BrExiting The Globalist Movement

Maybe I'm missing something, but can anyone explain to me how Britain leaving the European Union is a bad thing?

How is it "bad" for a nation to assert its sovereignty?

How is it "bad" to put an end to laws affecting a nation's citizens being written by people who are not citizens of that nation?

Last I heard, somewhere in the neighborhood of 80% of laws governing the Brits are written OUTSIDE OF BRITAIN. That's akin to Canada and Mexico writing U.S law. I don't know what anyone else thinks, but I'm pretty sure I'd rather the U.S. write U.S. law.

So far, the analyses I've been hearing about this historic vote have all been placing the "blame" for Britain's exit from the EU squarely on the older voters, particularly those over 50. They voted overwhelmingly for exiting.

Some talking heads have said they voted for the exit because they won't have to face the consequences. They'll be dead before the consequences reach their fullest. In other words, they were being selfish.

I have a different take on it. Perhaps the elder voters were doing what they could to protect the nation as best they knew how. Just maybe - and this is just a shot in the dark - they understand better than the younger voters (under 39 voters voted overwhelmingly in favor of staying in the EU) that a nation not governed by those with its best interests at heart isn't much of a nation. It's entirely likely that they didn't see a British future worth looking at and rejected that future.

Maybe, just maybe, our elders actually know what they're talking about.

Perhaps we should start listening to what they have to say. ~ Hunter

We Volunteered...

We stood watch while you slept, but we volunteered.

We were the line between civilized people and the savages, but we volunteered.

We lost precious friends, blood brothers, treasured sisters as you went about your lives, but we volunteered.

We safeguarded your freedoms, even as you threw them away, but we volunteered.

We threw myself into the fray, fended off the wolves, so you could rest easy, but we volunteered.

Do not grieve for us, for we have completed our work here. We have left this battle for the peace of God's love.

Instead, celebrate that we lived.

Remember us all the days of your lives. Remember our brothers and sisters who still fight, and die, for you.

Remember our mothers, fathers, wives, husbands, sons and daughters we left behind.

So go to your barbecues, your parties, your fireworks. We don't mind, for had our check not been cashed, we'd likely do the same.

All we ask is that you teach your children what this day is really about. Teach them to love America, despite her faults and foibles.

Instruct them in the ways of freedom, so that they realize the sacrifices that were made so they could be free.

We now stand with our brothers and sisters in an unbroken line that stretches back to the founding of this great nation. We stand with mighty company.

We pray that the day comes when no more need join us, but until that day, know that we would do it again if it was asked of us.

We volunteered, so you didn't have to. ~ Hunter

Memorial Day 2016

I Choose Principles Over Party

Isn't it funny how the people who were warned repeatedly that if they selected a nominee who didn't represent conservatism we conservatives wouldn't vote for him are now saying if we don't vote for him, we're either liberals or pro-Hillary - often both - and we should be "ashamed of" ourselves?

We were also told that the GOP house needed to be "burned down" and that they would get The Fraud of Fifth Avenue elected without our help.

Well, you've accomplished your goal of burning down the house, so to speak. You've driven away the base of the party - the true conservatives. Now is your chance to accomplish the other part of your goal - getting The Fraud elected without our help. Good luck with that because it's not gonna happen.

You were warned.

You didn't listen.

Now you expect - no, demand - that we vote for someone who not only does not represent conservatism in any way, shape, manner, or form but is Hillary's ideological twin. Not happening.

You made this bed - sleep in it.

I will no longer play the "good little Republican" for you or to get the party the "win" when it's not the party I joined in 1988.  It certainly no longer holds but the barest shred of conservative principles.

You wanted a fascist, banana republic dictator as your nominee (not my nominee), so go get it done - ALL BY YOURSELVES. I, as well as millions of other conservatives with principles won't have an active part in the murder of the United States. Even if Hillary wins, I'll sleep with a clear conscience because I'll have done the right and moral thing.

Good luck explaining to your grandchildren why you did not. ~ Hunter

What The Results In Indiana REALLY Mean - The End Of The United States

What is one supposed to do, to think, when the party you've belonged to no longer even pretends to represent you? I'm not just talking about the Republican Party apparatus - I'm talking about the so-called "rank-and-file" voters, my neighbors, my FRIENDS.
When I say I will never vote for The Fraud of Fifth Avenue, I actually mean it. I can no longer justify voting for the "lesser of two evils." Progressivism has so weakened the moral fiber of this nation and her people that many are voting just for sheer vengeance.
It doesn't matter to them that the Republican frontrunner supported Obama and Clinton. They no longer care about their supposedly conservative principles of smaller government, lower taxes, less regulation. They've proved it by voting for a small-minded "man" with a god-complex who stands for everything they stood against just a single year ago.
Have we fallen that far? Is it possible that patriotism has given way to hatefulness as a virtue? How could conservatism become so bastardized that we fail to see the progressive nature of a candidate who's ostensibly on "our" side? What has become of our party, our country, our fellow citizens?
I've lost several friends over this election cycle because I will not be silent about what I see, nor will I tolerate the trash coming from supposedly informed people. I don't have a problem with that in the slightest. I can only give people information; I can't make them think critically about it.
It shames me to know that the life of the United States of America hangs literally by a thread and I can do nothing about it. it terrifies me that my grandchildren will never know the type of freedom I enjoyed and I can't stop it from happening. It chills me to the bone that the party that once stood for freedom and equality for ALL stands poised to nominate a dictator-in-waiting and I can do NOTHING TO PREVENT IT.
Do freedom and liberty mean so little to Americans anymore that we have to elect another big government leftist, but one who poses as a capitalist? Are we so selfish that we would doom for all time our children and grandchildren? I pray that we're not, yet fear that we are. Too many are far more concerned with the here and now that they fail to consider the future and mark my words - that future will NOT be a bright or pretty one.
If there's a silver lining to all this - and I know I'm really stretching for this one - it's that I've come to realize that the rampant stupidity and blind "cult of personality" mindset is not limited solely to the demoKKKrats and liberals. It fully infects the Right as well.
A vote for anyone other than the only candidate who knows the Constitution - what it says, what it means, and how we need to get back on the path the Founders set out for us - is a conscious effort to drive a knife into the heart of America. I won't do it. I CAN'T do it, If that drives a wedge between us as friends, neighbors, countrymen - so be it. That's a cross I can I can bear.
I will not be party to the rape and murder of that which I hold most dear - the United States of America. I hope to God Himself that I'm wrong and I will be the first to admit it if it turns out to be so but after a lifetime of watching and following all things political, I seriously doubt that I am.
I no longer have a party, not because I have changed so much that I no longer fit in but because the party has changed so much that I no longer recognize it as my home. ~ Hunter
"I didn't leave my party. My party left me."

Some Questions For Trump Supporters

For those of you who haven't yet seen The Fraud of Fifth Avenue's town hall style interview on the Today Show last Thursday, I present the pertinent part:

A few quick questions for his supporters, if I may.

1) How do you - especially the conservatives out there - justify voting for someone on the Republican side of the aisle (although I submit that he's anything but) whose views are nearly identical to Hillary's?

Seriously, I need an answer to that because there's no way, in my opinion, to make that leap and still call yourself a "conservative."

2) How does this not disturb you? How does this not make you think twice about supporting him?

3) Given that his new campaign manager, Paul Manafort, was caught - on tape - speaking to GOP insiders saying that Trump is "playing a role" and you'll see the real Trump soon - that audio was played on Fox News Sunday - which Trump will you vote for?

It's been clear to me from day one of his campaign that he's been disingenuous - if not outright lying - about who he is, what he believes, and what his core values are. How is it not clear to you?

4) How can you still seriously call him "anti-establishment" when he's now hiring all Beltway insiders for his campaign? I mean, we're talking about people who have been around D.C. for decades.

5) While we're at it, aren't you the same people who started calling Ted Cruz an "establishment" candidate because he hired Jeb Bush's campaign finance manager? Care to rethink that call now?

Bottom line here is this: I've said since the beginning of this election cycle that one has to take into account the entirety of a candidate's life before offering your support to that candidate. And yes, that includes Trump and his lifelong left-leaning positions.

If there's anything I've learned during all the time I've been following politics, which is roughly 35 years, it's that a candidate's past positions tend to inform his/her present positions.

In the past, Trump has supported abortion - up to and including partial-birth abortion, which is as heinous and vile an act as I can think of. All abortions are evil, as far as I'm concerned - the act of abortion, not all of the women getting them (some are evil, and I will forever hold that belief).

Now, he wants to amend the Republican platform to include exceptions for abortions? How is this conservative?

In the past, Trump has supported higher taxes on the wealthy - even though they already pay nearly 50% of all federal taxes paid.

Trump still supports raising taxes on the wealthy. Not so conservative, is it?

What more will it take for you to realize that you're being played? ~ Hunter

P.S., I really do want someone to answer these questions because I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would support a candidate who's nearly identical to Hillary in every way that matters.

Contamination

I just finished reading the first four books of a series called "Contamination." The series details a shadowy organization's apocalyptic viral attack on the southwestern United States.

This organization releases a virus into food and water supplies of various towns and cities that turns most people into vile, murderous creatures not unlike zombies. Slightly derivative of some more popular stories across various media, but enjoyable nonetheless, if a bit short.

Some characters pop up in the storyline to interact with the main protagonists - almost all determined to do evil. These characters got me wondering about what humanity might become if society completely broke down.

I'd LIKE to think that society, as a whole - more specifically, American society - would do everything in their power to help their fellow man. The more I thought about it, however, it slowly dawned on me that we probably wouldn't.

That bothers me more than you could know. It shames me to think that man's inhumanity towards man might be the norm rather than the exception.

All I have to do is look at many of the people supporting Trump in the election cycle. The way they treat those who disagree with them is the social media equivalent of the "human wave" attacks on American soldiers in Vietnam. They're seemingly all truly vile. I've made no secret of my opposition to Trump and if you read my blog or peruse my Facebook page you'll know my reasons for that opposition, so I'll not repeat them here.

I have received death threats (which I don't take too seriously) and many other vile, nasty, disgusting comments for that opposition.

I mostly just laugh at them, but today I noticed a comment on a meme I posted yesterday. The meme mocked Trump's ridiculous statement that 9/11 was worse than the attack on Pearl Harbor. A Trump supporter actually said that even despite that comment, he was still the best candidate running.

My response was basically "Only if you're not concerned with the Constitution." He then proceeded to say that the Constitution DOES NOT MATTER because people "only pull it out when it suits their purpose." I am not kidding.

Essentially, this "man" confirmed, at least for me, what I've said since Trump began his run - he and most of his supporters care nothing for this country. They SAY they do, but being willing to throw away the very foundation of this nation pretty much says otherwise.

The people in "Contamination" are essentially the same. They destroyed the foundations of their own humanity in order to prey on others.

Destroying the Constitutional underpinnings of this nation is as bad to me as destroying your own humanity. Neither are acceptable to me under any circumstances. Period.

I may not be able to do anything to prevent a proverbial "zombie apocalypse," but as long as I draw breath the Constitution of the United States of America will never die. If you seek to supplant, subvert, damage or destroy it in any way, you are my enemy and the enemy of this nation.

Trump Cries "Foul" Over Wyoming But Remains Silent About Hawaii

Clearly the Drumpf doesn't know, much less understand, the process by which the Republicans choose the nominee. Maybe I can clear it up for him and his campaign "team." Personally, I think they're too busy eating their crayons to get it, but I can at least try. Here we go...

1) The number of delegates required to have the nomination "handed" to you is ironclad at 1,237. Got it? Good.

2) Anything short of 1,237 - even by one single lonely delegate - is grounds for an "open" convention. Not likely to happen, but still a remote possibility. Got it? Good.

3) Each state has their own rules for selecting their delegates and how those delegates vote during the convention.

a) Some states are "winner take all" - meaning every delegate from that state must vote for the primary/caucus winner of the state on the first ballot.

b) Some states are "winner take most" - meaning the winner receives the votes of most of the delegates while other candidates receive a few as well.

c) Some states' delegates are "apportioned" - meaning the percentage of votes a given candidate will receive is commensurate to how well they did in that state's primary/caucus.

d) Some states, like PA, have rules that say the majority of delegates are not bound by the state's primary results. In essence, they are free to vote however they wish.

***For the record, I'm well aware that I've stripped the processes down to the bare bones minimum, but I kinda-sorta had to. How else will Drumpf and his team understand? I don't have the proper amount of crayons or construction paper it would take to really explain it to them. Just sayin'.***

My point is that it's the state's Republican Party apparatus that sets the rules for how and when delegates are chosen and who they vote for in the convention. These rules have been known for well over a year.

For The Fraud of Fifth Avenue and his team to be crying "foul" now shows how ill-prepared he is for just a simple election. It has to make one wonder how he'll ever be prepared if he wins the presidency, God forbid.

Calling the Colorado system "rigged" while remaining silent about a nearly identical process in Hawaii is especially enlightening to those of us who are actually paying attention. The only major difference between the 2 states is that the Cheetos Kid won Hawaii and lost Colorado.

Puts it in perspective, does it not? ~ Hunter

P.S., A plurality of delegates does not equal a majority. Period. End of story.

Now Is The Time To Stand With Ted Cruz

This election cycle has boiled itself down to this: You can vote for the Republican "win" by voting for Trump - even though he'll lose in a landslide to Clinton or Sanders - or you can vote for the true American values that we claim we want to preserve – the values Ted Cruz has fought for his entire adult life.

The values and principles enumerated in the Constitution are what made this nation great, not a political party or a candidate. It's no coincidence that the United States started to go to Hell in a hand basket as progressives/liberals began pushing us away from those values and principles.

There's no doubt that as America has moved further and further from the Constitution, she went from bad to worse and is teetering upon the precipice of worst. Just look at the perceived legitimacy of Bernie Sanders' campaign for proof of that.

There can be no question whatsoever that a return to the values and principles of the Constitution is what's so desperately needed to turn this ship around. There's also no question that there is only one candidate who understands the Constitution and what it represents, what it means, and has actually taken a stand - often alone - and fought for the Constitution. That candidate is Ted Cruz.

Is he perfect? No. Only one perfect person has ever walked this planet - Jesus. Cruz is, however, the only candidate who speaks of and for the things conservatives have been fighting for these past seven-plus years. Ted Cruz is the only candidate who's tried to fight the big government overreach of the Obama administration while a certain other candidate funded those politicians who allowed that overreach.

A vote for Trump is nothing but a continuation of the system we're all tired of complaining about. He's not an "outsider" as he and his supporters like to claim. Trump is the ultimate insider's insider. A Trump presidency will hasten the destruction of everything we wish to preserve almost as quickly as a Clinton or Sanders presidency. Of that I am certain.

A vote for Cruz is a vote that acknowledges those problems exist and acknowledges that a return to the Constitution is the best way to fix those problems. We, as conservatives, have been saying exactly that for decades. At least since Reagan left office.

We now have the chance to turn this around. Will it be easy? Absolutely not. So much damage has been done it will probably take a generation or longer to repair it all. Can Ted Cruz fix it all by himself? Not likely. But he is the only one who will willingly take those first steps. That alone makes him worthy of my vote.

Those of us who have complained that progressivism/liberalism/outright socialism are destroying the greatest nation in history have no business supporting more of the same. Those of us who have decried the use of government as a weapon against political enemies have no business pushing for more of the same. Those of us who have spoken out government intervention in everything from our daily lives to the free market have no business supporting more of the same..

Make no mistake about it – Donald J. Trump is more of the same. ~ Hunter

Trump's Answer To A Question At Last Night's CNN Town Hall Should Be A YUUUUUGE Red Flag For His Supporters

Anyone who knows anything about our founding documents can tell you that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are inextricably linked. You cannot separate the two from each other.

The Declaration is essentially an outline for the Constitution, and in that outline, it says that our rights come from God and that government's sole purpose - it's reason for existence, as it were - is to protect and safeguard those rights.

The Constitution of the United States is unique among the constitutions of the world in that it literally spells out what rights we already have and specifically limits what the government can do to impact those rights.

Nowhere in this document will you find a "right" to an education, housing, or healthcare. It's not the federal government's job to provide those things for Americans.

Last night, during the CNN Town Hall, Donald Trump was asked what he thought were the top three functions of the federal government were. After attempting to skirt the issue by making a lame joke, saying "Security, security, security," Trump's inner progressive reared it's ugly head and proclaimed that healthcare, education and housing were top priorities for the federal government.

I'm not making that up.

As I posted on my personal Facebook page last night, right after he said it, that answer alone should disqualify him from consideration for the presidency. If his supporters could get past their emotions for more time than it takes to change the television channel, perhaps they would realize just how much he sounds like Obama, Clinton, and Sanders.

I don't know about you, but I'm not holding my breath on that awakening. The evidence is right there, laid bare at their feet and for all the world to see. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that Trump is not who he claims to be.

It's maddeningly sad to watch otherwise intelligent people fall victim to a conman, especially when the con being run isn't the least bit subtle. The difference between Trump's con and your everyday, garden variety con is that Trump's con leads to the destruction of the nation, not just one person.

For that, there can be no forgiveness. ~ Hunter

It's Our Own Damn Fault

When the Supreme Court made their ruling on gay marriage, those of us who spoke out against the Court even taking the case - let alone our disagreement with the actual ruling - warned that this type of thing would come.

We said that it wasn't going to stop with owners of private companies being forced to go against their religious beliefs.

We raised the alarm and predicted purely religious organizations would be targeted and smeared for not bowing down to a micro-minority but very vocal subset of society.

"You're crazy!" we were told.

"Homophobes!" we were called.

"Bigots! You just don't want equal rights!" they exclaimed.

We were ridiculed, belittled, excoriated by the Left for raising that alarm. Yet here we are, watching it happen exactly as we said it would.

Religious liberty is enumerated as our very FIRST Right in the Bill of Rights.  It comes before free speech, the right to bear arms, petition the government.

All of them come after the right to practice your religion as you see fit, provided that practice doesn't infringe on another's rights in any way.

The Founders held this right as sacrosanct, perhaps inviolable even, which is understandable given the tyranny they had just fought a long war to be rid of.

What makes this all the worse is that the Georgia law - and here's the really important part - only protected overtly religious organizations, like churches and charities. It had nothing whatsoever to do with private companies or individuals. The scope was limited, targeted for just that reason.

In this day and age, immorality is becoming increasingly acceptable to wider and wider swathes of people who don't seem to care what problems they cause for future generations as long as they get what they want RIGHT NOW and to Hell with anyone else.

I no longer recognize the America I once knew - the America where people had the freedom to do what they wanted, act how they wanted, be who they wanted to be regardless what society wanted and within the framework of the Rule of Law.

The age of the individual is over. The Rule of Law has ended. This "Great Experiment" in self-governance is dying a slow, painful, ignominious death and it's our own damn fault.

The lessons learned by, and from, the Founders have been all but forgotten and for that we should all be ashamed. ~ Hunter

What Good Is A "Win" When The Winner Doesn't Share Your Values?

I find myself in a unique and unprecedented position. Yesterday morning, while listening to Chris Stigall, I learned that Rush Limbaugh, apparently speaking about Drumpf, made a statement to the effect that this election is "beyond ideology" for him, that it's about stopping Hillary from becoming president.

Rush has been almost a hero to me. Throughout the last 25-plus years, I've agreed with Rush's take on things political far more often than I've not. I remember when I first started listening to Rush on the radio and thinking, "Finally! Someone out there 'gets it!' Somebody who's saying what I've been thinking!"

It was both Reagan and Rush who taught me that the principles of conservatism not only worked but were morally right and true. It was they who reinforced what my parents instilled in me (though I didn't always practice) that doing right often meant standing alone, fighting the tide. The two of them, more than any other people, taught me that conservative principles are worth taking that stand.

Now, however, it seems we are to throw conservative principles overboard for the "win." At least, that's what I took from Limbaugh's statement. I could be wrong in my assessment, but given the behavior of supposed conservatives pertaining to Drumpf and his candidacy, I don't think I am, and it disturbs me.

I keep asking - "What good is a 'win' for conservatives if the winner is NOT a conservative?" I have yet to receive an answer beyond "Keeping Hillary out of the White House." Sorry, but that's not good enough.

We have to be for something, not just against something. Anyone with half a brain listening to Drumpf speak knows that his positions on foreign policy and trade are beyond reckless, bordering on dangerous - economically if he gets his wish for massive tariffs on imported products and militarily if he orders our troops to fire upon and murder civilians.

This election doesn't go beyond ideology. It's precisely about ideology. If you believe, as I do, in conservative principles; if you know, as I do, that conservatism is what's best for this nation, you cannot possibly vote for a candidate who does not - and never has - hold those same beliefs and stay true to your principles.

I used to believe that the primaries were for your principles and the general was for winning the prize. No longer. I won't be an active participant in the destruction of everything I hold most dear. I just won't. A win by Drumpf in the general election would be a disaster, possibly an even greater one than a Hillary win.

If we don't take a stand now for the beliefs we profess, if we cast off the principles we've been fighting for years to maintain and put into practice solely to prevent a Hillary presidency by electing her ideological equal, there's no point at all to even having principles.

This election is about doing what's right not what makes us "feel good." If we, as conservatives, elect Drumpf we're no better than the liberals we've been mocking for decades for not having any principles.

This love affair the nation is having with Drumpf is as sickening to me as the one we had with King DingleBarry seven years ago. I won't - I can't - just sit idly by as I watch the nation I love be destroyed from within, and by my own side. It's disgusting.  ~ Hunter

The Case Against Trump

I'm a firm believer in the old adage, "All it takes for evil to win is for good men to do nothing."

If you want to know why I stand against The Fraud of Fifth Avenue, that statement says it all.

While I don't believe Trump is "evil" as we currently understand that word, I do believe that he is dangerous, both personally and politically.

Trump is a vain, spoiled, vindictive child walking around in a 70-year-old body. His utter contempt for people who disagree with, or dare question him is palpable. His comments to Hugh Hewitt about the latter's radio show were unnecessary and cruel in the extreme. He made these comments after having been on Hewitt's show just a few weeks earlier:

His insecurities shine brightly when talking about others. Look no further than how he reacted to the debate the other night for proof. Two candidates used his own tactics against him and he became unhinged. See the language he used about Rubio during the press conference he held the next day when announcing the endorsement of The Outlaw Jersey Whale as evidence. You can check out this footage at a rally in Texas:

His vanity and narcissism are on full display, for all the world to see, every time he opens his mouth to speak. *I'm the best...greatest...biggest..." It's always "I, I, I." It's never about others. It's never about the country - except for platitudes like "Make America Great Again." He's so vain that he actually wants to expand libel laws so he can sue people who write "negative" articles about him.

Trump has positioned himself as the "anti-establishment" and non-politician candidate despite admitting to donating to politicians on both sides of the aisle in order to receive favors later. In what universe is helping keep certain politicians in power considered not establishment?  Not holding elective office doesn't make you a "non-politician" when you've immersed yourself in that world for decades.

The tiresome excuse of "He's a businessman hedging his bets" and/or "He has to grease the right skids" is laughable at best. What it says to me is the man has zero discernable core principles that drive him except greed.

Trump believes whatever is best for Trump at any given moment, not what's best for the nation. He's lambasted businesses for moving jobs out of the country, threatening one with a "heavy tax" if he's elected, while manufacturing his clothing lines in Mexico and China. His reason - they devalue their currencies, thereby making it more difficult to compete in the American market. Basically,  what he's saying is it's perfectly reasonable for him to maximize his profits, but others doing the EXACT SAME THING is unacceptable and punishable.

I disagree with many pundits who say that Trump is attracting new people to conservatism. How can someone attract people to an ideology that person has never held? He might be bringing people to the Republican Party, but most of them will only push the party further left. These are the people we've been fighting against for decades. I couldn't care less about the Republican brand, but how does this help conservatism?

Conservatism is primarily about "conserving" the Constitutional principles that built the United States into the greatest, most powerful nation that has ever existed. What sense does it make to bring those who would do away with those principles into the same tent as us?

Make no mistake about it, the election of a "President Trump" will be a disaster. I don't mean just for the Republican Party, either. This nation - and her people - will suffer greatly under such a vain, cruel man-child.

I understand, very deeply, the anger that has led to the rise of such a narcissistic pretender. I get it. When entrenched politicians refuse to listen to the people they ostensibly represent it becomes easy to latch onto someone who seems to be speaking the same language. Is there anything more appealing to an angry people than someone who says what you've been saying but has a much bigger platform?

When Trump first began his run, I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt. The more I listened to him, however, the more I understood that running for president isn't about helping the nation: It was about him and his ego. The not-so-veiled racial statements, the lack of specific answers to pointed and direct questions, the bullying (there's no other word for it) of other candidates, and a complete lack of backstory regarding his supposed conversion to conservatism after a lifetime of liberal viewpoints couldn't make it any clearer.

I'm begging people to research the man. Look into his past. He's not just AMORAL: He's IMMORAL. He's bragged about sleeping with married women as if it's an honorable thing to do. He dishonored Vietnam veterans by declaring that he's "brave" for having unprotected sex with women, calling it his own "personal Vietnam." I'm not making that up. The man has no empathy, no scruples.

Simply proclaiming a "wall" will be built isn't a good enough reason to vote for someone who been your ideological opposite for your entire life, spewed there's a Constitutional Conservative who's said the same thing and said it far earlier.

The prospect of another Clinton presidency is a good reason to vote for someone who is her ideological opposite. Trump isn't that someone. The differences between the two of them are negligible.

Voting against someone or something is no longer a viable option. If the last two presidential elections didn't provide that example, I don't know what else possibly could. Conservatives voted against Obama more than we voted for McCain and Romney. We rationalized it as voting for the "lesser of two evils." It didn't work.

This election, however, we have a viable Constitutional Conservative alternative to the same old, same old. I've made no secret that Ted Cruz is my pick, and while I'd love to ask you to vote for him, that's not my job. Nor is it the point of this post. All I ask of you is that, as a conservative, do some research into all the candidates. Find the one who actually represents the beliefs and values you already hold and don't fall victim to the same type of bumper sticker slogans as "Hope & Change" and "Yes We Can."

It's time to take a stand. We can't just stand against what we know is wrong: We must also stand for what we know is RIGHT. It won't be easy, but it will be worth it in the end, even if we don't get the result we want and so desperately need. ~ Hunter

No, I Will NOT Vote For Trump, Even If He IS The Nominee

If you ask me will I vote for Trump in the general if he's the nominee, you don't know me very well.

I'm a conservative far more than a Republican. I cannot, in good conscience, vote for someone who's been a liberal to his core for his entire adult life.

We were told in 2008 and 2012 that we had to nominate "moderates" to win. They LOST.

The difference between then and now, however, could not be more readily apparent. Today, we have a true Constitutional Conservative running; something we did not have in '08 & '12. Do any of you remember voicing the complaint "If we had only had a conservative running!"

I do remember. So many of those voices arose from people on my Facebook Friends List, yet a considerable number of those same people now support a lying narcissist with a proven track record of extreme liberalism.

Worse yet, many of them tout his "anti-establishment" credentials while completely overlooking that he admitted ON STAGE, during a nationally televised debate that he donated to politicians - on both sides of the aisle - so that when he "needed something" they'd be there. He's not "anti-establishment." He's deeply entrenched in the establishment for his own personal gain. How can you not see the hypocrisy? The dichotomy?

I hate watching all that I hold most dear dying before my eyes. It quite literally brings me to tears to know that my grandchildren won't know the freedom and liberty I enjoyed in my youth. I will not be part of the further erosion of those freedoms and liberties.

It saddens me that so many of my "conservative" brothers and sisters have deluded themselves into thinking Donald Trump is something he so clearly is not - a conservative.

I, and many of my friends - some of whom I consider family - have done what we can to bring awareness to people. We have been verbally attacked and violently threatened by the same people who suffered that exact same abuse from Obama voters back in 2008 and if you don't see an issue with that, you're part of the problem.

If you want to vote for someone who will do nothing but continue to strip your freedom and liberty from you, take the very essence of what it means to be an American and stomp them into the ground as if they meant nothing, be my guest. I won't stop you.

But when, not if, these things come to pass, know that I most certainly will hold it against you because it's YOU who's destroying the greatest nation to have ever existed.

It's YOU who denied my grandchildren their birthright of liberty.

It's YOU who placed the yoke of slavery to the State around your own necks, and those of your fellow citizens. I'll laugh in your faces because YOU DID IT YOURSELVES, and you can't say you weren't warned. As far as I'm concerned, you'll be a traitor to the Constitution and the principles that are America.

I will not be kind. I will not have sympathy.

And I will not show mercy.

I will not vote for Trump under any circumstances. I trust made that abundantly clear. ~ Hunter

Trump Points To His Record On The Iraq War. Let's Look At The Rest Of The Record...

If I've said this once, I've said it a thousand times since The Trumpertantrum threw his hat in the ring - You have to look at his record, his past positions to determine whether you should vote for him or not. All of it.

In Saturday night's debate, Trump effectively said: ​"Bush lied, people died." He then went on to say that he was against the war in Iraq before we invaded. Even though there's no documented evidence of him being against the war until about a year into it, for the sake of argument, let's assume that's true.

Trump points to his own record to defend his attacks on Jeb Bush and the Bush family (no, this is not a defense of Jeb or any other Bush). Should it not follow that we look at the other positions he had over time? Things like abortion, raising taxes 5.7 TRILLION DOLLARS (Trump's own number), single-payer healthcare, Obama's a good president, etc.?

Let's not mention that Trump endorsed Bill De Blasio a mere two years ago. An endorsement, I might add, that was given based upon Trump being told by someone that De Blasio "said some nice things" about Trump AT A COCKTAIL PARTY.

We can't just pick and choose what parts of his past we want to apply to the here and now and what parts we don't. It's patently absurd to do so. Trump has never held a conservative position on any issue before he started his presidential run. Please note that I didn't say Republican position, I said conservative.

What's changed? What caused his sudden shift of ideology? I submit that he hasn't changed substantively. In my opinion, he's no farther right than Hillary, and certainly not even as conservative as McCain or Romney.

Remember when they got elected president?

Yeah, me neither. ~ Hunter

The 2016 Presidential Election Became Even MORE Important Yesterday

As most of you know, the United States suffered a terrible tragedy yesterday with the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
Most people who frequent this page also know that I have no love of Donald Trump as a presidential candidate or a human being. I have done my level best to make clear that Trump has never been a conservative. His unwavering support for "eminent domain" should be proof enough of that.
Fans of this page also know that I've been very vocal in my support for Ted Cruz in his bid to become the Republican presidential nominee. His record clearly indicates that he's the only principled Constitutional conservative in this race, with Carson coming in second in that category.
While I have no real objection to Carson becoming the nominee, my only misgivings with the man are that he just seems too nice and too naive in the ways of politics for him to succeed in this political climate. In a bygone era, he most probably would have made an extremely good, if not phenomenal president.
The single biggest reason I'm a Cruz supporter is the very same reason I was instantly depressed and fearful when I learned of Justice Scalia's passing - conservatism. More specifically, constitutional conservatism. If the reign of King DingleBarry has proven nothing else it's that those on the Left quite literally loathe the founding document that is the very foundation of American governance.
Justice Scalia was a brilliant jurist and outspoken advocate of the strict interpretation of the overarching law of the land. He truly believed that deference should be given to the actual words of the Constitution was of utmost importance and anything not contained therein should default to the individual states and/or the individual citizens. When Scalia was called home to God, my very first thought was that the Constitution may have died with him.
Ted Cruz believes the same as Scalia - that the Constitutional principles this nation was founded upon are of greatest import and that if we are to survive as a nation, the United States need to return to those principles. The next president could make at least three appointments to the Supreme Court, which makes who is elected vitally significant.
If you desire to return to the days when the government and its power to interfere in your everyday lives was limited, if you wish for the Constitution to regain its prominence, I encourage you to vote Cruz in your state's primary.
This very well may be our last chance to avert the destruction of the United States. She's not without her faults and she's certainly had her darker times, but overall, America has been the only consistent force for good around the world since her birth.
If you wish to keep going along this path of destruction, I invite you to vote for any of the rest of the candidates - Kasich, Bush, Rubio, Sanders, Clinton, or Trump. The only real difference I see between any of them is how fast the destruction occurs. Kasich, Bush, and Rubio, thanks to their stated positions on varied topics would all be nothing more than "managers" of the decline. They certainly won't stop it.
Comrades Bernie and Clinton would mean nothing less than​ unmitigated disasters for America. They're both so consumed with envy and hatred that they intend to just give away everything they can - indeed, they're eager to give it away - adding to an already monstrously crippling national debt that is likely to be close to 22 TRILLION DOLLARS when the next president is inaugurated. Think about that for a second - Obama has more than doubled the national debt incurred by every single one of his predecessors combined and God help us if Sanders gets elected. Just the proposals he's made so far would double the debt yet again in ten years. I know 18 trillion is just an estimate, but it's a low ball estimate.
What about Trump? Oh, The Trumpertantrum is a special case. As far as I can figure, there is no appreciable difference between Trump and the two socialists masquerading as Democrats. His past positions for very liberal ideas and actions should be the loudest alarm bells possible for conservative voters - things like abortion, gun control, progressive taxes, the aforementioned eminent domain, single-payer healthcare (like Bernie Sanders), etc. Let's not mention his constant disdain and outright hatred directed at those who disagree with him. To put a finer point on things as far as SCOTUS nominees, in August of 2105 - well into his presidential run - Trump said that his sister, a well-known advocate of abortion in general, and a vocal supporter of partial-birth abortion, would make a "phenomenal" Supreme Court Justice.
As a conservative, these positions worry me. What worries me even more, however, is the fact that so many of his supporters don't seem to care about his past positions and take his self-professed change of heart at face value. Have we, as a supposedly conservative electorate, really fallen so far that we'll take a catchy slogan and run with it like he's the second coming of Ronald Reagan or Calvin Coolidge? Do we really want to be compared - in any way - to those who elected King DingleBarry based on a catchy slogan? I don't know about you, but that's not the legacy I intend to leave my grandchildren.
It's time to stop dancing around what's wrong with America for fear of "political correctness" - on this, I agree with Trump. But I refuse to be suckered into voting against my principles once again. In that, my friends, you can rest assured I will not be compromised.
My vote is for Ted Cruz. As a conservative, I don't see that there's any other choice. ~ Hunter

Humanizing Human Beings Is WRONG - Just Ask NARAL

You probably didn't realize this, but Super Bowl 50 was played yesterday. I mean, it hardly got any attention at all leading up to the game, so it's understandable that you might not have known about the game.

(Congratulations to the Denver Broncos for the win, even though they weren't the team I wanted to win. It was nice, however, to see Peyton Manning likely end his career by winning the penultimate game of the season)

If you missed the game, you might have missed the commercial Doritos made specifically to air during the game's broadcast time slot, the same as they have done for the past several Super Bowls. In case you haven't seen it, here it is:

Personally, I think it's a brilliant bit of advertising. I don't care that Dad is stereotyped as an idiot, or that Mom is portrayed as uptight and having to tolerate Dad's idiocy. The commercial is effective at what it was intended to do; advance the Doritos brand name. The commercial is memorable and that is what's most important in the advertising game.

One of the unintended consequences of this particular commercial, however, is that it's attracted the attention of at least one pro-abortion extremistist group - the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, or NARAL.

Following the initial airing of the commercial, NARAL post this tweet complaining about the ad:

Notice the language: tactic of humanizing fetuses. 

Yep, you actually did read that correctly. NARAL actually complained about Doritos "humanizing fetuses." Seriously?! What do they think the woman was pregnant with? A tree?! Maybe a puppy? Oh, I know... That clump of cells was obviously a Volkswagen.

Heaven forbid we "humanize" an actual HUMAN BEING. (oops... I said "heaven." What was I thinking?!) To imagine that a human being is, well, a human being is absolute heresy to the pro-abortion extremists. Too bad the actual science disagrees with them.

Pro-abortion extremists like NARAL and Planned Parenthood have maintained a death grip on the language surrounding abortion for far too long under the twin "guilting" principles of tolerance and political correctness. We "hurt their feelings," they cry, because we don't believe as they do

Pro-lifers have been mostly reluctant to engage them for fear of being labeled bigots, etc., but it's our own damn fault. I'm no longer willing to roll over and play dead for the sake of their feelings. If what they believe is so important to them, they should have to stand up to defend their positions, forced to accept the responsibility required of their actions.

More importantly - so should pro-lifers. It's no longer enough to simply "be against" abortion. We must make it so our voices will be heard, whether that's writing about it as I've done for years, attending pro-life rallies (which I intend to do in the near future), or donating to pro-life groups to help get the message out.

I believe the tide is turning, ladies and gentlemen, but it's been a long, slow process. The younger generations, for all their perceived failings, are becoming far more pro-life than their parents' generations. It's time to take a stand and fight for what's right.

I'm going to get a bag of Doritos. Who's with me? ~ Hunter

Fox News, The Presidential Race, And The Trumpeteers

Yesterday, I made this comment on several Facebook pages discussing Donald Trump backing out of the last Republican debate before the Iowa caucuses that will be aired on Fox News Channel:

If Trump can't handle tough questions from some measly little reporters, how can he handle world leaders who don't agree with him?

I never had a problem with Megyn Kelly's line of questions, mostly because, if nothing else, the last 7-plus years have proved that not vetting a candidate's past is devastating for this nation.

Trump is nothing more than the "rich kid bully." He's as far from presidential material as the old wrestler Mick Foley. Let's not mention that his past (right up until he decided to run as a Republican) is decidedly and squarely on the left - somewhere between Hitlery Clintoon and Bernie Sanders.

On the flip side, it'll be nice watching a debate without that bloviating blowhard.

I can't even begin to explain how much hate I've received from Trumpeteers (my pet name for Trump supporters who blindly worship the man, despite his overwhelmingly liberal record). They've even resorted to calling me a "liberal."

Over the course of many "discussions" - which usually involved me attempting to discuss things with people telling me I'm stupid, an idiot, a liberal, a moron, I don't "get it," etc. - I've tried to explain to people that Trump isn't "anti-establishment," he's not presidential material, and here's the most important thing - Trump is NOT a conservative.

Despite the fact the I clearly don't work for Fox News (or any other news organization), I've been told that I need to "wake up to the bias" of Megyn Kelly and Fox News and that I shouldn't fall for them trying to pick our candidate. No kidding geniuses! Thanks for that tidbit.

Let's get something straight here: I don't care who the press wants. The best part of this process is that We the People choose the candidate, not the press. Do they try to influence it? Probably. Do we have to blindly follow them? Nope.

What bothers me is that the people who are blindly following Trump because he says what they want to hear completely disregard everything he's said in the past, especially when they're diametrically opposite to what he espouses now.

If you want to vote for a Democrat, go ahead. That's your choice. But you could at least be honest about who he is and his lifelong beliefs. You owe at least that much to yourself and your kids and grandkids.

Trump is not, nor he he ever been, a conservative. If he wins, don't complain about what he does, and don't say you weren't warned.

I won't say "I told you so." But I did tell you so. ~ Hunter

The Old Man's Tears

I was walking through the park the other day when I came across an older gentleman sitting on a bench. Every time I walked by him, I noticed there were tears streaming silently down his stubbled cheeks.

On my third lap around the park, I decided to sit down and try to console the man. Perhaps he was mourning his wife or a child and the least I could do was sit with him for a spell.

"Sir," I said, sitting on the bench next to him. "Are you OK?"

He turned and looked at me, as if surprised that I even noticed him.

"Young man, I'm in mourning.

"My wife is healthy, and all my children and grandchildren are living happy and healthy lives, but still I mourn."

"A good friend?" I asked, thinking back to how I felt when a few of my friends had passed over the years.

"Oh, I wish it was that simple," he said, laughing bitterly.

"What else is there to mourn this much for?" I thought to myself.

"Son, let me tell you a short story.

"I fought in a war that freed a continent from evil and stopped the wholesale oppression and slaughter of a people only to see much the same thing here a home.

"I watched as a great man marched peacefully in far too many cities to bring equality and freedom to people long held as 'inferior.' In fact, I marched with him when I could, and was there in spirit when I couldn't.

"I worked hard to bring financial security for my family so that they would never know the deprivation we now know as the 'Great Depression.' For us, it was just 'hard times.'

"I've watched as people have come and gone, making unfulfilled promises along the way.

"I've wondered at the technological marvels and medical miracles our society has produced for all mankind - jet fighters and passenger jets, helicopters, prosthetic limbs, diseases cured. All of that brought about by free-thinking, freedom-loving people with a will to break from tradition and convention.

"I watched with fascination as mankind slipped free the bonds of Earth and traveled to the moon and focused their eyes on the stars.

"I watched with amusement as science chases God with intent to destroy Him, and laughed as He wriggled free of their grasp and created more of His wonders for them to study.

"I've seen evil come along on gilded wings, yet be rejected, defeated, when good people took a stand.

"I've seen more good than bad in my days here.

"And yet...." he trailed off, staring off into the distance.

As he had spoken, the tears had dried. Now, they returned full force.

"What?" I asked, spellbound. This man knew how to tell a story. "Why do you cry?"

"I don't weep for myself. I've had a long and mostly happy life.

"I don't cry for my friends, who are more like me than not.

"I don't cry even for you. You're old enough to have fought for the right things. Whether you did or not is immaterial - you should have.

"I weep because that which we have fought so long for, that which we have gained, we are losing! Worse, we are giving them away!

"What has happened to the only nation where the freedom to speak your mind is guaranteed? When did we devolve into a nation of sissies, afraid to hear a viewpoint opposite of our own?

"When did we decide that giving up our own rights was the 'safe' thing to do?

"I weep for the United States of America I used to know out of the fear that my grandchildren will never know what it means to be truly FREE." ~ Hunter