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