Tag Archives: propaganda

How to Talk Like Trump

Last March, Yahoo News provided a noteworthy examination of “Donald Trump’s speech patterns.”

how-to-talk-like-trump

In writing about Trump’s unique speaking style, Andrew Romano noted, “It’s not just his pungent Queens accent; it’s not just his short, simple, fourth-grade-level sentences. It’s the novel syntax. The free-form grammar. The repetitive cadence. The eccentric phrasing.”

Romano discovered that Trump’s peculiar “patois” is probably deliberate and “has developed into a remarkably effective delivery mechanism for his message.” He cites five “linguistic quirks” that stand out.

Trump’s first stand-out speaking trait is “digression” – his inability be laser-focused on any given thought at any given time. His constant meandering includes revisions, amendments, and contradictions. As Romano notes, “Even his parentheticals have parentheticals.”

Endless repetition is another Trumpian hallmark. Romano writes: “He repeats phrases one after the other, often in the same sentence – not as deliberate parallelism but as a compulsive placeholder.”

A third attribute, intensifiers, builds upon an entire spectrum of hyperbole and superlatives to which he adds intensive modifiers. “Trump’s addiction to hyperbole goes deeper than superlatives,” writes Romano, adding, “it also permeates the little words he uses to modify his adjectives and adverbs.”

Informality is yet another distinctive trait. Romano writes, “It’s not just his public use of the S word, the F wordthe A word and the P word.” “Trump’s informality extends beyond vulgarity and disrespect.”

Finally, Trump tends to end his thoughts with punchlines. As Romano observes, “Trump speaks more like a comedian, making sure to go out with a bang. In fact, he often rearranges the beginning of his sentences awkwardly so he can end strong.”

In the end, Trump is a salesman and his product is himself. He uses these speaking traits to connect with his marks and sell himself, an endeavor in which he has triumphed.

7 Stages of Trump Recovery

Some worshippers called Donald Trump the Savior of America and of civilization itself.[1] They believed Trump could save the nation from the Establishment[2] and statism[3] which it promotes.

7 Stages of Trump Recovery

Instead, Trump has only sacrificed them on the cross of his own ego.

Trump was never – and never could have been – their or our Savior. Trump has always been a part of the Establishment his followers detest. His entire life is one of self-interest and self-aggrandizement fueled by an unrelenting narcissism.

Yet many who believed in him did so because of, not in spite of, his delusions of grandeur. They were looking for a strong man to save the Republic and, instead, nominated a bully[4] and would-be tyrant.[5]

From the beginning, Trump was destined to lose.[6] A liberal posing as a conservative and running as a Republican could never win against a liberal (or even a socialist) running as a Democrat.[7]

Despite Trump’s daily lies and reversals of policy positions,[8] his support surged among the faithful. Even when it was obvious that Trump was mentally unhinged,[9] his followers persisted. Even though Trump’s core “principles” became “flexible” and “negotiable,”[10] they insisted that Trump would do what they want him to do.

When Trump loses – and he will lose – Trump worshippers will have to reconcile themselves to reality. Some won’t. Some are as obstinate and bullying as Trump. Narcissists don’t know how to repent or how to admit error.

For those who are capable of facing reality and being held accountable, this handy outline was designed just for you:

CpmnMOuXEAEy59t.jpg large

#NeverTrump has proven itself faithful to the core principles upon which America was founded, the very principles espoused and defended by Ted Cruz.[11]

In contrast, #ForeverTrump forever owes a debt to America.

In the end, we will all have to live with the end of the American Experiment.[12]

Endnotes:

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

[2]               See “CPAC: Brits Seek Independence (and so should we)” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-eT.

[3]               See “CPAC: Death by a 1,000 Pens” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-eV.

[4]               See “Bully Boy Trump” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-df.

[5]               See “Why Brad Thor is #NeverTrump! Litmus test is liberty!” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-fb.

[6]               See “Only Trump Can Lose!” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-dA.

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

[8]               See “Coulter Admits Trump is a Fraud” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-cf.

[9]               See “Coulter Goes Mental Over Her ‘Mental’ Candidate” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-d8.

[10]             See “Coulter Logic (she wants candidate who won’t pursue her agenda)” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-dQ.

[11]             See “BrotherWatch Endorses Ted Cruz” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-dw.

[12]             See “The End of the American Experiment?” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-eZ.

Left Topsy-Turvy on American Revolution and Brexit

As America celebrates another birthday and the British people celebrated their Brexit vote for freedom from tyranny to a supranational bureaucracy, the heart and soul of the American Left again exposed itself as statist and globalist.

American Revolution & Brexit

Exhibit A: Steve Pincus. His recent Washington Post article attempts to paint Brexit supporters and the Republican Party as racist, anti-American xenophobes. In his introductory and subsequent paragraphs, Pincus inextricably links pro-Brexit forces with the agenda and sentiments of American conservatives and Pincus finds them wanting.

His headline asserts, “No, Brexit was not Britain’s ‘Declaration of Independence.’ It was the exact opposite.” Pincus couldn’t be more wrong.

His subheading: “The American founders would revile the pro-‘leave’ camp.” Again, his conclusion is contrary to everything we know about the Founding Fathers.

Nevertheless, Pincus contends, “But they’ve got America’s founding document exactly backward. The original American patriots would be horrified to hear their opus invoked in the service of Brexit.”

Pincus makes two striking, and strikingly wrong, claims.

Open vs. Controlled Borders

Pincus’ first strikingly wrong claim is that our Founders and the Framers of our Constitution, favored open borders. Pincus claims, “The founders called for a government that would allow for free movement of goods and peoples.”

Actually, American colonists sought control over their own borders. They vehemently opposed a power across the Atlantic Ocean determining their fate and enacting laws without their consent and contrary to their wishes.

Pincus cites the Declaration: “He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.”

No “open borders” here. What did the Founders actually seek? How do we interpret that portion of the Declaration? By what the Founders did. As noted by Heritage Foundation (emphasis added):

“Congress passed the first ‘uniform Rule of Naturalization’ under the new Constitution in March 1790. It allowed ‘any alien, being a free white person’ and ‘of good character’ who had resided in the United States for two years to become a ‘citizen of the United States’ by taking an oath in court ‘to support the constitution of the United States.’”

The very first Congress actually limited and circumscribed immigration by a clear set of criteria, looking for emigres from the Northwestern European nations which had settled America.

Heritage continues (emphasis added): “Key criteria for citizenship of the Naturalization Act of 1795 remain part of American law. These include (1) five years of (lawful) residence within the United States; (2) a ‘good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States’; (3) the taking of a formal oath to support the Constitution and to renounce any foreign allegiance; and (4) the renunciation of any hereditary titles.”

In contrast to the Founders’ wishes and the law of the land, today illegal aliens celebrate their Mexican holidays while burning the American flag and promoting the overthrow of the American government. Our Founders would have put a stop to this.

Activist vs. Limited Government

Pincus’ second strikingly wrong claim is that our Founders and the Framers of our Constitution favored an activist government. (Hence the subtitle of his new book.[1])

According to Pincus, “America’s founders celebrated the creative potential of the state to promote the general welfare and happiness of the people; they wanted an activist government – one that would intervene in the economy to promote growth.”

To buttress his claim, Pincus cites the Second Continental Congress: “Government was instituted to promote the welfare of mankind, and ought to be administered for the attainment of that end.”

But what did the crafters of our Republic actually mean by “welfare?” The Founders sought to promote the “general welfare and happiness of the people” by securing liberty! They understood that a free people – being secured in their liberty and able to use their God-given gifts as they deemed best – could, in today’s parlance, “maximize their potential,” strengthen their local communities, and improve the general welfare of the nation.

Our Founding Fathers fought for freedom and limited government to preserve that freedom.

Pincus clearly regards FDR’s “Second Bill of Rights” as superior to, and countermanding, our Founders’ original Bill of Rights. FDR’s progressive economic bill of rights seeks equality of outcome through government force while the Framers of our Constitution, with their political bill of rights, sought to maximize freedom and, thus, equality of opportunity.

Progressives like Pincus agree with President Obama’s assessment that America is fundamentally flawed[2] and, therefore, needs to be fundamentally transformed.[3] The Founders, Framers, and generations of Americans heartily disagree.[4] Middle America seeks to reclaim its heritage,[5] one built upon a Judeo-Christian ethos[6] which cherished liberty.

Similarly, progressives like Pincus, the Obamas, and the Clintons seek to eviscerate nationalism and elevate supranational and global institutions. In doing so, they willfully dismiss, like willing dupes,[7] the nexus between the immigration and terrorism crises.[8]

Progressives follow Hillary Clinton’s It Takes a Village (i.e., big government) when our great nation was founded on the premise that the primary duty of government is the protection of the People at home (law enforcement) and abroad (national defense) – and from government itself (Constitution).

Nationalism vs. Supra-nationalism

At heart, America as a Nation and a People matters little to these progressives who prefer to use American power and ideals against her in pursuit of their own globalist utopian goals.

Pincus equates “English First” pro-Brexit voters with the resurgence of contemporary America Firsters inspired by Donald Trump. To some degree he is correct, yet he regards that as a bad thing.

The heart and core of the Brexit Vote was to liberate the British people from the bureaucratic behemoth of the European Union’s usurpation of national sovereignty[9] and abrogation of the will of the People. Similarly, Middle America seeks its own independence from a draconian federal government[10] which serves its own needs and purposes while thwarting those whom they purportedly serve.

But Pincus again twists the historical record, asserting that late 18th-century Britons wanted the American colonists (legal settlers all) to pay their “fair share,” likening them to illegal aliens in America, today.

In reality, the American colonists – who were all self-supporting and obviously did not rely on a non-existent welfare state for survival – disagreed with the Mother Country and insisted upon, “No taxation without representation.” Our forefathers, like us, preferred a free market system without undue taxation and regulation, the very things Pincus and his lot pursue.

In his tract (and presumably in his forthcoming book as well), Pincus skirts this crucial reality: the majority of the colonists came from Britain and shared legal, linguistic, political, social, cultural, and spiritual similarities with the British realm.

Those brave men and women who gave birth to this great nation were brothers and sisters by blood who forged a new nation by creed. That creed – “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” – is central to our identity as Americans.

Individual rights, not collective rights; equality of opportunity, not of outcome; reverence for God, not for the State.

As Americans, we should celebrate the greatness of America as achieved by the Providence of God through the wisdom of the Founders and we should strive to return to our roots, to restore that vision of “government of the People, by the People, and for the People,” eschewing the liberty-denying statism of the Progressive vision.

Let us reinvigorate the American experiment that it may not perish from the earth.

God bless America!

Endnotes:

[1]              Pincus’ historical revisionism is apparent in the title to his forthcoming book, Heart of the Declaration: The Founders’ Case for an Activist Government.

[2]              See “Obama’s America – Fundamentally Flawed” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-1h.

[3]              See “Flags Depict Obama’s Fundamental Transformation of America and the World” at http://t.co/xjupplSWD1.

[4]              See “American Exceptionalism is in the Eye of the Beholder” at http://t.co/UDFIbFm5hr.

[5]              See “Reclaiming America!” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-9V.

[6]              See “CPAC: America’s Christian Heritage Denied” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-8E.

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

[8]              See “Member of European Parliament Links Terrorism with Immigration Crisis” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-e8.

[9]              See “CPAC: Brits Seek Independence (and so should we)” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-eT.

[10]            See “CPAC: Death by a 1,000 Pens” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-eV.

Coulter Bass Ackwards on Elections

Ann Coulter has uttered absurdities which would make even Homer Simpson blush.

Coulter = Homer Simpson

Coulter’s lies about caucuses and opened and closed primaries are easy to refute with a little logic and a few facts. Same with her lies about “voter-less” and “stolen” elections.

Erstwhile law-and-order zealot and federalism advocate suddenly hates both the rule of law and federalism. Why? Because they are thwarting Trump’s efforts to win the GOP nomination.

Suddenly, Coulter sees nonexistent “voter-less elections” and “stolen elections” where none exist. Moreover, she regards primaries as infinitely superior to caucuses and conventions, which she claims are somehow illegitimate. Coulter disparages the freedom that each state has under the Constitution to hold elections and select its delegates.

Coulter is more of a fraud[1] than Donald Trump.[2] To salvage Trump’s quest for the GOP nomination, Coulter engages in full-blown Orwellian propaganda.[3] Her column last week blasted Ted Cruz for following the rules and winning delegates[4]legally and ethically!

In that column[5] (and subsequent Facebook postings), makes Homer Simpson-blushing assertions which are utterly absurd and eminently disprovable.

“Voter-less elections” are not voter-less. Coulter claims that “state Republican parties disregard the voters and give all their delegates to Cruz,” except, the voters in those states elected the delegates. She alleges “procedural loopholes” and charges “corrupt backroom maneuvering” by “tiny groups of insiders.”

The facts are otherwise. Election laws in many of these states are similar to when the Party of Lincoln and Reagan was founded. Each state determines how it will hold elections: (open or closed) primary, caucus, convention. All eligible voters can be part of the process to support or become delegates.

Coulter defends Trump’s ineptitude by claiming, “Trump keeps winning elections, and Cruz keeps winning sneaky procedural victories.” Except, Trump also keeps losing elections and Cruz’s “procedural victories” are neither sneaky nor illegal.

Coulter claims that only primaries are “elections,” and that caucuses are somehow fraudulent.

A caucus is an election. People vote. Everyone who is an eligible voter is able to vote. Not without irony, Coulter favors poll taxes and literacy tests for voting, so, Coulter should prefer caucus voters, who tend to be more informed and more engaged voters.

Nevertheless, Coulter claims: “General election is winner take all; General election is NOT a little meeting of party insiders.”

Repeating a lie does not make it true. Caucuses and conventions are not little meetings of party insiders.

Coulter also asserts, “Caucuses & conventions are not ELECTIONS.”

Except, caucuses and conventions are elections! People vote. People vote.

According to Coulter, “GOP has to beat Hillary in an ELECTION, not a little meeting. Trump keeps winning all the ELECTIONS; Cruz wins little meetings. Who cares if those were the rules??? That’s not how to pick a winner!”

Each state, in its own way, selects its preferred candidate. That’s the way it has always been. The nomination is not being stolen from Trump. Rather, Trump is failing to win it.

Confronted with the reality that over 1.3 million people voted in UT, ND, WI, CO & WY and Trump lost all five, Coulter posted: “Only one of those, WI, was what we call an ‘election.’ Does Cruz think he beats Hillary by winning over GOP insiders?”

All were elections. “GOP insiders” did not steal those elections. Cruz won because more people voted for him.

Coulter hates the results so she fudges the facts.

Let’s remember: More Republicans have voted against Trump than for him.[6]

Remember, Trump did better in open primaries (where Democrats – who will vote Democrat in November – voted for Trump) and worse in closed primaries (where liberal spoilers were foiled).

Remember, a larger percentage of early-voters, than late-voters, voted for Trump. The more the electorate learns about Trump the less it likes him.

Donald Trump, Coulter’s current Savior,[7] is a Clintonesque RINO posing as a conservative populist. A Trump nomination would ensure a Democrat victory in this election.[8]

Update: In her April 20th column, Coulter reprised her absurd election-stealing charges, distinguishing between “elections, not party-rigged conferences or caucuses.” The truth evades those who dwell in lies.

Endnotes:

[1]               See “No Better Than Trump!” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-dW.

[2]               See “Coulter Admits Trump is a Fraud” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-cf.

[3]               See “Coulter’s Orwellian Opus” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-e0.

[4]               See “Coulter Hates ‘THE RULES’ That Thwart Trump” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-e6.

[5]               Ann Coulter, “Ted Cruz: Tracy Flick With a D*CK,” 4/13/16.

[6]               See “Only Trump Can Lose!” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-dA.

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

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

Coulter Logic (she wants candidate who won’t pursue her agenda)

Ann Coulter displays her superior logic as no one else can. She wants a candidate to pursue her immigration agenda (pro-wall, anti-amnesty) and is dead set against the one candidate who has proven he would follow that agenda.

Coulter Logic

Instead, she worships[1] a charlatan whom she admits is a liar and fraud[2] – and “mental[3] to boot. One, in fact, whose policies would be opposed to her wishes.

Go figure!

Coulter says that immigration is all the matters,[4] that we need to build a wall and oppose amnesty. But she also claims that Donald Trump – who actually favors amnesty and a big door in his wall[5] – is the best candidate, indeed, the only candidate who can do what she wants done.

Moreover, Coulter adamantly opposes – and continually lies about – Ted Cruz,[6] who has been consistently opposed to amnesty and has actually attempted to build a wall.[7]

Coulter, who admits that Trump is a liar and fraud,[8], seems to believe that Trump will build a wall and stop immigration, when, in fact, Trump has consistently been inconsistent and flexible[9] on both of those issues (as he is on all issues). (Does Ann believe in fairy dust, too?)

Yet, Coulter continually[10] defames[11] the one candidate,[12] Ted Cruz,[13] who has a record of trying to do what Coulter wants done.[14]

It’s no wonder that Coulter has gone mental over a candidate she herself has called mental.

Why Would Coulter Do This?

First, Coulter is delusional,[15] holding a very warped self-image.[16] Back in the late 1990s,[17] one of her colleagues observed that she displays a “mass of contradictions.” Once regarded as a far-right conservative, Coulter has lately fervently supported RINO candidates, from Christie, to Romney,[18] and, now, Trump.[19] She loves wealthy, Northeastern elites.[20]

Second, Coulter’s priorities have radically changed throughout this century. Now, she eschews conservative and Christian principles and values for something more pragmatic. Now, she opposes constitutional conservatives and pro-lifers[21] in favor of a libertine liberal[22] whose nomination would give Democrats the White House,[23] and, perhaps even Congress.

Moreover, Coulter has placed self-interest ahead of her country and her God. Trump’s candidacy, conjoined with Coulter’s book tour, was a boon to her career. Speeches and book signing at Trump rallies certainly helped. The media, contrary to Coulter’s claims,[24] has lavished attention on her.

But, Coulter has so intertwined her own career, reputation, and credibility with a Trump victory that she can’t escape culpability for his many sins. What she should do is repudiate him, but her vanity[25] and impenitent spirit will not allow it.

If she had known then what she knows now, would Coulter have pursued a different course? We will never know. For now, she is stuck with her foolish and bullheaded choices. Will she repent and try to salvage what’s left of her reputation, or obstinately stick with her arrogant tomfoolery? (My guess: the latter.)

Already, Coulter has lost an incredible degree of credibility and, in many circles, is largely irrelevant.[26] Many people who once held her in esteem will never trust her again.[27] Coulter’s penchant for prevarication and propaganda[28] over facts and truth has alienated her from huge swaths of conservatives, Christians, and patriots.

Coulter’s future rests in how she tackles the moral and spiritual dilemma she currently faces. In the meantime, Coulter cannot be trusted. (And neither can Trump!)

Endnotes:

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

[2]               See “Coulter Admits Trump is a Fraud” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-cf.

[3]               See “Coulter Goes Mental Over Her ‘Mental’ Candidate” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-d8.

[4]               See “Immigration More Dangerous Than ISIS” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-5e.

[5]               See “Trump’s Phony Wall” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-cn.

[6]               See “BrotherWatch Endorses Ted Cruz” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-dw.

[7]               See “Coulter Goes Mental Over Her ‘Mental’ Candidate” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-d8.

[8]               See “Coulter Admits Trump is a Fraud” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-cf.

[9]               See “Trump’s Phony Wall” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-cn.

[10]             See “Coulter Claims Cruz Ineligible” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-9j.

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

[12]             See “Coulter Bashes Cruz – Again!” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-aZ.

[13]             See “Coulter’s Desperate Lies About Cruz” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-c8.

[14]             See “BrotherWatch Endorses Ted Cruz” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-dw.

[15]             See “Delusional – New Ann Coulter Book” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-3z.

[16]             See “Ann Coulter’s Crazy Funhouse Mirror” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-8n.

[17]             See The Beauty of Conservatism, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/beauty.pdf.

[18]             See “Adios, Ann: Only Mitt for Me” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-70.

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

[20]             See “Coulter – An Elite’s Elite” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-aW.

[21]             See “Coulter Hates All GOP Candidates But Trump” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bj.

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

[23]             See “Only Trump Can Lose!” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-dA.

[24]             See “Coulter Banned For Trump? Ridiculous!” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-dD.

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

[26]             See “Ann Coulter’s Growing Irrelevancy” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-8Y.

[27]             See Never Trust Ann Coulter – at ANY Age, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/never.pdf.

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

Only Trump Can Lose!

In a farcical column (“It’s Only Trump”), Ann Coulter contends that the GOP’s only hope “lies with Trump and only Trump.” The exact opposite is true!

Donald Trump would be our George McGovern!

Trump Loser

Coulter presumes that people who voted for The Donald in the primaries and caucuses will vote for him in the election, just as she also presumes that Hillary and Bernie voters are locked in to their respective candidates.

If anything, we have seen a remarkable fluidity in voting patterns. On the GOP side, in many states, early voters went with Trump, late voters with Cruz. With an effectively two-man race, anti-Trump votes will be consolidated in the Cruz corner. Had the GOP field, from the beginning, been much smaller than it was, Cruz would likely have been the clear Republican front-runner.

Political campaigns and elections are dynamic, not static.

In the general election, we can expect the Left and the Media to come out with tons of yet-to-be-released opposition research against Trump while continuing to cover-up for Clinton (or Sanders). Trump is, in reality, the one GOP candidate who could lose to Clinton (or, even, Sanders). (Ironically, many of Trump’s positions parallel those of Sanders, vis-à-vis the role of government, the economy, and taxes).

Do the math! Trump has historic and insurmountable negatives, a vast and growing cadre of #NeverTrump Republican opposition, and ephemeral grassroots “support” that will vote Democrat in November.

Throughout her column, Coulter compared current GOP candidates with Romney (who lost!), instead of Reagan or another actually conservative standard-bearer. (Romney – not a conservative – lost, just as Trump – not a conservative – will lose.) Why pit another RINO against a Democrat and expect a different result?

Looking to Reagan as a model[1] (not based on specific issues but, rather, his character, vision, grasp of how the world and government work, and other perspectives), Cruz is the most Reaganesque.[2] Cruz has proven his credentials as a constitutionalist, federalist, anti-establishment warrior, liberty-lover, and moral Christian.

Even if Trump were to win, as Coulter contends is necessary for the salvation of the Republic,[3] we still lose.

Trump and Clinton share ideological beliefs, political persuasions, character flaws (hubris, lying, bullying, corruption, etc.), secular New York values, and a disdain for the Constitution. As president, neither one would govern as a constitutional conservative, but either one would employ their pen and phone to the service of their will, not the will of the People.

As I’ve said from the beginning, a Trump nomination and/or presidency would spell doom for Conservatism and for the Country![4]

May God have mercy on our souls!

Update: Rich Lowry put it nicely, “He’s running against the Republican party from within the Republican party.” In the end, he may well destroy the Party, Conservatism, and the Nation.

Update: David French frames the contrast between Cruz and Trump superbly:

“We have long since passed the twilight-zone stage of the race for the GOP nomination. In one corner is Ted Cruz, arguably one of the smartest men in Washington, a person with unquestioned anti-Establishment street cred, a man who helped block the infamous Gang of Eight’s misguided immigration reform, a constitutional scholar, and a person with intimate knowledge of the workings of every level of American government. In the other corner is a man so completely ignorant – so completely venal – that his best rhetorical tactic is to bury his countless gaffes in an avalanche of insults and lies.”

Endnotes:

[1]               See “CPAC: Reagan’s Legacy Endures” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-e1.

[2]               See “BrotherWatch Endorses Ted Cruz” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-dw.

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

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

Bully Boy Trump!

The bully, Donald Trump, proved himself just a bloviating boy. In the end, bullies usually do.

David French related two key moments in the Houston debate.

Bull Boy Trump

First, The Donald insisted that Rubio “Be quiet. Just be quiet.” Why? Trump fears the truth, especially about himself.

As French put it, “An alpha male commands respect; a bully tries to rule by fear. But when no one is actually afraid, the bully looks foolish. When the bully demands silence but instead receives a sarcastic retort, he reveals that that his ‘strength’ was a mirage.”

George Will puts it this way: “Like all bullies, Trump is a coward, and like all those who feel the need to boast about being strong and tough, he is neither.”

Second, The Donald insisted that Cruz apologize. Why? Trump wants the truth, especially about himself, to go away. Trump wants to suppress the truth! Intimidation is his primary tactic to achieve that end.

French noted, “Once again, the bully made his demand, this time for an apology. Cruz refused to comply, and went on to make exactly the right point: that Trump would be the Democrats’ best ‘Republican’ friend.”

Rubio correctly characterized Trump as a “con artist,” a truth many have heralded since before Trump launched his presidential campaign. Cruz astutely noted that Trump cares nothing for the Constitution and would be a Barack Obama in whiteface.

As I and others have pointed out before, Trump is a braggart and a bully who holds neither conservative principles nor a Christian ethos. Jonah Goldberg argues, “His cheap macho posturing and boasting is simply tacky.”

Trump is, as Andrew McCarthy describes, “a fraud – a liberal Democrat posing as the Republican savior.” Transfixed by Trump, some people still “blindly worship” him as their “Savior”!

McCarthy outlines, on issue after issue, the fraudulent nature of Trump’s politics, persona, and character.

It is important to stress Trump’s own purported self-image, concocted for the moment, to garner votes. After the Houston debate, he claimed, “I’m a strong Christian.” On another occasion, he claimed, “nobody reads the Bible more than me.” Goldberg noted, “Either Donald Trump believes what he said, or he doesn’t. If he does believe this, he’s sufficiently delusional to disqualify himself for public office. If he doesn’t believe this, he thinks his conservative Christian supporters are morons.”

Trump also alleges, “I’m very conservative,” adding, “I’m the most conservative person in the world” on a host of issues. Even New York Magazine called him out on that one.

But Trump is following in the footsteps of his consigliere, Ann Coulter, who regards herself as both an exemplary conservative and extraordinary Christian. Coulter boasts, “I’m like the conservative ayatollah” and “I’m an extraordinarily good Christian.”

As an example of her good judgment and proof of her conservative and Christian credentials, Coulter said that she would actually marry Trump if he were available. Maybe they should (after his fourth divorce). They are made for each other.

Trump’s Path to Defeat

Ted Cruz[1] trounced Donald “I Am A Winner” Trump in Iowa last night. Even Marco Rubio almost routed Trump. The Donald’s inevitability and invincibility proved to be ephemeral narratives. (Donald and Hillary are oh so similar!)[2]

Defeat

It is easy to see Trump’s path to defeat: Iowa – loss to Cruz (and, almost, Rubio); New Hampshire – loss to Rubio (or, perhaps, Cruz); South Carolina – loss to Cruz.(or, perhaps, Rubio); Nevada – loss to Cruz (or, perhaps, Rubio).

What kind of bounces will Cruz and Rubio get from their yuuge victories over Trump in Iowa? (Rubio had a massive expectations victory over the vainglorious Trump.)

How will Trump’s ego-bursting defeat in Iowa change his campaign and message? He will necessarily attack Rubio to court the moderate vote in New Hampshire. (But Cruz still poses a distinct threat to his ascendancy to the throne, er, presidency. A strong showing by Cruz in the “Live Free or Die” State will strike fear in Trump’s heart.)

Trump’s unfamiliarity with Christian beliefs and practices will augur ill in South Carolina.

Even Nevada can become problematic for the “I Am A Winner” candidate if his inevitable victories turn into disastrous defeats.

Will Trump still try to bully his way into the Oval Office?[3] (Can a leopard change its spots?)

We can expect Trump to push the bogus birther hoax[4] whenever he feels threatened by Cruz.

Will Trump supplement his own “hope and change[5] message with specific policy positions? Can he, at this late stage, prove his conservative credentials?[6] Appealing to patriotism is not enough.[7] An understanding of America’s history, our Constitution, our Christian heritage,[8] and the world around us is essential. These Trump lacks.

Trump is only the latest billionaire trying to buy himself into the White House, but the American people are far too smart for him.

Endnotes:

[1]               See “CPAC: Ted Cruz in Control” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-8b.

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

[3]               See “How to Talk to a Bully (if you must)” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-cY.

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

[5]               See “’Hope & Change,’ and Other Orwellian Clichés” at http://t.co/v6fgItffhm.

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

[7]               See “Reclaiming America!” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-9V.

[8]               See “CPAC: America’s Christian Heritage Denied” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-8E.

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.

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.