Tag Archives: xenophobia

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.

Advertisements

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.

CPAC: Veterans Against Trump

Conservative opposition to Donald Trump was strong at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). Brian Hawkins, a U.S. Army veteran, was representative of that opposition.

In an exclusive interview, Brian told me, “I am opposed to Donald Trump because he does not represent any of the values of conservatism, of the Republican Party, or of American values in general.”

CPAC2016-01

Holding a “Veterans Against Trump” sign, Brian explained that he had “spent four years in the United States Army, most of which was in the United States Cavalry, hence the cavalry Stetson.”

Holding a “Veterans Against Trump” sign, Brian explained, “I am opposed to Donald Trump because he does not represent any of the values of conservatism, of the Republican Party, or of American values in general.”

Echoing the widespread criticism of Trump’s rhetoric during his campaign, Brian said, “A lot of the language that is coming out of Donald Trump is very nativist and very xenophobic and certainly not [in agreement with] American principles.” He urged, “We need to stop this divisive rhetoric, inflaming hatred toward other people of other groups.”

Brian’s own experiences radically conflict with Trump’s message. Brian hails from Los Angeles, “from a community that’s 80% Hispanic.” He said, “A lot of my friends, their parents came to America illegally and they only really stayed because Ronald Reagan granted amnesty in 1986.”

Moreover, Brian’s experience in the military refutes Trump’s nativist perspective. Brian said, “I spent six months in Afghanistan where I worked with Afghan linguists who put their lives on the line to work with the United States Army and help free the country of the Taliban. They applied to get residency here in the U.S.”

Hence, Brian’s disdain for Trump’s hostile language. Brian clarified, “So, for me, it’s very insulting for Donald Trump to say that these people want to come to America to rape, kill, and do drugs. That’s simply not true.”

Brian’s life experiences offer a counter-Trump narrative:

“Every immigrant I’ve ever run in to, growing up in life or in my experience in the United States Army, they want to come to America to work hard and contribute to the American economy. They understand America as the land of hope and opportunity better than a lot of us Americans do. We really take it for granted being able to live here and all the opportunities that we have. immigrants don’t take that for granted. They understand that America is a land of freedom and economic opportunity for all people. They just want to come here and help contribute to the American Dream. We need to welcome them.”

Brian concluded, “That’s why I oppose Donald Trump, because he does not represent those principles of inclusiveness and economic growth that the Republican Party stands for.”

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.