Fickle. Sensitive.

That's what I think of the people who are so disappointed with Ted Cruz when he said that Donald Trump helped create the atmosphere that happened at his Chicago rally. I'm also a little disturbed by people who said Trump had it coming (and yes, it seems like Trump lied - Chicago policemen have denied that he consulted them when cancelling the event, same with STL policemen).

There are two issues I have with the anti-Cruz and anti-Trump camps in this scenario. The first being those that support Cruz's words (anti-Trump people) by practicing the really sloppy and pathetic logic of "I'm free to attend a rally but that freedom doesn't mean I'm 'free' of not being attacked." What kind of stupid plebeian logic is that? The second are the fickle and sensitive kind (anti-Cruz people) who now resort to "Cruz is nothing to me" after he sorta threw Trump under the bus that Friday night. They then complain his whole support of the Constitution is now a farce. Puh-lease.

Look, Cruz and Trump are rivals. It's understandable why Cruz said what he said (even though I somewhat disagree). He's condemning Trump for his rude comments and arrogant words towards minorities and women in order to make himself look like the better person. Does that make me think less of him? Not really. I think it's a little sloppy thinking, less so than "I'm free to attend but not free to not get punched in the face."

Yes, Cruz should've said that the protesters were out-of-line. They were indeed rude and arrogant, being hypocritical towards Trump's own rudeness and arrogance. He should've called them fascists and punks. Whether or not Trump "deserved" his rally to be treated like that is neither here nor there; the protesters helped destroy free speech that night because they failed to "peaceably assemble." They assembled, they infiltrated the auditorium and then caused chaos.

I side with the people where there to hear Trump speak. They have every right to become angry, and in my eyes the people who acted like punks towards the supporters are closer to deserving spit and kicks. I don't like bullies, especially when they're in the form of The Left. You didn't see the KKK at Obama's 2012 rallies. You didn't see people on The Right constantly interrupting Obama's speeches when he ran for a second term.

The victims of that night weren't the protesters (the protesters are cowards and are overreacting, and I say that as a person who isn't white) or Trump. It was free speech, the city of Chicago and the people who came peacefully to hear Trump's words. I give no sympathy to Trump because I believe he bailed out of concern for his own safety, not the safety of the people who supported him, none to Cruz and absolutely no sympathy to the protesters.

My Cruz & Sanders rally experience.

Yesterday I attended a rally in the suburbs of Chicago; to be exact I went to Glen Ellyn where a Ted Cruz rally was being held around noon. Last Friday I attended a Sanders rally. First, I will recall Cruz.

The following is what I experienced.

• Cruz likes his rallies, if they aren't held in a convention center, to be rather posh. This past Friday he was a guest speaker at Chicago's Palmer House. Tickets cost $$. I assume most at the Friday non-free event were mostly older than 40 and white. In my case the Glen Ellyn rally was free and was held in a nice wedding banquet hall. 
• Glen Ellyn would be considered an upper-middle suburb. About $90K per household. High $39K per capita.
• When I arrived the line wasn't long, just a bunch of people waiting outside the banquet doors. People were filling out "info cards" and were buying Cruz football jerseys ($45 each as opposed to $50 on his site).
• There was no one telling people to empty out their purses and bags. There was no security vetting the crowd. You simple had to walk in with a smile and present your ticket if you had one.
• People in my age bracket, millennials, weren't smoking like the Bernie Sanders crowd (which I will give a post later this week). They were mostly better dressed than the Sanders millennial crowd.
• Speaking of millennials being present - they were a minority. Most of the crowd that I've observed were on the older side, say 40 and up. To bring in race, many were white; some of Cruz's event helpers were Asian and black who were well-dressed. Very professional.
• As the banquet doors opened and people filed in, I was able to snag a seat near the press stage where the network cameras were to be set-up. I over heard an elderly woman saying to another to not take radiation because it causes cancer. "Don't let them [doctors] talk you into therapy you're unsure of." She was talking about mmograms because her doctor encouraged to take one for her left breast as well as her right. She didn't trust her.
• The event started only three minutes late. Cruz was on stage within 15 minutes after his introduction.
• A local conservative talk show host, Wheaton State Representative Jeanne Ives and a nearby black minister introduced Cruz. The talk show host talked about conservatism and Cruz's consistency as compared to Trump; Ives talked about her military sons and her trusting Cruz on being Commander of Chief (she, like her son Nick, is a West Point grad); the minister also talked about conservatism and religious life. 
• Before Cruz took the stage, the minister led the audience in saying the Pledge of Allegiance and a prayer. A lot of "Amen!"s were shouted when he asked the audience to pray.
• About halfway through Cruz's rally an animal rights activist interrupted. She and her partner in crime were escorted out.
• There was a huge "Trusted" backdrop in the other half of the banquet hall. People where getting their picture taken there afterwards.
• My placard was "stolen" underneath my seat. In quotes because I sorta let them have it - without my permission. The story goes as this: A group of ladies were searching for a placard for another, who was sitting right next to me, who asked where they got theirs. "Oh, there's one underneath that seat." That seat was mine. The entire rally she was waving it. Whatever. It's not like Cruz will get the (R) nomination let alone win Illinois since it'll be Trump for both. I remember getting a Romney placard and we all how 2012 turned out so I was a little hesitant to even actually want one. I gotta learn my lesson.
• I'll mention my peers again, though on a more superficial level. I will admit the females I saw were rather attractive. In fact, (R) women tend to be more attractive than (D) women for whatever reason, or at least the conservative side of campus liberalism and onward. *See: Emily Jashinky, Tomi Lahren, Katie Pavlich. 
 

The entire speech is below.

Onto my Sanders rally held at a suburban high school on the southwest side of Chicago. Summit is a low-middle community.

•  School buses transported people from the Toyota Park stadium to the school since there was limited parking due to the community being located in a rather blue-collar, old semi-urban area.
• During the bus ride a high school student, who later waited in line in front of me, could not believe that his friend of going to the Trump rally at UIC Pavilion. As he said, "He was drawing a stars and stripes on the poster. Then drew an eagle ... I said 'Why? Why support this man?' I couldn't believe it." 
• A fellow bus passenger was talking with a the mentioned student's group of friends, who noted that most of Trump supporters were white versus the ethnic diversity of Sanders supporters. She then proceeded to say that she was part Native American. The woman was white. Elizabeth Warren 2.0?
• Said woman encouraged the teenagers to go on youtube and compare Trump and Hitler speeches. "This is what his supporters are pushing," she proclaimed.
• It was cold, but not too cold outside. I waited for about an 1.5 hours to get into the high school. 
• The buses dropped off its passengers on the corner of Archer & 63rd St. From there we slowly crept forward with Sanders campaign volunteers telling us that no guns, knifes, or any weapons were allowed and to keep our cellphones on (to not be mistaken for a bomb). I said to mom who came with me "It seems like we're entering a CPS," with a chuckle. If Chicago decided to actually incorporate Summit then Argo High School would be a CPS (if you walk one block east towards Harlem Ave. you're in Chicago proper).
• There was a women was with a "Vegan Vote for Sanders" sign. 
• A few teenagers from DuPage County traveled to hear Sanders.
• Many of those who waited in line were youth; mainly 25 and under. I am not sure if many were Argo High School students.
• The people waiting were more ethnically diverse.
• A handful of people smoking. Many were dressed in a very "grunge, alternative" look. 
• The kids in front were rather peppy, excited about the possibility of Sanders becoming the DNC nomination if not POTUS.
• There was a Sanders bus (official) driving down 63rd getting the line cheering every now and then. A lot of honking by cars that passed.
• An anti-Monsanto chalk sign was present. The "Vegans Vote for Sanders" woman took a picture of it. 
• A lot of talk of Trump while waiting by the people behind me. There was no talk about Sanders facing Clinton. 
• When word got out that the Trump rally was cancelled the woman behind me, a UIC alumnus, gleefully expressed her feelings. "Yes! Yes! Get out of Chicago! We don't want you here! Welcome to Chicago and go back to NYC!" Since the story was breaking news to us, we did not know if there was violence - whether it was on Trump supporters or on the protesters. The UIC alumnus said, "Look how peaceful we are here!" (Note: it was the protesters that caused the cancellation and who were rowdy).
• Across the street of the high school there was a VFW where one man was standing holding a 3 Percenter Flag in silence. One crowd member thought aloud that he might be a Trump supporter. There were some vets in line waiting wearing NRA hats so who knows.
• Security was divided into two lines: bags & no bags. This was causing the line and making it look like there were more people than there were in reality.  Once we filed into our own security lines the process was painless.
• The inside track & field house was humid since everyone was conglomerated in one place with very little ventilation of cool air. There was one young woman who had to sit down because of overheating - the firefighters that were on scene assisted her.
• When compared to the people who introduced Cruz (more local), Sanders had more political prominent backers. Jesse Jackson's son and Jesús "Chuy" García - the sole rival for Mayor Rahm Emmanuel in last years mayoral race. 
• Sanders appeals to a much broader audience. Blacks, Hispanics, dope heads, naive college & high school kids, and Muslims. This comes to no surprise because of Sanders' promises e.g. free college & healthcare, "I like everyone," his dislike for billionaires (not just corporate billionaires). He's the new Obama for The Left. Hillary Clinton has become passe. 
• When Sanders mentioned war, Bush and Cheney, a couple of people in the crowd yelled "War criminals!"
• When speaking about "family values," and when he said "family values" he said it in a very mocking way, he mentioned how he supports single motherhood and a woman's "right" to choose, same-sex adoption and how people who didn't support same-sex unions weren't for "family values."
• Sanders made it clear that he'll use executive orders in order to get what he wants if Congress doesn't approve.
• Marijuana was brought up. Sanders said he would take MJ off the FDA paper as an illegal drug - the people really cheered. He said that he would let states decide to whether or not to make it legal. There was little cheer. 
• It comes to little surprise on why Argo High School was chosen: the surrounding community is a gold mine for (D)s and for politicians like Sanders. Near by Bridgeview has one of the largest Muslim communities. Southwest Chicago is home to mostly Hispanics, union workers and families that traditional voted (D). Since it has a large contingency of non-whites Sanders can pull in a lot of votes.

Sanders' full speech is below.

I have realized that Cruz and Sanders on the opposite side of the political spectrum, both in philosophy, upbringing and who supports them in terms of ethnic background.

Today in the newspaper it was said that Hillary Clinton was visiting the West Side of Chicago, speaking to union workers and visiting the Roseland community, a predominately black Chicago neighborhood for last minute votes. Inner city voter outreach is a  huge advantage to the (D)s. I do not remember Romney visiting places like Roseland on his Midwest campaign tour, and nowhere on Cruz's event page does it have inner city visits. Of course this is all a strategic plan: Get the votes where you know you can appeal.; every campaign is on a budget. The (D)s can travel almost anywhere. The (R)s are practically regulated to the suburbs and the farmland in most blue states.

*I'm fully aware that the listed women are all white, so for some ethnic diversity I will include Mia Love and Michelle Malkin, both who I think are pretty, not to mention older than those I originally listed and married as well. 

American Thinker: Hijacked or Editors actively Humping Trump

As I write this, on February 1, 2016, about every article published on this date questioning Donald Trump's merit and winning chances as the GOP nominee has been met with a "HTTP 404" message. 404 is basically an unknown link destination. Every article either neutral to Trump or in favor can be reached. I have the evidence.

Ed Lasky's "Trump screws everyone but himself."

And it goes on with other like-minded articles printed on February 1st.

All of these are met with the same 404 message.

Douglas Schwartz' "Trump Listens" is reachable. Bruce Walker's article is fine. Peggy Ryan, who has written mostly about supporting Trump (whose first AT article was about amnesty back in November 2014), "Trump or Cruz: Who Is the winning Quarterback?" works. Marie M. Kane's article entitled "Trump and the American Identity" is a valid link.

Other articles criticizing Hillary or any international affair is also a 404 victim. (Foreign policy not being Trump's forte.)

Banned from Red State.

According to the writer I was being an ass (hence the motivation of my last post.) I tried to post this on a separate article which earned my ban and got this message.

The ruckus came from me explaining that Santorum's wish "to fight" abortion, same-sex "marriage," and the legalization of marijuana wasn't a "theocracy."

I later asked why my post was getting such a response. A Red State moderator helped me understand.

So in other words don't correct or question what's written in the article especially if the piece is written by the editor.

A post of mine was deleted as well since I guess I was "being an on-line ass" to others. My post, in a cheeky manner, responded, "Did you think of that yourself?" or something to that effect; I cannot remember exactly.

It was ultimately a stupid question since it was implying that I was supporting Santorum's process of legalizing his social views. No where did I say that he was right in his efforts. What Santorum wants to do isn't a "religious dogmatic view" (though the editors and others on Red State think it is, or else why the writer's frame Santorum in such a way) since such views can also be perfectly and soundly be held on a secular stance.

Another post was wiped out of existence because it spoke ill of libertarians even though the post I was responding to also did, but that post wasn't deleted.

From what has happened as detailed above tells me the editors of Red State aren't too high on people who may be a little sympathetic to candidates that aren't be triumphed in a given article.

Others have noted this issue as well when denouncing any "theocracy" accusation (I get the feeling that social conservatives who aren't on the whole "let the state choose their own morality" wagon are immensely unpopular among the Red State editors). See below.

Okay, I read 1689's comment. I don't see anything "passive aggressive" or rude or inconsiderate. Wait, he questioned the "theocracy" usage which was written by the editor. He wrote this: "All would be better than some free-wheeling, do-whatever-you-want small-government! society." Nevermind. He also "attacked the site" by writing, "NR has enough authors trying to fundamentally transform what it means to be a conservative. Apparently the problem is not limited to NR." Bill S. won't have that. On the "blacklist" you shall go.

The overall tone of Bill S.'s reasons on banning fall apart when he turns to the "you're mean" reason. The whole "keeping the peace" is talk because it's him really saying, "We don't want conservatives who have different opinions - who cannot form their opinions with the most softest snow so not to harm the feelings of the editors - to share their thoughts." It's such a cop-out move.

I learned that another has-been poster was also banned, back in 2012. The comments on his article that  explained his disdain of the ban got the trolls out of the wood work. I'm not sure of the politics of those that mock him, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were socially "progressive" libertarians or douchebag liberals. It seems like that the day he wrote it those that were aware of the ban took advantaged of the moment - they maybe Red State posters who agreed with the moderators.

Here's what Calvin and another has-been poster said:

I remember reading that Red State doesn't tolerate birthers, truthers and Palin haters and for good reason: They're idiots. But why ban people who "attack" the editors regarding the content of which they post? This tells me they're cowards, and assholes.