Ted Cruz For Liberty… Ted Cruz For President


“Those who aim at great deeds must also suffer greatly.”

– Plutarch

Many of us in the liberty movement saw the handwriting on the wall some time ago, as far as the Rand Paul campaign was concerned. He came in a distant fifth in Iowa, a state many thought he would win a year ago, his polling looked bleak in the other early states, and he was short on resources. He likely could have gone on, but instead, ended his campaign Wednesday morning. He’ll focus on securing re-election to the Senate, which he should easily accomplish. This turn of events has caused many of us in the liberty movement to despair, and even question the viability of the movement itself.

This must stop. What, did some of us think this would be easy? That the neoconservatives, the authoritarians, the entrenched interests, and all the rest who stand in our way inside the Republican party, would simply step aside? This sort of wishful thinking is all too common among those of us in the liberty movement. Reality is that it took over a century for the state to grow as it has, and for our liberties to be endangered the way they are now, and we won’t reverse that in a single campaign, a single election cycle, or even over the course of one pro-liberty presidential administration. We have a long fight ahead of us, and only over the past few years has it seemed as if we can begin to turn the tide. The sooner we realize this, the better our chances of making an actual impact. Our adversaries understand the value of incremental progress. So must we.

SPARTANBURG, SC - APRIL 3: Senator and GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz answers questions from local media following a town hall meeting at the Beacon Drive-in restaurant on April 3, 2015 in Spartanburg, South Carolina. The Beacon Drive-in, traditionally a popular venue for campaigning politicians, was Cruz's 2nd stop of the day in South Carolina. (Photo by Richard Ellis/Getty Images)

SPARTANBURG, SC – APRIL 3: Senator and GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz answers questions from local media following a town hall meeting at the Beacon Drive-in restaurant on April 3, 2015 in Spartanburg, South Carolina. The Beacon Drive-in, traditionally a popular venue for campaigning politicians, was Cruz’s 2nd stop of the day in South Carolina. (Photo by Richard Ellis/Getty Images)

To that end, we must take Senator Paul’s defeat in stride, assess our options, and recommit to the fight, supporting the best possible outcome for the advancement of liberty.

We cannot simply throw up our hands, take our ball, and go home. To do so would validate every criticism the establishment makes about liberty Republicans. That we’re not really Republicans. That we don’t understand the value of coalitions in politics. That we’re children who pitch a screaming fit the moment we don’t get exactly what we want. This will not do.

To that end, I believe wholeheartedly that liberty Republicans must work to elect Senator Ted Cruz, of Texas, the next President of the United States.

Along with Senator Mike Lee, he’s stood with Rand more than anyone else in the Senate. True, he’s not perfect, but he’s very good, and we can’t let the proverbial perfect be the enemy of the good.

He’s the only candidate still in the race who subscribes to an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. He’s the only candidate in the race who stands firmly against warrantless surveillance. He’s made some unwise comments about ‘making sand glow’ and ‘carpet bombing’, but for the most part, he rejects the ridiculous neoconservative foreign policy agenda. He’s with us on privacy and data security. However socially conservative he might be, he understands federalism, and would leave such issues largely in the hands of the states. He’d eliminate the odious TSA, along with a host of other superfluous federal departments and agencies. He understands the desperate need for sweeping criminal justice reform. Ted Cruz is our staunch ally most of the time.

Case in point: The USA Freedom Act. While it was much weaker than the original bill, it still ended warrantless government access to phone metadata, which was the major problem. That data is still collected by phone companies, and no bill yet seriously contemplated would stop that. Yet, many liberty activists are angry because he supported that version of the USA Freedom Act. That bill was the epitome of an incremental victory for liberty. We should thank him for supporting it.

The man just rolled into Iowa and beat the ethanol lobby in its backyard, winning Iowa with flying colors. The significance of that cannot be overstated.

He missed the latest vote in the Senate to audit the Federal Reserve, but that bill had vanishingly small chances of getting the 60 votes need to invoke cloture, and exactly ZERO chance of getting the 67 votes needed to override the inevitable Obama veto. Yet liberty Republicans skewered Cruz for missing the vote! Where was he? Winning, apparently. He knows we need a pro-liberty President if such a thing is to become law.

Once one compares Senator Cruz to the competition, the choice becomes even more clear.

I won’t spill a lot of ink here dealing with Donald Trump, as it’s been done elsewhere to great effect. Suffice it to say he’s a horrible demagogue with a long history of supporting Democratic candidates and policies, and for all the world seems like the bastard political child of Silvio Berlusconi and Benito Mussolini, with a dusting of liberal Yankee jackass for good measure. No. Just no.

Marco Rubio embraces the neoconservative “Invade The World/Invite The World” policy panoply with both arms and grinning enthusiasm. So on foreign policy and immigration, he’s a fresh-faced rerun of George W. Bush. No, thank you.

Rubio, Trump, Chris Christie, ¡Jeb! Bush, and to a lesser extent, John Kasich (who is the worst of the lot other than Trump), brag about how we need get back to violating the Fourth Amendment rights of Americans to stop terrorism. All are on board, to varying degrees, with perpetual entanglement in the Middle East.

Ben Carson, while a fine man, suffers upon close examination, and has looked feckless and inconsistent in debates and on the campaign trail. His campaign is fading, and with good reason.

Carly Fiorina will be a strong surrogate for whoever our nominee is, but her moment in the sun in this race has passed. Jim Gilmore is somehow still running, effectively as a fundraiser for Boyd Marcus. He was never a real factor.

For the first time since at least 1980, we have a chance to elect a President who will actually try and make a dent in the growing leviathan state, and strike a blow for liberty. We can win! Let’s prove the doubters wrong. Let’s join the rest of the wider conservative movement, defeat the establishment catspaw candidates, and WIN.

Cruz for liberty. Cruz for President.

Originally posted at The Bull Elephant.

An Article V Convention is STILL a bad idea


Once again, certain Republican members of the General Assembly are advancing bills to call a constitutional convention, as detailed in Article V of the Constitution. Scott Lingamfelter, Jim LeMunyon, and Emmett Hanger are the parties responsible, all part of Republican leadership. It nearly passed last year, and was only defeated thanks to the heroic efforts of Dick Black in the Senate.

As I pointed out last year, this is a horrible idea, and opens the republic up to all sorts of danger.

All the same concerns remain, and have not (and cannot) be addressed by either the General Assembly members who support this, or by Middle Resolution PAC, Convention of States, or any of the other outside forces behind this effort. They can’t limit the scope of a constitutional convention. They can’t guarantee it won’t be hijacked by the left. They can’t explain how they’ll force Congress to adopt a ‘one state, one vote’ format for the convention.

Please lobby your representatives in the House of Delegates and the Senate of Virginia to oppose all three of these bills when they show up on the floor, as they will surely make it out of committee, thanks to leadership support. Possibly as early as this week.

Originally posted at The Bull Elephant.

Socialist Says the GOP Is a Dead Party, and He May Be Right


Note from Nicki: Welcome to Brad Johnson! Brad is a new blogger here and will be writing about whatever he wants. He’s fun. He’s exciting. He’s cool. He’s not afraid to use bad words. What’s not to like?



Filmmaker Michael Moore is ready to write the obituary of the Republican Party, and his logic for doing so isn’t without merit.

The Grand Old Party, according to the socialist fuck stick, faces demographic problems that are hard to avoid. The presence of fringe candidates who use bombastic rhetoric are driving away minorities and young people that Republican desperately need to attract if it wants to remain viable.

Moore“Let me give you a statistic: 81 percent of the electorate in 2016 will be either female, people of color or young adults between 18 and 35. They don’t look like those men on stage for the Republican [presidential] debates,” Moore told Salon.com. “When school started in September, for the first time ever the majority of our kindergarteners were not white.”

Moore is promoting a new film, Where to Invade Next, which was released in Los Angeles and New York just before Christmas. A larger release is scheduled in February. Those of you reading this, of course, would rather ram a screwdriver through your eye than watch one of his flicks. And, really, who can blame you?
Moore’s past films, which, despite what his fans may say, aren’t documentaries, include Bowling for Columbine, an assault on the Second Amendment, and Sicko, which disparaged the American healthcare system and promoted socialized medicine in Cuba and the United Kingdom.

Although Moore is undoubtedly just being an attention whore, his point – “concern trolling” is probably a better term – is a good one, as much as one may hate to admit it.

“We are not the America [Republican presidential candidates] grew up in, or the America they think they’re talking to. Those three groups they have alienated: women, people of color and young people,” said Moore in the interview. “By turning off 81 percent of the electorate, what is their plan to get into the White House? They can’t make it happen anymore. I mean, it really is a dead party.”

HillaryClinton-BernieSanders-Democrat-PartyOfOldWhitePeopleOf course, there is diversity in the Republican field, something their Democratic counterparts lack: Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz are of Cuban descent, Ben Carson is an African-American, and Carly Fiorina is a chick. The three remaining Democratic are all white, two of them are over the age of 68, and only one is a female (maybe – it’s questionable).

Nevertheless, Republicans do face a demographic problem. In May, the Washington Post noted that the white vote, on which the party has relied to be successful in national elections, has dwindled from near 90 percent in 1980 to a little more than 70 percent in 2012.

Separately, Gallup shows that 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney won 57 percent of the white vote, while President Barack Obama took 82 percent of minorities.

The big problem for Republicans is that incendiary rhetoric from certain candidates further damages the party’s already dismal efforts outreach efforts to minorities.

This includes idiotic statements made by Republican frontrunner Donald Trump, who has railed against even legal immigration, proposed prohibiting Muslims from legally entering the United States, promoted trade protectionism. After all, there’s no better way to engage minorities than to nominate a guy who is, basically, every asshole who has commented on a Stormfront forum.

“The 2016 electorate, demographically speaking, will be worse for Republicans than 2012,” Chris Cillizza explained. “And unless Republicans can begin winning more of the nonwhite vote, the 2020 election will be worse for the party than the 2016 election. And 2024 will be worse than, well, you get the idea.”

The Republican Party isn’t going to win over minorities if its nominee has a record of demagoguery against certain parts of the electorate. And if there is a change in direction, it has to be genuine, otherwise, minority voters will see straight through it. There isn’t an easy solution for Republican faithful here; either they began to embrace minorities or their prospects for winning back the White House will become much more difficult.

Absurdity On Guns & The ‘No-Fly’ List


Many of the more anti-gun Presidential candidates, including Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Martin O’Malley, Chris Christie, Donald Trump (despite his claims to be ‘very strong into the whole thing with Second Amendment’), and John Kasich, have come out in support of legislation depriving anyone on the ‘no fly list’ of their Second Amendment rights. Kasich’s supporters here in Virginia even cast it as the ‘common sense approach’, and one of the chief contributors to TBE’s moderate Republican counterpart defended him, positing that there is due process involved with said list. I hear he has a law degree.
To be blunt, this is rank nonsense. There is NO semblance of due process involved when it comes to the no-fly list. To advocate depriving Americans of a basic, Constitutionally-protected, civil right on the basis of the subjective judgements of unelected bureaucrats is nauseating. I always thought that ‘due process’ involved at least seeing the evidence against you. Apparently, the entire Democratic field, along with the more statist Republican candidates, don’t think so.
Thankfully, the rest of the Republican field rejects this idea. Even national security blanket-hugger Marco Rubio, whose major flaw is his eagerness to please the more hawkish elements of the Republican party by committing the United State to ever more third world conflicts if elected and to trade liberty for security, recognizes what a horrible idea this is. Our new Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, also rejected it.
The no-fly list, includes a huge number of Americans with no apparent ties to any terrorist group of any kind, as indicated by the graph below (H/T: The Intercept):

But hey, it’s for NATIONAL SECURITY. Don’t ask questions, Citizen!

The firestorm over Trump’s proposal to ban all Muslim immigration to the United States (at least temporarily) has put this issue on the back burner the past few days, but make no mistake: It indicates who has respect for the Constitution, and who does not. No candidate who advances this concept deserves conservative support.

Originally posted at The Bull Elephant.

John Kasich is NOT a conservative, don’t be fooled!

1 Comment

There’s a certain group among Virginia Republicans who are supporting John Kasich for President, even trying to convince us that he is a conservative. For a host of reasons, this claim is ridiculous on its face.

First, Kasich tacitly opposes right-to-work legislation in Ohio, stating repeatedly that he won’t push for it. One shouldn’t be forced to join a union to get or keep a job, or to pay tribute to union goons so they can pursue a left-wing political agenda. No conservative should oppose state right-to-work laws.

Also, Kasich supports the federal “Common Core” educational standards. He opposed legislation last year in Ohio that would’ve replaced them with better ones. It is the duty of every conservative statesman to oppose federal mandates in education at every opportunity. Kasich has failed to do so.

Perhaps most galling, Kasich cloaks his support for amnesty for illegal aliens AND his support for Medicaid expansion, in the guise of faith. Every conservative should understand that government is not an outlet for charity, and certainly not a tool to be used to force some to support others. Leave that to the left.

Medicaid expansion is akin to following the federal Pied Piper to an illusory pot of gold in the form of federal dollars (built on the ever-growing federal debt) that run out after a few years. In reality, that course of action amounts to following the Piper right off a cliff. Kasich infamously told a donor that he expanded Medicaid because “Now, when you die and get to the meeting with St. Peter, he’s probably not going to ask you much about what you did about keeping government small. But he is going to ask you what you did for the poor. You better have a good answer.”

As far as amnesty goes, the rule of law should come first, and no reform or amnesty should be contemplated until the border is secured, and the federal government makes a sustained good-faith effort to send home those who have come on visas and overstayed, and those who entered the United States illegally. These positions aren’t remotely conservative.

Kasich has grown the Ohio state budget by roughly 20% in his time in office, higher than most other states during that time-frame.

Kasich is questionable, at best, on gun rights. He got F grades for several years from the National Rifle Association, and helped Bill Clinton pass the 1993 ‘assault weapons’ ban.

Any two of these would make John Kasich a non-starter for me. Taken together, they paint a picture of a progressive Republican trying to wear the mask of a conservative. As such, conservatives should certainly not support Kasich for President, and leave him to the moderates as a backup plan, in case ¡Jeb! Bush implodes completely.

Originally posted at The Bull Elephant.

The Pope – Good Man, Bad Policy


Pope Francis was in DC these past couple of days, and the news cycle could talk about nothing else. Literally. I resigned myself to turning TV news off for good and focusing on foreign media and the Wall Street Journal. Traffic was a bear, so I took an admin day in which I sat around the house all day in my pajamas, blogged, and marveled from my balcony at the beautiful day we were having!

I keep wondering if the area was such a nightmare for a papal visit, how the hell does anyone think DC could handle the 2024 Olympics?

But back to the Pope. The visit has, of course, caused numerous discussions about the nature of the Pope’s political views. Is he a socialist? Is he a communist? Should he be using the Catholic Church as his own, personal bully pulpit from which to pressure national governments to implement his leftist agenda? Blah blah blah.

I’m hardly a Catholic, and I’m not religious. So maybe looking at said Pope from the outside, so to speak, I can offer my somewhat more objective opinion.

In his historic address to the U.S. Congress, Pope Francis urged the politicians to cooperate and exercise basic kindness to others – especially those in dire need of it – immigrants, the poor, and the earth. The political tone was unmistakable: allow immigrants from Latin America to take advantage of the opportunities America offers, take steps to avert “the most serious effects of the environmental deterioration caused by human activity,” share those fruits of capitalist labor…

I wouldn’t mind the message so much if he stuck to delivering it to the people, rather than to those who hold the monopoly on government force. Of course, we need to be kind to others! Hell, the United States is a hugely charitable nation! Inherently there’s nothing wrong with that. But there’s a difference in giving to the poor and asking the government to take tax dollars by force (and if you don’t think that taxation is force, try not paying your taxes. See: Al Capone.) To quote Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice,” the quality of mercy is not strained. You don’t force charity at the point of a government gun, because then it ceases to be charity and becomes just another redistributionist scheme. There’s no virtue in forcing others to give what you think they should give at the point of a government gun.

Kind words. Bad policy.

Immigration made this country what it is today. I am an immigrant, as is everyone in my family. We came here in search of opportunities, and we found them. I have no problem with immigration per se. But there needs to be justice, and there needs to be security. There is no justice in telling illegal aliens, “Since your very first act in the country you claim to love was to violate its immigration laws, we’ll reward you with amnesty!” Sorry, but no! We all understand there are people escaping some pretty horrific abuses out there. We also get there are folks out there seeking economic opportunities they would never find in their own countries. These are all valid reasons for wanting to come to the United States. But to allow those who have entered here illegally to remain, while plenty of immigrants wait for permission is not fair. While the stories may tug at the heart strings, justice is blind for a reason, and using said emotionalist rhetoric as well as the influence of the church to push for injustice is just plain wrong.

Emotional kindness. Bad policy.

And then there’s the environmentalist stuff. Look, no one is denying that conserving resources, finding cleaner technologies, and working for a cleaner planet is a good thing, but to claim that humans cause global warming and to impose onerous government regulations on them that will make their lives more difficult is not kind, and it’s not responsible. It’s one thing to promote a clean planet and urge each person to take responsibility for it, but it’s quite another to urge the government to force people to do so, like these scientists, who recently began urging the Obama Administration to prosecute skeptics using the RICO Act. Many cite the Pope’s alleged Master’s Degree in chemistry as some kind of evidence of his authority on global warming.

Well… a) he doesn’t have a Master’s in chemistry. He was a “chemical technician,” who has degrees in theology and philosophy, and b) even if he did have a degree in chemistry, which he does not, that would not denote expertise in environmental sciences.

Dr. Patrick Moore, formerly of Greenpeace, does have degrees in both ecology and forest biology, and he claims many of the claims regarding climate change are hysteria. A number of other scientists say the IPCC projections on climate change cannot be accurate, including botanist David Bellamy, the former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology Judith Curry, and MIT professor of atmospheric sciences Richard Lindzen. Still more scientists argue that climate change is natural vice man-made – actual scientists such as University of Manchester professor emeritus of chemical thermodynamics Leslie Woodcock, UVA’s Fred Singer, and University of Ottawa environmental geochemist Jan Veizer.

In other words, despite what radical progs like to claim, the science is far from settled, and for the Pope to use the influence of the church to push destructive environmental policies in national legislatures based on scientific evidence that is still being examined and blaming “unbridled” capitalism for the destruction of the environment is blatantly policy prescriptive and dishonest.

Yes, I have policy disagreements with the Pope, and he absolutely has the right to his opinion. That said, going out and pressuring governments to adopt his opinions as policy should be disturbing to all those separation of church and state advocates, who rightfully say that religion and politics must be kept separate.

The Pope seems like a kind man. He’s a tireless advocate for charity, for tolerance, for ending suffering – these are all noble goals and his public advocacy has brought many people I personally know back to the church. My problem is not his views. Kindness, tolerance, generosity, charity are all virtues to be admired. But there’s no virtue in using government force to force those principles on others. There’s no virtue in disingenuously using the emotional power of the church to compel politicians to impose his views on the country.


Government force is not charity, and it’s not a virtue. It’s force.

And despite the Pope’s quite obviously good intentions, in the end the nature of force does not change, and using a very powerful spiritual tool to club politicians over the head in order to coerce them into using government authority over the citizens is not moral or kind. It’s authoritarian.

I don’t think the Pope is a communist. He has good intentions, but he doesn’t consider the nature of government or the consequences of his advocacy. He just wants to do good.

The “I hate myself for blogging about Trump” post


I swore to myself at some point that I wouldn’t give that ferret-headed, boorish narcissist any time on this blog. There are enough media outlets giving him the validation and attention he so desperately craves, and I didn’t want to be part of that crew.

But no… Trump had to go and overstep even the high watermark of his own shitbaggery this week, and so here I am… blogging about that mega-douche. I hate myself, but I’m going to do it anyway. So let’s start with a few facts here.

As you may have guessed, hell will freeze over before I cast a vote in Trump’s direction. If that douche tool gets the GOP nomination, I will not just vote for Hillary or Bernie Sanders, or whichever Democrat decides to make a run for the White House, I will actively campaign for them. I might vote Libertarian, depending on whether or not the LP candidate makes the ballot here in Virginia, but there’s no way in hell I will EVER support Trump.

No, it’s not because of the stupid hair that looks like a small animal crawled onto his head and died there.


No, it’s not because I’m somehow afraid of him telling it like it is. Frankly, I’d love a candidate who really spoke the truth – a direct and honest candidate who is capable of understanding the issues and speaking to them eloquently and intelligently. Trump ain’t it.

It’s because Trump is an immature, narcissistic, boorish lout, who has little to no idea about the economy, foreign policy, national security, or anything else that’s actually important for a President of the United States to know.

Add to that the fact that he’s an ill-mannered, primitive, childish troglodyte, and you have a perfect combination of oafishness and ignorance to get yet another big-government Democrat candidate elected to the White House.


But… but… but… but… he’s run big business, and he’s a billionaire! He has what it takes to turn this economy around!

Not just no, but FUCK NO!

Yeah, the guy is worth about $4 billion, according to Forbes, but having inherited daddy’s multi-million dollar real estate business, and bribed numerous politicians as just part of doing business, this “smart” businessman still declared bankruptcy four times!

Now, Trump claims he was just using bankruptcy laws to his corporate advantage.

Sorry, but any “businessman” who inherits his wealth and then uses bankruptcy laws to essentially avoid doing honest business has no business running a national economy. Filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy allows a corporation to stay in business while it re-structures and attempts to reduce its debt. So a guy who had to file for bankruptcy protection because his companies apparently couldn’t control their spending wants to run America’s economy, AND rape taxpayers more than they already are getting raped to pay down the national debt! Right. Got it?

And frankly, I don’t want someone running an economy as complex as ours whose MO is to essentially bribe politicians to  gain corporate advantage. And I don’t give a crap to which party this puerile imbecile has given the most!

Oh, and by the way, considering that the wealthiest 10 percent of taxpayers already pay more than 70 percent of the total collected federal tax revenues, his idea to slap the “wealthy” with an additional one-time 14.5 percent tax to pay down the profligate spending habits of Washington politicians is putrid.


Boots on the ground to fight ISIS? Really?

Preemptive strike on North Korea? Really?

“All freedoms flow from national security…” Really? Seriously? This is a person who shows little to no comprehension about the nature of fundamental rights and freedoms. Having him in the White House would be a disastrous, neocon mess.

I’m hardly a John McCain fan, as you may well know from my previous writings, but to call into question the guy’s military service and ridicule his five years as a POW is pretty much below the pale – especially from a draft dodging, privileged daddy’s boy, who claims he couldn’t serve because of bone spurs in his widdle feet!

When he grows enough balls to pick up a rifle and defend this country, then he can castigate others’ military service and be all cavalier about sending our troops to fight in the Middle East again after more than a decade of military operations. Until then, he needs to shut the fuck up and let grown ups discuss military policy.

And by the way, the Trumptarded comments about immigration, citing nebulous “border patrol people”? He really has no comprehension about why and how illegal immigrants make their way over the border. His assertion that the Mexican government is actively sending criminals over the US border is pretty bloody ridiculous. Yes, there are organizations that do exactly that, and the Mexican government has been pretty pernicious about publicly trying to bully us into allowing their criminal illegals to remain in the United States, but to claim that essentially the Mexican government is involved in human trafficking across the US border is a bit… um… unsupported, stupid, and ignores the very real issues associated with illegal immigration, including Transnational Criminal Organization (TCO) involvement, the very real profits associated with human trafficking, and corruption within the Mexican government.

The majority of illegal aliens who schlep their way into the United States do so across the Mexican border. There is a multi-billion dollar market in human trafficking, and it involves some of the most dangerous TCOs in the world, including Zetas and MS-13. And frankly, the more our governments crack down on drug trade, the more these TCOs are going to be shifting their revenue generation to less regulated endeavours. The Mexican government doesn’t have to actively do anything. Yes, there are corrupt law enforcement and security officials on the ground that are accepting bribes to help the TCOs traffic people across the border, but this does not denote a Mexican government policy of sending their trash over to our country. The issues are much more nuanced and detailed than that, but the boorish Trump-in-a-china-shop just doesn’t get them.


There are many more reasons why I would never support Trump for president. Frankly, I think he’s just embarrassing. He reminds me of that one fat, redneck uncle many of us have, who resides in a trailer park, wears sweat-stained wife beater shirts, sits around on a ratty recliner with his hand down his pants, scratching his barely-used balls, and spills his can of Bud Light all over the trailer floor as he screams about the “DAMN LIBRULS.” You don’t want to admit he’s related to you, and you don’t want to invite him to your family gatherings, but he shows up, gets drunk, engages in public policy discussions he doesn’t understand, and scares the kids at the family reunion by offering them a sip of his whiskey. I may not be the most diplomatic human being on this planet, but I also know how to behave like an adult in situations where this is required.

Trump is apparently incapable of doing so.

“Waaah! Megyn Kelly was mean to me!” If that means she refused to kiss your hairy ass by asking you tough questions about your record and about your commitment to the Republican party, then yeah. But guess what! Better Megyn Kelly than the Democratic candidate in a debate.

And better the pretty, blonde journalist from Fox News than Vladimir Putin, who is cunning and intelligent, as well as understated, besides being downright evil, and would make an even bigger jerk of Trump than Trump has made of himself.

And worse yet, Kelly’s refusal to kiss said anal orifice resulted in an avalanche of ignorance from Trump, including an allusion to Kelly perhaps being on the rag and referring to her as a “bimbo.” Well, goodness! Why else would a woman not genuflect in front of the Donald? She had to have been on the rag, right?

Of course, now Trump is showing his lack of integrity and honor by not only refusing to apologize for being a troglodyte, but is walking back his comments by claiming that’s not what he really said and/or meant!

“I cherish women,” the real estate mogul told CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union,” adding that he did not mean to imply that Kelly asked him sharp questions during the debate because she was menstruating.

“Who would say that?” Trump said Sunday. “Do you think I’d make a statement like that? Who would make a statement like that? Only a sick person would even think about that.”

And of course, it wasn’t his fault. It was the rest of the Republicans who were just MEAAAAAANNNNN to him and are using his comments to paint him as the uncivilized narcissist he is!

He blamed his Republican presidential opponents for fanning the flames of controversy, and claimed he meant to refer to her “nose and/or ears” — not a woman’s period.

Trump attacked several of the Republicans who have criticized his remarks about Kelly.

And let’s not kid ourselves, it’s not the first time, Trump has gone on the offensive to females – publicly and unapologetically – merely because he didn’t like what they said or wrote about him.

As far back as a 1991 interview with Esquire magazine, Trump had boasted: “You know, it doesn’t really matter what [the media] write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of [expletive]. But she’s got to be young and beautiful.”

In a 2006 book, he wrote of women as objectified collectibles: “Beauty and elegance, whether in a woman, a building, or a work of art is not just superficial or something pretty to see.” He once sent New York Times columnist Gail Collins a copy of something she had written about him with her picture circled and “The face of a dog!” written over it.

And in 2012, he tweeted that Huffington Post founder Arianna Huffington is “unattractive both inside and out. I fully understand why her former husband left her for a man — he made a good decision.” (Huffington’s ex-husband, former congressman Michael Huffington (R-Calif.), came out as gay after their divorce.)

Look, fact of the matter is Trump DOESN’T say it like it is, as a lot of his drooling Neanderthal supporters claim. He simply opens his mouth and says the most outrageous thing he can think of, because it keeps his name out there. He has no concept of actual policy, he doesn’t understand the intricacies of running a country. He’s run his conglomerate like the Godfather, expecting everyone to kiss his ring, and now that he’s decided to run for President, he expects the same thing. And when he doesn’t get it, he throws a hissy fit about women’s periods and other Republicans being unfair to him! “

“Honestly Megyn, if you don’t like it, I’m sorry,” he quipped during the debate. “I’ve been very nice to you, although I could probably maybe not be, based on the way you have treated me. But I wouldn’t do that.” Oh, you wouldn’t? That wasn’t a veiled, puerile threat?

I just saw “The Book of Mormon” at the Kennedy Center the other night. I haven’t laughed that hard in probably decades. I literally had tears running down my face and was nearly hyperventilating at the wit and satire of Trey Parker and Matt Stone’s work! Oh, yes, they were insulting to the LDS. Yes, there was definitely a lot of childish humor and sexual innuendo. Yes, there were not-so-veiled references to some in Africa still sexually abusing infants as a cure for AIDS, female genital mutilation, and the ability of Mormons to turn off negative feelings and emotions “like a light switch” and ignore larger problems. But you know what? The offensiveness served to point out hypocrisy, lies, and selfishness of many religious types, and ultimately led to a message that was overwhelmingly positive and astute – help people, and don’t be a dick. The offensiveness, in fact, said it like it is, but was able to put forth a positive message in the process.

Trump has no such talent. His offensiveness is an end unto itself. There’s nothing positive about his message. He insults people who don’t like him and who challenge him. He is incapable of taking criticism, and simply alienates anyone who doesn’t agree with his tactics. And he’s delusional enough to think that it will get him a seat at the big table, as witnessed by his conversation with Roger Stone, who, until the disastrous GOP debate of a few days ago, was Trump’s top adviser.

Stone: “Donald, stop with the Megyn Kelly shit. It’s fucking crazy. It’s killing us.”

Trump: “What do you mean? I won the debate. People loved it.”

Stone: “You didn’t win the debate.”

Trump: “Yes I did. Look at the polling. Look at Drudge.”

Stone: “The Drudge Report poll isn’t a scientific poll. You won’t give me the money to pay for a scientific poll. And you’re off-message.”

Trump: “There are other polls.”

Stone: “Those are bullshit polls, Donald. They’re not scientific polls. We need to run a professional campaign and talk about what people really care about.”

Trump: “We’re winning.”

Anyone who actually believes this delusional, narcissistic, spoiled brat belongs in the White House, please do us all a favor and drink some arsenic!


Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: