Fuzzy Rant: #NeverTrump

I haven’t written for a while, but I am just floored by the support The Donald has been receiving, the bizarre delusions about Marco Rubio, and the general anger, disgust, and horror felt by conservatives like me at the prospect of a Trump presidency.

First, Rubio lost this primary back in 2011 when he distanced himself from the TEA Party; he sealed the deal when he became Chuck Schumer’s pet republican on the Gang of Ocho debacle.  He didn’t understand what he had done or what it meant, but we all did.  I live in Florida, and I am certain that Rubio would never have won reelection to his Senate seat . . . let alone the presidential primary here.  He cooked his own goose by being too malleable and too dishonest (a thing I warned about long before he joined Schumer’s amnesty train).

Rubio aside and off to the what not to do if you want to be president dungeons, I’m definitely, 100% #NeverTrump. I was in 2011-12, and I am now. He’s a person who, because of his progressive beliefs in the all-consuming power not only government but of the executive branch, will quickly either get himself impeached (with ROARS of approval from everyone from the most crazed Bernie supporter to the most adamant supporter of the United States Constitution) or who will bring this republic to its knees.

I believe that.  With all that I am.

Trump is a self-serving, self-aggrandizing, self-promoting horror show.  He’s also vulgar and repellent to me on an instinctual level.

When he had his “feud” with Rosie O’Donnell, another big-mouthed bully from New York, I thought I would be popping popcorn, but no, instead, I found them both so repellent and so deeply disgusting that I tuned it out after The Donald observed that O’Donnell had too much poop on her butt when she went to the bathroom.  He was vile.  She was vile.  Both were so completely devoid of character or grace or common decency that I tuned them both out.

Fast forward to the last GOP debate: my sister has gathered her family, among them my ten-year-old niece and six-year-old nephew, to watch as a form of civic engagement.  As soon as The Donald starts bragging about his penis size, my horrified and embarrassed sister rushed the children to bed amid questions about “what’s ‘down there,’ Mommy?”.  Sorry, but my idea of president is not someone you have to treat as R-rated and whose speeches cannot be watched by your children, grandchildren, or nieces and nephews because you never know what obscenities this clown will unleash.

A potential American president who needs a seven-second delay?  Seriously?

I’ve said repeatedly that I don’t “get” the Trump mania, and I really don’t.  I get the anger and frustration that voters feel; I feel that myself.  But how does putting a big government proponent who favors the health insurance mandate and loves the idea of private individuals and businesses using eminent domain, a person whose first impulse is to sue and to expand the rights of people to sue journalists, help America?  How is that “making America great again”?

Let’s trample all over the 1st Amendment, says Trump, amid cheers from his adoring fans!

Hey, that whole 4th Amendment?  I don’t know anything about it, but hey, if the government needs access at the expense of your Constitutional right to privacy, that’s that!

Um, the 2nd Amendment?  Well, I love guns, and gun owners love me. But you know, if we confiscated the weapons of legal gun owners, well, hey!  We’d know that only the bad guys and police had guns.  Um.  Or something.

Oh, and the Tenth Amendment?  Naw, that’s just silly. I’m The Donald.  I’ll just mandate stuff that supersedes states’ rights.  Who cares?  I know best!   Look how successful Trump Water, Trump University, Trump Airlines, and a hundred other failed Trump enterprises were!

I create jobs!  You know who I really love to hire?  Illegals!  They work cheap, sleep at the job, and don’t pester you for benefits.  Americans don’t want to be waiters!  So I bring in illegals to do it.  Yay!  I am a great, the greatest really, businessman ever.  Ever.

Remember when Obama called the United States’ military “his” military and declared that they fight for him?  Well, that’s nothing!  According to The Donald, the military will do anything he orders, including following his unlawful orders should be become commander in chief.  Oh, sure, he walked that back, but do you really believe he doesn’t imagine himself CEO of America . . . . and of her military?  You’re excused for not seeing the CEO elements, you unwashed employee masses, because Trump actually refers to his potential presidency as his “reign.”  Woohoo!  He won’t be our “boss”; he’ll be our king.  We love that autocratic totalitarian stuff in America, right?

And he keeps winning.  Trump chumps don’t care about his past, his vulgarity, his vile bragging about buying and selling government officials (which he’s done for decades), or about his pride in being part of the “establishment.”  They don’t care that he sees the United States military exactly as Obama does, as his own personal army.

Trump chumps want to blow up the Republican party  And they may well do that.  In the process, though, they will blow up our republic.

I will never vote Trump.  I will write in my preferred candidate before I validate that walking horror show.


Trump and Cruz Call Rubio Out on his Gang of Eight Amnesty Push

As the Republican presidential primary heats up, illegal immigration is again taking center stage.  While this is nothing new (as we know President Reagan attempted to address it in the ’80s, John McCain made it a priority in ’08, and on), the discussion has taken an interesting turn this election cycle.

At issue, of course, are Obama’s executive amnesty, the recent influx of illegal immigrants (including huge numbers of children), the vast number of illegals currently living and working in the U.S., border security (such as it is), and a host of related issues including the burden of illegal immigration on tax payers in terms of jobs, health care, schooling, police and judicial involvement, and various entitlement costs.

Marco Rubio’s involvement with the Gang of Eight, particularly his subservience to bipartisan efforts with Chuck Schumer, has not gone unnoticed by either the conservative base nor by the other presidential hopefuls.

When Rubio ran for the Senate in 2010, he was claimed to be an adamant opponent of amnesty, and only once elected did he jump at the chance to work on a massive “comprehensive” amnesty plan.  At the time, Professor Jacobson noted that Rubio was “played” by both Schumer and the GOP pro-amnesty McCain-Graham tag team (and he was right).

Since then, Rubio has tried to distance himself from his own choices (while raking in money from pro-amnesty supporters behind closed doors), but it’s worth noting that his mentor Jeb Bush probably played a role in decisions that Rubio now seems to regret.  For example, like Jeb, Rubio was very quick to distance himself from the TEA Party that was instrumental in electing him to his current seat in the Senate; this is not unlike Jeb’s negative assessment of the conservative base when he dismissed us as unnecessary to his presidential ambitions.

To me, it seems that Rubio’s amnesty lies are, er flip-flop is, more rooted in his being a campaign conservative who says one thing to get elected and does the opposite once in office.  That’s not a rare thing in American politics, so it’s somewhat amusing to me when Donald Trump now claims that Rubio’s support for amnesty is “because he’s Hispanic.”


This seems to be an off-the-cuff remark and not his campaign’s message; he also does not reject the idea of Rubio as his VP running mate should he win the GOP nomination.  However, even if a comment made in passing, this seems a simplistic and somewhat specious argument.

Beyond the points made above, not only are the majority of GOP establishment (i.e. supporters of amnesty) white, but one of the staunchest opponents of amnesty is himself Hispanic.


Ted Cruz has stated that he literally laughed out loud at Rubio’s bizarre claim that his position on illegal immigration is the same as Cruz’s.

Politico reports:

[Cruz] told reporters after, “In the “Gang of Eight” fight Marco chose to stand with Chuck Schumer and to lead the fight tooth and nail for a massive amnesty plan. I chose to stand with [Alabama Sen.] Jeff Sessions and to lead the fight to defeat amnesty.”

Cruz’s broadside was the latest in an escalating feud between the two senators that blew up in the wake of Tuesday’s fourth GOP debate, during which both had strong performances. Rubio over the past couple of days has tried to equate Cruz’s record on immigration which his own more relatively conciliatory one, while Cruz has pushed back hard on those efforts.

“I have to admit that I laughed out loud at that,” Cruz said earlier Friday on Mike Gallagher’s radio show, in response to Rubio’s assertion on Thursday that they held similar views on immigration reform. He went on to add, “that statement was truly stunning. That’s like Obama saying my position is the same as his on Obamacare. That’s like Ayatollah Khamenei saying my position is the same as his on the Iranian nuclear deal.”

Cruz, you may recall, led the fight against the Rubio-Schumer Gang of Eight amnesty bill.  Watch:

And the bill was stopped in its tracks.

Like Trump, Cruz has released his own illegal immigration plan summary in which he focuses on three key elements:  securing the border, restoring the rule of law, and reforming legal immigration to protect Americans.  See link for discussion of each point.


A Cruz Administration’s first priority for immigration reform will be to secure the U.S.-Mexico border. We will:

  • Build a wall that works.
  • Triple the number of Border Patrol agents.
  • Increase vital aerial surveillance and other technology along the border.
  • Finish the biometric tracking system at our nation’s ports of entry.


We need a President who will follow the law, hold those who break it accountable, and take seriously the duty to protect Americans. To restore the Rule of Law, a Cruz Administration will:

  • End President Obama’s illegal amnesty.
  • Increase deportations and end catch-and-release.
  • End sanctuary policies, sign Kate’s Law, and deport criminal immigrants.
  • Prohibit illegal immigrants from receiving financial benefits and strengthen E-Verify.


In order to strengthen our immigration system, protect national security, and better serve American workers, we must:

  • Suspend the issuance of all H-1B visas for 180 days to complete a comprehensive investigation and audit of pervasive allegations of abuse of the program.
  • Halt any increases in legal immigration so long as American unemployment remains unacceptably high.
  • Enforce the public-charge doctrine.
  • End birthright citizenship.

Cruz makes his point via Twitter:

The question facing Republican primary voters is: Has Rubio learned his lesson?  Perhaps an even more pertinent additional question is: Have we, as we watched Rubio go from TEA Party hero to GOP establishment zero, learned our lesson?

Fuzzy Shorts: “Obama’s a Muslim,” Islamophobia, the 2016 Presidential Race

What a couple of weeks!  With so much going on, the time seems ripe for another “Fuzzy Shorts” post, so here goes . . .

What Upsets Leftists About “Obama’s a Muslim”?

Everyone’s trying to pile onto Trump for not defending Obama’s religion . . . including Hillary Clinton who started the whole thing in the first place.  What I can’t understand is why the progressives–left and right–are so outraged.

You’d think they believe that being a Muslim is a bad thing or that Islam is an undesirable religion to which one should denounce any connection. Why is the left, who despises Christianity to the point of removing God from the Democrat platform, so insistent that Obama is a Christian?  So insistent, in fact, that they are demanding that every GOP candidate agree that he is, in fact, not just a Christian but definitely not a Muslim?

What happened to tolerance?  Wouldn’t his being a Muslim (if he is, which I doubt, though there is food for thought on that) be a wonderful banner under which they can march in robotic lockstep?  The first black president is also the first Muslim president!  It’s a twofer you’d think they’d embrace.  But no, the very idea is anathema to them.  Who’s the real Islamophobe in this?

Ben Carson, the Islamophobe  . . . and Christianophobe

Meanwhile, Ben Carson is under fire for his comment that an American president should not be a Muslim.  This seems eminently reasonable to me given the nature of the American republic in which the power (supposedly) rests with the people and the nature of Islam in which the power purportedly rests with Allah but actually rests with Imams.  The two just don’t mesh.  That’s not bigotry, it’s just simple fact.

A fact that prominent Islamists have acknowledged repeatedly.

Carson has now come out and stated that he wouldn’t support a Christian theocracy in America, either.  And he’s right on that, too.  For the same reasons.

Rick Perry and Scott Walker Out of 2016 Race

I can’t stand Rick Perry, so I was happy to seem him exit the race as early as he did.  He’s an awful candidate, and worse, while he has some conservative ideas, he’s basically a “compassionate conservative” (i.e. a progressive).  The thing that made him anathema to me was his Islamic curriculum in Texas public schools, but there were other things that he did that I, as a Constitutional conservative, didn’t like one bit.  It’s all moot now, anyway, because he’s no longer governor of Texas, and he’s never going to be president. Yay!

Scott Walker was a bit of a surprise, however.  I expected his candidacy to be stronger than it was, but he made so many mistakes, was so uninspiring (lacked that fire in the belly we like to see in a presidential candidate), and just didn’t have enough (any?) knowledge about foreign (or, for that matter, domestic) issues.

He’s going back to Wisconsin to be a great governor, but he may be back on the national stage if he can take some time from combating unions and running his state to bone up on the myriad issues that a president must have done pat . . . or at least have heard about.

Who Thinks of Christians as “Crusaders”?:  Obama . . . and ISIS



Jeb Bush and the Second Amendment

Did he say that the right to bear arms is a “states rights” issue?


Seems so. Or maybe not.  He just seems clueless about foundational principles, and that, to me, is the real problem.  That and the fact that he’s running on his somewhat conservative record as Florida governor . . . a record he effectively denounced in 2012 when he stated that he “used to be a conservative.”

Trump? Really?

I didn’t get it in 2011, and I don’t get it now.  Why are normally rational, normally conservative people supporting Donald Trump?  Really.  I want to know.

He’s hit a nerve, I get that.  He played the same game last time around, only then it was Obama’s birth certificate, so he didn’t get as much play as he is getting with immigration.

He’s brash and outspoken.  So is Chris Christie.  So is that lady at Walmart who wants her dollar refund NOW!

He’s . . . well, I’ve run out of reasons that I can see that people are supporting him.  Oh, China.  Right, same playbook from when he wanted to run in ’88 or whenever . . . only then, it was Japan he was targeting as stealing from America.

It seems to me that people are simply plastering their own anger, dissatisfaction, frustration, hopes, dreams, and ideals onto Trump and imagining him to be other than he is.  To me, this is very familiar.  A bit too familiar in a rather alarming way.

Remember the last time we had an egomaniacal, thin-skinned control freak seeking the highest office in the land?  Remember how we warned that there were serious problems that were being either ignored or brushed aside?

Those comments about spreading the wealth . . . well, that’s not a red flag.

Those disturbing associations . . . well, that’s just guilt by association. Pfft!

Those worrying statements about bankrupting coal . . . well, he’s evolved.

Those bizarre statements about healing the planet and stopping the seas from rising . . . just rhetoric.

Nothing to see here.  Just vote, make history!  The blank slate cometh, paint him as you will!

And now, we see it all playing out again.

Trump did once support not just Democrats, but particularly vile, evil ones like Harry Reid over Sharon Angle, Nancy Pelosi–whom he claimed did a fabulous job on ObamaCare, Hillary Clinton–whom he claims is just “marvelous” and does a “great job.”

Well, sure, he has to support them to do business.  Um, or something.  Oh!  He thinks illegals commit violent crime!

Trump supports universal health care.  Yeah, but he also wants to repeal ObamaCare. Okay, but he wants the government in charge of every American’s health care; for all we know, he doesn’t think ObamaCare gives enough control to government (my guess). So? He thinks that we should all speak English in America!

He supports all abortion, including late-term abortion and thinks that Planned Parenthood should still be funded even after the appalling infanticide, baby mutilation, and baby parts-for-profit schemes.  Yeah, well.  He wants a border fence, so he can perform abortions in the White House for all I care!

He abuses government power in cruel and greedy ways that enriches (only) him and kicks little old ladies out of their family home.  So? Did you hear that he thinks we should send all the illegals back?? Did you?!  (Yeah, but I also heard the part where they can all come back again after touching “home plate.”)

Paul Krugman supports Trump’s economic policies.  Krugman, need I remind you, is a big government Keynesian.  So! Um . . . border fence!

He’s supported gun control, higher taxes (he loves the progressive tax system, thinks it’s not progressive enough), all entitlements (with more that he wants to see added, by the way), and he supports restrictions on the First Amendment to “respect” Islam.  Yeah, but . . . illegal immigration!

He’s mean-spirited, petty, and nasty in the face of any and all opposition (even when there is no actual opposition, just plain old questions that Carly answered with ease).  He’s a fighter!

One thing we know for sure:  Trump does not now and will never see himself as a public servant; Trump would be Trump.  The boss.  The king.  The final word on any and every thing.  He’d know best, and we’d better just believe it because . . . he said so!

Why, please please tell me why, Trump is resonating with conservatives.  I really really really don’t get it.

Is calling Carly “Carly” sexist or something else?

Back in April, there was a bit of debate about how sexist it is to call Hillary “Hillary” rather than, as is the usual case in politics, by her last name. I thought the whole thing was ridiculous . . . more perpetually outraged loons looking for something to be outraged about. Luckily, it quickly died away.

But now I’m seeing the same thing come up in discussion of Carly Fiorina.  Why does the right insist on adopting the language and culture of the far left?  Are we so steeped in this faux feminist madness that we don’t even realize how we are beginning to sound just like leftists?  Trump, for example, has lately been hammering how the rich need to “pay their fair share” in his latest impression of failed president and well-known socialist Obama, and Jeb! . . . well, almost everything he says is straight of the regressive playbook.

Then we start it up about the one female Republican candidate for president, trying to out left the left in shrieks of faux feminist faux outrage.  This is not to say that Carly doesn’t face actual sexism from both the left and the right.  On the left, we expect it because we know their only interest is in division; they aren’t “for” women, blacks, or anything else, and we know this because leftist feminists are among the first to attack conservative women, leftist blacks are the first to attack conservative black people, and on and on.  They could care less about women, minorities, or anything, really, but increasing government power and ensuring that the middle class in America disappears into the third world hell hole they envision for our nation’s future.

And on the right, she is faced with questions like that from what’s-his-face on the Fox Sunday show when he asked if she was really running for VP.  That, my friends, is sexist.  However, Carly’s campaign is centered, as is Hillary’s, on her first name.  They both have invited us to think of them by their first name and for the same reason.  They “get” that this is a sign of positive feeling . . . well, for the most part.  Clearly, it is not working for Hillary.

This strategy, I think, is because of Sarah.  They want to draw on the feelings that we have for Sarah, and that’s actually pretty smart.  Sarah is almost always “Sarah” to me because there’s really only the one, and we all saw what happened to her, that “Palinization” that makes her a figure not only of respect but of a type of kinship that I feel toward her as a conservative first and as a conservative woman second.  When I use her last name, it’s usually as a show of a different kind of respect as “Governor Palin,” but mostly, she’s “Sarah” to me: one of us, mama grizzly extraordinaire, conservative warrior.

This doesn’t work for Hillary, at least not for conservatives because when you say “Clinton,” you mean and evoke Bill Clinton, not his shrill, nasty, corrupt, paranoid, and evil wife.  No amount of selling herself as “one of us” or as anything other than the lunatic leftist Alinskyite that she is will change that.  She’s “Hillary” not because she’s one of us but because she’s isn’t her husband.

Likewise, calling Jeb! anything other than Jeb! doesn’t work: “Bush” means President George W. Bush to me, or maybe, in some specific cases, their father, so that leaves Jeb as Jeb!.  The exclamation point is just for fun; his stupid logo makes it amusing to me.  The same rule, sans exclamation point, applies to Rand because “Paul” means Ron, not Rand.

Marco Rubio, whom I cannot abide after his Gang of Ocho shenanigans as Chuck Schumer’s butt monkey and pet Republican, is always a sneer in my brain, whether I call him “Marco” or “Rubio,” it’s always with a mentally curved lip and a kind of mental spit.

Then there are the titled pols or would be pols: Dr. Carson, Governor Walker, President Bush (meaning W.), Colonel West, et al.  This, I think, is more about respect for me than much else.  Using only their last name would work, but for some reason, their title works better.

Then there are those whom I think of as both first and last name.  Ted Cruz, for example, is always “Ted Cruz” in my brain, though when I write about him, I often will use only his last name.  I can’t really explain it, but considering that he is currently–barring some horrible revelation of secret progressive leanings–my favorite for the GOP nomination, it may be that I am already mentally preparing for him to have a title other than “Senator” before his name.

I hope that the people on the right who are attempting to defend Carly by whining that she is being called “Carly” will . . . just stop it.  There’s no there there.