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.

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

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

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

Oh Deer...

Ashland, Oregon has a deer problem. Not your usual "a deer ate my garden" problem, but "a deer attacked me in my driveway" kind of problem.

The mayor of Ashland, who says he was "stalked" by a doe in his own backyard, called a "Deer Summit" for residents of the town to discuss the issue.

Watching various snippets of the testimony presented by residents, I noticed there are many who want an organized culling of the herd - a "cull" is killing a percentage of the herd to immediately reduce the population. Many residents favor some sort of "birth control" option for the deer, an acceptable long-term solution but does nothing to alleviate the present solution. In reality, both options should be used in conjunction with each other.

The cull, just so you know, has already been shot down - pun intended. One city council member actually said, "We need to learn to live side-by-side with the deer." Because that's working out so well for the residents you're supposed to represent, isn't it?

One clip of a woman testifying - reading from a script is more likely - really grabbed my attention and prompted this post. She actually said, and I quote, "Do you really want the blood of our peaceful neighbors on your hands?"

So let's get this straight - we create a problem by destroying the natural predator of deer, the wolf. We exacerbate the problem by feeding the deer and getting them used to humans - to the point they'll actually pose for pictures with people. In fairness to the town government, it's now illegal to feed deer - punishable by a fine up to $475, if I recall correctly, although the police have yet to write any actual citations, opting for warnings instead.

What we won't do, however, is actually take care of the problem. We'll just ignore the root cause of it, pretend it doesn't exist, and throw money at it.

In a town of about 21,000 residents, people hit an average of sixty-five deer annually with their vehicles, leading to more - and ultimately unnecessary - work for police and other first responders and higher auto insurance rates for the other residents of Ashland.

Oregon is almost exclusively left-wing (although I don't know about Ashland's mayor or city council with any certainty), particularly in government, so honestly, something like this really shouldn't surprise me, yet I admit to being mildly befuddled when the solution to a very simple issue is right in front of them.

Then again, liberals are morons. ~ Hunter

The Evil Is In The Heart, Not The Tool

With last night's shootings in South Carolina have come the inevitable and all too predictable calls for more gun control laws. One of the favorite arguments is - You need a license to drive and you have to register a car, so why shouldn't you have to do that with a gun?

Allow me to answer...

Driving is a privilege, not a right. Owning a firearm is a right. The Founders envisioned an armed populace - and a populace so powerful that they couldn't be overpowered from outside influences nor, and more importantly, from within.

None of the Left's arguments get to the root of the problem: the degradation - outright devaluation, really - of human life. "We're no better than animals," we're told. Yet people are shocked when we treat one another as animals.

We no longer have shooting teams in schools, yet when we did there were no school shootings. Funny how that works, isn't it?

In towns and cities where gun laws are lax, there is little violent crime, yet the reverse is true in towns and cities where gun laws are stringent. But there's no correlation there, right?

We no longer teach our children to revere human life, to cherish it. Instead we teach that the murder of pre-born human beings is a "right" and then have the temerity to wonder why kids take other's lives so readily and callously. We no longer teach our children to respect the awesome power of a firearm, instead we teach them to have an unhealthy fear of a TOOL.

That's all a firearm is - a tool.

Liberalism is a mental defect, a moral repugnancy, and I live for the day when people realize it and stamp it out for the good of all mankind. ~ Hunter

Free Speech: If We Lose That, America Is Done

Recently, the comedian Jerry Seinfeld declared that he would no longer perform on college campuses, joining Chris Rock and several others in that sentiment. Seinfeld says that the atmosphere of political correctness makes it impossible for comics to play a college. He's right.

 

This is the United States of America. The very first amendment to the Constitution, the cornerstone of our society, is the right to free speech. That guarantee was meant specifically to protect unpopular, possibly offensive, speech. There is no inherent obligation for others to listen to that speech, but the right of the speaker to say it is inviolable.

 

Or it used to be.

 

Today, we have "free speech zones" on college campuses, meaning that if you want to say something that might offend someone else you must be in one of those zones when you say it or face disciplinary measures. It isn't just private colleges with "free speech zones." Public colleges have them, as well as colleges that take our tax dollars.

 

Private institutions can, and should, have their own rules. If they want to ban free speech, it's within their rights to do so. They will eventually pay the price when people stop using their services, buying their products, etc.

 

The fact is that colleges and universities are fast becoming the places where individual freedoms and critical thought go to die, which is diametrically opposite what they should be.

Any public institution, or an institution that takes public money, should be the staunchest DEFENDERS of free speech anywhere on campus.

 

You may ask why I single them out specifically. That's easy. Using the liberal thought process, which is so ridiculously simple that an underachieving 2nd grader can follow it.

If the government is the guarantor of the fallacious "separation of Church and State" in that prayer and religious symbolism should not and cannot be on or in public properties, i.e., schools, courthouses, and other government buildings, and that's in keeping with the religious freedom portion of the 1st Amendment, should it not also follow that the government is the guarantor of the free speech portion of the same amendment on public lands?

 

Why one and not the other?

 

If we lose the freedom of speech, this nation is gone, and gone forever. We must take a stand against the tyranny of political correctness.

 

The time is now. ~ Hunter

 

 

The Unspoken "Holy Grail" of Liberalism

Equality...

The outward "Holy Grail" of liberalism. On its face, and without the surrounding context that's needed, equality seems like a worthy goal.

Seriously, who wouldn't want a world where literally nobody would want for anything? Or have a serious reason to complain about anything?

Like I said - it seems like a worthy goal. Something for which everyone should strive to achieve. Or so liberals assume...

The problem is that - and I know that this will be a shock to any liberals who read this - NO ONE PERSON IS ACTUALLY "EQUAL" TO ANY OTHER.

Every person on this planet is different - we all want different things out of life. We have different interests, different likes, needs, desires.

Some people are smarter than everyone else.

Somewhere on this planet, there's a person that some people will think is more attractive than you (unless you're Lena Dunham - then everyone is more attractive than you).

Some people are funnier than others. Some have better eyesight, sense of smell, more sensitive touch, more empathetic.

Some understand things and people better than you and I.

Some people just have better luck.

We look different, speak differently, act differently.

Some are more ambitious than others - the drive to be the BEST at whatever their chosen activity fuels them to make the strides necessary to do that. Whether they actually ACHIEVE that goal is immaterial - what matters is the attempt.

Some are more content with staying "middle of the road." They don't like to call too much attention to themselves - be it good or bad attention - and that's perfectly fine for them.

Nobody I have ever met is bound and determined to be the absolute WORST at whatever they set out to do. I don't think that's even a part of human nature.

Liberals - all of this is OK. It's actually good to be different than everyone around you. It should be encouraged.

I have often said that the Constitution is our most important founding document. It is the foundation of our entire society, our national identity. Its uniqueness has ensured our freedoms for two-plus centuries. No other nation's founding documents specifically tell the government what it can and cannot do to its citizens. None that I am aware of, at least.

Lately, however, I've been thinking that our most important founding document is the Declaration of Independence - particularly the phrase "all men are created equal." Liberals - take note that it says we are created equal, not that we are equal. We're not equal, nor have we ever been. For all the differences I've listed above, there are countless other examples.

There is an old adage that runs something like "Only two things in life are certain - death and taxes." Again liberals, take note of the rather glaring absence of the word "equality."
What the Founders knew, and what liberals have forgotten (or most likely ignore), is that it was never meant for our outcomes to be equal. It was our opportunity to pursue those outcomes that was to be equal.

In the United States, everyone starts on as level a playing field as is humanly possible. Your accident of birth doesn't determine how far you can go in your life. Your ability to use the opportunities inherent in being an American to your advantage determine your outcome. Yes, there's always a certain amount of luck involved, but the lion's share is up to YOU.

A better way of saying it is - The equality is in the opportunity to chase that which you most desire. Catching what you desire most is entirely up to you. ~ Hunter

You Might Be A Liberal, Too...

I wrote "You Might Be A Liberal" about two years ago. It was a huge hit for the Facebook pages on which I write. Given the everyday ridiculousness that is liberalism, this follow-up is LONG overdue. I hope you enjoy...

If you think nuclear power plants in Iran is "just fine" but protest against them in America, you're a hypocrite, and you might be a liberal, too.

If you think Iran is enriching uranium for "power plants" when their stated goal is to wipe Israel from the earth, but the intercontinental ballistic missile system they're also developing is completely unconnected, I've got some swampland in Arizona to sell you, and you might be a liberal, too.

If you think the IRS, VA, Fast & Furious, etc. have nothing to do with King DingleBarry but Iran-Contra was entirely Reagan's fault, you clearly have your head in the sand, and you might be a liberal, too.

If your idea of religious "tolerance" means bending over backwards for islam while demeaning Christianity and Judaism, you obviously don't understand why and how the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written the way they were, and you might be a liberal, too.

If you think your imaginary "right" not to be offended trumps my actual right to say whatever I damn well want to say, your mother put your helmet on too tight, and you might be a liberal, too.

If your idea of equality is tearing down those who are successful to the level of those who aren't instead of helping the less fortunate become successful, not only are you an idiot, you might be a liberal, too.

If you believe animals have rights but pre-born humans don't, it makes me wonder what your favorite window flavor is, and you might be a liberal, too.

If you don't bat an eye at murdering unborn babies, but protest a convicted criminal being put to death, there's something really, horribly, terribly wrong with you, and you might be a liberal, too. (from my friend Teresa)

 

If you criticize Republicans for spending money to seek justice for the four Americans murdered at Benghazi, but have no problem with the billions being spent to support illegals, there's no question whatsoever that you're a liberal. You probably eat crayons, too. (Teresa)

 

If you thought the Affordable Care Act was going to do anything about the cost of healthcare, you truly don't understand economics, and you might be a liberal, too.

 

If you think the sun's waxing (it means more, liberals) activity has nothing to do with global warming but the sun's waning (it means less, liberals) activity has everything to do with the impending "global cooling" (yes, I'm serious), your head is so far up Algore's fat a$$ that nothing can be done for you, and you might be a liberal, too.

 

 If you think Ted Cruz (an actual Constitutional scholar) is an idiot for pushing for a return to the Constitution, but think King DingleBarry (a Constitutional scholar in his own mind) is the smartest being in the history of the world, just shut up, because you might be a liberal, too.

If you think the forty-seven Republican senators who signed an open letter addressed to Iranian leaders committed treason, but think John "Lurch" Kerry, Nancy "The Catholic" Pelosi, and King DingleBarry doing the same thing (except Kerry and Pelosi actually went to the places they interfered with) is just peachy, I'm pretty sure you rode the short bus to school, and you might be a liberal, too.

If you think freedom of speech only applies to people who agree with your point of view, I seriously have to wonder about your comprehension of the English language, and you might be a liberal, too.

If you think education equals intelligence, but have a degree in Eastern European Art Philosophy (and took ten years to earn it), you don't understand what intelligence really is (and you're wasting your clear talent for cooking McDonald's fries), and you're definitely a liberal, too.

If you think banning "assault" weapons deters crime, but sending criminals to jail does not, you're truly an idiot of the highest magnitude, and you should probably be the one to go tell the gang-bangers to give up their weapons. We'll wait to see how that turns out for you. Oh, you might be a liberal, too.

If you think our enemies just need to be "understood" and we need to "empathize" with them, you might be Hillary Clinton, and you might be a liberal buffoon (OK, there's no "might" about it). ~ Hunter

 

The Plantation Of Liberalism

A friend posted this bit of wisdom from a friend of her's on her Facebook page. It is worth the read. ~ Hunter

Ferguson , New York City, Chicago, Detroit, New Orleans and EVERY OTHER MAJOR BLACK CITY IN AMERICA HAS BEEN RUN BY DEMOCRATS FOR DECADES! Now you are seeing the results of decades of social engineering. You are seeing the results of poverty, high crime and ignorance after decades of Democrat control. The War on Poverty that Lyndon Johnson started has been an abject failure, but that was its intention all along - to breed low educated, low informed dependents of government, for the sake of votes.

Blacks make up 13% of Americas population, but are responsible for most of the crime. They fill the jails, the slums, the neighborhoods where the Democrats want them to live. They keep voting Democrat, but nothing gets better.

Now we have the most divisive and racist President in the history of America. We also have his equally racist henchmen, Eric Holder, who refuses to enforce actual law, as opposed to activist law. They choose to make the criminals victims and the law abiding citizens of America the criminals. Need an example? Executive amnesty.

In reality, these so called activists are extreme hypocrites . Black Lives Matter. Yes they do, except where is your outrage for the hundreds of thousands of black on black killings? I see no marches, hashtags, protests, looting, calls for dialogue and conversation when blacks commit murder a thousand fold on each other. No, only the incidents involving a white individual (not including whited killed by blacks) which can be spun into hate crimes.

Planned Parenthood says Black Lives Matter. Planned Parenthood was created by a Nazi sympathizing Klanswoman named Margaret Sanger, for the purpose of eugenics - it's  population control through abortion in the black community. She's a progressive hero, by the way.

The only thing the Brown and Garner incidents have in common is that they both broke the law and resisted arrest.

FYI, the Garner incident was being overseen by a BLACK FEMALE NYPD SERGEANT, and at no time did she call for any sort of restraint. If what happened in the eyes of a black woman did not appear racist, it shoots the whole argument down that this was a hate crime.

Two grand juries, made up of black and white, two "no bill" decisions, based on evidence from black and white witnesses. Apparently, thanks to a POTUS who constantly breaks the law and gets away with it, that sort of mentality is permeating through the neighborhoods of his voters.

If you want to blame white people, blame Mayor Deblasio of New York. He sent the cops after Garner because he wanted his precious tax money! In fact, you can thank both black and white Democrats, who for decades have segregated blacks into the high crime, high poverty areas they currently occupy. Let's not forget Margaret Sanger, Lyndon Johnson, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and even Bill Clinton, until he got a Republican Congress.

Black Lives do Matter! It's about time the hypocrisy of picking and choosing what outrages you ends. If you are upset about only two, yet ignore the massive black on black crime , you don't have any sort of argument. If you vote Democrat for decades - the party of slavery, the party of Jim Crow and the KKK, the party of segregation, the party of social engineering and eugenics, the party of the government plantation - and you vote Democrat over and over again, and can't understand why nothing has changed for you, you will never find help.

Guest Post: Things I Learned Trolling Liberal Facebook Pages

A friend in one of the conservative groups to which I belong posted what he has learned by going to liberal pages on Facebook. It's short, sweet, and so true to life that I knew I had to post it. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did. ~ Hunter

I consider myself a student of life. I believe everyday is an opportunity to expand your mind and learn new things. So, with that in mind, I'd like to present a new installment that I call "Things I learned trolling lib sites."

1.) There is absolutely NO connection between crime and the destruction of the family unit, despite the percentage of violent crime and the percentage of unwed parents increasing nearly neck and neck over the past 60+ years.

2.) ALL cops are evil racists.

3.) Officer Wilsons charges were dismissed because the jury did not have access to the actual autopsy reports which are available only to liberal Facebook users.

4.) Christianity is an evil cult that teaches nothing but hate and subjugation of women. Meanwhile, people of the islamic faith shouldn't be judged based on a few mentally unstable individuals.

I hope this helps educate some of you silly conservatives as much as it helped me.

The House That Obama Built

"If you like your plan, you can keep your plan." - King DingleBarry (multiple occasions)

"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor." - King DingleBarry (multiple occassions)

"We have to pass the bill to see what's in it." - Former Speaker Nancy Piglosi

"I don't know who this Gruber character is." - Nancy Piglosi (apparently forgetting the existence of such small technological achievements like video recording, microphones, and the internet)

These are but a scant few of the lies surrounding the passage of the Petulant Pretender's legacy legislation. We, the informed people of the nation, were roundly excoriated for raising the alarm about it (even though everything we predicted has come to pass), being called racist, idiots, and a whole host of other vile epithets. We knew it was a lie, created with a lien based on lies, passed with the biggest lie of all, and cemented with a lie in SCOTUS.

Conventional wisdom would dictate that even those on the left would be angry by now, especially with their delicate sensibilities tweaked and supposed intellectual superiority having been downplayed as "stupid" by Gruber, one of the architects of the law.

Sadly, that's not the case, because - to the left - the ends justify the means, even if those ends are an abysmal failure (like all of liberalism).

But really, does it surprise - I mean truly surprise - anyone?

After all, liberalism is the biggest lie of all. ~ Hunter

The Republican Mandate - And The Repudiation Of Liberalism

I keep hearing political pundits on TV, reading them online, from both sides of the aisle (although certainly many more from the left than right), who keep saying that even though the Republicans ran away with the midterms in historic fashion, they don't have a "mandate."

I'm sorry, but were they watching the same election results as the rest of the country? The rejection, repudiation, and outright dismissal of liberal policies could not have been made any more and absolutely crystal clear.

Republicans, for the first time in about twenty years, have firm ground under them. Their job now is to pull America up out of the ditch liberalism has driven her, and it can't be focused solely on stopping the Empty Suit's agenda, although that's undoubtedly a top priority.

They need to craft legislation that puts Americans back to work. Make America palatable to businesses again by ending unnecessary and burdensome regulations, purge the government from the marketplace as much as possible, as quickly as possible. Yesterday would be nice.

Corporate tax reform is another big issue. Billions upon billions of dollars are kept offshore by businesses to avoid double taxation - once from the host nation, then again by the U.S. Yeah... It's that crazy...

Build a damn fence along the southern border. Deport all illegals - period. Entering the U.S. illegally should forever disqualify you from working here, emigrating legally, or even visiting.

Reinstitute the Welfare to Work requirement and push for mandatory drug testing (that means it must be done, liberals) for welfare recipients. Tighten the restrictions on where and for what welfare money and food stamps can purchase and/or be used. Nobody should be able to buy a video game, or alcohol, or cigarettes, or marijuana.

Strengthen our military - again. There's more than enough wasteful spending in the defense budget that can be slashed, thus avoiding cutting personnel that want to be there. Above all else, TAKE CARE OF OUR VETERANS.

Reduce the size of the bureaucracies and their redundant programs. Root out the waste and fraud inherent in these bureaucracies. Make it easier to demote or fire public sector workers.

REPEAL OBAMADONTCARE.

I don't often disagree with Rush Limbaugh, but I don't believe we won this election so handily solely to stop King DingleBarry in his tracks. The American people don't want a "do nothing Congress." We want a Congress that does what's right for America. ~ 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

The Mercy Rule

I heard what could be one of the most ridiculous things ever on the radio this evening. The host on my local talk radio station, 1210 WPHT, was detailing a recent story about a Peewee football game in Georgia. Why does a Philly radio station care about a kid's football game in Georgia? Allow me to explain...

Apparently, the league for these kids has a "mercy rule," which states that no team can score more than 33 points against another team. Not kidding.

Well, recently a team accidentally broke that rule when an 8-year-old boy returned an interception for his first ever touchdown, thus causing his team to exceed the 33-point limit. The team was fined - yes, fined - $500 as penalty for breaking the mercy rule.

But wait, that's not all. The coach was suspended for a week for running up the score. Nope, not kidding about that one, either.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is precisely what's wrong with this nation. Self-esteem is an awesome thing - when it's earned. As with all things, however, when it's just handed to you, it essentially means next to nothing.

The drive to compete is being exterminated from our society, and it's not by accident. All one need do is look to how badly our children are doing in worldwide education rankings over the last 40 years or so.

Liberals believe that fairness and equality mean that everyone, everywhere is equal, and if they're not then the government should make them so. What they don't understand - the equality is in the opportunity, not the results. Nobody on this planet is equal to any other in terms of talent, drive, etc., nor will they ever be equal. There's always someone out there better than you, better than me. That's just a fact of life.

We need to get back to teaching our kids that not only is life not fair, but success is OK. It's not something to be punished, but encouraged. Teaching them how to deal with failure is just as important, however, as people tend to learn more from failing than succeeding.

It's beyond time to bring back good, old-fashioned competition, and with it, American exceptionalism.

Let's have a mercy rule on the "mercy rule" before it's too late. ~ Hunter

Evil Done In The Name Of Good

I just watched a review on FNC of the new Dracula movie being released in a couple weeks.

The review included interviews with the actors, who said the story focuses on why Vlad makes evil choices for good reasons, and the first thing that popped into my mind was - Evil done in the name of Good doesn't make it any less evil.

My second thought - Gee, that sounds like liberalism/progressivism (yes, my sarcasm circuit is one of the first to start functioning in the morning). For liberals, it's their intentions that matter, not the actual results. And that's why their programs are invariably huge failures. War on poverty, social engineering instead of education, tax everything that moves and spend all the money in the world, all liberal foreign policy, Obama's presidency, climate "change" (also known as weather), etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

Intentions mean less than nothing. The results are what matter. Just to clarify - throwing even more money at a problem that your "intentions" failed to provide a solution for isn't an answer for said problem. I know, I know - this is shocking to you liberals, and extremely antithetical to your very existence, but facts are facts whether you believe them or not. ~ Hunter

Seattle School Board Loses Its Collective Mind

Seattle school board votes to replace Columbus Day with "Indigenous Peoples Day." Their stated reason is to promote understanding and tolerance for the "indigenous" people of the nation, as well as standing up against the country's racism inherent in the holiday (paraphrased, but essentially what was said.)

I am BEYOND disgusted with the continual attacks upon the traditions of the United States. Regardless of whether Columbus ACTUALLY discovered America for Europe, we celebrate a federal holiday as if he did. Let's just leave out the fact that there ARE NO INDIGENOUS PEOPLE in America (human beings are NOT native to the Americas.)

This is no longer the nation in which I grew up. That saddens and frightens me.

It frightens me because this is the last bastion of freedom and opportunity for ALL people, regardless of accident of birth.

It saddens me because future generations won't even realize that they missed out. ~ Hunter

Bob Beckel Says U.S. Should "Move On" From 9/11.......Really

"It's time for America to move on," says Bob Beckel, The Five's resident liberal jackass (yes, I know that's redundant), referring to 9/11.

Really, Bob? REALLY?!?! THREE THOUSAND PEOPLE DIED THAT DAY, you syphilitic psychopath. That ALONE ...makes it worthy of remembrance until the end of time.

Let me ask you, Bobbie (female spelling because you're completely emasculated) - should we "move on" from remembering Pearl Harbor?

Should we "move on" from remembering our Declaration of Independence from an oppressive and overbearing government, so like the one we have RIGHT NOW?

Should we "move on" from remembering our victories in Europe and the Pacific and the price we paid to obtain them?

Should we "move on" from remembrances of our honored dead very Memorial Day, thus cheapening their sacrifices to the point of NOTHINGNESS? Just give them an "attaboy" pat on the coffin and "move on" to the next one, right Bobbie?

It's called HISTORY, you window-licking crayon-eater. The events of that day are part of the very fabric of this nation, no less important than any of the other events I listed.

I've been following politics since I was about 10 years old like most people follow their favorite sports teams. In those 34-plus years, I can't recall a more RIDICULOUS statement made by a liberal (or ANYONE for that matter). It's no secret that I absolutely LOATHE all things liberal, but Bobbie Beckel has just made himself the most despised liberal on a VERY lengthy list. ~ 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