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.

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

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

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

I Will NEVER Vote For Trump

Let's get a couple things straight - I will never, under any circumstances, vote for Donald Trump - ever.

I'm absolutely, 100% sick and tired of having to compromise my principles in a fruitless attempt to get the "win."

The only way to fix what ails this nation is with conservatism. Period.

Every single conservative has made the above statement time and time again for over eight years, which makes it beyond mind-bogglingly puzzling to me why so many conservatives have thrown their support behind Trump.

The man is not conservative. Not in any way, shape, manner, or form. He's in favor of big-government solutions for things like healthcare, he wants to tax the so-called "rich" more than they already are, has admitted to essentially buying off politicians - on both sides of the aisle - to get them to do what he wants, the "right" to choose to murder a reborn human being, gun control, and a whole host of other non-conservative thoughts and beliefs.

Republicans chose a big-government progressive with McCain and they lost to a guy nobody with half a brain thought could win. Then they chose another progressive with Romney and they lost despite King DingleBarry's abysmal record.

Despite those two humiliating defeats, Republicans retook control of Congress with historic landslide midterm wins. How? By running on conservatism. Yes, one can make the case that the Republicans haven't lived up to their promises, and I wouldn't argue the point - not even a little bit.

Stop and think about that for a second - the very idea of conservatism won us the House in 2010 and the Senate in 2014. Do you really think those were just coincidences? I don't. People are screaming out for change - a real change, not the crap King DingleBarry peddled in '08.

If we don't get off our collective conservative butts and support real conservatives, and soon, this nation is done for the foreseeable future - and it will be OUR FAULT.

I've thought about this at great length and I truly believe that Trump isn't the answer. With his views and beliefs, all he'll do is manage the decline instead of hastening it, as Hitlery will. If I'm going to bear witness to the death of that which I hold most dear, I'd rather she die quickly, proudly, than watching her waste away in an ignominious fade out.

Make no mistake - I do not want America to die and I will fight to my last breath to prevent it, but if die she must, let it be quickly.

The sooner she dies, the sooner she can be reborn the way the Founders envisioned her.

I'm voting for Ted Cruz because he's the only true conservative in the field and I believe his platform is what's right for this nation.

There IS Hope For The Future

Anyone who has known me for a long time knows I've been following politics, with a fervor usually reserved for a favorite sports team, since I was about ten years old. Ronald Reagan was just entering his first term in our highest office, winning in a landslide against what, until recently, had been the worst president in history, Jimmy Carter. Carter was the reason I have never been a liberal (the present-day definition of the word).

Even with following politics so young, I never would have entertained the notion of actually entering politics. Aside from not having the compunction, I wouldn't have had even the foggiest notion how, to enter political life.

That's why my hat goes off to young CJ Pearson. I first heard about him from the Chicks On The Right website. He's a young conservative, ironically raised by democrat parents, who has not only taken an interest in politics, he's entering politics.

CJ has written a bill, HR37, to put before the Georgia General Assembly that would lower the minimum age requirements to serve in state government, which currently stand at 21 years old for the House and 25 for the Senate. Seriously, he's TWELVE!!!

Just listen to this young man and you'll instantly feel the hope for our nation return:

There are far too many adults (read: liberals) who are perpetual children, believing that the world owes them high-paying jobs, financial security, free housing and education, free healthcare and/or health insurance (not working out so well, is it?), etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum, simply because they exist. It's refreshing - invigorating - to hear a young man who just "gets it."

I applaud CJ for taking an active role and interest in politics. I wish him nothing but success in all his endeavors, and if he grows into the man that the child hints at, this nation will be far better off than it is today.

You can follow CJ on Twitter here and on Facebook here. He also blogs for FreedomWorks.

I was still playing with my Matchbox and Hot Wheels cars at twelve... ~ Hunter

Enforcement Of A Crap Law Is Still Necessary For The Rule Of Law

I know this is probably going to make me pretty unpopular with quite a few folks, but I just call things the way I see things.

Eric Garner's death, as tragic as it was, was not because he was selling "loosies" (single cigarettes). As with Michael Brown, who wasn't shot and killed for the strong-arm robbery he committed minutes before Ferguson P.D. Officer Darren Wilson encountered him, Garner died as a result of his disobeying the lawful order of the police officers attempting to arrest him.

We can complain that the law the police were there to enforce the day Garner died was, and is, ridiculous. The government interfering in the free-market service Garner was attempting to provide is precisely the type of law that true conservatives wish to abolish, and it should be. But just as with Mike Brown, had Garner complied with the police officers' commands, he would most likely be alive today.

While most people are focusing on the underlying crime in both NYC and Ferguson, they're missing the obvious - the failure of both men to obey the lawful commands of the police. With Garner, we must also keep in mind that he had been previously arrested and was out on bail for selling untaxed cigarettes, driving without a license, marijuana possession, among others. Garner had a criminal record that includes more than 30 arrests dating back to 1980 on charges such as assault, resisting arrest, grand larceny. An official said the charges include multiple incidents in which he was arrested for selling unlicensed cigarettes.

The Garner incident had nothing to do with race. In fact, the police sergeant leading the detail making the arrest was a black woman. It was her decision to go forward with the arrest. I deeply sympathize with the Garner family, but facts are facts, and as he had been arrested multiple times - FOR THE SAME OFFENSE - he *knew* that what he was doing was against the law.

We can argue about the ridiculousness of the law Garner was breaking until we're all blue in the face, but unless and until that law is changed, we are duty-bound to obey that law. This is the type of government overreach that we have allowed to creep into our system.

Just as Mike Brown is responsible for Mike Brown's death, Eric Garner is responsible for Eric Garner's death. The police officers involved in both cases were just trying to do their jobs to the best of their abilities. ~ Hunter

What's Wrong With America: Voter Apathy

I've been seeing a great many Facebook posts today about making sure people get out to vote. They've been inundated by comments about how voting doesn't matter - things are decided already by some shadowy secret cabal or some other such nonsense.


The only position I take on "the fix is already in" is that I don't believe it - not for a second. It's nearly impossible to comprehend that, in a nation where almost every secret is leaked by someone, somewhere, sometime, it's somehow possible to keep this cabal hidden. Sorry - just not buying it.

As for those who aren't voting - you are the problem. Or at least a very big part of it. As a citizen of the greatest nation ever set on this planet, you not only have the right to vote - it's your responsibility to exercise that right. Every last one of the rights enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights comes with the responsibility to USE THEM. Yes, it really is that simple.


If you can't bring yourself to drag your sorry a$$ off your couch to go to your local polling place and press a few buttons, you - yes, YOU - are an even bigger danger to this Republic than the liberals/socialists/communists.


Voting for the lesser of two evils is, by far, not the best of solutions, and certainly not what the Founders would have wanted. At the moment, however, we don't have a better option. By not voting, you're helping the greater evil win.


Don't believe me? Look at the 2012 presidential election. Upwards of 5 *MILLION* conservatives failed to vote. I agree that Romney was far from the ideal candidate (I would've preferred Cain or Gingrich), but he was certainly a better choice than allowing King DingleBarry a second term.


If you don't vote, if you don't at least make the attempt to help turn back the tide, how can you possibly have the temerity to complain about the direction we're going? By not exercising one of your moat basic rights as a citizen of the United States, you're acting just as selfishly as those who vote for the liberals ruining this great nation.


And that, my friends, makes ME sick - and makes YOU pretty damn contemptible. ~ Hunter

Are You Ready For The Department Of Parental Suitability?

In addition to the pages I help run, I belong to a few private Facebook groups for conservatives. They're groups for conservatives to get together, share ideas, gather facts, and just generally have fun making fun of the socialist morons we call "liberals."


(As an aside, I absolutely LOATHE using that word for them. Allowing them to claim they're standing for freedom puts true liberals - you know, the conservatives that stand with the Founders and Framers - at an immense disadvantage. We need to reclaim that word.)


The reason I bring up the groups is because late into the night a couple of days ago, I was engaged in a debate with a fellow conservative in the comment thread of this story, which is the Chicks On The Right commentary about this story.


The subject of our debate was this conservative's insistence upon setting standards for becoming - and remaining - a parent as a way to keep people off, or remove them from, government assistance programs. He didn't just insist upon standards, though; he wants to set up a government bureaucracy - a "Department of Parental Suitability," if you will - in order to administer his "objective test" for prospective and current parents.


Yes... You did read that correctly.


I have often said that conservatives need to bring the fight to liberals using the same tactics liberals use. That means flooding liberal pages with conservatives, but instead of using "what ifs" or feelings, we need to use the facts that most conservatives usually have on hand. Overwhelm them. Get down and dirty, call the names like they do to us, It's long past time to adjust our fighting style to match theirs. I did NOT mean to use the same WEAPONS.


According to this conservative's grand plan, the idea is to establish some sort of "objective test" to determine whether one is suitable to become a parent. The criteria includes your financial situation (salary, savings, home ownership, etc.), drinking and smoking habits, marital situation. Practically every aspect of your life will be laid bare before some faceless, "objective" government worker. Sounds a little Nazi-esque to me.


Basically, his proposal means that you have to earn a certain amount, lose the right to do as you please within the law, and accede to the demands of others in how you live your life. When he made this proposal, I literally had to check to make sure right and left hadn't changed places when I wasn't looking. Fortunately, King DingleBarry was making some patently ridiculous statement at the time and Ronaldus Magnus was still credited with ushering in the single longest peacetime economic expansion in the history of the world, so I figured it out pretty quickly.


My immediate response, along with several other people in the group, was to tell him that to invite more government intrusion into our lives runs counter to everything conservatives believe, and that using his "remove people from the government dole" excuse wasn't sufficient reason to expand the government into areas it was never designed to go. Good intentions aren't enough to ensure the system won't be abused.


How long before a Lois Lerner wannabe decides to start asking, "How conservative are you" to determine suitability for parenting? Think that can't happen? I'm fairly certain that the conservative groups that filed for their tax exempt status didn't think it could happen to them, either. Can you say "unintended consequences?"


The bottom line is that doing "good" at the point of a gun - which is what government is - isn't really doing good at all. It's just doing less bad. Our position as conservatives should always be on the side of less government, as the Founders intended. When modern liberal ideas start creeping into conservatism, we might as well switch sides. It is ridiculous to invite the government deeper into our lives, especially under the guise of "doing good." It's never worked before. All one need do is review the welfare system. The poverty rate has remained virtually unchanged in the fifty-plus years since LBJ declared his "War on Poverty."


While I agree with the overall premise that the breakdown of the nuclear family is one of the central reasons for the "need" for welfare, but in true liberal fashion, welfare is a major cause of that family breakdown. I submit, however, that being single should not be a disqualifier to becoming, or remaining, a parent. I was a single father, with custody for seven years before meeting my now-wife. On top of that, I was dirt poor (another disqualifier under his proposal). I challenge anyone to find a more respectful, better adjusted child than my son. No, my situation wasn't ideal for raising a child, but it clearly worked. I've also known two parent households, in what would be ideal conditions according to the "objective test," that aren't worth a damn. The point is this: parenting situations are not static, nor is one situation identical to another.


As I said earlier, good intentions aren't enough of a safeguard against further government interference in our lives. There isn't a single government program that has stayed within its initial parameters. Ever. Why would this one be any different?


If we don't guard against this kind of thinking, we're essentially no different than those we profess to be fighting against, and this nation really will be lost. FOREVER. ~ Hunter

"Divergent" - A Glimpse Into Our Future?

Anyone wanting to get a glimpse into the future of our nation needs to see the movie "Divergent."

Set in a post-apocalyptic near-future, what occurs in the movie is very close to what will happen if we keep allowing liberals and political correctness to put people into various groups by defining people as they see fit.

Liberals see America as groups of people to set against other groups. "Your group is doing bad because this group over here is [insert today's buzzword here], which means your group needs [insert pet cause here] from us." They need to keep people as separate as possible. Keeping people in little "boxes," constantly at odds with one another, tends to accomplish that rather well, doesn't it?

By contrast, what conservatives see in groups of people is the miracle that is America. I know I've said this before, but it bears repeating - America is a nation defined less by the people inhabiting it than the ideas and ideals that brought forth its existence. A legal immigrant to this country, having just taken the oath to the Constitution, is considered just as American as someone who was born here. Nowhere else on earth is such a thing possible.

Conservatives see Americans as, well, Americans. No one individual is better or worse than any other in terms of class, or accident of birth.

We need to teach people, and perhaps relearn ourselves, to stop letting others define who we are and let our actions define us, before it's too late to avoid the type of society depicted in "Divergent." ~ Hunter

What's Wrong With America: Governance By Polls

Just about to go to bed, and flipping thrust Fox News, and caught the last few minutes of O'Reilly. I don't usually watch him anymore because he's NOT a conservative.

During his email segment, someone wrote in, apparently chastising Bernie Goldberg, who said that impeaching King DingleBarry would be a bad idea due to polls suggesting that only 33% of voters would support such a move.

I don't believe for a second that it's only 33%. That being said, since when is doing the right thing dependent upon POLLS?

I couldn't possibly care less if Republicans lose every election from now until the end of time IF THEY DO THE RIGHT THING NOW. Doing what's right isn't political, or SHOULDN'T be.

Governance by polls is one of the biggest reasons this nation is as screwed up as it is. I, for one, am sick unto DEATH of it.

Just do the right thing because it's THE RIGHT THING TO DO. ~ Hunter