Fox News, The Presidential Race, And The Trumpeteers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 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

 

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.

Congressional Obstructionism: It's Not Who The Main Stream Media Says It Is

While listening to the morning show on my local talk radio station (thank God for Chris Stigall), I heard a caller state that if King DingleBarry is going to be called an "obstructionist" for vetoing bills coming out of the next Congress it's a tacit admission of the obstructionist nature of the present Congress. Seriously, someone actually said that...

Let's review, shall we?

At last count, there are presently somewhere in the neighborhood of 270-plus bills, the overwhelming majority of which have bipartisan support (that means members of both parties support them, libbies) languishing in the black hole known as the desk of Harry Reid-diculous. That's in a Senate controlled by the democrats - which means, libbies, that the Republicans can do.........wait for it.........absolutely nothing to stop their passage and then hitting the Petulant Pretender's desk for his signature into law.

For the first two years of what will forever be known as "The Dark Times" (King DingleBarry's reign), the demoKKKrats controlled the whole of Congress, and the only major piece of legislation they could get thru was a law nobody wanted (that would be 0bamadontcare - follow along, libbies).

Sounds to me like he's been obstructed by his own party throughout his reign. Huh - Whoulda thunk?

The caller also went on to say that he's interested to see what the Republicans are going to do to help all Americans, not just the "top 2%."

Here's a hint - Republican policies, on the whole, help all Americans, with an eye towards helping all of us become the "top 2%."

I loathe liberals, everything they do, and all they represent (Just to clarify for the Lurking LiberTrolls, who I know will deliberately take that statement out of context - I loathe their big government approach to each and every problem). ~ Hunter

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

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

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

"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

The Tolerance Of Liberalism, Or Proud To Be Called A Traitor

I received my very first threat on this blog a couple of days ago from a rabid liberal - and apparently professional - crayon-eater. "He" objected to my conservatism and my belief that criminal aliens should be deported as soon as possible.

http://liberalsarehypocrites.blogspot.com/2014/03/operation-wetback-or-how-us-dealt-with.html

It was really quite amusing, and not frightening in the least, but what made it all the more amusing was that this open-minded, oh-so-tolerant window-licker called me a traitor based on the meme at the top of this page, and when "it all goes down," he promised to "meet me on the battlefield" (after saying I would never see him).

I'd like to remind the Lurking LiberTrolls out there that the Founders intended for people to love their country, not their government. That's the reason the military, all members of all 3 branches of the government, and all federal employees swear an oath to the Constitution and not the government or the President.

"I, Michael J. Flanagan Jr., do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, pledging my life, my fortune, and my sacred honor. So help me God."

I took that oath on 27 JUL 1988. My oath, now 26 long years gone, has never expired. If believing in, following, and defending the most brilliant document ever written by man - the very foundation of this nation - makes me a "traitor," well............................that's a cross I'm willing to bear.

Oh, before I forget - if you decide to come after me, "sir," you better make sure you kill me with the 1st shot, because if you don't, you will not get a second chance at it. ~ Hunter

We Stand With Israel

Pop some popcorn, folks, and buckle in, because this might be a bumpy ride.

I need to get a few things off my chest, and this might turn into a rant, which is pretty rare for me. If I offend anyone with what I say tonight, oh well. You're probably who and/or what I'm talking about.

Let it be known, and entered into the record, that this page stands 100% with Israel. If you don't like that, well, this isn't the page for you.

Ever since the ground action by Israel into Gaza, I've been seeing more and more anti-Israel comments. Not so many on the pages I write for, thank God, and the ones I have seen on our pages have been cleaned up fairly quickly, but on just about every other page I frequent. It frightens me that so many Americans would be so against our only true ally in the Middle East. I even saw a comment tonight that basically said Hitler had provocation for the Holocaust. REALLY?! There is no possible justification for the extermination of 6 million Jews, along with the countless other "undesirables" as Hitler saw them. Period.

If you profess to be a Christian, a devout follower of Jesus Christ, yet spout anti-Semitic nonsense, you're an idiot of the highest magnitude. Psst - I know this might be a little difficult for you crayon-eaters to understand, but I'll use the smallest words possible, just for you - Jesus was a JEW. *G*A*S*P* I realize that might be shocking to you, but it's true, numbnuts. Don't bring your tripe onto this page, as you're not only not a Christian, you bring down the I.Q. points of everyone who has to read your drivel.

Speaking out in favor of hamass (deliberately misspelled) is a quick way to get on my bad side as well. Israel, much like the U.S., generally tends to react to situations, often placing themselves in far greater danger than they probably should. Yes, I realize that they're somewhat proactive, but I would submit necessarily so. After all, they're surrounded by literally millions upon millions of people who would like nothing more than to wipe them out down to the last man, woman, and child. If you support muslims, you will not do so on this page. I trust that's clear?

Keep in mind that this is NOT a "debate" page. I, and a couple of the other admins on our pages, will argue a few points with a LiberTroll or two, but not often, and it usually ends quickly. This page is a respite for conservatives, a place to gather facts, etc., for the daily battle for the future of this once great nation, and we will continue to provide that respite as best i can. One thing I will not do is allow the stench of liberalism and its ilk to pollute the air.

Can I possibly make this any clearer? ~ Hunter

What's Wrong With America: Disposability

I was listening to a few people talking while at work the other day. The subject of the conversation was happiness in a marriage - more specifically, the lack of happiness in a marriage.

I don't recall the details too clearly, but what drew my attention was a remark made by a woman I work with declaring "if she wasn't happy in a marriage, she'd get a divorce." She made it sound like she wanted to be made happy in a marriage every minute, of every day, of every year, and would tolerate nothing less.

It was an offhand comment, and while I'm sure she didn't truly intend to sound so flippant, it did get me thinking about one of the issues facing society today: Disposability.

Don't misunderstand - I'm not talking about disposable diapers, or disposable razors, or any of the countless other disposable products that have made our lives easier in a basic sense. Those are little things overall. No, my issue is with the larger things that have become "disposable" to far too many in America. I'm talking about the bigger picture, if you will.

Marriage used to be a lifelong commitment. My own grandmother became a widow in 1948, two short years after my father was born. Not only was she still a widow when she passed away in 1993, to the best of my knowledge, my grandmother never even dated anyone after my grandfather died. All of her siblings, save one, were married, just once, and they stayed married for decades.

My own parents have been married just shy of forty-five years. It hasn't been easy, especially with ten children. They're both as stubborn as mules, both quick to anger, and neither quick to forgive and/or forget. But commitments were made and, thus far, honored.

Today, it seems people believe that they just deserve to be happy, but it also seems like they believe they don't have to work at it.

(Hey, if you can find a relationship that works like that outside of some ridiculous TV show, more power to ya. The rest of us will just have to be jealous while we work at ours.)

Marriage today is disposable. You don't like how much money your spouse makes - kick him/her to the curb and find someone else. Don't like your sex life? Let's go out and find a new partner. The list of "grievances" could go on until the end of time. People today give up at the slightest hint of trouble. The United States is becoming a nation of quitters.

(For the record, I am in NO WAY advocating that people stay in a violent or abusive relationship. NOBODY has the right to commit violence upon another.)

What went wrong? Why do so many take the easy way out?

To my mind, it all comes down to progressivism. (I won't call them liberals any longer. The Founders were liberals. Today, they would be known as conservatives.)

Progressives have broken down everything that once made this nation the envy of the world. Your marriage is rough? It's not your fault. End it and find another one. Your parents want you to take responsibility for your mistakes? You don't have to take that from them. You don't need them anyway. After all, it takes a village. You're pregnant because you had unprotected sex? Kill it. It's not your fault, so you shouldn't have to be "punished" with that non-human blob of goo. Then you can go back to your fun!!! You're  a minority? Well hell, the white man keeps you down (they're all racists). Here, take this money. You don't need to demean yourself and actually work to better yourself. Just make sure to vote for us in the next election and we'll take care of you. Wink, wink

Everything is disposable to a progressive. Once it's served its purpose they get rid of it. Relationships, self-esteem and pride in one's own ability and self worth - none of that matters anymore. Even human life is disposable to a progressive. Just witness the murder of 3,300 or so of pre-born human beings every day. (And that's just here in the U.S.)

We need to get back to a reverence for the better way of doing things, instead of taking the easy way.

But most of all, we need to get back to a reverence for life, because without that, everything else - and I do mean everything - really is disposable. ~ 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.

Political Correctness: The REAL Border Crisis

With the flood of criminal aliens - and yes, that's exactly what they are, criminals - crossing our border from Mexico and certain Central and South American nations, I've been seeing far too many comments from leftists calling conservatives "racists" and "haters," as well as a few more......strongly worded, shall we say......insults because we dare to decry what's happening. I think it's past time to address a few of them.


My personal favorite, but easiest to debunk, is the "if you're not 'Native American,' everyone here is an illegal immigrant." First, "Native American" is a complete fallacy. To accept that humans are native to the Americas requires one to disbelieve the theory of evolution and its belief that humans arrived via the Bering Land Bridge. Two, there were no laws governing the immigration of peoples into what is now North and South America, therefore nobody emigrated here "illegally." Oh, by the way, I was born here in the United States, so in reality, I am a "Native American," and as I also have Cherokee and Creek in my ancestry, I have a claim to this land even if we play by the liberal's rules. Facts are such stubborn things, aren't they?


Don't get me wrong, Europeans committed heinous acts against the American Indians. The Americas were essentially stolen from the American Indians, but - and here's the important part - American Indians stole land from other American Indians. *GASP* Entire tribes were eradicated - not just by the Europeans - but by their own brethren.


Tackling the "racism" insult, I believe it's appropriate to point out that "American" is not a race. I'm really not sure if I can make that any more clear. America is an ideal more than anything else. No other nation of which I'm aware permits one to become a citizen and be considered just as much of a "countryman" as someone actually native to that nation. An American can't become French like a Frenchman can become an American. The Founders and Framers, in their customary brilliance, deliberately designed our system that way.


Conservatives don't have a problem with immigration and/or immigrants: Our issue is with illegal "immigration." Breaking the law is breaking the law, no matter how "inconsequential" that law seems to be to the apologists out there. We're not talking about going a few miles per hour over the speed limit here; we're talking about a major law which is supposed to have real consequences. When someone comes here illegally, they are essentially engaging in the theft of something that others worked incredibly hard to obtain legally for themselves and their families. Let's not mention the mockery illegals make of the legal immigrants and the laws of the United States.


Conservatives don't "hate" people either, on the whole. Hatred is exclusively the bailiwick of the Left. All one need do to verify that is look at comments from leftists on conservative pages and blogs. Their intolerance of views other than their own is legendary. I have been called racist just for being a conservative, a homophobe for believing in traditional marriage, an islamophobe for daring to point out what the main stream media refuses to - that muslims (lowercase to show disrespect) want to kill us if we don't convert to islam.


We, as Americans, from both the Right and the Left, are in danger of losing the greatest nation in the history of this planet. That may not bother the liberals, but it sure as hell bothers conservatives. It should bother all Americans, whether they be natural-born or legal immigrants.


It's not being lost due to an outside military force. No nation on the face of the globe has the power to stand against the United States (although I would argue that, under this administration, our global military power and effectiveness is steadily shrinking). This invasion of criminal aliens won't be the primary reason for the fall of the United States; it's more of a symptom of the illness. The sickness is the failure to enforce our laws for the sake of political correctness.


The first step the United States should take is to secure the borders and all other ports of entry into this country. There should be absolutely no possible way to enter this nation without authorization, or should be so ridiculously expensive to achieve as to make it literally worth waiting and legally immigrating. Liberals love to say we should accept Obamacare because it's the "law of the land." Leaving aside Obamacare's questionable constitutionality, what's also the "law of the land" is the Secure Fence Act of 2006. I don't hear a single liberal speaking out in favor of that law. In fact, when democrats took control of Congress in 2007, they soon defunded the law.


The second step to solve this crisis should be to deport all illegals. No amnesty, don't pass "Go" and collect $200 - just get them out. We've done it before, we can do it again. The Border Patrol is much larger, by orders of magnitude, than its 1950's version, not to mention the huge advances in technology. There is no excuse for not deporting those illegals who are found, and political correctness be damned.


A criminal is a criminal is a criminal, and breaking the law is breaking the law. We cannot, and should not, reward lawbreakers for thumbing their collective noses at our immigration laws. It is such a fundamentally simple concept to me that it's incredulous that so many people don't seem to understand.


To be a liberal, one has to be blissfully stupid, as well as willfully ignorant. They seem to have a deliberate mental disconnect from reality, but to claim, as liberals do, that racism and hatred motivates the desire to control immigration into the United States requires a suspension of disbelief that stretches credulity beyond the most fantastic tales ever told. I, for one, am tired of it. ~ Hunter

Political Food For Thought

The Washington Redskins have their trademarks revoked because their name is "disparaging to Native Americans." Leaving aside that there are no "native" Americans (human beings are not native to the Americas), and that the name "Redskins" is meant as an homage to the courage and dignity of the American Indian, not to mention that the overwhelming majority of American Indians don't have a problem with the name of the team, can someone explain to me how Redskins is magically offensive, yet the United NEGRO College Fund and the National Association for the Advancement of COLORED People somehow ISN'T?


Of course, there's also the Cleveland Indians, the Chicago Blackhawks, the Atlanta Braves, the Atlanta Hawks, the Kansas City Chiefs, and a veritable plethora of college, semi-pro, high school, and elementary school teams with American Indian names. Will the ridiculousness called Political Correctness attempt to force all those teams to change their names as well?


The United States is suffering an invasion, for all intents and purposes, of criminal aliens, all of whom will, at one point or another, qualify for government assistance of some form, up to and including health care paid for by us, the taxpayers.


Yet as we "speak," as it were, the United States also has thousands of military veterans on waiting lists, some for months at a time, who can't get needed care from the Veterans Administration, an organization that had a $450 million SURPLUS in its budget last year!!! I'm the liberals out there consider this a fair deal, giving health care to those here illegally, but forcing the people who have willingly put their lives and limbs on the line for this nation, but I do NOT.


King DingleBarry and his Court keep pushing the notion that anthropogenic global warming, climate change, climate chaos (or whatever name is in favor this week) is definitely "real" and the "science is settled" when none of the above is true. His Royal Lowness recently used a commencement speech he gave to rail against those of us who question it. Because that's the subject I'd want to hear about at my commencement.


Never mind that the "rising" temperatures actually stayed flat for the last 17 years, or rose almost imperceptibly, and that carbon dioxide, which is absolutely essential to nearly all forms of life on this planet, has a very tenuous connection, at best, to rising temperatures. Of course, we can't discount the role the sun may play in global temperatures, as most of the other planets in our solar system have experienced virtually identical rise in their temperatures as the Earth has before they leveled off, but why let facts interfere with the Left's agenda? Oh, lest I forget, the planet's polar ice caps recorded record growth this year. You know, the year after Mr. Super-scientist himself, Algore, predicted all of would be..........well, gone. Not that I want to put too fine a point on it or anything.


One department of the federal government runs the National Park system. It discourages the feeding of the wild animals residing in the parks, as it will lead to the animals growing lazy, complacent, and dependent on the handouts. Another department actively advertises the food stamp program, in other countries no less. Because as we all know, human beings would never grow lazy, complacent, and dependent on handouts, right? Say it isn't so...


Did you know the King DingleBarry has accrued more debt in a little over six years than all FORTY-THREE of his predecessors combined? It's entirely possible, if not probable, that he's actually spent more money than anyone in history, period. Chew on that for a while.


A Mexican official recently stated that illegal aliens crossing our border aren't committing a crime, they're just here illegally. I kid you not. Last I checked, committing a crime was the very definition of illegal. Maybe it means something different in Spanish?


Did you know that one of the requirements (for the crayon-eating liberals out there, that means a condition that must be met) for earning American citizenship is a working knowledge of the English language. That means you must be able to speak, read, and write American English well enough to get your point across. Why, then, are there citizenship oaths given in different languages?


These are but a few of the things that should cause you to think about the direction of this nation. Although I frequently poke fun at King DingleBarry - with good reason - I am well aware that the problems listed above, and so many more didn't start with him. They've been going on for years, if not decades. He has certainly exacerbated them, but most of these issues cross party lines. The establishment Republicans are no better than the democrats in most ways.


Most of the problems this nation faces stem from one thing - professional politicians. The Founders never intended for there to be a ruling class. In fact, such was anathema to them. All one need do is witness our first president giving up the presidency after two terms when there was no requirement to do so at the time. Until we impose term limits, and encourage people more interested in helping their fellow citizens than enriching themselves we're going to continue to face these, and worse. ~ Hunter

Professor Pens Op-Ed Piece And Coins A New Term - "Liberal Privilege"

Melvyn L. Fein Ph.D., a professor of sociology at Kennesaw State University, penned an Op-Ed yesterday in which he coins a new phrase - "Liberal Privilege." I copied and pasted Dr. Fein's brilliant Op-Ed here because it deserves to read in its entirety. Enjoy. ~ Hunter


Liberal privilege and the lies of the left


One of the current liberal cliches tells us “whites” are privileged. The color of their skin evidently bestows benefits others do not receive. They are therefore supposed to be grateful and defer to those who are less fortunate.

But in what does this “privilege” consist? Yes, whites have not been discriminated against the way African-Americans have. They have not been denied jobs or forced to drink from separate fountains because of the pigmentation of their epidermis. This is surely an advantage — but how big an advantage?

Charges of white privilege make it sound as if every Caucasian is automatically successful. The fact is most are not. Few are born with silver spoons in their mouths. The vast majority needs to work hard to achieve the objectives they desire.

Far more pervasive is “liberal privilege.” The very people who accuse others of not being sufficiently grateful for their status are guilty of taking their own advantages for granted. Liberals do not seem to recognize the special treatment they receive. They actually believe they are nicer and smarter than others as a result of having been allowed to get away with this conceit.

Liberals, because they are liberal, assume they are more compassionate than anyone who disagrees with them. From elementary school on, they are praised for their concerns about the welfare of others — even though this kindness is only manifested in verbal declarations.

Likewise, from the earliest grades, their teachers applaud their superior intelligence. Since they agree with the principles they are being taught and regurgitate them on cue, they are regarded as unusually perceptive. Critical thinking, although orally encouraged, is, in practice, punished.

And so liberals grow up in a bubble of self-deception. Their self-esteem is grounded in conforming to beliefs that do not accord with reality, but which nevertheless earn them gold stars and certificates of achievement.

Then they enter the real world. Yet for them, it is not altogether real. The books they read and the television shows they watch confirm their special status. Liberal newsreaders and authors assure them they are better than their conservative peers. Clearly, they are more generous and insightful than these relics.

If liberals decide to enter politics, the effusive praise is ladled on with a bucket. They quickly learn being liberal means they never have to say they are sorry. Whatever mistakes they make will be blamed on their opponents. That they have good intensions is sufficient to merit adulation, no matter what the outcomes.

Liberals can destroy the economy, but hey, no one could have done better. They can undermine the national security, but at least they were showing the appropriate humility. They can drive their country into bankruptcy, but this only confirms their compassion.

If one is a liberal, any nasty thing one might say about an opponent is passed over in silence. The cruelest invective is regarded as appropriate, given the sins of the target. Even vulgarity is excused because it emphasizes the understandable passion of the speaker.

If one is a liberal, lies are accepted as essential to promoting benevolent causes. The rabble does not appreciate the benefits heaped upon them; hence, it is OK to manipulate them into submission. Whatever the falsehood, the worst criticism will be that one “misspoke.” Or maybe one was quoted “out of context.”

Is this not privilege? Is it not a form of protection others do not obtain? Yet liberals consider it their due. They become huffy if their motives are questioned. Then they drive up truckloads of excuses they expect to be accepted without dissent. If this still doesn’t work, they attack their critics as playing politics (which, of course, they do not).

Nowadays, when publicly queried, liberals trot out focus group tested talking points. After this, they stonewall their questioner by changing the subject. But the full depth of their privilege is revealed when the pubic subsequently refuses to be outraged.

The Marietta Daily Journal - Liberal privilege and the lies of the left