Suicide on the Bounty and other matters before us

Conservative/Tea Partiers who are supporting life long crony leftist Donald Trump to "teach the establishment a lesson" are like the mutinous sailors on the Bounty -- except that these modern mariners have elected to depose the Captain Blighs running the GOP ship by sinking the ship -- in mid-ocean, with all hands aboard.



Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush must be incredibly frustrated by now.  Being called a liar by a known liar is bad enough (rather like having Bill Clinton call you a faithless husband), but to have so many believe the liar when he lies about you is intolerable.  For all of Trump's screaming that Ted Cruz is a liar, it is striking that he has yet to point out even one actual lie.

(And yes, Donnie Truther, there were WMDs in Iraq.  We found them.



I may have to hedge my bets.  So far the only campaign donation I've made has been to Ted Cruz.  From now on I may be donating to organizations supporting my views, like perhaps CatholicVote or the Susan B Anthony List.  If you can't find a candidate you're comfortable supporting, I think this alternative approach may be worthy of your consideration.



It's embarrassing being a Republican sometimes.  Every November and December of every presidential election year, I hear and read GOP leaders and allied pundits announcing that next time we can't afford to make the same mistakes that just cost us so dearly this time.  Despite the declarations, it is the safest bet in America that the Pachyderm Party will forget their resolutions in plenty of time to blow the next election the same old way.  Consider:

After the 2000 primaries, in which John McCain openly urged Democrats to pretend to be Republicans so that they could vote for him to be the nominee, many of us hoped that the GOP leadership would dump open primaries, since obviously (to us, anyway) only Republicans should help select the Republican nominee.  16 years later we're still waiting.  I'm glad we weren't holding our breath.

(Democrats, who are more sleazy-smart than we are, are now using their assets to nominate the worst GOP nominee for their candidate to run against.  Have you already forgotten Todd Akin?)

Another reform I am wishing for would be the elimination of winner-take-all primaries, in which a candidate who receives a plurality of the vote (a majority is not necessary) receives all of the state's delegates.  This silly practice is said to prevent slugfests and backroom deals at our sedate (if not somnolent) conventions.  Given that we have lost four of the last six presidential elections, maybe a knock-down drag-out at the convention is what we need.  At least it would give people something to watch at our quadrennial Party party.  At any rate, this practice usually results is making a very beatable candidate opposed by 60-75% of the party faithful look like an unstoppable force, just before the election stops him (and us).

Can you name one state that has eliminated winner-take-all primaries?  Me, either.



After 2012's election I remember a veritable chorus of pols and pundits declaring that we must never again have so many GOP debates, in which our candidates would make each other look like villains and dunces.  We certainly won't book so many debates on hostile networks, since their immoderators would vie with each other to make every Republican look like he belongs in an asylum or a prison.  (He or she, actually, since Sarah Palin and Carly Fiorina certainly haven't received favorable treatment from the MLM*)

The more things change,...

Of course, some of the pundits haven't been much better.  Ann Coulter was just one of many conservatives scribblers to insist that we HAD to nominate a governor or "at least a Senator" this time around.  We started this process with several fine governors and senators (current and former) in the running, including Bobby Jindal and (my first choice) public union tamer Scott Walker of Wisconsin,  Then Donny Sue Trump entered the race, and the smartest girl in school fell in love with another troglodyte.

There are others.  Radio host Jim Quinn spent 3+ years insisting that the perfectly capable Mitt Romney had lost the election because he didn't inspire confidence in the "conservative base", and now he's plainly supporting the Megyn Kelly fearing Trump, who makes Romney look like Barry Goldwater.

Ditto self-hating Catholic Sean Hannity, who all but called for the crucifixtion of Pope Francis for daring to slander the prophet of Sean Hannity.

Yessir, it's my party and I'll cry if I want to.

*  Media Lynch Mob

Donald Trump and his Brownshirts

The disagreement between Pope Francis and Donald Trump has again aroused Trump's many venomous followers to heights of fury and (sadly) anti-Catholic bigotry.  Those Americans who wonder at how an Adolph Hitler raised an army of brown-shirted thugs need only look at Trump and his brutal followers today.  Not every Trump supporter is a thug; far from it.  But it seems that all of the thuggish behavior in this campaign has been provided by the Trumpzis.

When Donald Trump declared he was running for President, many of us thought "Well, I guess every circus needs a clown."  It never occurred to us that this perpetual braggart, sleazy businessman, and reality-TV "star" could possibly be taken seriously by the Republican voters.  We failed to understand how many Republicans were willing to let their anger with the leadership of the Republican Party short-circuit their brains.

Harsh, you may say?  How else can you explain the support for a man as personally disreputable as Bill Clinton, as vain as Barack Obama, and as dishonest as Hillary Clinton?  A man who has in the past and perhaps in the present supported single-payer health care, which would end liberty in America, because if the government controls your health care, they control you?  A man who viciously and falsely slanders the last GOP President, the thoroughly honorable George W. Bush?  A man who is only wealthy today because he was born that way?  Didn't we detest that about Ted Kennedy?

The man is a juvenile and a lout, who reacts to every criticism with vile insults and cringe-worthy name-calling.  From Megyn Kelly to the publisher of the Manchester Union Leader, from Hugh Hewitt to the National Review, anyone who dares to point out the flaws in Trump's character or his statements will be met not with refutation, but with simple abuse.

Consider this - perhaps the reason Trump never refutes the actual statements of his critics and opponents is because he can't.

When Megyn Kelly asked Trump if his knuckle-dragging troglodyte past treatment of women would make a too-easy target for Democrats in the fall campaign (an entirely reasonable question), Trump stayed up until 4:00 AM sending out loutish, filthy tweets about Kelly.  Is this an action of an adult?

What about his followers?

Many are decent people, but the Trump for President movement has a disproportionate number of vicious, nasty venom-spewers.  They see every attack on their idol the way Mohammedans see criticisms of their prophet.  The critics must be vilified, ostracized, destroyed!  Not by logic, mind you, but by means of foul epithets, falsehoods, and Internet abuse.

Do you not believe me?  Go to any political site that permits comments on their articles, find an article critical of Trump on any issue, and then scroll down to the comments.  Read the pro-Trump comments.  You will find very few well-reasoned arguments. You will find nasty, often obscenity-laced posts demeaning the author, their character, their intelligence, and other characteristics not germane to the article or the discussion thereof.  Supporters of the other Republican candidates will carry on a reasonable discussion with you.  Trump's followers would rather throw verbal bricks at you.  (They're verbal at the moment, anyway.)

My sister in Florida saw a man on a news broadcast say that he's supporting Trump because he's "voting with his middle finger."

There are no brains in middle fingers.

Quick thoughts on the Progressive leading the GOP Presidential nomination race

David Brooks of the New York, Same Old Agenda Times has threatened (offered?) to leave the country if Donald Trump is elected President.  It's a tempting offer, David, but I still must oppose the American Sukarno.



The Republicans have long had specific reasons for opposing and in some cases loathing our liberal Democrat opponents.  Some examples:

We despised Ted Kennedy not only because of his politics, but also because of his supreme selfishness and his having been an inherited wealth brat.

We detested both Clintons not only for their politics, but for their rampant greed and dishonesty.  (Yes, that includes Chelsea.)

We loathe Barack Insane Obama for many of his beliefs and actions, his betrayals and his Constitution-defiance, but also largely because of his Jupiter-sized ego.

All of these loathsome traits are also perfect descriptors of Donald Trump.



Matt Walsh makes a good point.  (Actually, a great many of them.)  Donald Trump is a man who is willing to slander Megyn Kelly on Twitter until 4:00 AM after she dares to not genuflect in his presence, but is unable to face her again in a debate setting.  We're supposed to believe he could face down Vlad the Impaler Putin and his ilk?  Really?



When precisely did Ted Cruz become "the establishment"?  Also, who could be more establishment than a politically connected multi-millionaire who cheerfully admits his history of buying off politicians of both parties and his penchant for abusing the eminent domain power to steal the homes of widows and other "ordinary people" in order to enrich himself?



For my entire life I have bristled at hearing my Republican Party derided as "the Stupid Party".  If we really nominate this foul-mouthed petulant demagogue who has spent a lifetime opposing everything we believe in, we will deserve the epithet.

In today's America

I've been thinking about life in 2015 America:

Thanks to Lois Lerner and John Koskinen, I no longer instantly delete those emails that say "I'm thinking about f___ing you".  I check to make sure they're not from the IRS first.



Seeing Bill Clinton lying with his characteristic shamelessness about Peter Schweitzer, author of the eye-opening (I hope) expose of the Clinton Crime Family Foundation "Clinton Cash", I experienced a wave of nauseastalgia - that sick feeling you get when you remember experiences you wish had never happened to begin with.  Damn it, why can't the Clintons take their ill-gotten millions AND GO AWAY??

Test week for liberals, etc.

I wake today to the news that two more police officers (AKA the people who make civilization possible, as Charles Barkley pointed out) have been murdered by thugs, this time in Mississippi.  This poses a test for President Obama and new Attorney General Loretta Lynch:

Can B.O. come right out and say this is wrong, murder is never justified, and STOP KILLING THE POLICE?  This time, can he avoid the usual boilerplate about "the problems of the black community" and "distrust of the police"?  He needs to stop condemning the police before the police start resigning because they feel that the authorities who should be on their side are on the other.

As for the new AG, can Lynch come right out and say that this incident is a horrific crime against those we depend on to keep us safe from criminals?  Can she call for the prosecution of the perpetrators to the fullest extent of the law?  Can she rise to the dream of Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. and judge the perpetrators "not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character"?



Peter Schweitzer's new book "Clinton Cash" has caused quite a furor and reminded us of the rampant, fantastic corruption of the Clinton Crime Syndicate.  I wish these people would just go away and leave us alone, but obviously that's not going to happen.  Anyway, Bill Clinton, aka the sleaziest liar in the history of American politics, made a television appearance that was disgraceful even by his sleazy standards.  As Charles Krauthammer mentioned on FoxNews Special Report, every word was false.  Every word.  Many of the lies he told are verifiable, meaning they are lies about facts which can be proven positively.

The challenge is to the so-called mainstream media - can they label the lies as lies this time?  The whole reason Billy Jeff Horndog doesn't even bother nodding toward the truth while shoveling his manure is because the media has let him get away with lying (sometimes under oath) for so long.  This time, can they behave as truth-seeking journalists and point out the lies?  Peter Schweitzer, like any prominent conservative writer, documents his allegation thoroughly.  He knows he'll be accused of making things up, so he gives references.  Schweitzer is not making things up; the Clintons (don't forget Hilliary's involved, too) are lying, as they have their entire lives.

Will the alphabet-soup media (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, etc) label the lies of the Clintons this once?

I shouldn't bet the mortgage on it.