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.

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

The "Participation Trophy" Generation Comes Of Age And It's Not Pretty

This is what our future looks like if we don't slap the stupid out of our children today.

People say conservatives are "greedy, selfish, uncaring" because we believe people should have to actually work for what they want in life.

I, however, submit that it's the Left that's greedy for wanting to take something that I work very hard to receive from me and give it to someone who didn't work for it.

I submit that it's the Left that's selfish for dictating to me what my "fair share" should be. If they want more to be paid to the government for their pet projects, there's no law against voluntarily paying more, as far as I know. Get to writing those checks, you insufferable imbeciles.

I submit that it's the Left who are uncaring, because they can see that their handout programs DO NOT WORK yet they don't want to change them. Their schools don't work (as evidenced by the video), yet they refuse to allow parents to choose to what school they wish to send their kids. Their economics don't work, yet they refuse to cut spending more than we take in, driving this nation more and more bankrupt every day.

As for this moron in the video - and make no mistake, she is a moron of the highest magnitude - how is it not considered greedy and selfish to expect to receive the fruits of someone else's labor without fair compensation? How is it not uncaring to expect others to pay more in taxes than what you, yourself, are willing to pay?

This insipid idiot actually believes that she - and others like her - are entitled to a "free" education, no debt for receiving that education, and to get paid more money per hour working low- and unskilled positions than I make as a machinist - a job that actually requires at least a modicum of skills.

Get over yourself, window-licker. Nobody "owes" you anything that you didn't work to get. That's life, and guess what - LIFE ISN'T FAIR. Not everyone gets a trophy in the real world, some people really are better/smarter/faster/stronger than you in whatever you choose to do, and not everyone starts out as The Boss.

We, as parents, need to wake up to the damage the Left has done to our children, the nation, the very future. There are no "participation trophies" in the real world, regardless of your definition of "real world." Our primary job as parents is to prepare our children for life after we're gone. Frankly, and as much as i hate to say it, we are failing miserably. ~ Hunter

Skin Color Is No Excuse For, Well.....Anything

Yesterday, while I was exercising my "white privilege" at work, I was listening to my local talk radio station, and the host was interviewing a black lawyer who says that - and I'm paraphrasing - the United States, after slavery ended, essentially criminalized "being black." Jim Crow, segregation, etc., is the reason that the black community, as a whole, acts the way it does.

I almost lost my breakfast...

The white man keeps oppressing the black man by taking fathers out of the home (by putting them in jail for committing a crime). She actually said this - and she was serious.

Lawyer or not, this woman is an idiot, plain and simple. The totality of the black population in the United States makes up just under thirteen percent of the total population of the U.S.
From that thirteen percent comes approximately SEVENTY-FIVE PERCENT of all violent crime in this country. Nearly ninety percent of black males killed in the U.S. are killed by other black males. Let's not mention drug offenses, etc.

Here's a hint, dumbass - if you commit a crime and get caught, you should probably expect to do some time in prison. I would say the exact same thing if the criminal was white, Hispanic, Asian, whatever. It's simple cause and effect.

Listen up, lady - it's time to stop blaming the "white establishment" for your community's ills. Black people have more opportunity to get ahead in the country than any other ethnicity. That's a fact.

It's time to start looking within your community. Don't lionize the bad actors, don't make them out to be "heroes." When people have to worry about speaking out about the crime in their neighborhoods, the thugs win.

Don't put down those who are trying to better themselves. They're not acting "white" - they're just trying to make things better for themselves.

Most importantly, look to those you elect to office. They haven't helped your community. Particularly in the inner cities, it's the liberal demoKKKrats who "keep you down." It's those same liberal demoKKKrats who were responsible for Jim Crow, segregation, lynchings, etc.
Welfare, Affirmative Action, even minimum wage are the "soft racism" that have replaced the hard racism of the past. Do you personally enjoy when someone tells you that you can't do something on your own simply because of who you are? Why, then, is it perfectly acceptable for demoKKKrats to tell everyone with your skin tone essentially the same thing by offering special deals and favors thru various programs like Affirmative Action?

I don't care what your skin color is - you can get where you want to go by your own hard work. If you haven't figured that out by now, there might just be no hope for you at all.

For those who might be offended by this - I don't do "politically correct." - it's a colossal waste of time, mine and yours. I call things as I see them, and what I see is the destruction of the black community from within, not from anything ordinary "white America" is doing.

In a recent article, the brilliant Thomas Sowell encapsulates everything I just wrote in a single sentence: "You cannot take any people, of any color, and exempt them from the requirements of civilization — including work, behavioral standards, personal responsibility and all the other basic things that the clever intelligentsia disdain — without ruinous consequences to them and to society at large." ~ 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

Liberalism Explained, Or How To Become A "Liberal Whisperer"

A friend posted this on her Facebook timeline yesterday evening, and after I read it, I knew I had to post it here. I'm not absolutely sure she wrote it, so I won't mention her name, but based on her usual posts, I certainly wouldn't doubt that every word is hers. I think this is brilliant. Enjoy. ~ Hunter

*  *  *  *

Liberals love to think of themselves as intellectual and nuanced, but liberalism is incredibly simplistic. It’s nothing more than “childlike emotionalism applied to adult issues.” Very seldom does any issue that doesn’t involve pandering to their supporters boil down at its core level to more than feeling “nice” or “mean” to liberals. This makes liberals ill equipped to deal with complex issues.

Since liberals tend to support or oppose policies based on how those policies make them feel about themselves, they do very little intellectual examination of whether the policies they advocate work or not. That’s because it doesn’t matter to them whether the policy is effective or not; it matters whether advocating the policy makes them feel “good” or “bad,” “compassionate” or “stingy,” “nice” or “mean.”

Because of this, liberalism has more in common with religion than it does with other political ideologies like conservatism or libertarianism. Moreover, liberal beliefs are more like religious doctrine than any sort of battle-tested policies that bear up under logic or examination. Although the interpretation of the doctrine that the Left supports may change a bit over time, just as religious doctrine does, it’s essentially taken on faith, like scripture.

That’s why, for example, you may see ferocious debates on the right side of the blogosphere about the war, illegal immigration, or spending. But, with the netroots, the debates almost always revolve around the best strategy to get more liberals elected. The issues are not really up for debate, other than debate over how to get them enacted.

This same thinking leads to very little criticism of liberals by other liberals. Liberals will ferociously defend and even happily echo the lies of other liberals. Liberal feminists will defend Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy. Liberals who pride themselves on being tolerant of other races will support Robert Byrd. Why? Because even if they’re wrong, they’re still fellow liberals — which must mean they’re nice people. What this leads to is an attitude that can be summed up like so: “The only things that a liberal can do wrong is to be insufficiently liberal, to question an important plank of the liberal agenda, or to do something politically that aids conservatives.”

Conservatives, on the other hand, just by virtue of being conservatives, are mean at best and evil at worst. Is it wrong to lie about an evil person? Technically, “yes,” but there’s a reason “two wrongs don’t make a right” is said so often — it’s because so many people do believe “two wrongs do make a right.” Moreover, what about defending the indefensible? Well, is it wrong to defend a good (liberal) person who is being attacked by an evil (conservative) person, even if it’s justifiable? At the gut level, most liberals don’t think so.

Once you understand what I’ve written so far, you can understand everything that liberals do.

* Why are so many liberals hostile to religion? Because religion sets rules and tells people that if they break those rules, they’re sinning! That keeps people from doing things that make them feel good and telling people that they’re sinning makes them feel bad.

* Why are so many liberals hostile to the troops? Because the troops tend to be conservative (evil) and because they’re out killing people and breaking things (which would make most liberals feel like bad people).

* Why are so many liberals unpatriotic? It makes liberals feel morally superior to rant about what’s wrong with their own country. Plus, as an added bonus, people from other nations agree with them and that makes them feel good as well.

* Why do so many liberals have so much confidence in the government? With liberals, it’s not about whether something works or not, it’s about how it makes them feel.

*So, they can look at the IRS, post office, airport security, FEMA, and ICE and then say, “These are the same people we want handling our health care” — because it’s about making themselves feel good that they got people insured, not about getting the best system of health care for everyone.

* Why do so many liberals have so much confidence in the UN? See the previous answer and apply it on a global scale. The UN may be corrupt, anti-American, and utterly incompetent, but it makes liberals feel good to think that they’re sending money to the poor in some godforsaken country (sure, it’s not their money and almost all the money may be wasted or stolen, but it’s the thought that counts).

*Why are liberals so hostile to successful people who don’t happen to be celebrities, trial lawyers, or big donors to the Democratic Party? Again, this is another great opportunity for them to feel morally superior. They can feel like good people because they want to give money to the poor — granted, not their money, but rich people’s money. The rich have so much and the poor have so little, so why shouldn’t liberals take it from them and then pat themselves on the back for their compassion?

Once you understand the basics of how liberals think, you can understand everything that they do. Granted, there will be a few exceptions, but if the vast herd of liberals is doing something that doesn’t seem to fit the template, it’s either because there’s money or sex involved, they’re doing what they have to do to win politically, they’re taking that position because they refuse to be on the same side as conservatives, or there’s something going on you don’t know about and it’s not really an exception.

You’ve heard of the Dog Whisperer, right? Well, congrats, because after reading this column, you are now a “liberal whisperer” and you understand everything you need to know about the way that liberals think.