Thursday, May 05, 2016

Trump vs Cruz vs Rubio

When Cruz (and Rubio, remember?) decided to go on the attack against Trump, they could not pull it off without seeming mean and snidely (Cruz), or vaguely hysterical (Rubio).

Trump has a way of attacking without seeming mean and vengeful. His personality makes it seem a little funny.

When Trump attacks, we nod and chuckle.

When Cruz (and Rubio) attack, we go "ewwww!"

It's a personality thing. Not a lot they can do about it...except to learn what works for themselves, and learn never copy someone else—especially someone as outrageously unique as Donald Trump!

That is when the Cruz and Rubio trains derailed. When they tried to out-Trump Trump. It was not only impossible, it was just silly.


The Real Trump - By an Employee

Friday, April 29, 2016

From my Firearms Instructor...

Sounding like a typical Democrat politician, an editorialist in VA recently

“I grew up shooting shotguns and rifles with my grandfather..,” 

“I understand why people want firearms...,”

Then comes the inevitable punch-line:

“I do not believe, however, that there is any legitimate reason for  ordinary citizens to own military-grade weapons..., yet these are somehow legal  to be bought and to own.”

“Ordinary?”  He must be talking about all those “regular” Americans  who are proudly self-reliant and want to be able to effectively defend themselves from armed criminals. 

“Military-grade weapons” is a broad phrase.  He would obviously ban Beretta 92F, and 1911-style pistols if he could.

My guns aren’t “somehow legal.”  They ARE legal, and I don’t need the  condescending “approval” of some leftist elitist to keep them!

But wait!  There’s more:

“An AR-15 makes a lousy self-defense weapon, unless you are worried about 
guerillas invading your home...”

Actually, that is exactly what I’m worried about, and an AR/M4 makes a  superb defensive weapon!  I suspect this naive liberal editorialist has  never so much as touched one, or he would not make such stupid statements.

And finally this:

“My rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are threatened every day by the presence of military-grade weapons in the hands of untrained or, in a worst-case scenario, violent people.”

Of course, like all leftists, he never gets specific.  He cannot  describe a single incident in which he, personally, has ever been threatened by  an “untrained person” with an AR, nor any other kind of firearm for that  matter. The “threats” he describes are all theoretical, but his  condescending contempt for his follow countrymen is all too apparent.

The foregoing is a good summary of the messages we’re hearing from the  mouths of Democrats during this election year.

They first try to sooth us by claiming some vague acknowledgment of our  Second Amendment, even claiming to have “... gone shooting with my grandfather,” ad nauseam.

They then insist that we lowly “ordinary” citizens don’t “need” certain currently-legal guns that are widely owned by “ordinary” Americans across the  County. The fact that we don’t “need” them is then complete justification  for banning them, at least from the hands of all “ordinary” citizens. 

Curiously, their proposed bans never apply to them!

These are the same leftist elitists who insist that we “ordinary” Americans  don’t “need” a boat, nor a house with a view, nor an SUV.  Their narrow  definition of “need” apparently defines our individual rights and  liberties. 

Of course, their personal “need” for all these things is always legitimateand must never be questioned!

These self-proclaimed “ruling elitists” make me sick!

They piously claim moral superiority, putting themselves far above all of us disgusting peons, who just can’t be trusted with lethal weapons.  All the while, they of course, “deserve” a host of special rights (including gun rights) and privileges not available to the rest of us. And, they want us to vote for them!

“Who claims a ‘clear conscience’ is without fail, a frightful bore”


Wednesday, April 27, 2016

Sign Up or Fade Away...

 For those who think that Trump is a "democrat" and a "liberal",and that he is not sufficiently conservative to properly represent your pure conservative selves, here's my take on that.

 The"Conservative Movement" conservatives, as we know them, are entirely ineffectual. They talk, and lecture, and posture, and promise, and pose, and go along with whatever the Left wants. (Witness the "Tea Party" Congress under Øbama.)

The "Conservatives" are afraid of the Left. They have accepted the Political Correctness that determines what can and cannot be said, what can and cannot be done, what can and cannot be thought.

They are terrified of being called Racist, or Sexist, or Nativist, or Nationalist, or "America Firsters", or Homophobes, or Islamophobes...

And the two people they hate most are Trump and Milo, who refuse to be Politically Correct, and insist on saying the Truth...the Truth that almost all Americans are thinking, but have been intimidated and bullied into keeping silent about—through all too real threats to their livelihoods and jobs and businesses!

Marxists, Collectivists, Progressives, BLM, Radical Feminists, LGBT, and all the rest of the SJW have had their way with American Culture and the American People for long enough...with the frightened, cowed, submissive, subjugated obedience of all those supposed brave and principled "Conservatives".

And Americans are SICK OF IT.

Trump is leading a MOVEMENT; a revolution of regular Americans against the forces of suppression, oppression, intimidation, humiliation, censorship, shaming....

....and they are Taking Their Country Back.

And if you don't get that, you have not been paying attention!

It's not about who's the most perfect "conservative"'s about who actually loves America and Americans, who wants to restore her and them, and who is willing say and do what's actually necessary to inspire the rest of us to believe and work to make it happen.

It's a new playing field. It's a new agenda. It's a whole new debate.

And the tired, boring, talky, pearl-clutching, tsk-tsk-ing, fainting "conservatives" will either figure it out and join us, or fade off into the sunset of a played out, losing, spineless ideology.


No further discussion necessary...

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Why Trump

Today we don't need a policy guy as President. 
We don't need a conservative icon. 
We need a guy willing to burn down the filthy Washington Cartel, and their corrupt power-mad, money grubbing political culture ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE!

We need an amateur, a newbie, a guy not tainted by the current disease of D.C. politics.

A guy not familiar with the "way things work", but only knows how they "ought to work" for the betterment of America.

Trump is not popular because fans and supporters think he's got the best detailed understanding and policy on the Federal Reserve. They think he's for whatever's best for America and Americans....whatever that ends up looking like once he figures it out.

And they trust that he means what he says and says what he means, and will do what he promises: To do whatever is necessary to Make America Great Again.

They're not so concerned, right at the moment, on details.

Because right now they're not the issue.

And the tight-sphinctered Republicans who think they are, are missing the point entirely.

I Was a Democrat When Ronald Reagan was Elected...

 ...maybe that's why I can see him, and his administration with a little less hero-worship than my conservative friends.

I didn't vote for him, I didn't like him.

Since then, of course, I've changed political sides, and respect him as a veritable icon of the Right.

But still, I have to say, conservatives idea that Ronald Reagan saved America, is obviously idiotic.

If America had been saved, we would not have a huge rapacious, totalitarian government, with their fingers, noses, snitches and cameras in every facet of our lives.

We would not have Barrack Øbama as president for EIGHT years, and the immanent possibility of a Hillary Clinton candidacy.

We would not have BLM and LGBT and 3rd Wave Feminism, and Safe-Spaces on Campi, and college students who cry when they happen to hear an opinion that differs from their own.

We would not have a generation of people who think it normal to silence dissent and seek to criminalize differences of opinion. Who howl about free-speech, but forbid it through violence and intimidation to those whose ideas conflict with their world view.

The point I'm making here is not that Reagan wasn't effective, or a good leader, or a capable President. It was that just electing a conservative...or many conservatives as we did in 2012, does not change the course of history.

We have to effect a new direction of the culture of the nation.


What we need is a CULTURAL leader who will change the cultural tide in this country from Leftism to Americanism. A leader who's not afraid to say TRUTH even when it's not politically correct. A guy who's not afraid of offending foreigners, invaders, America-haters, and other criminals even if they're mexican, black, homosexual feminist or muslim...

...AND INSPIRE MILLIONS OF OTHERS TO DO THE SAME...until we win the day with truth and restore America to her former glory.

We actually don't need an ideologue. We need an ass-kicking, blunt-talking, America-loving hero who wants to preserve and protect our country, and fight for Truth, Justice, and the American Way.

Now, I could be wrong...but that sounds an awful lot like Donald Trump.

Misunderstanding the Rules of the Game

I just read another editorial about how bad Trump is and how great Cruz is, and that if we don't elect the right person, it will be disastrous for America.

But that's bullshit.

The first problem with that opinion is that POLITICS is not the answer. It doesn't matter who you elect, no matter how pure their conservatism, no matter how honestly held their principles.

If the CULTURE demands Men-In-Women's-Bathrooms...that's what we'll get.

And by "culture" I mean the loudest, strongest, most persistent voices among The People.

The Right focuses on politics:  Electing the "right" people.

(They continue, for example to see the Reagan Presidency as the "glory days" when all was right with the world. But if Reagan changed so much and made such a difference in America, how is it possible that we have Barrack Øbama as president today, and the widely recognized criminal, power-mad, money-grubbing Hillary Clinton on the threshold of the office?)

The Left focuses on CULTURE...they essentially own academia, the media, entertainment, liberal religion, etc...and through them effect the changes they desire without ever winning an election.

When will we learn?

Stop focusing on elections and retail politics. As we spend time and money and effort electing "Tea Party" candidates to Congress, the Left marshals BLM  and Feminists and LGBT and Muslims, etc. to riot and demonstrate, and scream and accuse, and howl and humiliate, and intimidate, and coerce politicians and judges and businesses and churches and schools and clubs and unions... to accede to their demands.


Until we do, we are destined to continue losing our culture, our history, our traditions and our country.


Thursday, April 21, 2016

From the Mailbag...

"GOP leaders are absolutely correct in pointing out that the party is a private organization entitled to make and enforce its own rules.

"However, it also is true that the nature of the rules reflects the nature of the organization.  And on his characterization of that nature, Mr. Trump, who is seeking to overturn the established order, is right.  Messrs. Trump and Sanders are products of, and  reflect the widespread disgust and loathing of our political leadership across both of the nation’s major parties.  The country's current political divide is less between Demorats and Republicons or even between conservatives and liberals (a.k.a. progressives) than it is between our thoroughly corrupted political elites — public office holders and aspirants, and their supporters and satraps in government bureaucracies and virtually all of the nation's major institutions — and the great mass of ordinary American citizens."

This from a friend. He articulates the situation perfectly!


The Curse of Mohammedanism...

Winston Churchill

Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill (1874 – 1965) was a British politician known chiefly for his leadership of the United Kingdom during World War II. He is widely regarded as one of the great wartime leaders, and was voted the greatest Briton of all time.[135]

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.

"The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

Perhaps we should start listening to our olders and betters...


Wednesday, April 13, 2016

California Sadder But Not Wiser

 Some idiot commenter at American Thinker  was actually bragging about how great California is.

Here's my response: (I only had so much time...)

• • •

"Are you insane? I live here, and the place is a shambles. They are raising taxes, paying off their friends. We pay the most in taxes, in fuel, in energy. We have to pay for grocery bags, for heaven's sake.

The "surplus" is a mirage. Government workers are lushly paid, do little, and demand even more. Pensions are opulent and rising yearly.

Taxes are high, and also rising.

They are working hard to ban guns as they import millions of illegal criminals.

Islam is being taught in schools and Christianity is forbidden. Mention Jesus at the risk of censure or lawsuit.

Men are discriminated against because: WYMYN!

Whites are discriminated against because: PEOPLE OF COLOR!

Tech billionaires squawk about Social Justice from their private, secluded palaces far from the "little people".

We're collectively paying for a multi-billion dollar 'bullet' train to nowhere that non of us will ever see or use, because it profits all the politicians' friends and donors, which translates into more money for themselves.

You can't wash you car in your driveway, water your lawn, burn wood in your fireplace on certain days or install a wood burning stove.

You can't change a ceiling fan, or replace a window, or install a garbage disposal in your house without getting (and paying for) government PERMISSION.


...birth control no longer requires a prescription, and middle-school children can buy it at the drug store. The nurse at school can hand out condoms.Parental approval or permission not required.

Abortion is a State-Sponsored Sport.

Transgenderism is a sacrament.

Sacramento may be the most corrupt city in America...indeed, in The Americas.

Here's the only good thing I have to say about California government: it might be marginally less corrupt than Haiti."

What Has the Conservative Movement Done?

You know what? I am sick to death of people lecturing and hectoring about the Conservative Principles of the Conservative Movement of America.

Are you kidding me?

What, precisely has the Conservative Movement accomplished or "conserved" in America since the Founding?

For a moment in time, Ronald Reagan slowed the rush to the Left...but as soon as he left office the tsunami continued apace.

If the Conservative Movement had made the SLIGHTEST difference in the last 100 years, we simply would not have Barack Øbama as president. We would not have a lying criminal wife of an impeached president running for office.

We would not have a self-defined Socialist running for President of the United States.

The Conservative Movement, for all their principled beliefs and Constitutional hectoring, has not stopped or slowed the American rush to the Left in any way, AT ALL.

The Conservative Movement is a complete and utter failure.

I dare anyone here to list a single issue that has been won by the Conservative Movement.

Our culture is decadent.

Our government is leviathan and rapacious.

Our taxes are immense.

Our regulations stifle and strangle business

Our politicians are power-mad & money-grubbing

Our country is  being invaded by hostiles.

Our religion is banned and reviled.

We are raising little snowflake, soap bubble people for whom the slightest disagreement with their world-view is a psychological assault to be punished by the full force of law.

Our institutions are selling body parts of human babies.

Our universities permit only ONE accepted opinion to be expressed All others are forbidden under pain of job loss or lawsuit.

Homosexual marriage is the norm.

Divorce is the norm.

The Birthrate is falling.

More blacks are aborted than born, and those that manage birth grow up without fathers.

Tell me again....How did the ever so self-righteous and pure CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT make the slightest difference?

Monday, April 11, 2016

What Progressivism is Doing to America

The End of Popular Consent 

From American Thinker

By Philip Ahlrich  

Always, the liberal wants to change the laws so that he is not obliged to change his habits.  "I don’t believe you change hearts," Hillary Clinton said to a Black Lives Matter delegation during her 2016 presidential campaign.  "I believe you change laws, you change allocation of resources, you change the way systems operate."

It is the new liberal message, spoken to a few but intended as an instruction to the Democratic Party: You do not change hearts; rather, you acquire power through any means available, and then you change the system.  The liberal mind, cosmopolitan to the end, can imagine no higher form of governance than the European models: socialist regimes dreaming of taxes, bound irretrievably into unsustainable entitlement programs; coalition governments divided by uncompromising ideologies, distracted by intriguing factions, forever chasing after small matters of politics, unable to provide for the defense of their citizens and bending in supplication for the wealth and favor of Evil.

"In every government on earth," wrote Thomas Jefferson, "is some trace of human weakness, some germ of corruption and degeneracy, which cunning will discover, and wickedness insensibly open, cultivate, and improve.  Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone."  The Founders of our nation represented the genius of human thought in the maturity of its moral purpose.  We are nourished in the currents of a historical expansion of intelligence and creativity made possible by fundamental law and a Bill of Rights, a continually restorative enactment of justice beyond the expression of those first principles of government.  But this observation is lost on the progressive movement, for which the American Constitution is not a foundation of law on which to build a prosperous and self-governing society, but rather an impediment and hazard to its social justice program.

Progressive elements in the party of Democrats have long understood that by circumventing the Constitution through executive orders and administrative regulations that have the effect of law, they can lead society into a settled acceptance of unpopular State actions.  Any reasonable person might suppose that an enlightened self-interest would sufficiently deter an immoderate faction from so unwisely angering the people that they would vote its leadership out of office.  Nevertheless, due to the combining interferences of successful vote farming tactics and the misinforming power of the media, the new liberal order has cast aside that necessary concern for popular consent.

Progressivism is not about consent -- it is about rule.  This is the wrong argument and the wrong action to carry into the 21st Century.  It is a violation of the common trust, an intrusion of exclusive, radical interests upon settled law and upon the vital institutions of civilized life.  It would open the American system to all the entrenched socialized ills of the European. 

Progressivism is not an end; it is rather a means of habituating the people to rule by bureaucratic authority.  It is an activist and proselytizing force, a process not of reformation but of unremembering, of unbuilding, and undoing.  It is the soul of deconstruction, emphasizing that the language of justice is unreliable and open to continual interpretation and suggestion.  It would innovate upon the American Constitution until its words dissolved in a cauldron of political expediency.  Its scripture embodies a perpetual dissatisfaction with truth, with moral understanding, with principles of established order, limit, and clarity.  As a political declaration, the new liberal doctrine of power is a necessary precursor to authoritarian rule, to self-appointed government, to the tyranny of an elite political class, to oligarchy -- to socialism -- not yet the thing itself, though immune to none of its evils, but serving as a pathfinder, a leveler, and maker of footholds.  Its own testament erases meaning and value as it redefines the terms of social contract.

The liberal speaks in a new Orwellian language.  He tells us that injustice is stronger than justice; and his interference with the democratic process has now rid the Democratic Party of its moderate voices.  The intellectual desire to engage in dialectic -- an instrument of reason by which we may understand both sides of an argument -- is forfeit to tribal hatreds.  Any appeal to reason is now the mark of cowardice.  Any attempt to reconcile differences with the conservative opposition is the action of treason.  A readiness to shut down debate, to violate the free speech and assembly of opposing groups on college campuses and in many other social environments is proof of one’s oath and loyalty to the emerging extremist movement.  Political correctness is the new social contract.  Collective salvation is the new secular order of acceptable truth.  The determination to believe one’s own lies is a perfect measure of commitment to the progressive cause of social justice.  INGSOC revisionism emerges on the American left in the radical newspeak of SOCJUS: Error is Progress, Subsistence is Growth, and Weakness is Strength.

Social justice represents, in modern culture, a wave of moral inversion -- a means of justifying bad behavior with good intentions.  Rather than repairing social inequities, progressive doctrine simply provides centralized government the means of further harvesting the fruits of inequality for political gain.  The new liberal farmer gathers no crop in solving the problem.  If the nation’s poor and disadvantaged were able to shake off their dependency on federal entitlement programs and to enjoy prosperity through opportunities hitherto denied them by liberal oppressions, there would no longer be a Democratic Party.

Progressive doctrine is fundamentally an argument incompatible with the principles of limited government and constitutional order.  The tactical force of neoliberal planning works unilaterally to diminish or to withdraw the American citizen’s inalienable right of consent to the actions of government and to their irreversible consequences.  The new liberal order is the product of elitist inbreeding, compounded by many recessive traits of reason and made legitimate by force.  Its scripture involves a subversion of the democratic process.  If its votaries insist that social justice for a few is not possible without claims upon the civil liberties of all persons, there can be no basis of consent.  There is no significant distinction between the new left’s desire to impose its ideology upon the American people and the Islamic State’s desire to impose its doctrine upon the Muslim world.  It is a matter only of degree: the former represents Error in its first character -- the latter in its last.

• • •