him, once again, as “anti-gay” who thinks people want extra rights. Well, sorry to break it to the gay “community” but, he’s right. From disgusting, perverts like the group NAMBLA, the gay organization that believes they are justified in have sexual relations with underage boys, to a recent story that came to light in which a hair dresser refused service to Governor Susana Martinez (which he is justified in doing so by the way, but had the situation been reversed and the roles were opposite, lgbt jokes like the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and other Gay groups would have had a fit.) simply because she believes in traditional marriage, the gay-Left (and some gay Liberal Republicans I might add.) have made it a point to attack others who disagree with them or believe in something that has been around long before I, or they were around. It’s almost like these gay-Left advocates, and their heterosexual allies LOOK for reasons to be offended.

More gay Conservatives should support people like Ben Carson on his courage to stand up and staying true to his convictions. You know, those who refuse to change their longstanding beliefs  simply because the Political Correct police say they have to. You may not agree with his stance, but you should still respect it.

I know life-long [heterosexual] Conservative Republicans who have changed their stance on marriage; either because they realize the shift that is happening in our country — where younger generations are now supporting and embracing same-sex marriage, or they changed because they learned, usually by talking to gay Conservatives, that we’re not all bullies like the Dan Savages of the gay-Left.

I really can’t blame some straight people for hating gay people. The way the gay-Left requires so much attention, looking… needing acceptance from others, not to mention protesting something every time they don’t get their way makes me sick. Sadly, I used to be so naive. Now, however, on the flip side, I can say the same about the Religious Right and Left. I can see why some gay people hate the “extremists” in both parties. The people who think you “Pray the gay away.” (Sorry Michelle Bachmann, you and your husband are not scoring any points with many youth I have talked to, gay and straight due to that silly notion.) It’s a two way street, and both sides have their share of people who force their way of life on others.

In closing, even as someone who is uncertain on whether there should be same-sex “marriage”, or just calling it something else. I enjoy sitting with my fellow GOP members, whether gay or straight, and saying, “OK! You’re for traditional marriage, good for you. Now where are you on foreign policy, fiscal responsibility, abortion…” You know, the [other] issues that actually affect every American, not just one group of people.

I know that same-sex marriage is inevitable. Yes, it is. But that doesn’t mean people are “bigots” for fighting the traditional side. Nor does it mean that they hate gay people.

So, to the gay-Left and their straight allies, please, stop being victims in this uproar for extra rights. You have your gay pride parades, your Disney “gay days”, your gay magazines in the gay bars… you even have a gay-themed television channel (LOGO). There are no straight pride events. There are no “straight days” at Disneyland. And there is no straight-themed television channel. …Well, other than the NASCAR channel, but you know what I mean.

Gay Republican Activist, Jimmy LaSalvia, Formally of ‘GOProud’ Leaves Republican Party


“…anti-gay and other forms of bigotry in the party.”

Those are a few choice words from former Log Cabin Republicans member, former GOProud member, and now, former Republican member, Jimmy LaSalvia stated in an article posted today. As a gay Conservative, it’s almost amazing to read such nonsense. Jimmy and I have been online buddies for quite some time now. I have always respected his posts and ideology. When he and fellow, former LCR, GOProud member Chris Barron decided to break away from Log Cabin Republicans and establish GOProud, they made a bold move, not to mention a statement that the Log Cabin organization was “too liberal.”

GOProud had great backing by political activists like Andrew Breitbart, Ann Coulter and others. They claimed GOProud was a “real” gay Conservative organization.

I, and others like myself, who are not single-issue voters, and who do not affiliate ourselves in either gay organization, be it LCR or GOProud, choose not to because we believe both organizations focus more on what they claim separates us from the “gay-Left”: [solely] same-sex issues. Most have agreed with LaSalvia, in that LCR is too liberal, yet, most also agree with myself and others that GOProud’s image and brand tarnished after an incident in recent years that occurred at CPAC, caused by GOProud (yet Jimmy likes to say they were banned, “because we were gay.”). Things like their ridiculous “Homocon” club which was held in Tampa Florida, consisting of both men and women “go-go” dancers, leaves REAL gay Conservatives embarrassed that this organization is supposed to be our our “public” voice. I think not. I stopped supporting them after this, as they cater to the gay stereotype REAL Conservatives get away from. They’ve embarrassed us enough.


Now, is the Republican party the most “open” to same-sex issues, no. In fact, most of the people I know, both gay and straight feel too many people within the GOP focus on social issues, rather than economic issues. This is disheartening. The Republican party needs to stop making same-sex issues a talking point, because, as I have told political men and women running for office who I have sat and talked to, “Same-sex marriage is inevitable. I understand you’re for traditional marriage, and I respect that, but I don’t know what else to tell you.” I, and others like myself live life focusing on, concentrating on and voting on the economical ideology to which concerns ALL Americans, not one issue which caters to only some. However, both parties have proven to have their fair share of “anti-gay” followers. Some just hide it better than others.

Some, on the Left have claimed I’m “selling my soul for money.” …Selling my soul? Like when I was a Democrat in ’08, and voted for Obama, even though he was against same-sex marriage? Hm. I didn’t see him painted as “anti-gay.” Quite the double-standard. Is that the selling my soul they’re referring to? I left the Democratic party because I am pro-life, pro-gun (anti-gun control), for fiscal responsibility, for strict immigration reform, economic liberty, and I believe in personal responsibility. Being gay doesn’t determine my party affiliation, especially when some of the most liberal states have voted [against] same-sex rights in recent years. Both parties have their goods and bads. It’s too bad too many of you can’t see that.

I will continue to be a member of the GOP because, as you’ll read in my quote below, to which I commented on in Jimmy’s Facebook post, when he broke the news of his GOP departure, I have more respect for those in the GOP who are not blinded by social issues.

“So, do you think the heterosexual politicians and activists in the GOP who are now, or have acknowledged and supported GOP members who are gay should also leave the party? From Orange County’s Dana Rohrabacher, who was once not so supportive, but now attends Log Cabin events, to Senator Scott Brown, Darrell Issa, Mark Kirk, Rob Portman, the late Andrew Breitbart (as you well know), even Dick Cheney coming out in support of or attending “gay-Right” functions. You’re basically saying, thanks but never mind. Moreover, I thought being a gay-Republican meant we were not single issue voters. Yet, it seems both GOProud and LCR focus solely on that issue. Doesn’t make sense. I don’t quite understand your decision to leave the GOP, but I respect it. Also, with all due respect, you quit the LCR, you quit GOProud, and you are now quitting the GOP…? Again, I support your decision, but to give praise for it? Can’t do that.”

Jimmy also stated in March of 2013:

“I’m embarrassed to call myself a Republican right now.”

To put it rather bluntly, you didn’t like Log Cabin Republicans, so you quit. You got tired of GOProud, so you quit. And now you’re not getting your way today or tomorrow with the GOP, so… you quit. With all due respect, perhaps those organizations are not the problem. Perhaps you should try the Left-leaning gay organization Human Rights Campaign, because if you think they will welcome your “Conservative” ideology, which you claim to have a lot of, with open arms, you’ve got another thing coming. Take your fame-seeking personality elsewhere, because you’re clearly looking for attention at all and any cost, and leave something when you’re not the center of attention. I think I speak for many in the GOP, whether gay or straight, when I say, Good riddance.

Twitter: @ChapmanGOP    Instagram: @ChapmanGOP