Monthly Archives: January 2016

How to Talk to a Bully (if you must)

The Donald (Trump, that is) is at it again. This time he plays the victim of a Vast Right-Wing Establishment Conspiracy. (What other traits does he share with Hillary?[1])

Bully

Someone should tell Trump that exhibiting a persecution complex[2] is not particularly appealing for a presidential candidate.

Piqued at sarcasm and hyperbole from Fox News, which so humorously lampooned Trump’s self-evident habit of demonizing his foes (always in a yuuuge way!), Trump revealed just how thin-skinned he really is.

Even his staunchest ally, Ann Coulter, has proven that she is little more than a humorless ideologue. Coulter’s forte is her lightning-quick wit, which balances Trump’s more thundering and blunt-force-trauma brand of humor.

But Coulter, who has perfected the Orwellian technique[3] of carpet-bombing “enemies of the moment,” often with hyperbole and sarcasm, now seems oblivious to the very types of rhetoric which she employs so effortlessly.

Fox News Press Release

What prompted such fear and loathing from Trump and his surrogates?

Fox News issued this press release:

“We learned from a secret back channel that the Ayatollah and Putin both intend to treat Donald Trump unfairly when they meet with him if he becomes president – a nefarious source tells us that Trump has his own secret plan to replace the Cabinet with his Twitter followers to see if he should even go to those meetings.”

What was Coulter’s response to “the press release an allegedly professional news organization?”

“So when Fox issued a smart-ass press release yesterday, Trump walked. He decided to do a charity event for veterans instead – which will have a lot more viewers than any debate sans Trump.”[4]

Chiding Fox for “such a sophomoric attack” in its “trivial and self-important press release,” the queen of snippy soundbites decries its “snippy press release.”

Speaking on MSNBC, Coulter complained about this “shocking” press release, claiming, “monopolies can get arrogant and there does seem to be a little bit of arrogance here.[5]

Talking to a Bully

Speaking of arrogance (which Coulter and Trump have in spades!), when did narcissism become a virtue? Or brash pomposity? Why do we listen to nattering narcissists and blustering blowhards?[6]

Humility is a trait neither Trump nor Coulter possess. Both refuse to “back down” under any circumstances. Both have proudly claimed they have no need of repentance. Both demonize their foes. And both claim to be victims in the aftermath of their own self-generated controversies.

Coulter has claimed to blindly worship her Savior, Donald Trump,[7] and continually extols his courage, love of country, and sense of humor. But Fox’s humor-laden press release is not funny? Perhaps it hit too close to the mark!

Fox News was spot on! If Trump can’t debate conservatives in a conservative-friendly foreign, how can he stand up to tyrants and terrorists at home and abroad? Trump can dish it out but he can’t take it.

The “allegedly professional news organization,” as Coulter put it, said nothing more controversial than Trump has been saying since he announced his candidacy. Trump’s words (like Coulter’s) are designed to provoke. They are provocative for provocation’s sake (and to generate publicity).

Still, Coulter constantly defends herself and Trump, claiming their most outrageous remarks are “just jokes.” For Coulter and Trump, calling people “bimbos” is standard fare.[8]

Mockery is the best way to talk to a bully![9]

Trump – Phony Candidate!

Neither Coulter nor Trump are above lying to achieve their goals: the bogus birther charge is exhibit one.[10]

Trump and Coulter believe that sheer will to powerdevoid of conservative principles – will lead to their victory and America’s salvation. Hubris saves[11] (in their minds)! But America can ill afford yet another big government, crony capitalist RINO.[12]

Coulter credits herself with giving Trump his message[13] and views herself as the Harriet Beecher Stowe to Trump’s Lincoln.[14] But Trump is no Lincoln (or Reagan) and Coulter is no Stowe.

Trump has proven his aversion to Christian character, conduct, and creed. His authoritarian nature, pronouncements, and promises seem devoid of deference to the Constitution that he would have to swear to uphold. (Isn’t one Obama enough?)

Trump’s flawed financial background (how many bankruptcies?) and New York (liberal social and fiscal) Values should give pause to any conservative contemplating a Trump presidency. He is a political opportunist adept at self-promotion.

At best, Trump’s Christian, conservative, and constitutionalist credentials are sparse. Very sparse indeed.

Trump has nothing in common with the Great Emancipator or the Great Communicator.[15] There is no there, there. Accomplished hucksters need not apply!

Update: After his ignominious defeat in Iowa, a chagrined Trump blamed the Iowa voters for his abysmal performance.

Endnotes:

[1]               See “HRC: A Caricature of the Left” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-94.

[2]               See Chapter 6: “I Am Victim, Hear Me Whine,” The Beauty of Conservatism, 2011, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/beauty.pdf.

[3]               See Propaganda: Orwell in the Age of Ann Coulter, 2014, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/propaganda.pdf.

[4]               Ann Coulter, “Trump Is Wise to Walk Out on ‘Trivial,’ ‘Self-Important’ Fox News,” Hollywood Reporter, 1/28/16.

[5]               Ann Coulter, Hardball, MSNBC, 1/27/16.

[6]               See Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory, 2012, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/vanity.pdf.

[7]               See “Meet Ann Coulter’s Savior” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bM.

[8]               See “Ann Coulter, Bimbo” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bS.

[9]               See “Islamists Fear Cartoons” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-9Z.

[10]             See “Birther Coulter Births More Lies” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bI.

[11]             See Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory, 2012, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/vanity.pdf.

[12]             See “Coulter’s Latest RINO Would Give Democrats Victory” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-8t.

[13]             See “Coulter Trumped Up” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-7Q.

[14]             See “Coulter’s Know-Nothing American Party” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bP.

[15]             See “Remembering Reagan” at http://t.co/GYAescwhYa.

Advertisements

Famous Republican Civil Rights Leaders

If you are interested in the Civil Rights Movement (and who isn’t?), take a look at this ad from The Black Republican, a magazine which was distributed at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in 2006.

GOP001

Food for thought. The Party of Liberty has always been the Party of Lincoln.

Nothing Matters More Than Jesus

“Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’” – Matthew 7:23

 Often, we might think we’re OK. Our culture certainly promotes the “I’m okay, you’re okay” philosophy. The world says you can believe what you want and it will be okay.

But is it true? It is only true if you have a relationship with Jesus Christ. If you don’t, you’re missing out on the most important thing in life!

LifeLifter11

Many people know of Jesus, but they do not know him. Do you really know Jesus?

You might think you have a good relationship with Jesus because you go to church, serve other people, give generously, or engage in some other “religious” activity. Yet, if your heart has not been transformed by Jesus, if nothing internally has changed since you came to know who Jesus is, then perhaps there is no relationship. Perhaps other things are taking the place of Jesus in your life.

Jesus warned that many in the judgment would come expecting a reward for their external religious activities, yet Jesus will tell them, “I never knew you.” He will say this because their hearts are not right with God.

The communion service (Luke 22:14-21) celebrates our life in Christ. It affirms our fellowship with Jesus and it commemorates his sacrifice for us. The bread and the wine symbolize his broken body and shed blood. In a very real sense, when we partake of those symbols, we are sharing in his sacrifice and we are celebrating oneness with him.

Communion points to the cross and the cross points to God’s love for us (John 3:16).

If we have Jesus, we have everything we need. If we don’t, then we have nothing.

We all need to periodically reevaluate our lives and our priorities and place Jesus at the top of every list.

Nothing matters more than our relationship with Jesus.

A Fresh Start in Jesus Christ

During the Christmas season we are reminded of the birth of Jesus. The news of Jesus’ birth surely brought Joy to the World.

Fresh Start in Jesus

Why such joy? In “Hark! The Herald Angels Sing,” we sing these words:

“Veiled in flesh the Godhead see;

Hail th’incarnate Deity,

Pleased with us in flesh to dwell,

Jesus our Emmanuel.”

Jesus was pleased to clothe himself in human flesh and dwell with us. He stooped down from heaven to live with us mere mortals here on earth. This Christmas carol continues:

“Mild He lays His glory by,

Born that man no more may die.

Born to raise the sons of earth,

Born to give them second birth.”

Yes, Jesus humbly gave up his divine prerogatives to live with us, suffer with us, and die for us – out of his great love for us.

Jesus was “Born that man no more may die,” that through faith in him we might have everlasting life with him in Paradise (John 3:16).

Jesus was “Born to raise the sons of earth,” that we might become children of God and heirs together with Christ in heaven (Rom. 8:17).

Jesus was “Born to give them second birth,” that we might be born again – a spiritual birth – so that we might be transformed into his likeness (2 Cor. 3:18).

Jesus has given us a fresh start!

Adam and Eve failed in the Garden of Eden and they were expelled from Paradise.

Jesus, the last Adam, has succeeded and is bringing us into Paradise!

“The Scriptures tell us, ‘The first man, Adam, became a living person.’ But the last Adam – that is, Christ – is a life-giving Spirit.” (1 Cor. 15:45)

Jesus’ birth was a game-changerfor all of us. His birth is still recognized in our calendars, in this Year of our Lord, 2016.

Jesus came to give us new life and a fresh start. But we have a choice: Will we accept his freely-given gift or will we continue to live our lives our own way – a way which leads to destruction?

Moreover, having received Jesus’ gift of eternal life, will we live our lives as Jesus would, or will we take his gift for granted? The choice is ours. May we all choose better than Adam and Eve.

Left Fixated on Mythical, White, Right-Wing Extremists!

The Left has gone bonkers again, this time over the Oregon rancher standoff.

Mythical

As reported by Infowars (emphasis added):

“Numerous voices are calling for a literal bloodbath in Oregon – and the exercise of unilateral government power to kill the individuals involved, including supporters. It is an armed and highly-charged, but so far peaceful situation that is, nonetheless, rooted firmly in civil disobedience and principle. But that hasn’t stopped opponents from calling for them to be treated like domestic terrorists.”

The Left is incoherently outraged, making spurious racial charges and demonizing whites, conservatives, law enforcement, and the media over alleged racial and political bias in favor of whites and conservatives. (What world do they live in?)

In the Age of Islamic Terrorists, the Left continues to be obsessed with alleged white, right-wing extremists! Why this obsession? Two reasons. One – they are white.[1] Two – they are conservative. But are they extremists? In the mind of the Left, yes. To more rational human beings, no.

Salon Leads the Charge!

Headline: “No happy ending in Oregon: We can’t reward white, right-wing extremists every time they pull a gun and threaten violence”

How is not wantonly killing protesters engaged in legitimate, peaceful, civil disobedience rewarding them? They have a right to protest! (First Amendment: “the right to peaceably assemble.”)

How often do “white, right-wing extremists” “pull a gun and threaten violence?”

The writers at Salon apparently think it is very often.

But, are these justice-seeking ranchers really extremists? And, are they threatening violence? No and no. They are engaged in a peaceful protest, an act of civil disobedience which, if conducted by liberals, would be treated as a noble act of social justice.

Salon’s lead paragraph claimed that the ranchers “are protesting perceived overreach from the federal government.”

Except, of course, the federal overreach is far more than perceived. It is very, very real. The convicted ranchers have already served time for trumped-up charges.

Salon graciously declined to call them “terrorists,” preferring the term “separatists,” because of “the group’s refusal to acknowledge the federal government”

Except, of course, the so-called “separatists” want neither separation nor an emasculated federal government. They want a federal government which operates within the framework of the Constitution.

Salon then compared these white “separatists” “with black protesters and Occupy Wall Street.” Salon claimed that the encampments of “peaceful, unarmed [Occupy Wall Street] protesters” “were brutally dismantled by law enforcement. Police didn’t hesitate to use tear gas, rubber bullets and batons to clear them out.”

Except, of course, Occupy Wall Street activists were far from peaceful and it often took weeks for the government to respond. Indeed, OWS encampments occupied entire parks in the nation’s capital, and other U.S. cities, for months!

Salon also claimed, “Nor was there any hesitation to call in the National Guard on Black Lives Matter protesters in Baltimore. So far, the Malheur occupiers are meeting no such resistance.”

Except, of course, the Baltimore “protesters” were violent rioters and looters committing mayhem while Baltimore authorities actually dillydallied in seeking assistance, choosing instead to give them “space to destroy.” The rioters wanted to purge the city.[2] In contrast, the so-called “separatists” have harmed and threatened no one.

Having made a false equivalence while distorting the facts, Salon then pitched its message:

“This discrepancy is important. Peaceful, left-wing protesters are fair game for state violence. But when armed anti-government zealots seize federal property and promise to defend themselves, law enforcement takes time for tact, maybe even negotiation.”

Salon fabricated so-called “state violence” against allegedly “Peaceful, left-wing protesters.” The actual violence of Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter is uncontestable. Moreover, their violent rhetoric encourages more violence as they call for the assassination of their foes and the burning of cities. Their nihilistic sense of “justice” is the killing of those they hate.

In contrast, the “separatists,” as Salon calls them, are defending themselves from government overreach.

Salon concluded, “more important, we cannot reward white, right-wing extremists every time they pull a gun and threaten violence. And if there is bloodshed, there is real danger it will spread like the Hammonds’ own fire.”

If only Salon had the courage to challenge left-wing movements which really are violent! And what do we make of Leftists who want these “separatists” to be killed? Are Leftists really peaceful and supportive of the rule of law? Or are they selective in the law’s application?

Protester, Separatist, or Terrorist?

At least Salon did not call the ranchers “terrorists!” Others on the Left were not so sanguine.

As pointed out by Tammy Bruce, “No one’s at risk. There’s no one in the vicinity. They happen to have their firearms. That’s their lifestyle.” In contrast, “the 2011 takeover of Wisconsin’s capitol building by union activists resulted in millions of dollars in damages, yet no one considered referring to them as terrorists.” (Did you see the video at the time? Anarchy and wanton destruction!)

Alan Colmes, on the other hand, focused on race and ethnicity, claiming, “If you had Muslims here it would be called domestic terrorism,” apparently believing the white “separatists” should be called “terrorists.” In fact, Islamic terrorism is the terrorism threat endangering Americans today.[3]

The Left continues to be obsessed with the race of individuals,[4] rather than the nature of their actions. If whites or conservatives do it, it must be bad; if minorities or liberals do it, it must be good.

Justified Civil Disobedience

David French made some salient observations. Having analyzed the original court case, French observed, “What emerges is a picture of a federal agency that will use any means necessary, including abusing federal anti-terrorism statutes, to increase government landholdings.” It’s all about a land-grab by the government.

According to the ranchers, in the 1990s, “the government then began a campaign of harassment designed to force the family to sell its land, beginning with barricaded roads and arbitrarily revoked grazing permits and culminating in an absurd anti-terrorism prosecution based largely on two ‘arsons’ that began on private land but spread to the Refuge.”

French added, “There’s a clear argument that the government engaged in an overzealous, vindictive prosecution here. … To the outside observer, it appears the government has attempted to crush private homeowners and destroy their livelihood in a quest for even more land.”

Unlike Leftist protests this decade (think Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall Street, various college campus protests), these ranchers are occupying “a vacant federal building in the middle of nowhere, and there is no reported threat to innocent bystanders.”

Yet, some on the Left want the federal government to crack down on the ranchers with “shoot to kill” orders because they are white conservatives who do not fit the liberal narrative for social justice activists.

French concluded: “Yet now they’re off to prison once again – not because they had to go or because they harmed any other person but because the federal government has pursued them like a pack of wolves. They are victims of an all-too-common injustice. Ranchers and other landowners across the country find themselves chafing under the thumb of an indifferent and even oppressive federal government. Now is the time for peaceful protest. If it gets the public to pay attention, it won’t have been in vain.”

Are these ranchers “right-wing extremists” and “terrorists” as the Left would have you believe? Or are they simply American citizens seeking justice from a tyrannical government through peaceful civil disobedience?

Endnotes:

[1]               See “Guilty of Being White” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-17.

[2]               See “Baltimore ‘Purged’” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-8S.

[3]               See “Willful Blindness to Reality” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-c9.

[4]               See “Identity Politics Is the Problem” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-1l.

Controlling People, Not Guns

The Left’s persistent mantra, “gun control,” is its mob-like chant and talisman against all evil and violence.[1] It is a fraud. Worse than that, it’s a politician’s and magician’s misdirection which actually exacerbates the problems it purports to address while taking away the liberty of the people, all in the name of protecting them.

Gun Control

At heart, gun control is not about controlling guns; it is all about controlling people (law-abiding Americans who have had their guns taken away or been prevented from obtaining them).

Gun control is the panacea advocated whenever there is a tragedy, from school shootings and mass shootings to terrorist attacks and mob violence. For all these different situations, the Left seeks the same solution.[2] All violence is not the same.[3] For instance, terrorist attacks are not gang shootings.[4]

Instead of controlling crime and criminals, the Left wants to control law-abiding American citizens.

Moreover, gun control is about expanding the power, reach, and scope of government at the expense of the liberty of We, the People.

It is for that reason – self-defense, not hunting – that the Framers of the Constitution insisted upon including the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

According to the law of the land – the Second Amendment – “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

To be clear, the Second Amendment invests the right to bear arms to “the people,” not government.

Gun control is a clear violation of the Second Amendment, yet those who do not respect the Constitution (or merely give it lip service) do not care that gun control does not work. All gun control succeeds in doing is to make law-abiding citizens vulnerable to criminals and the government (redundancy alert!).

Endnotes:

[1]               See “Let’s Stop the Insanity Over Gun Violence” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-1o.

[2]               See “Making Sense of Madness” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-aY.

[3]               See “The Left Goes Gaga Over Paris Attack” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-c0.

[4]               See “Willful Blindness to Reality” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-c9.