CONSERVATIVE AUTHOR, ACTIVIST, AND TV NEWS PERSONALITY
Thursday, April 28, 2016
Donald Trump recently perpetrated one of the most egregious spectacles of naked demagoguery I've ever witnessed, when broaching the dining etiquette of Governor John Kasich against whom he dispensed a slew of absurdly hyperbolic accusations. I watched the video, and I saw a normal guy eating in a very normal way. But you'd swear from Trump's account the man had a bleeding turkey leg in one fist, and was pouring gravy into his gaping maw with the other fashioned into a scoop, sans utensils and completely indifferent to the bird flesh stuck to his face in gravy dripping off of his chin, down the front of his shirt, and onto his groin. You'd swear Kasich was some brute, hammer fisting the table and demanding more mead from the tavern wench, as he shamelessly belched in the faces of onlookers.
As if the hyperbole of Trump's account weren't bad enough, it's even more repugnant given the fact it comes from a man who is himself flagrantly estranged to all things genteel and demure. There's nothing like being called a Philistine, by a man so crass he actually bragged about the size of his penis on a nationally televised debate. I'd not be surprised if the counsel of more prudent minds is the only reason Trump's campaign slogan isn't "Big D*ck Government."
I mean, how could we trust Cruz to run the government? Unlike Trump we know virtually nothing about Ted Cruz's penis. Is it even big? How can we know? Cruz has the audacity to keep that information all to himself! Also, how does Cruz eat? Because these are the things that truly matter when administering a Constitutional Republic, and thus we urgently need Cruz to brief us on the status and/or significance of his genitalia, and whether or not he takes big, or small and regal (sissy) bites of his food when eating. Because under the Trump GOP the criteria for a good president is the same as that for a good porn star. And there is no greater sin now, in this godless, genitalia obssessed cesspit of a nation, than a man not having a massive phallus.
But I suppose the American people can take solace in the fact, that when they get screwed by president Trump (and they will), at least they won't be slightly screwed by a small penis. He's going to give it to them bigger and harder than anyone else ever has before. And I will now anxiously await the throng of cretins, who adore a man who makes such remarks from a podium of prestige, offering their hypocritical criticism of me for merely mocking his statements.
You would think Trump's supporters would reach the realization, that if this is how he speaks of Kasich, what would he say about me if he saw me and my kith and kin eating at a family barbecue? How would I like it if my ability to do my job was predicated by others on something so frivolous as how I ate my Gumbo? What kind of man makes an issue of such things? Why am I so stupid as to think a billionaire who attended a prestigious boarding school that cost $37,000 a year, who's probably never attended a backyard barbecue in his life, is for the "common man?"
But they won't. Instead you will see "common" people in the video linked above, not only continuing to support an elitist asshole overtly conveying his antipathy (as he so often does) for people of their "class," but literally cheering him for doing so.
Ultimately, this sort of behavior is woefully typical of a narcissist who seems almost utterly incapable of sticking to the actual issues for any meaningful length of time. Interminable derogation of the enemy, like any other Democrat, is the modus operandi, from which he may briefly deviate, but to which he invariably returns. Such is his true nature, and naturally this appeals only to the most petty, mean spirited, and juvenile amongst us. I see a normal man eating normally when I look at John Kasich; a man who (unlike Trump) never purported to be an aristocrat to my knowledge. (So from where comes this expectation he should eat like primmed royalty?) Yet in Trump's remarks I see something far worse. I see a teenage girl in high school, trying to win a popularity contest purely by badmouthing the other girls running for prom queen, in the hopes it will turn the student body against them. (Likewise Trump supporters constantly implying Cruz is a serial philanderer, is tantamount to claiming you should vote Trump because that other girl running is a whore, despite the fact their own candidate for prom queen displays no contrition about having bedded the entire football team her sophomore year.)
And the proof of this is plainly manifest in Trump's incessant assertions that he would be a better president (prom queen) than Cruz, because he is more likable or "liked" by others than Cruz. And as a result of this absolutely asinine rhetoric, a vast portion of the witless GOP has been beguiled into wanting to replace our representative form of govenrment with a democracy (the Socialist platform). Trump supporters, just like Democrats, want the president to be elected in the same manner, and upon the same criteria, as prom queen; because they're the most popular. That's it. Nothing more. And you see the proof of this plainly manifest, in Trump and his supporters incessantly basing the legitimacy of his nomination on the "will of the people," as opposed to his being in conformity with the Constitution.
The simple fact is this. There's absolutely no reason, for a candidate of substance, to mention Kasich's eating habits. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to criticize Kasich, like the fact he's a Democrat who calls himself a Republican. But Trump can't make an issue of that, can he? Trump is the same thing. And so he resorts to making issues of non-issues instead. Indeed, at no point have I ever seen Trump presenting a lucid and cogent articulation of why he's better than his opponents on the actual issues. All I ever see are these farcical displays of ad hominem; e.g., referring to Cruz as "lyin Ted" and Clinton as "crooked Hillary."
And the reason for this is obvious. How can a man without substance expound upon it?
This tripe was of course posted on Laura Ingraham's website, who's ostentatiously in the tank for this Socialist. And as such she is wholly complicit in the assiduous smear campaign against all things non-Trump. If Laura Ingraham's various contributions were depicted in imagery, it would be the one and same image used in the past to convey the media's relationship with Obama; a line of journalists, extending beyond the horizon, waiting their turn to kneel before their candidate and fellate him while perched on his throne.
Laura to her credit gets it right when she praises Trump for "connecting" with the people, but is too obtuse to discern he's done it in all the wrong ways. He's connected on the most visceral level, and elicits the most base of human attributes; i.e., he brings out the worst in people.
I used to say, many years ago, that the difference between a Conservative journalist and a leftist journalist, is that the former is unabashedly Conservative, while the latter feigns "impartiality." But that is plainly no longer the case, as I've watched for months as numerous prominent Conservative pundits (e.g., Hannity, Igraham, Breitbart, etc.) have all but officially been subsumed by the Trump campaign, while continuing to feign impartiality. Just like the leftists they claim to oppose, they have a bias and are pushing an agenda, but are pretending otherwise. And this is what Trump has exposed perhaps more than any other thing; hypocrisy. Trump has exposed the GOP as what I've been saying it is for years; a de facto extension of the DNC. And in like fashion he has revealed the GOP constituency for what it is; a subverted cabal of Socialists too stupid to know they're Socialists.
Sean Hannity has for years sent subordinates out to interview people on the street, revealing that they subscribe to the Socialist platform without realizing it, and yet makes no effort whatsoever to likewise expose a GOP front runner who routinely obliviously espouses the Socialist platform. According to men like Hannity, "impartiality" demands that they not takes sides in a dispute over whether or not America will remain a Constitutional Republic, or become a stagnant Socialist dystopia. And thus the name Sean Hannity, along with numerous others, becomes synonymous with Walter Duranty; traitors hiding behind a false veil of equity; the core trait of all Marxist subversives.
As for the hypocrisy to which I previously alluded? I saw Trump supporters posting multiple memes about the impropriety of men using the ladies room for days leading up to, and even posting about ESPN firing Curt Schilling on the same day, that Trump personally endorsed tranny restrooms. And yet saw not a single condemnation from them of Trump himself for endorsing the very thing they ostensibly opposed. There was almost complete silence. And in those who weren't silent, I saw something far worse; complicity. What erstwhile they had emphatically opposed, in a spectacle of abject compromise which rivals that of Trump himself, they were now either tacitly supporting or outright defending through conspicuously tenuous sophistry.
And this, again, vindicates my long held maxim; politicians who compromise in office are the product of voters who compromise in the voting booth. Those who support Trump are as immoral and indifferent to right and wrong as he is. Just like him, they only care about one thing. Winning the election. Principles be damned.
What gets me about Trump's remarks most however, is something I am rather loathe to admit, and which few if any others seem to glean. Trump's comments about Kasich completely vindicate Megyn Kelly. And that is something I don't particularly like conceding, as I'm not a Kelly fan. When Kelly asked Trump about his position on fat girls at the outset of the debates, I too thought it an ambush. After all, at that juncture we hadn't much in the way of recent evidence to prove Trump's conversation wasn't legitimate. But as time passed, the facade crumbled ever more rapidly, and the real Trump was revealed. And that means that either Kelly got lucky, or that much to my shame, Kelly recognized something early on that Justin did not. That Trump's long history of issuing crass and needlessly invidious statements was indeed relevant, and that contrary to his claims he had not changed; there was no "new" Trump.
But unlike Trump supporters I am capable of objective and critical self-assessment. Regardless of the reason, Kelly was right and her question has been proven legitimate, I see that now. And I repent I ever defended him.