#TrumpAdmin: So, #JamesComey Is Corrupt As Hell!

Okay, let’s break down this CNN story for you:

1) The very real possibility existed that the Obama Justice Department couldn’t credibly investigate the corrupt as hell Presidential candidate Clinton.

2) An intelligence report generated by the fevered minds in Russia, obtain by the FBI:

…purported to show that then-Attorney General Lynch had been compromised in the Clinton investigation. The intelligence (report) described emails between then-Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and a political operative suggesting that Lynch would make the FBI investigation of Clinton go away.

3) The FBI then finds said report. FBI Director James Comey reads report, concludes it is fake, then (in an effort to debunk the report) fulfills the prophecy written in the intelligence report and lets Hillary Clinton off the hook.

4) Then James Comey refuses to tell Congress that said report is fake.

5) No mention of Trump collusion, whatsoever. No mention that the WikiLeaks*/DNCLeaks emails are fake. No mention of Russians “hacking” voting booths.

*rubs eyes*

Look, of COURSE Russia was, and still is, trying to spread false information. That is what intelligence and counter-intelligence is all about. I’d be shock if they didn’t. However, this report wasn’t even released publicly:

Sources close to Comey tell CNN he felt that it didn’t matter if the information was accurate, because his big fear was that if the Russians released the information publicly, there would be no way for law enforcement and intelligence officials to discredit it without burning intelligence sources and methods.

So guess what, no one based their vote on this report! It never saw the light of day!! ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?!!!

You know what I think happened? I think Russia suspected someone was leaking info to the Americans. So they generate a fake, but believable, report and gave it to a select person or persons. Then likely forgot about it, since nothing came about over it.

I honestly think we give the Russians way too much credit. I am not defending the Russians and I could be wrong, but I’m just offering a more likely scenario. If the Russians wanted to use it against our election, they would have then just handed it to RT and be done with it. I don’t think they ever wanted this report to get out, since then they would have to explain how they have more DNC emails than WikiLeaks.

Which brings us back to FBI Director James Comey. So after reading this Russian intelligence report, instead of following the law and proving it wrong, Director Comey chooses instead let Hillary Clinton off the hook and proves it right.

Well, see ya’ later!


#TrumpAdmin: Minor Grumbling Post

Once upon a time, I was a Moderate Atheist Republican. When Obama was elected, I shifted to a Pelaoconservative Christian Republican philosophy.

Now, I did not and do not align with each group perfectly. Take my current political philosophy. According to Michael Foley:

“[P]aleoconservatives press for restrictions on immigration, a rollback of multicultural programmes, the decentralization of the federal policy, the restoration of controls upon free trade, a greater emphasis upon economic nationalism and isolationism in the conduct of American foreign policy, and a generally revanchist outlook upon a social order in need of recovering old lines of distinction and in particular the assignment of roles in accordance with traditional categories of gender, ethnicity, and race.” -(Unfortunately No Link) Michael Foley (2007). American Credo: The Place of Ideas in US Politics. New York, USA: Oxford University Press Inc. p. 318

The only thing I disagree with hardline pelaoconservatism is the isolationism nonsense. I direct your attention to three great articles (all at the American Greatness) that deal with this issue. We can be non-interventionist and anti-war, but we cannot hide from the world:

Please read these at your leisure. Highly recommended.

I do have some quibbles, but they are all very minor.

First up is entitlement reform. I think we need it, President Trump does not:

Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney says President Trump removed elements of entitlement reform from a proposed budget. …Mulvaney said he presented the president with a list of budget options which included some changes to Social Security. “And he looked at one and said, ‘What is that?'” Mulvaney said. He continued, “And I said, ‘Well, that’s a change to part of Social Security.’ He said, ‘No. No.’ He said, ‘I told people I wouldn’t change that when I ran. And I’m not going to change that. Take that off the list.'”

But, like the guy said, he campaign on those issues and I voted for him knowing full well what that meant. At least President Trump went over his own budget before signing off on it.

But as the good Lord gives, he takes. President Trump came out in support of Ex-Im Bank:

Mr. Trump also made a full reversal from the campaign by stating his support for the U.S. Export-Import Bank. The president said he planned to fill two vacancies on the bank’s board, which has been effectively paralyzed with three open seats on its five-member board…

“Instinctively, you would say, ‘Isn’t that a ridiculous thing,'” Mr. Trump said of the Ex-Im Bank. “But actually, it’s a very good thing. And it actually makes money, it could make a lot of money.”

I’m not going to go fully into why the Ex-Im Bank is a bad, crony-capitalism boondoggle. Many on both the left and right want to see this monster brought down.

As much as I want to be mad at President Trump over these things*, I cannot. I knew I disagreed with Trump on some things that he was going to keep his promise on. I also knew that Trump would do an about face on some things that he promised to do.

You have to roll with reality. I’m not saying sell-out your values or compromise for the shake of compromise. I will still fight for entitlement reform and the end of the Ex-Im Bank in the now and future. If President Trump can accomplish 75%-80% of what he wants to do and I agree with, then I’m happy.

Justice Neil Gorsuch bought a lot of brownie points for me. President Trump is still strong on the illegal immigration front and reforming the government (like the EPA!). I do roll my eyes at him and grumble at Trump sometimes, but I see no reason to be MAD at this moment.

Well, see ya’ later!


#TrumpAdmin: Why #PreetBharara Needs To Be Fired (A @JazzShaw Response)

I was reading Jazz Shaw’s excellent piece on why US Attorney Preet Bharara shouldn’t be fired along with 45 others President Trump and AG Jeff Sessions want to resign. Jazz gives several reasons:

  1. Preet Bharara took down (Democrat) Sheldon Silver and (Republican) Dean Skelos (Nice!).
  2. Preet Bharara is investigating the Clinton Foundation (Great!).
  3. Preet Bharara is investigating both NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo (Very Awesome!).

Then I had an epiphany and realized those are exactly the reasons US Attorney Preet Bharara MUST be fired. There might be a good number of reasons to keep Bharara, but if Sessions had kept him, then Democrats would accuse the Trump Admin of keeping a Democrat head-hunter.

The Trump Administration cannot play favorites here. They would either have to keep the 46 politically appointed US Attorneys or get rid of them all. The (GW) Bush Administration did a selective firing once and look at how that turned out (despite it being totally legit). It saddens me, but part of “Drain The Swamp” is about not doing politics as usual.

Again, I personally don’t have anything against Preet Bharara. He seems totally legit and honest broker. It honestly makes me sad to write this out. I hope he lands on his feet and thrives. However, as you well know, no one is indispensable. I am sure there are others who can carry on Preet Bharara’s good work.

Well, see ya’ later!

Written by BigGator5 in: Politics | Tags: , , ,

#Trump2016: The @realDonaldTrump Holds Strong

There’s a theory out there that goes something like this: The more candidates drop out, the more support will go to someone other than Donald Trump.

Well, people have been dropping like flies and we are getting our first look at if this theory holds up. It really doesn’t:

Donald Trump – 42%
Ted Cruz – 20%
Marco Rubio – 15%

It does show trends and, while Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio have both benefited, it would seem that Donald Trump’s lead has not changed if only slightly. Trump still sits at a comfortable 22 points ahead of Cruz.

It now doesn’t matter if Donald Trump went batshit crazy last night, he can afford to lose a few points on the margins. Our embrace of Alex Jones and Rand Paul has left a libertarian foreign policy gap within the GOP, and it seems that Trump is more than willing to slide right into that role. I don’t like it any more than you do, but you know as well as I do a million fucking screaming (Ron/Rand) Paul Fans are going to start singing the love of Donald Trump and they are all Republicans now. It is now so crystal clear to me that we have indeed created Trump. And besides, high ideals on foreign policy crumble in the wake of reality.

I will however make you guys this promise: If Donald Trump loses South Carolina over this, then I swear to you I will immediately change my endorsement to whoever wins. You have my word.

Well, see ya’ later!

Written by BigGator5 in: Politics | Tags: , ,

#Trump2016: New @realDonaldTump #JamielShaw Ad Is Brutal

There is time to unpack the debate last night and I will get to it, but I want to get into this ad that was just came out.

Brutal. Absolutely brutal. If you have not heard the painful story of Jamiel Shaw Jr.’s murder, it is simple enough:

The younger (Jamiel) Shaw was gunned down in 2008 in Arlington Heights by gang member Pedro Espinoza, who mistook the teen for a rival gang member because of the victim’s red Spider-Man backpack.

Espinoza jumped out of a vehicle and shot Shaw in the stomach before firing an execution-style shot to his head. In 2012, Espinoza – who was in the country illegally – received a death sentence for Shaw’s murder.

Jamiel Shaw Sr. is a strong advocate for Donald Trump. Here is Jamiel Shaw Sr., after being introduce by Trump, talking about his son’s death:

Now is Donald Trump has the right idea about immigration? Jamiel Shaw Sr. seems to think so. That is why Shaw Sr. has endorsed him.

The NY Times, notes this ad is similar to the infamous “Willie Horton” and how this will stand out:

The ad conveys a sense of menace without attacking any of the other Republicans in the race, and highlights a core argument of Mr. Trump’s campaign. It is in some ways evocative of the well-known “Willie Horton” ad that ran against the 1988 Democratic presidential nominee, Gov. Michael Dukakis of Masschusetts (sic). That ad, which featured a black man who killed a white person after being released from prison under a Dukakis administration program, was overtly racial; the Trump ad does not mention the nationality or background of the man convicted in the 2008 killing.

Regardless of how people view the politics of the immigration debate, the spot is certain to stand out amid a clutter of advertising on the South Carolina airwaves.

I agree. It’s super effective ad indeed. Couple with police officers endorsement of Donald Trump, you can’t help wonder that Trump will be the law enforcement guy. In a world descending into chaos, someone offering order is refreshing.

One more thing about the ad: Since the ad doesn’t attack other GOP candidates, Donald Trump can use the ad in the general election. Just saying.

Well, see ya’ later!


#Trump2016: Why @realDonaldTrump’s 2nd Place #Iowa Finish Is No Joke

People celebrated last night. Sen. Ted Cruz won Iowa! Yay!

Except one thing. He did not slay Donald Trump, the beast. A couple of tough critics of Trump are throwing cold water on a Ted Cruz victory right now. Aaron Gardner starts us off this morning:

Yes, Donald Trump had his friends in radio and his “adversaries” in the MSM priming the pump for the Donald the entire time, but still, that alone wouldn’t be enough to capture nearly 25% of the caucus. Trump was able to do what most thought impossible…

If he can do this in a caucus, which requires the voter to go out and stay out for a rather long time just to cast a series of votes, he can certainly do it in a primary. When you get right down to it, Donald Trump got nearly 40,000 people to show up on a cold February night when a blizzard is on the horizon. That’s no joke. …

After all, we know this was just the opening round and Trump isn’t done yet.

Gardner also notes that it is NOT too late for Donald Trump to just open his wallet and out-spend everyone. Now money isn’t everything, but it could mean the difference in tight races.

Allahpundit oddly comes to the same conclusion:

The guy’s basically half-assing his campaign and he still beat the Great Establishment Hope for second place (I think) and nearly knocked off the hyper-organized, hyper-competent Cruz campaign. He’s no joke. And thanks to a divided moderate field, there’s still every reason to think he’ll win New Hampshire.

There’s that “no joke” again. Basically, what they are saying is that you can’t write Donald Trump off yet and both these men are huge Trump critics. If they are not convince that Trump has been defeated, then this race is far from over.

Ed Morrissey, Allahpunit’s co-blogger, agrees:

The difference in Iowa was probably ground organization and perhaps lingering annoyance over Trump’s decision to bail on the final debate in Iowa. The former favored Cruz, but the latter might have pushed late deciders to go to Rubio’s corner. It was a tactical error by Trump, to be sure, but hardly a fatal one. Trump ended up with one less delegate than Cruz, and the same as Rubio – five. Trump didn’t win Iowa, but other than for his reputation, he didn’t really need to win; he just needed to stay competitive. And the reasons for that are New Hampshire and South Carolina.

Ted Cruz needed a knock-out in Iowa for the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries, and he didn’t get one. In fact, Cruz spent a lot of time hitting Marco Rubio and instead of going for the Donald Trump knock-out. That may come back to haunt Cruz.

And Donald Trump came out and ate a big piece of humble pie:

He congratulated Ted Cruz (and all the candidates) and thanked Iowa, despite the loss. Donald Trump did not yell or scream or meltdown. It was short and to the point. With so many long-winded political speeches, this was really refreshing!

Anyone wanting to write Donald Trump off, does so at their own peril.

Well, see ya’ later!

Written by BigGator5 in: Politics | Tags: , , , ,

#Trump2016: Why @realDonaldTrump Will Be Our First Antihero President

Donald Trump is America’s first real-life antihero running for President Of The United States who just might actually win and frankly we don’t know how to deal with this situation.

What is an antihero? In fiction, he or she is a protagonist who lacks one or more conventional heroic qualities like idealism, courage, and morality. Such examples include (but not limited to) Homer’s Thersites, Don Quixote, The Man With No Name, Deadpool, Ash from Army Of Darkness, and Rat from Pearls Before Swine. Yet despite not having qualities we call heroic, we still love these guys.

Why? Why?! The “Dark Triad” may help to explain why:

The Dark Triad of personality is composed of narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism. Despite the common belief that these traits are undesirable, the media is awash with characters that embody the Dark Triad. Characters like Gregory House M.D., Batman (a.k.a. the Dark Knight), and James Bond all embody these traits and are some of the most popular media franchises today. As entertaining as these characters are, they provide us with a window into the dark side of human nature. Instead of treating the dark side of human nature as inherently maladaptive… despite their costs, traits like these can confer reproductive and survival benefits for the individual.

We also want to be these people. These guys are free. They have opinions and they do not care if you like them or hate them. The antihero is not evil and they will side with the good guys in a pinch, but they have their own desires and thoughts. They want to be their own individuals and stake out their own agency. We want these traits for ourselves.

Donald Trump hits the jackpot of having narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism. A lot of people have recoiled in horror that someone with the Dark Triad is about to become President Of The United States. And yet people with the Dark Triad has in the past been effective leaders, like General Sir Adrian Paul Ghislain Carton de Wiart and General George Patton. Many CEOs have been said to have one or more of the Dark Triad traits. America loves our leaders and those who don’t give a fuck about what you think of them.

But having the Dark Triad is not enough. We also love these people because we feel that they are our side. And they often love (or project love) us back. The other night, I praised a hashtag on twitter that I often visit and I meant every word of this tweet. Yet I used grandiose language similar to Donald Trump. The response was swift and positive. Donald Trump projects this love in his speeches too. He may hammer Ted Cruz or the Mexican Government or The Other, but if you watch the speeches he tells us that he LOVES the people who show up and America. Trump wants to make AMERICA great again and people (rightly) eat that shit up.

The reason ¡YEB! is so hated on the right, is that he appears to love illegal immigration and centralized education (common core) more than he loves America. If ¡YEB! was all about the American people first and pushed “American Education” (or something), then this might have been a different election.

The reason why the concept that Ted Cruz being born in Canada is an effective attack (look at his drop in Iowa polls), is because (right or wrongly) people now see him as the other. Being a conservative is nice, but you have to be the unequivocally American Conservative Hero to overcome the American Populist Hero. Just saying.

Again, these are just my observations. And that is why I have endorsed Donald Trump, for now. Despite a huge reservation, Trump has shown to be an effective leader and (he says) he loves America to the hilt. Trump may also be wrong on certain issues, but I don’t see him as corrupt or evil. I see Trump the way Tim Allen sees Trump:

And Trump can’t send everybody to Mexico or whatever the f- he said. But give that guy the roads, bridges, infrastructure, power grid – just have him fix that shit for four years. He’s good at that. And he’s a businessman so he understands how debt load works. Forget the stupid shit he says about immigrants. That’s just ignorant. But he might be able to do the stuff that really needs fixing. …

I’m not opposed to anybody if their workload matches their bullshit load.

Neither am I.

Well, see ya’ later!

Written by BigGator5 in: Politics | Tags: , , ,

#Trump2016: Why @realDonaldTrump Is Closing In On A #Iowa Win

I know, it is the PuffingtonHost. But please bear with me as I frisk this article by Scott Conroy:

It’s probably too soon to run for the hills just yet.

But if you’re worried about the possibility that the nuclear launch codes might a year from now be in the hands of a megalomaniacal strongman with a tenuous grip on reality, the scene on the ground in Iowa with just three days to go until the caucuses won’t make you feel much better.

I sleep soundly knowing full well that I live just miles from a Primary Nuclear Target. If a nuclear war happens, I don’t think I can deal with the wasteland afterward. Either I will die in the blast or fallout shortly afterward and I am fine with that.

Donald Trump appears poised to notch a major victory in the first electoral test of the year — a win that would further launch him along a once implausible path toward actually becoming the 2016 Republican presidential nominee.

This prevailing sentiment solidified during Thursday night’s debate when Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) failed to capitalize on the GOP front-runner’s glaring absence from the stage, instead choosing to bicker with the moderators in Trump-like fashion but without the flair.

I heard that. I skip the debate largely as a protest to Megyn Kelly inviting the anti-American Michael “Butterball” Moore onto her show. But the after action response from everyone and everywhere is that Ted Cruz was hit from all sides and barely anyone threw a punch at Trump.

Well, I am sure that all changes with ads-

And in a clear indication of his campaign’s new strategic priority of trying to hold onto a now-tenuous second-place standing in Iowa at the expense of competing more explicitly to win it, the Cruz campaign is turning its focus over the airwaves away from the front-runner and toward Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.).

The New York Times reported on Friday that Cruz had shifted almost all of his negative advertising away from Trump and toward Rubio, in a last-minute attempt to prevent the upstart Floridian from surging into a second-place showing in Iowa — a result that would upend the race and might prove fatal to Cruz’s 2016 hopes.

Oh wait, I forgot that I’m talking about the stupid party here…

And people wonder why I have not endorsed anyone but Trump. Shit like this exhausts me more than Trump’s dumb comments. Politics is a blood sport and Donald Trump is playing to win. All the others are playing to place second or third now, it’s disgusting.

GOP strategist Bob Haus, who ran Rick Perry’s two Iowa campaigns and is a frequent Trump critic, is among the plugged-in Republicans here who senses that Cruz is heading in the wrong direction at the worst possible time.

Bob Haus talks about “peaking” at the wrong time, but I think everyone is missing the point here. Ted Cruz has placed all his eggs in the Iowa basket. This has moved him into lead Trump, but then fallen to either tie or place 2nd with Donald Trump. I have watched the national and other state polling, hoping that Ted Cruz is also moving there. However Cruz is still stuck in neutral everywhere else. That does not inspire me.

The 2012 GOP caucuses saw record turnout of 121,501 votes, but that relatively impressive number still represented a mere 20 percent of active registered Iowa Republicans who could have shown up that year.

With public interest in this year’s Republican race at unprecedented levels, even Cruz’s top backers here are predicting the 2016 caucuses will exceed the numbers of 2012.

By how much?

Bob Vander Plaats, an influential Iowa Christian conservative leader who has endorsed Cruz and sparred with Trump publicly, predicted that turnout on Monday would be somewhere in the 135,000 to 150,000 range.

“We’re in uncharted territory,” Vander Plaats said.

That could mean bad news for Cruz…

If Ted Cruz loses Iowa, he has nowhere else to go. *ponds table once* AND HE’S NOT GOING AFTER DONALD TRUMP!

*ponds table several more times and then composes himself*

I sit on the edge of my seat, day-after-day, waiting for the moment where I can finally endorse someone else. I go to bed, night-after-night, completely disappointed. Look, there might be some logic that Donald Trump might not win because he currently lacks a ground game and the polls might be incredible wrong. There also maybe some logic to the notion that if Ted Cruz can force other people out of the race, they will come to him. However when logic goes out the god-damn window, you can’t take anything for granted.

We don’t live in an age of logic anymore. I can make a logical pitch on why Donald Trump is not a conservative and the people are giving fuckall about that noise. What they see is a leader who loves America and the people. Trump wants to create jobs and beat the bad guys who want to do us harm. The slogan, “Make America Great Again” boils down Trump’s message and rolls right off the tongue. Without looking it up, what is Ted Cruz’s message? What is Marco Rubio’s slogan?

And that is why Donald Trump is closing on a Iowa win.

Well, see ya’ later!

Written by BigGator5 in: Politics | Tags: , , ,

#Trump2016: Siding With @realDonaldTrump Against #MegynKelly/#FoxNews Here

I was going to sit on the sidelines with this newest Trump vs Fox News brouhaha. Another episode of mud flinging that honestly did not need my involvement. Nothing I could say would mattered. I have endorsed Trump, I do not automatically SUPPORT him.

…And then this fucking happen:

I can’t even. When did Fox News give a mic to this sick, fat, idiotic, fucking asshole?

Here is John Stossel owning Michael Moore on the movie Sicko (sorry for the low quality):

Oh, remember when Michael Moore called Chris Kyle a coward? I do:

And Megyn Kelly gives this fat fuck a platform to spew his nonsense? I am so mad, I can’t see straight. Megyn Kelly owes the entire Kyle Clan, and every Iraq military personal who was saved by Chris Kyle, an apology for having that anti-American butterball on her show. Then Fox News owes EVERYONE an apology for not having an outright Michael Moore ban.

Not only would I encourage Donald Trump NOT to show up for the debate, but I will personally tuned in for his Town Hall supporting the troops. I will live tweet the event (I am sure FOX 10 Phoenix will live stream it) and I will encourage to donate to Wounded Warrior Project in your name during the live tweet (hell, if anyone is reading this article, donate in Trump’s name right now). I also call on other candidates to do the same.

Now I won’t hold it against Trump or any candidate if they go. I don’t believe in boycotts, but I would suggest they take stock of how valuable their time is and act accordingly. One thing is for sure, I personally value my time and so I will not be tuning into Megyn Kelly’s show ever again until she issues a heartfelt apology to everyone.

Well, see ya’ later!

Written by BigGator5 in: Politics | Tags: , ,

#Trump2016: Let’s Frisk The #DarlenaCunha/@parentwin Insanity

The insanity that is Darlena Cunha knows no bounds and we are about this see that in action. In her article on Time, she is about consistent as a meth addict, have erratically disjointed thoughts, and makes contradictory arguments.

Let’s frisk this article and see if she has a point, if any:

It’s wrong to burden children with a public political message when they don’t understand the implications.

That is a nice ideal to aspire, but we all know that parents try to pass down their values and ideas to their children. That is why we have them, so that they can continue what we started or what was passed to us.

Again, nice ideal but most everything she says later pretty much invalidates this first sentence altogether.

Thursday night, my two 7-year-old daughters stayed up to watch some of the Republican debate. Needless to say, I had a lot of questions to answer.

This quite literally comes right after the last line! Darlena Cunha doesn’t believe in “burden(ing) children with a public political message(s)” and yet she lets her 7-year-olds watch the GOP Debate?

“Mom, why do all these men hate Hillary Clinton so much? Is she going to be our next president?”

“Mommy, is that Donald Trump? I don’t like him. Why does anyone like him? Yuck.”

Do they understand the “implications” of what they said here? Do you they really think GOP candidates “hate” Hillary Clinton? Be honest now! Let’s come back to this later.

Kids have agency. They have opinions. They say the darndest things, and they mean them.

No, they don’t. This is why the legal system doesn’t hold them responsible for crimes committed as kids and why we have “age of consent” laws.

At the time.

This is the very next sentence! Does Darlena Cunha believe that kids have agency or what?

But their framework for those thoughts come from their parents. Their life experience and ability to parse complex governmental, political and legal issues are limited. I am a firm believer in encouraging youngsters to learn about our political process and partake in the discourse surrounding our cultural standing. To awaken a thirst within them for knowledge about our country and their role in our democracy is one of the key roles of parenting.

This was my point when I last wrote on USA Freedom Kids. Parents are responsible for their children and it is only natural to pass down their values, as is EVERY PARENTS RIGHT. This includes conservative parents too. We’ll get to that later.

That said, they are going to pick up what we, the parents, are putting down. And we cannot be objective all the time. We are laying down the foundation upon which we believe our kids will grow best. For my family, that’s a world that doesn’t include Donald Trump as president.

Okay, repeating your thoughts from the last thoughts and thinking you’ve changed gears when you have not. Moving on.

Look, I wish I lived in a world that doesn’t include Barack Obama as president. However reality keeps getting in the way of that, so I have learned to live in reality. How is Darlena Cunha and her children going to deal with living in a President Trump world?

So when I saw three little girls, barely older than my daughters, proudly belting out pro-Trump lyrics in front of a 10,000-strong crowd, I honored their right to their opinions. But there is a huge difference between politics talk in the home and the politics-for-pomp that one of the girls’ fathers, Jeff Popick of Pop Media Network LLC, is peddling.

The three are part of a five-girl group called “The USA. Freedom Kids,” and Popick said the girls “are so dedicated, so intensely patriotic.” The girls are between the ages of 8 and 12. Do they know what “patriotic” means to them, yet? Do they have firm opinions on which candidate they should stump for based on their own life experiences? Do they understand what they are saying? Do they understand the implications of what they are getting into? They aren’t, after all, old enough to vote, some by a decade.

Does Darlena Cunha’s children 7-year-olds know what “patriotic” means? Do they have firm opinions on Hillary Clinton so that they can praise her and condemn GOP candidates who just doesn’t agree with her? Do they understand the implications of supporting a candidate that has very likely broke several federal laws?

Popick has said he “enjoyed providing them an opportunity” and was happy to “watch them seize it.” He gave them an opportunity to sing political jingles, and, sure, there will be fans of the group and positive feedback. But he also opened them up to ridicule, mean comments and public flaming. Are they old enough to consent to that?

Did Darlena Cunha’s 7-year-old daughters give consent to being opened up to ridicule, mean comments, and public flaming by being included in this article? They are 7-years-old, how could they? No, Darlena Cunha gave consent on their behalf.

I bet anyone anything, if you just ask him, Jeff Popick got consent from their parents. The fact that only 3 out of the five-member band showed up to this event, one could logically concluded two of the band’s member parents were not thrill with appearing at the Trump event.

Also, who is ridiculing, saying mean comments, and public flaming these “USA Freedom Kids” members? No one is doing that, that I know of at least.


You cannot use children as public figureheads in political movements or protests. They are too young to give consent, and you may be putting them in danger. Who knows if these kids will be followed by stalkers or become the victims of bullying or harassment because of an extreme stance they haven’t actually taken.

Like when Darlena Cunha put her kids in this article?

While the girls are clearly talented, exposing them to the type of inflammatory reactions Trump elicits from both sides isn’t fair to them.

Again, who is insulting these girls? Could Darlena Cunha give me examples?

The lyrics are accusations. “Cowardice, Are you serious? Apologies for freedom – I can’t handle this!” It is wrong to burden young children with such a message, to face the public, when they don’t really know what they are signing up for.

Actually, these lyrics are quite harmless compare to some of the other slightly troublesome lyrics later on. However this is not directed at children, but adults who are already fans of Trump.

I will concede to that they might not know what they are singing about, but their parents do and signed off on this performance. Consent is with the parents. Agency is with them.

This goes even when you might agree with the message. I very much loved President Barack Obama when he was elected into office in 2008. But my kids will never sing about him in a public way that puts money in my pocket. That is ethically wrong. The school children in this pro-Obama video were almost as exploited as the U.S.A. Freedom Kids are – a large difference being that the educators and producers involved didn’t pocket profits. Still, they instructed a group of children who couldn’t properly decide for themselves on political rhetoric that they then released to the country at large.

Here comes the moral equivalency argument. Darlena Cunha thinks the “mmm mmm mmm Barack Hussein Obama” educators were wrong too, but we should still forgive them because their hearts were in the right place and they were not looking to profit off these kids. There are huge difference between “USA Freedom Kids” and the “mmm mmm mmm Barack Hussein Obama” event.

  1. “USA Freedom Kids” was at a campaign event, where people came voluntarily. “mmm mmm mmm Barack Hussein Obama” was done at a school where the kids were FORCED to attend.
  2. “USA Freedom Kids” was clearly meant to entertain people who are already Trump fans/supporters. “mmm mmm mmm Barack Hussein Obama” is a jingle purposely written to indoctrinate other kids.
  3. “USA Freedom Kids” was done on Trump’s dime to Pop Media Network LLC and, in turned, to the kids. “mmm mmm mmm Barack Hussein Obama” was done on the taxpayer’s dime and time (when they should be learning facts, not opinions), and kids were also not fairly compensated in any way.

The nonsensical ravings of a lunatic mind has long been a source of endless fascination to me. And Darlena Cunha is no exception. Darlena Cunha is perfectly okay with teaching her kids to hate GOP candidates because they disagree with Hillary Clinton, but bulks when “USA Freedom Kids” are fairly compensated to open a campaign event for Donald Trump (whether the owner agrees with Trump is irrelevant). When faced with the “mmm mmm mmm Barack Hussein Obama” contradiction, Darlena Cunha makes a moral equivalent leap in logic and then pardons them for having the right morality or something.

This is about not children’s agency, but parent’s agency. Darlena Cunha clearly believes in her agency when it comes to her children, but she completely forgets that “USA Freedom Kids” have parents and they have just as much agency too or doesn’t believe in conservative parents should have agency.

Whatever the case may be, Darlena Cunha’s half-baked rant cannot be said to be coherent in any way shape or form. How that gibberish mess got publish on is beyond me.

Well, see ya’ later!

Theme: WordPress Webdesign
(Note: Website No Longer Works. Removing Link.)