In some ways the next four years could be worse than the last eight...

why do I say that?

Because libtards never quit.  They believe they sit on the right hand of God and possess all the goodness and justice available to mankind.  If it wasn't for them the world would devolve into chaos and meanness. They believe that with every cell of their miserable bodies.  Instead of crawling quietly back under their rocks, they will instead double down on their attacks against any and everything that contains a modicum of decency.

Silly me - I thought for awhile that we patriots would have nothing to talk about for the next four years.  Instead, we'll have plenty to say and we must have the will to say it.

Do not, under any circumstances, give in to their petulant blathering.  Do not buy their newspapers, listen to the crappy MSM, watch their movies, or listen to their music.   Remove all support from companies that tout the liberal lies. 

And call out other "conservative" fake Christians who think they're way more important than they are.  Kevin Williamson, over at National Review, posted an article in which he said:

I suppose that by now regular readers of National Review will have figured out that my sympathy for the Trumps is . . . limited. My own view is that Donald and Ivanka and Uday and Qusay are genuinely bad human beings and that the American public has made a grave error in entrusting its highest office to this cast of American Psycho extras. That a major political party was captured by these cretins suggests that its members are not worthy of the blessings of this republic. But here we are.

The article was supposedly about good manners and acting like a Christian.  This person, who considers himself a conservative and a Christian, called Trump and his daughter genuinely bad human beings, and compared Trump's two oldest sons to Uday and Ousay, the monstrous murderous sons of Saddam Hussein.  It just doesn't get any more crazy than that, does it?

I quit reading National Review when they went all #neverTrump.  I also went through my Feedly and deleted several hundred sites that specialized in fake news.  I suggest you do the same.

Not everyone who calls themselves a conservative is your friend. 

Consider all news fake news until proven otherwise. 

You may call me "The Angry Man"

Someone sent this to Father Z:

The Angry Man

For all the interest group pandering that shapes modern American politics, the group that may well have decided the election has come down to the demographic of “The Angry Man.”

The Angry Man is difficult to stereotype. He comes from all economic backgrounds, from dirt-poor to filthy rich. He represents all geographic areas in America , from sophisticated urbanite to rural redneck, Deep South to Yankee North, Left Coast to Eastern Seaboard.

No matter where he’s from, Angry Men share many common traits; they aren’t asking for anything from anyone other than the promise to be able to make their own way on a level playing field. In many cases, they are independent businessmen and employ several people. They pay more than their share of taxes and they work hard. Damn hard, for what they have and intend to keep.

He’s used to picking up the tab, whether it’s the Christmas party for the employees at his company, three sets of braces, college educations or a beautiful wedding or two. Not because he was forced to, but because it’s the right thing to do.

The Angry Man believes the Constitution should be interpreted as it was written. It is not as a “living document” open to the whims and vagaries of appointed judges and political winds.

The Angry Man owns firearms, and he’s willing to pick up a gun and use it in defense of his home, his country and his family. He is willing to lay down his life to defend the freedom and safety of others, and the thought of killing someone if necessary to achieve those goals gives him only momentary pause.

The Angry Man is not, and never will be, a victim. Nobody like him drowned in Hurricane Katrina. He got his people together and got the hell out. Then, he went back in to rescue those who needed help or were too stupid to help themselves in the first place. He was selfless in this, just as often a civilian as a police officer, a National Guard soldier or a volunteer firefighter. Victimhood syndrome buzzwords; “disenfranchised,” “marginalized” and “voiceless” don’t resonate with The Angry Man. “Press ‘one’ for English” is a curse-word to him.

His last name, his race and his religion don’t matter. His ancestry might be Italian, English, African, Polish, German, Slavic, Irish, Russian, Hispanic or any of a hundred others. What does matter is that he considers himself in every way to be an American. He is proud of this country and thinks that if you aren’t, you are whole-heartedly encouraged to find one that suits you and move there.

The Angry Man is usually a man’s man. The kind of guy who likes to play poker, watch football, go hunting, play golf, maintain his own vehicles and build things. He coaches kid’s baseball, soccer and football and doesn’t ask for a penny. He’s the kind of guy who can put an addition on his house with a couple of friends, drill an oil well, design a factory or work the land. He can fill a train with 100,000 tons of coal and get it to the power plant so that you can keep the lights on while never knowing everything it took to do that. The Angry Man is the backbone of this country.

He’s not racist, but is truly disappointed and annoyed, when people exhibit behavior that typifies the worst stereotypes of their ethnicity. He’s willing to give everybody a fair chance if they’re willing to work hard and play by the rules. He expects other people to do the same. Above all, he has integrity in everything he does.

The Angry Man votes, and he loathes the dysfunction now rampant in government. It’s the victim groups being pandered to and the “poor me” attitude that they represent. The inability of politicians to give a straight answer to an honest question. The tax dollars that are given to people who simply don’t want to do anything for themselves. The fact that, because of very real consequences, he must stay within a budget but for some obscure reason the government he finances doesn’t. Mostly, it’s the blatantly arrogant attitude displayed implying that we are too stupid to run our own lives and only people in government are smart enough to do that.

The Angry Man has reached his limit. When a social justice agitator goes on TV, leading some rally for Black Lives Matter, safe spaces or other such nonsense, he may bite his tongue but, he remembers. When a child gets charged with carrying a concealed weapon for mistakenly bringing a penknife to school, he takes note of who the local idiots are in education and law enforcement.

But when government officials are repeatedly caught red-handed breaking the law and getting off scot-free, The Angry Man balls-up his fists and readies himself for the coming fight. He knows that this fight, will be a live or die situation, so he prepares fully. Make no mistake, this is a fight in which he is not willing to lose and he will never give up.

Obama calls him a Clinger
Hillary Calls him Deplorable
Bill calls him Redneck
BLM calls him a Racist
Feminists calls him Sexist
ISIS calls him an Infidel
Donald Trump calls him an American

I do not support Trump...

or anyone else, either.

I have never purported to be a Trump supporter.  I have also never come out in support of anyone else.  I post things that I think may be of interest and trust my readers to do their own research.

What I said yesterday about the National Review was not an endorsement for Trump, but rather a repudiation of the condescending attitude of the writers who chose to jump on the "dump Trump" bandwagon, much of which was directed at supporters of Trump.

No one likes being spoken to as though they're idiots by a bunch of beltway quasi-intellectuals who live in a smug little bubble of their own making.  Their arrogance knows no bounds.

The sites that have picked a side this early may be in for some big surprises as this dreary political year drags on.  And many of them are employing the same tactics as the NR writers by calling anyone who disagrees with them stupid or misguided, and often disseminating information that is misleading or even outright lies.

It is with that warning that I will link to an article about Ted Cruz by someone named Lauren Stephens that I found interesting.  Is it truthful?  I don't know.  There are many red flags to be pondered. 

The first red flag was that the link came from The Last Refuge (aka Conservative Treehouse), where their support for Trump is off the charts.  The Last Refuge is a source for many writers.  It is unusual to see negative comments there.  Are they being deleted? 

The second red flag was this person Lauren Stephens claims to be a political consultant.  In my opinion, political consultants rank pretty low in the area of trustworthiness.  Their job is to get people elected.  They are paid to get people elected.

Nowhere on this political consultant website she links to in her article can I find her name, or the name of anyone else for that matter.  It also doesn't appear that the website has been operational very long.  It's a slick site with lots of words, but very low on content.  Does someone hire a political consultant without even knowing who they are? 

Next up, the linked article, An Open Letter to Mark Levin, is on http://laurenstephens.com/, which has absolutely no other links or articles.  It just sits there all by it's lonely.  That's weird.

The closest I can come to tracking down the elusive Lauren Stephens is at an old Vote Smart page, which may or may not be, the Lauren Stephens in question. 

There's a lot of damaging Ted Cruz information in her "open letter."  As I asked earlier, "Is it true?"  I don't know.  There are plenty of links to follow, which I haven't had the time to do yet.

Why am I saying all of this, and why am I linking to an article that makes my spidey sense quiver?

Because it behooves each and everyone of us to do our due diligence with any information that is spewed out on the internet. 

All of the Republican candidates have their positions posted on their websites, and yet I see very little posted anywhere about those positions.  I've read Ted Cruz's tax plan, as well as Trumps.  I've even read Bernie Sanders tax plan (which is very scary.)  I've read their positions on immigration and healthcare.  There are points to like, and some things to not like, in every position.

As a counter to the linked article, let's listen to Ted Cruz defend his positions:





And here's Marco Rubio trashing Cruz:





If you live on the east coast - stay safe.

National Review blasts Trump with 22 negative articles by "leading conservatives"...w/Update

expect Trump's numbers to go up.

What the hell are they thinking? 

Other than Thomas Sowell, not one of these so-called conservatives even know what the word "conservative" means.  These people live in a bubble of their own making, where the middle class doesn't even exist for them.

Rich Lowery, the editor of National Review, starts off by saying in the following clip:

 "If you truly are a conservative, you believe in ideas and principles. It's not just attitudes.  It's just not who you dislike.  It's limited government. It's the constitution. It's liberty. Those are the things that truly make this country special."

He goes on to say:

"What we really need is for the government to be cut down to size, restored to its rightful role, and then focus on the really important things, like the borders, (hard to hear, but I think he said something about trade.)"

Elect a Democrat and the government becomes bigger and more intrusive.  Elect a Republican and the government gets bigger and more intrusive.

Who in their right mind thinks that the "really important things" should be ignored and shuffled off to the side until the "government is restored to its rightful role."

Yep.  That's how I run my life.  I put off all the important stuff to focus on restoring my dog's rightful role in the household.  Then, and only then, do I worry about putting out the fire that's burning down my house.

Who the hell do these elitist educated beyond their intelligence self proclaimed "conservative" snobs think they're talking to?   Do they really believe we're too stupid to make a decision on our own?  Do they not realize that they sound like every libtard, who also believe they are today's reigning all-knowing Gnostics?

I don't need the blatherings of Glenn Beck, Erik Erickson (really?), or Dana Loesch, to make a decision on who I'll vote for.  

Thanks to my friend, Lone Star Parson, for directing my attention to a very good article by Michael Brendan Dougherty,  How an obscure adviser to Pat Buchanan predicted the wild Trump campaign in 1996.

In the article he references Samuel Francis, an adviser to Pat Buchanan:

[S]ooner or later, as the globalist elites seek to drag the country into conflicts and global commitments, preside over the economic pastoralization of the United States, manage the delegitimization of our own culture, and the dispossession of our people, and disregard or diminish our national interests and national sovereignty, a nationalist reaction is almost inevitable and will probably assume populist form when it arrives. The sooner it comes, the better… [Samuel Francis in Chronicles]

Mr. Dougherty's closing paragraph sums it up nicely:

What so frightens the conservative movement about Trump's success is that he reveals just how thin the support for their ideas really is. His campaign is a rebuke to their institutions. It says the Republican Party doesn't need all these think tanks, all this supposed policy expertise. It says look at these people calling themselves libertarians and conservatives, the ones in tassel-loafers and bow ties. Have they made you more free? Have their endless policy papers and studies and books conserved anything for you? These people are worthless. They are defunct. You don't need them, and you're better off without them.

And the most frightening thing of all — as Francis' advice shows — is that the underlying trend has been around for at least 20 years, just waiting for the right man to come along and take advantage.  I suggest you read the whole article

My comment over at LSP's:

That closing paragraph of Dougherty's says it all. These morons inside the beltway really believe we're all a bunch of dumb rubes who don't know which fork to use first. They are way underestimating the seething anger those of us in the middle are feeling.

I'm sick of the George "Weasel" Wills, Krauthammers, et al, who sit around spouting what they think is high-minded rhetoric, but is really nothing but word salads and nonsense syllables.

For me, the sight of tassel loafers and bow ties is like waving a red bandanna in the face of a bull.

Update:

More elitism on display