When Trump announced his presidential run, I was skeptical. His character seemed questionable, and his pro-choice stance typically would have been enough to make me oppose him.

As I examined the candidates’ positions, my perspective gradually shifted. His resolute approach to border security particularly resonated with me, aligning closely with my own views. Among the contenders, only he and one other candidate shared my stance. Though Senator Cruz remained my preference, especially regarding his pro-life position, I found myself increasingly drawn to the alternative candidate’s platform.

Reflecting on Trump’s account of his personal experience, I found his explanation initially convincing, yet lingering skepticism persisted. His past behavior and language further undermined my trust. In retrospect, I often contemplate whether Ted Cruz might have been a more suitable presidential candidate. Ultimately, the full truth remains elusive, and we may never fully know.

In the face of a polarizing election, my initial choice felt stripped away. Confronted with Trump, a relatively unknown quantity, and Clinton, whose public persona was exhaustively familiar, I felt politically cornered. As the campaign unfolded, my perspective subtly shifted. Trump’s candidacy began to resonate more strongly, while the alternative grew less appealing. Though momentarily tempted to protest by writing in my own name, I ultimately found myself gravitating toward a clearer electoral stance.

During the election, I found myself strongly aligned with Trump’s rhetoric, yet I harbored deep reservations about his character and credibility.

Throughout my years of observation, I’ve consistently maintained that individuals advocating for pro-life positions tend to demonstrate greater authenticity and moral courage. In today’s complex social landscape, embracing a pro-choice stance has become a convenient and socially acceptable narrative, which I characterize as fundamentally endorsing a culture of termination. The genuine commitment to protecting innocent life requires a deeper ethical stance and personal conviction.

Trump’s unwavering commitment to the pro-life movement demonstrated a principled position that demanded respect. His apparent sincerity on this issue suggested a deeper integrity that could potentially extend to other aspects of his political platform. By taking a clear and potentially unpopular stance, he showed a willingness to stand by his convictions, which was noteworthy in the complex landscape of all the political discourse.

Looking back, it was clearly true. No other modern president can claim such close adherence to his promises. While he couldn’t completely follow them all, it is not for lack of effort, even to the point of pushing the Constitution to the very edge. Also, this was not without opposition, even from Republicans. Might I remind one and all of the number one rino giving the thumbs-down during the effort to withdraw Obama Care. (I was never a fan Sen. McCain, who was the only Republican member of the Keating five & should have gone to jail)

President Trump is the only modern day president who enforced immigration laws, which were already on the books. He did this though there are even Republicans who opposed his actions. This likely was one of the main reasons he was elected. The Republicans only paid lip service to it and the democrats openly refused to enforce those legal laws. During the primary, he and Cruz were the only two that spoke of enforcing the law. All the rest of the Republican candidates got all mushy mouthed when asked about it.

Trump is constantly referred to as Hitler, this in light of all he has done for Israelis. No other president, whether he have a R or D after his name has hired more women in higher positions. No other president, except maybe Reagan & Kennedy, has done more to help our economy. Few have hurt in all of these categories as Old Joe. (For this reason Old Joe does not deserve to be called president, or even by his last name. Better to forget it completely)

President Trump has made a believer out of me.

Several years ago, I wrote a post about people being let across the border. You might think it was during the early years of Trump’s presidency, but it was earlier. Actually, I was speaking out against open borders even before Trump decided to run for president.

During the presidential campaign, the border policy debate revealed a surprising consensus among candidates. While Democrats generally supported more open immigration, many Republican contenders also showed varying degrees of support for less restrictive border policies. In the early stages of Trump’s initial campaign, Senator Ted Cruz stood out as a notable exception, consistently advocating for stricter border control. His principled stance resonated with voters who prioritized immigration enforcement. For this voter, Cruz and Trump were the only candidates worthy of support. I would have abstained from voting any others at all.

Apparently, I wasn’t the only one with that view. Near the last of that primary, Cruz was the only one who gave Trump any competition at all. The rest dropped out. Still, there were Republicans who continued to give Trump grief over illegal aliens, fighting for them from the “humanity” concept. However, to them, humanity had little or nothing to do with it. They wanted the lower illegal wages. It contradicted with the fighting by both the Democrats and the liberal Republican concept of minimum wages. To be sure, hiring illegal aliens is the easiest way around minimum wages. Those who ran hotels and restaurants commonly hired illegal aliens at a fraction of the minimum wage, a financial advantage for businesses (rino Republicans) To some degree, this is still true. The dems fight to keep wages down by encouraging illegal immigration while at the same time, fighting for ridiculously high minimum wages. This has two results. It squeezes rightful American citizens out of the job market while permitting the rich to hire low cost labor.

I very strongly disagree with minimum wages and allowing the employment of illegal aliens. I can at least understand it, as selfish and wrong as it it is. However, lately the liberals have started another contradiction. They fight to require vaccination, especially in schools while continuing to fight to allow diseased and infections aliens across the border without even checking for any disease such as AIDS, measles, TB, etc, etc, and so forth.

I have no clue why we haven’t had breakouts of various diseases when President Biden opened the borders and invited one and all with a public speech. And now, the pro vaccine people complain about a few cases of measles and say nothing of the disease infested flooding over the border. We should count ourselves fortunate that we haven’t had an outbreak of antibiotic-resistant tuberculosis. Or, perhaps something worse. We have dealt with measles, smallpox, and many other outbreaks throughout US history. When the border was opened, I had both concerns and curiosity about what diseases might have been permitted entry. Perhaps even a disease not yet seen inside our border.

To be sure, contradiction is the way of the Democrats. If you keep your eyes open, you’ll see them. Then again, there is none so blind as those who refuse to see, even that which is obvious.