Family Research Council Action: On the Suspension of Bobby Jindal Campaign

frc logoWASHINGTON, D.C. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Family Research Council Action President Tony Perkins, a former Louisiana legislator, released the following statement regarding the decision by LouisianaGovernor Bobby Jindal to suspend his campaign for president:

“There is no question that Governor Bobby Jindal played a key part in shaping the 2016 presidential primary. Governor Jindal’s keen intellect, combined with his passion to uphold the principles and ideals that have made America an exceptional nation, made him an attractive candidate for president. But as Bobby said today, it is not his time.

“I look forward to working with Governor Jindal as he will no doubt continue to have a shaping influence on American politics and the Republican Party,” concluded Perkins.

Black Businessmen Are Open to the Republican Party

I am sick and tired of Republicans constantly telling me that they “can’t find Black Republicans” to hire for their presidential campaigns or they “don’t know where to find Black entrepreneurs to engage with.”

Well, you find them the same place you find Biff and Buffy to hire for your campaigns; and you find Black entrepreneurs the same way you find Chuck and Shane.

Most people call their friends for recommendations when looking to hire someone.  They call people they know and trust.  I’ll let you decide what that says about all these Republicans who constantly tell me they don’t know where these Black Republicans are.

This frustration has led me to create Black Americans for a Better Future (BAFABF), the first and only Super PAC established to get more Blacks involved in the Republican Party.  Our focus is strictly on the Black entrepreneur.

Far too many Republicans think they know more about the Black community than a Black person; consequently, they think the gateway to the our community is the preacher or issues like criminal justice reform, abortion, or crack/cocaine disparities.

As I tell these Republicans, “I have been Black most of my life” and I know what issues are most important to my community; and the issues above are not it.

In the Black community, the businessman is the gateway to us.  He is typically the chairman of the board of trustees at our church and in many cases the head of the deacon board. If you get the entrepreneur on your side, he will bring you the pastor and the pastor will bring you the congregation.

It’s that simple!

If Republicans understood this, they would gain more traction within the Black community.  Not one presidential candidate has met with any Black Republican businessmen.  Our congressional leadership has never convened a meeting of Black Republican businessmen.


These businessmen have the wherewithal to write political checks, but they see no value in doing so because they believe they are not welcomed in the Republican Party.

BAFABF will have several major announcements in regards to solving these issues very soon.

I have met with several presidential candidates and they have indicated a serious willingness to engage with us to address some of these concerns.

BAFABF has hosted a series of dinners across the country with some of the top Black businessmen in the country—Democrat, Republican, and Independent; none are opposed to engaging with the Republican Party.  The question is, “is the Republican Party ready to engage with them?”

Is the Republican Party ready to deal with the devastation Obama has wreaked on the small and minority business community?  Under Bush, Blacks received 8% of all loans coming from the Small Business Administration (SBA); under Obama, that number is now only 1.8%.  What are Republicans willing to do to address this issue?

Obama has totally destroyed the Historically Black Colleges and University (HBCU) community.  This directly impacts an entrepreneur’s ability to grow his business if he can’t find people with the right skill set to hire.  What are Republicans willing to do to address this issue?

Obama’s excessive regulations are smothering the small business community.  What solutions will Republicans offer to remedy this situation?

If Republicans are willing to engage with the Black business community based on solving real problems; you won’t have to worry about how they will vote or where they will give their money.  They are problem solvers and enthusiastic supporters of capitalism and the American Dream.

BAFABF will be a conduit that will bring together the brightest and the best businessmen to engage with our party’s leadership; and if they would only make them feel welcomed into this party, they will be pleasantly surprised at the many things they both have in common.

Our PAC will serve not only as their PR firm; but also their booking agent when groups are looking for speakers.  This will include placing them in the media and all the talking head TV shows.

Unfortunately, there is no surrogate program in place anywhere within the Republican Party to showcase this phenomenal talent that is sitting on the sidelines.   We already have surrogates in New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri, Alabama, Georgia, Virginal, and Florida, just to name a few.

We have already begun to roll them out into both local and national media.

I find it astonishing that there is no surrogate program by the party to push back on all the liberal orthodoxy being propagated by all the liberal groups into the Black community. There are no credible Black Republicans on MSNBC, CNN, FOX NEWS, etc.  A lie that is repeated enough becomes the truth.

Our surrogates are not seeking to make the party feel “comfortable” with them, but rather people who will tell the truth.  Our surrogates are Blacks who actually have personal ties and relationships within their own community; not the Blacks Republicans typically get to do media who have absolutely no connection or credibility within the Black community.

These Black media whores that certain Republicans constantly promote do more damage to the cause than anything liberal Democratic policies could ever dream of.

Our goal at BAFABF is to make America’s future brighter by uplifting and showcasing the true leaders in the Black community—the entrepreneur.

Social Justice versus the Left by Sandy Ikeda

Why are demonstrators from the Black Lives Matter movement interrupting the campaign rallies of Bernie Sanders? After all, Sanders is the presidential candidate who is farthest to the left, making him the most likely to be sensitive to the concerns of an organization known for its radical activism. Wouldn’t it make more sense to disrupt and co-opt the public appearances of candidates perceived to be the least sympathetic, such as Rand Paul?

Jamelle Bouie of Slate tries to explain it this way:

Bouie may be right, but I suspect there’s something more fundamental going on here.

Scarce Resources

The left is full of sincere, concerned people who, like many on the right, hope to use political power to advance their particular agendas.

Political power requires physical violence or the threat of physical violence to achieve particular ends. 

Black Lives Matter is self-described as “an ideological and political intervention in a world where Black lives are systematically and intentionally targeted for demise.” The organization tries to draw attention and public resources to the problems of police brutality and social injustice toward African Americans.

Environmentalists on the left want to use political power to protect our natural resources and battle global warming. (I’ve always found it curious that leftist environmentalists seem to recognize the scarcity of natural resources, yet don’t appear to be aware that the resources required to protect nature are scarce, too.)

The Labor Party pursues political power to promote the interests of certain workers. And more traditional socialists seek to use political power to achieve “collective justice and individual freedom” — two goals that are not exactly compatible.

And the wish list from the left — feminists, Marxists, social democrats, progressives — goes on and on. Nevertheless, the resources needed to reach these objectives, if they are even reachable, are scarce.

The Market Is a Positive-Sum Game

In a free market — where there is private property, free association, reciprocity, and fair play — exchange will only take place if both parties believe they will be made better off by it. Of course, one or both parties may be wrong, and losses do happen, but it’s in everyone’s self-interest to engage in trades that make themselves better off. In that sense, trade in a free market is a positive-sum game — one that allocates scarce resources in a way that both parties gain.

Politics is the opposite. Unlike markets, political power requires physical violence or the threat of physical violence to achieve particular ends. That’s because the only way one person can gain from a political encounter, regulatory or redistributive, is for the other side to lose.

Politics Is a Zero-Sum Game

For example, every year, federal, state, and local governments take income from us in the form of taxes to be used in ways we usually don’t know about and probably wouldn’t approve of. Most of the time, the tax revenue collected this way isn’t earmarked for a particular purpose — we don’t pay separate foreign-invasion taxes, or corporate bailout taxes. Special interests vie for a piece of this pie or, even better, for the power to decide how the pie gets sliced.

Politics doesn’t have markets where buyers peacefully compete with buyers and sellers compete with sellers in trades that generate prices that reflect the relative scarcity of inputs and outputs (PDF). Instead, politics has special interests claiming that their political agendas are more important than everyone else’s.

Environmental sustainability andredressing racial injustice and making America safe for democracy can’t all be the nation’s top priority. Why should the mere opinion of environmentalists prevail over those of labor-union leaders? Natural beauty and pristine wilderness is our most valuable resource? Really? Says who?

Social Justice Is Also a Zero-Sum Game

The free market generates order in a way that is largely unplanned. It’s true that some participants gain more than others owing to effort, alertness, resourcefulness, good connections, and good luck. But the overall outcome, where intervention and cronyism are absent, is not the result of anyone’s design. No person or group is responsible for the particular pattern of consequences in a free society, including inequalities in wealth or income. And as Angus Deaton, the most recent recipient of the Nobel prize in economics, has argued, such inequalities can be and have been narrowed more effectively through greater economic freedom and growth than through political redistribution.

But in a redistributive society, things are fundamentally different. Only when state authorities decide who, in their opinion, should control resources does the question of social justice, in the sense of seeking redress against those responsible, even make sense. That’s because it’s only when the distribution of resources is the result of conscious planning that there’s actually someone to blame: the planners.

I’ve borrowed this way of framing the problem of social justice from F.A. Hayek, most recently in my entry on the dynamics of interventionism in the just-published Oxford Handbook of Austrian Economics, edited by Peter J. Boettke and Christopher J. Coyne. I term it the “self-fulfillment thesis,” in which “the abstract idea of social justice … only becomes coherent once the state becomes involved in redistribution.”

So, why do marginalized groups on the left choose to bother candidates on the left, such as Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, who are most favorable to redistributive policies?

There’s more going on here than the better media exposure or consciousness raising that Bouie suggests. It’s a naked grab for power — the essence of politics. The activists see those candidates as most likely to expand political power enough to forcibly redistribute the massive resources needed to achieve large-scale redistributive goals.

The problem for those on the fringe is that Sanders and Clinton have different goals than they do. And that’s the trouble with zero-sum games.

Sandy Ikeda
Sandy Ikeda

Sandy Ikeda is a professor of economics at Purchase College, SUNY, and the author of The Dynamics of the Mixed Economy: Toward a Theory of Interventionism.

After Paris bloodbath, Lindsey Graham wants to double funding to bring Syrian ‘migrants’ to U.S.

The time for this suicidal idiocy is long past. Graham is a presidential candidate? He ought to be laughed off the presidential debate stage, made to resign from the Senate, and barred from ever holding public office again. And if he succeeds in expanding the “refugee” program, he ought to be made to house the increased numbers of “refugees” in his home and Senatorial office.

states taking syrian migrants cnn

“Forget Paris: Lindsey Graham to double funding for ‘refugees,’” by Leo Hohmann, WND, November 15, 2015:

In the wake of the deadly Paris attacks by ISIS, some GOP presidential candidates such as Ted Cruz, Donald Trump and even Marco Rubio are calling for an end to Syrian refugee resettlement in the U.S.

Most of the others have been silent or vague on the issue of Syrian refugees – about 2,000 of whom have already arrived in the U.S. despite warnings from the FBI that it’s impossible to vet their backgrounds.

But there is one candidate who is clearly on the record wanting more Syrian Muslims to pour into American cities and towns as “refugees,” despite the fact that at least one of the seven attackers in Paris had a Syrian passport and entered France as a “refugee.”

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who positions himself as a war hawk against ISIS, is co-sponsoring legislation with Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., to nearly double the amount of funding Washington spends on resettling refugees from Syria.

On the day after the multi-pronged shooting and bombing attacks on Paris, which killed 129 civilians and injured 352, Graham pounced again on the theme that ISIS must be attacked at its core in Syria and destroyed, or there would be more attacks on Western cities.

One of Graham’s favorite talking points is, “If we don’t stop them over there, they are coming over here just as sure as I stand here in front of you.”

It’s curious, then, say his critics, that he would be pushing for escalating the importation of more Islamic refugees into U.S. cities and towns from the world’s most notorious hotbed of jihadist activity – Syria.

Graham’s press secretary did not respond to requests for comment from WND.

Without giving a number, Graham has said the U.S. should accept its “fair share” of Syrian refugees.

His bill provides some insight on what that number might be.

According to the Hill, the legislation doesn’t specify how many Syrian refugees should be accepted into the United States but the amount of funding requested would allow for the resettlement of up to 100,000 Syrian refugees over two years, Leahy’s office said.

Even President Obama has never explicitly said this many Syrians should be allowed into the U.S, although that could be his plan given the vague nature of his statements. Obama’s State Department has called for 10,000 Syrians to be admitted in 2016 and “many more” in 2017….


In first six weeks of FY2016 U.S. resettled 827 Somalis; all but one are Muslim

Main target in Paris jihad attack: Jewish-owned Bataclan Theater, frequent target of Muslims and BDS groups

U.S. Embassy in Paris turned away Americans who sought shelter there during jihad attacks

Bernie Sanders: Climate change is directly related to the growth of Muslim terrorism

“I would argue that the disastrous invasion of Iraq, something that I strongly opposed, has unraveled the region completely and led to the rise of Al Qaeda and to ISIS.” That is true. However, it contradicts Sanders’ other claim, that climate change, that is, “limited amounts of water, limited amounts of land to grow their crops,” led to the rise of terrorism. If it were really all about fights over diminished resources, then these jihad groups would have arisen even without the U.S. taking out Saddam Hussein, no? In any case, if climate change has given rise to terrorism, why don’t we see Arab Christian or Yazidi terrorists? After all, they lived in Iraq and Syria alongside the Muslims. So why weren’t they driven by the lack of water and land to form their own terrorist groups?

It is astonishing that a man this deluded could be taken seriously as a candidate for President. But his view here is a mainstream Democrat Party position.

“Bernie Sanders: Climate Change is Directly Related To Terrorism,” by Michelle Fields, Breitbart, November 15, 2015:

Democratic Presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) said on Saturday that climate change is directly related to terrorism.“In fact, climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism,” said Sanders.

“And if we do not get our act together and listen to what the scientists say, you’re going to see counties [sic] all over the world…they’re going to be struggling over limited amounts of water, limited amounts of land to grow their crops, and you’re going to see all kinds of international conflict.”

Sanders said at the second Democratic debate in Iowa that climate change poses the biggest threat to America’s national security and to security of the world.

Sanders also argued that the growth of national terrorism and instability in the Middle East was caused by the invasion of Iraq.

“I would argue that the disastrous invasion of Iraq, something that I strongly opposed, has unraveled the region completely and led to the rise of Al Qaeda and to ISIS,” Sanders said.

When Sanders was asked his thoughts about Hillary Clinton’s vote for the Iraq war he added: ” I don’t think any sensible person would disagree that the invasion of Iraq led to the massive level of instability we are seeing right now.”

“I think that was one of the worst foreign policy blunders in the more than history of the United States,” hr [sic] claimed.


In the wake of the Paris jihad attacks, France says it’s “essential” to combat…climate change

FBI top dog won’t release motive in Chattanooga jihad shootings: “We don’t want to smear people”

Minnesota Democrat Party candidate: ‘The Islamic State isn’t necessarily evil’

Dan Kimmel has withdrawn from the race, and for that we can be grateful, but his statement, with all of its moral equivalence and toleration of evil, is a succinct expression of what hamstrings our ability to face the Islamic State and defeat it. This is why the Islamic State will be plaguing free people worldwide for years to come.

“Minnesota State Representative Candidate Withdraws From Race After Saying ‘ISIS is Not Evil,’” by Kaitlyn Schallhorn, Daily Caller, November 15, 2015:

A Democrat candidate for a state representative seat in Minnesota has withdrawn from the race after he drew ire from many — including those in his own party — with a controversial tweet following the Paris terrorist attacks.

“ISIS isn’t necessarily evil,” Dan Kimmel, a candidate for a Minnesota state representative seat tweeted Saturday. “It is made up of people doing what they think is best for their community. Violence is not the answer, though.”

The Islamic State has taken responsibility for the terrorist attacks in Paris Friday that claimed the lives of more than 120 people and injured hundreds of others. In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, French President Francois Hollande said he viewed the attack as an “act of war” and promised a “pitiless” response.

Kimmel, 63, asserted in a follow-up that he “deplores” the Islamic State’s actions and was not defended them. However, the candidate still drew the ire of many on social media, including the Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party leaders.

In a post on his campaign website, Kimmel said his tweet was “poorly worded” and thus announced the end of his candidacy.

“I am folding up my campaign tent,” Kimmel said, adding an apology for those who volunteered or donated to his campaign.

“I do think the attacks in Paris yesterday, along with other ISIS terrorist actions, are cowardly and despicable. My heart breaks for the people of France, of Paris, the families of those wounded or killed and the casualties themselves,” Kimmel said. “My thoughts are with them. I condemn the attacks, as I condemn all violence.”…


Two of the Paris jihad murderers came into Europe as refugees

In the wake of the Paris jihad attacks, France says it’s “essential” to combat…climate change

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Dan Kimmel. Kimmel is the one on the left..

Madam President: Can The MSM Pull It Off Again?

hillary and abc news puppetPlease forgive me if I am stating the obvious. Clearly, the mainstream media plans to use the same evil dirty trick to elect Hillary it used to elect Obama. The media’s trick is to simply block voters from knowing who Hillary really is as a person, her criminal activities and true ideology. The media knows if elected, Hillary will continue Obama’s far left radical transformation of America. Rather than race, gender will be Hillary’s ever-ready trump card to silence all opposition.

It is truly repulsive watching the mainstream media’s all consuming efforts to leave no stone un-turned and even fabricating stories to destroy Republican presidential candidates. The MSM’s shock-and-awe attempted character assassination of Dr Ben Carson who is a remarkable human being is beyond reprehensible. Though widely reported, Dr. Carson did not lie about attending West Point. The MSM attacks have backfired, igniting even more support for Dr Carson; the political outsider.

Meanwhile, Hillary’s multiple scandals, crimes and misdemeanors are hidden in plain sight. She has been caught lying and breaking the law repeatedly. Hillary Clinton is figuratively dancing naked in the middle of Times Square waving smoking guns in both hands. And yet, the MSM’s response to Hillary is move-on, nothing-to-see-here. The MSM’s behavior is glaringly hypocritical; favoring Democrats and biased against Republicans.

This is why it is so frustrating to watch conservatives give these MSM hit-squad attacks credibility. I yelled at my radio upon hearing a conservative pundit applauding Obama for making fun of the Republican presidential contenders for complaining about the biased CNBC debate moderators. The conservative joined the liberal media and Obama in calling the GOP contenders wimpy whiners. Why on earth would this conservative leader side with our evil dishonest opponents who have no intention of playing fair?

Conservatives attempting to find common ground with the Left (Democrats and MSM) is as wacko as the Left relentlessly accusing Israel of an unwillingness to compromise with the Palestinians. The Palestinians’ ultimate goal is to push the Israeli people into the sea. How do you negotiate with people who want you dead? You do not. You defeat them. The Democrats and MSM want the GOP/Conservatives politically dead. Conservatives/Republicans must defeat them.

So lets recap boys and girls. Seven years ago a black guy gifted in the art of deception delivered a celebrated speech at the Democrat National Convention. Democrats/Leftists after promising her the White House, kicked Hillary to the curb. The shiny new well-spoken black Trojan Horse offered the Left a golden opportunity; a chance to implement every socialist/progressive idea of their wildest dreams. Anyone daring to disagree with the first black president on any issue will be branded with an “r” on their forehead for racism. It was perfect!

Americans embraced the MSM’s black messiah crying a river of hopeful tears at his inauguration. Obama received 96% of the black vote. However, blacks are only 12% of the population. Therefore, mega-millions of white voters saw fit to entrust a black presidential candidate (a radical Leftist posing as a moderate) with the key to the Oval Office. Millions of whites naively thought, we will never be accused of being a racist nation again.

Seven years into Obama’s presidency, race relations are horrible; set back decades – open season on killing whites and police. The idiotic evil Black Lives Matter movement is running rampant polluting the streets of America with the absurd insidious lie that every 28 hours a unarmed black is murdered by cops

Despite white America electing a black man to run their country, the Left would have us believe that blacks are still treated in America as they were in the 1950s.

Meanwhile, the Left (Obama, Democrats and MSM) have successfully used the terms “racism” and “bigotry” to get everything they want. Manipulating Americans with accusations of racism and bigotry have been so successful, the Left has taken their exploitation of the terms to absurd levels.

Here are just a few examples. The Left has decreed that peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, reading bedtime stories to your kids and the new “Peanuts” movie are racist. Leftists have even decreed that the term “hard worker” is racist. Disapproval of sodomy is bigotry.

Over the past seven years, conservative media and the Tea Party have grown in influence. Therefore, I do not believe the MSM will be able to pull off fooling us again; selling Hillary to the American people as “Hillary: Heavenly Goddess” – the long awaited sequel to “Obama: Black Messiah.”

Learning from being duped into electing the first liberal black president, we can expect more of the same upon electing the first liberal woman president. The false premise of an American/Republican War on Women will skyrocket rather than subside, birthing a #VaginasMatterMovement. I am not over the top folks. Let us not forget the feminist 1996 episodic play titled “The Vagina Monologues.”

Yes, males of America, expect the Left to accuse you of hating your moms, wives, sisters and daughters every time you disagree with President Hillary signing an executive order implementing another socialist/progressive agenda item against the will of the American people.

While the MSM peddles Hillary for president, the rock song by The Who comes to mind. We “Won’t Get Fooled Again.”

The GOP Debate: Missing the Banana Boat on Immigration

It’s a tragic fact of man’s nature that people prescribe an ounce of prevention when a pound of cure is needed — and a pound of cure when times call for a ton of desperate measures.

Immigration, rightly and largely thanks to Donald Trump, has become a big issue this election cycle.

But not big enough.

And Tuesday’s GOP debate was illustrative of the problem. When John “Can’t do” Kasich and Jeb “Invasion is an act of love” Bush both scoffed at the idea of following the law, saying we “can’t” deport illegals, the response was lacking. Only Senator Ted Cruz rode in to save the issue from their demagoguery. He said it was “offensive” to suggest that enforcing the law is anti-immigrant and warned that the Republicans will lose if they “join Democrats as the party of amnesty.” He also quite eloquently pointed out that the media wouldn’t be suppressing the dark reality of illegal migration if “a bunch of people with journalism degrees were coming over and driving down the wages in the press,” and that there’s nothing compassionate about diminishing millions of Americans’ earnings.

Yet even the intelligent, staunchly traditionalist Cruz misses the boat on immigration. Even the intrepid, titillatingly anti-establishment Trump does. In 2013, Cruz proposed (at 3:28 in this video) increasing H1B visas 500 percent and doubling legal immigration. And Trump repeats the theme that immigration must be done “legally.” The problem?

Americans are “legally” being done out of their jobs. They’re “legally” being pushed into socialism. And they’re “legally” having their culture stolen away. Yet much more than this went unmentioned during Tuesday’s debate.

“Think about the families!” cried Kasich, alluding to family unification. “C’mon, folks!” Okay, c’mon, let’s think about families.

The families argument is pure propaganda. Families can also be united by sending people the other way — back to their native countries, where most family members often are in the first place. Second, the families argument could be used as a pretext for not enforcing any law. Why imprison people for bank robbery or embezzlement? If they have children, the kids will be left without a parent, or even parentless and have to languish in foster care. And as with illegals, many other law-breakers engage in their crimes “because they want a better life.” How many mafia figures didn’t use their ill-gotten gains to support their families?

Moreover, failure to enforce immigration law is discriminatory. If such law can be flouted with impunity, why should any of us have to follow the law? The amnesty crowd are essentially creating a privileged group — illegal migrants — who alone will get a pass on their criminality. Is unfair discrimination compassionate?

Kasich also trumpeted Ronald Reagan’s 1986 amnesty and said the idea of deporting “11 million people who are law-abiding…is not an adult argument.” But is this a mature statement? The illegals by definition aren’t “law-abiding” because they broke the law in coming to the U.S. in the first place. Here’s something else unmentioned: Reagan reportedly called the 1986 amnesty “My biggest mistake.”

And Kasich, Bush, “Gang of Eight” Marco Rubio and others think we should repeat it.

Note that since the ’86 mistake there have been six more amnesties, each one attended by promises to secure the border. It’s said, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” Should we play the fool an eighth time? Are we Charlie Brown with the football?

Transitioning to political footballs, there’s the Kasich-Bush-Insane notion that we “can’t deport 11 million people.” Here’s the ideal debate response:

Well, we certainly can’t if we look to make not good policy but excuses. But despite what “Can’t do” Kasich might say this isn’t a matter of capability but will. But first realize that we don’t have to deport illegals — we can get them to deport themselves.

You use a carrot-and-stick approach; the removal of the carrot and application of the stick. First make sure illegals can’t get any government benefits; of course, this includes no driver’s licenses, which can enable illegals to vote in our elections. Then ensure they can’t get jobs by punishing employers hiring them. Once these incentives to remain are gone, most will leave voluntarily, as Arizona’s crackdown on illegals some years back proved. And once most depart, deporting the few remaining will be an easy task. So the issue isn’t complicated; it’s only made so by pandering politicians who put votes ahead of country.

Speaking of a treasonous spirit, the topic of H1B visas — which allow employers to recruit high-skilled foreign workers — came up during the second-to-last GOP debate on Oct. 28. Once again, no candidate fielded it sufficiently. Ideal debate statement:

In the news there has been story after story recently about corporations replacing high-skilled American workers with lower-wage foreigners; this is a violation of the law, which stipulates that an H1B-visa recruit can only be retained if it “will not affect the working conditions of workers similarly employed,” but this law is routinely flouted and unenforced. Outrageously and rubbing salt in the wound, in some cases these Americans have even been forced to train their foreign replacements under threat of losing their severance packages! This is treasonous! And think about the families, the families that these Americans can no longer support. Is this compassionate? Is this an “act of love”?

The H1B-visa program is being abused, and is used to abuse Americans, by crony capitalists in and out of government who grease each other’s palms. This will stop, cold, under my presidency. More than 94 million Americans are not in the labor force. We need to ensure that corporations hire available American talent. Let high-skilled foreigners build up their foreign countries, and let high-skilled Americans have the jobs that are their birthright.

Returning to Tuesday’s debate, many candidates mentioned Islamic terrorism when asked to cite America’s biggest current threat. Yet not a single debater pointed out the following. Debate statement:

With many millions of unknown-quantity illegals violating our border during the last couple of decades, probability dictates that some terrorists have come across. There’s no doubt that some weapons of mass destruction have come across. Yet we can’t get it across to our feckless leaders that it’s silly, in the extreme, to talk about a “war on terror” and pursue “nation building” in faraway lands while leaving our back door to Mexico vulnerable. It’s a bit like going to the nearest crime-ridden naked-city street looking to be Charles Bronson in Death Wish and leaving your home’s door wide open on your way out. And think about the families on 9/11 and those on the next 9/11, whose loved ones will have been sacrificed on the altar of political pandering. Leaving your national family’s door open isn’t an act of love. It’s criminal negligence and an act of treason.

Having said all this, none of the above addresses our main “legal” problem: legal immigration. Since the Immigration Reform and Nationality Act of 1965, 85 percent of our immigrants have hailed from the Third World and Asia; 70 to 90 percent of those vote for socialistic candidates upon being naturalized. This is a universal Western phenomenon, mind you, and was actually referenced by Labour Party operative Andrew Neather. A former aide to ex-British prime minister Tony Blair, he admitted in 2009 that the massive immigration into the United Kingdom over the last 15 years was designed to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.”

Yet such schemes wouldn’t be possible had Westerners, including conservative ones, not fallen victim to “immigrationism”: the idea that immigration is always good, always necessary and must be unquestioned. The reality?

Immigration always presents problems of assimilation. It’s just a matter of whether the likelihood of it is great or virtually nil.

As to the latter, a recent poll showed that a majority of Muslims in America prefer Sharia law to American civil law. Note also the studies showing that young Muslims in the West are actually more Islamic and anti-Western than their elders.

In addition, note that amnesty duly passed into law would be as “legal” as our widely accepted legal immigration. Legal is not synonymous with smart.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to

Election 2016—The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher by Chris W. Cox

If there was a message I could get to every NRA member and lawful gun owner in America, it would be this: The 2016 election is under way and the stakes couldn’t be higher, so we have to get involved and go to work now!

For most Americans, odd-numbered years are not election years. We get a rest from the barrage of political ads, the omnipresent campaign signs and the never-ending coverage of local and national races by the news media. But this year, we can’t wait to get moving on 2016.

Before we get to next year’s pivotal races, there are five states with elections this year. On Nov. 3, voters in Virginia and New Jersey are electing state legislators; Kentuckians are electing statewide officers, including a new governor; and Mississippi and Louisiana will be electing statewide officers and state legislators.

In Mississippi, Gov. Phil Bryant, a strong NRA ally, is up for re-election. In Louisiana and Kentucky, the race is on to replace term-limited governors, and in both cases we have pro-gun candidates ready to step in. Endorsements and NRA Political Victory Fund grades for these races are included in this magazine for members in these states. (Members in Louisiana received their endorsement lists separately in the mail.) I strongly encourage every gun owner in these states to take action to ensure that our allies win these key elections.

In addition, there will be a very important vote this year in Texas, where voters will decide whether the Lone Star State adds the right to hunt and fish to its state constitution. This is a vital action to protect our treasured hunting heritage from attacks by animal rights activists and environmental extremists.

As important as these elections are, we must also look ahead. We all know what’s at stake.

We’ve seen how much damage an anti-gun president can do. Even with our victories beating back anti-gun legislation in Congress, President Barack Obama has used his executive authority to strip Americans of their Second Amendment-protected rights. In previous issues, I’ve described abuses from Obama’s bureaucrats at the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Social Security Administration and other agencies.

Enough is enough. In 2016, we have to do everything in our power to elect a president who respects our fundamental freedoms. The good news is that there are many solid pro-gun candidates in the race. Gun owners should start to get informed now on the position each candidate holds on our right to keep and bear arms.

But as important as the race for the White House is, it’s also critical that we keep control of the U.S. Senate in pro-gun hands.

Right now, there’s a pro-gun majority in the Senate, and every member of the majority leadership is a solid, NRA-endorsed, pro-gun ally. But—and this is critically important—the electoral map is not in our favor. Our opponents have far fewer seats to protect than do we.

To bring this home, consider that they need only five additional seats to make Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) the majority leader of the U.S. Senate! That’s right, one of the biggest enemies of our freedom, one of the most entrenched anti-gun voices of the past several decades, could take control.

We simply cannot allow that to happen. That’s why, when I say that 2016 starts now, it’s because we cannot afford to wait until next fall to get involved. We can’t even wait until the primaries start. There is just too much at stake.

We must work together—starting now—to protect our freedoms, not just for ourselves, but for future generations. Your NRA will do its part and we trust that gun owners throughout America will answer the call to win back the White House, increase the pro-gun majorities in the U.S. Congress and elect pro-gun officials in the states. And I’m confident that, through your efforts, we will succeed.

chris cox nraABOUT CHRIS W. COX

Chris W. Cox has served as the executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, the political and lobbying arm of the National Rifle Association, since 2002.

As NRA’s chief lobbyist and principal political strategist, Cox oversees nine NRA-ILA divisions – Federal Affairs, State & Local Affairs, Public Affairs, Research & Information, Grassroots, Hunting/Conservation/Wildlife, Office of Legislative Counsel, External Affairs (International) and Fiscal. He also serves as president of the NRA Freedom Action Foundation (NRA-FAF), which conducts non-partisan voter registration and citizen education, and chairman of NRA Country, which brings country music artists together with NRA members in support of our Second Amendment freedoms and hunting heritage.

The Denmark Delusion by Scott Sumner

Progressives like to point out (correctly) that the GOP tax plans are sheer fantasy. But as I often point out, talking politics immediately lowers your IQ by 25 points. And I’m afraid that when progressives start talking about Bernie Sanders they completely lose touch with reality.

They say, “He’s not really a socialist, he just favors the Scandinavian economic model.” But they don’t seem to know any thing about that model.

Let’s look at taxes, for instance. Here are the top rates on income (plus payroll) taxes:

And then here’s an indicator of progressivity:

In Denmark the top rate kicks in at 1.2 times average income. In the US, that would be around $60,000.

And then there are the VATs:

Denmark collects about 9.6 percent of GDP through the VAT, Norway collects about 7.8 percent, and Sweden collections about 9 percent of GDP. All three countries have VAT rates of 25 percent.

The United States does not have a national sales tax or VAT. Instead, states levy sales taxes. The average rate across the country is about 7 percent. The much lower rate only collects about 2 percent of U.S. GDP in revenue.

Bernie Sanders says he doesn’t want to raise taxes on the middle class, rather he wants the rich to pay more. Later he grudgingly concedes the middle class would pay a higher payroll tax for the nationalized heath care, but still doesn’t mention the 25% VAT.

Nor does Bernie mention that the Scandinavian countries have far lower corporate tax rates than America:

Nor does he mention this:

Finally, it is worth noting that the only Scandinavian country with an estate or inheritance tax is Denmark.

So the only way to finance a Nordic economic model is with massive (and regressive) taxes on the middle class, because that’s where the money is.

What about those 90% tax rates from the Eisenhower era that you often read about? There’s a reason the Nordics don’t use that policy: they collected very little revenue.

And I haven’t even mentioned that the Nordic countries are really big on privatization and deregulation. How often do you hear progressives calling for those things? When was the last time you heard a progressive advocating Sweden’s 100% nationawide school voucher program?

And it’s even worse. Sanders doesn’t tell us whether he likes the Swedish model of 1990, or the Swedish model of today. I’m pretty sure that back in 1990 he was telling people that he loved the Swedish model.

But that model failed, leading Sweden into economic crisis. It responded by dramatically downsizing its government relative to 1990 (admittedly, it’s still very big in absolute terms.) But I never hear the Sanders supporters telling us whether they like the 1990 socialist Sweden, or the 2015 neoliberal version? Ditto for Denmark.

And they never tell us how this European social welfare state is supposed to work in a big diverse continent like the US, when it doesn’t even work in a big diverse continent like Europe (especially not in Eastern and Southern Europe.)

Matt Yglesias says that places like Sicily are poor and dysfunctional because they have a bad culture. I don’t know if that’s right, but let’s say the progressives are right to “blame the victims” of poverty in Europe. Can we really be confident that our many diverse cultures are so superior to Sicily and Greece and Naples and Bulgaria and Romania?

Can we be sure that the poor Hispanics of East LA, the poor Native Americans of western South Dakota, the poor African Americans of Detroit, and the poor whites of West Virginia have Nordic-style cultures, and not southern and/or Eastern European-type cultures. Seriously? The Latin American country that tried the high-tax model is Brazil. Does the US ethnic makeup remind you more of Brazil or Denmark?

Sorry, but I can’t take seriously anything progressives write about Sanders. Those on the left are correct in ridiculing the tax ideas of Trump, and even the tax plans of the more “serious” GOP candidates do not raise enough revenue. I get that. But when evaluating their own side of the spectrum they lose all touch with reality.

Here’s Paul Krugman:

So now we have candidates proposing “wildly unaffordable” tax cuts. Can we start by noting that this isn’t a bipartisan phenomenon, that it’s not true that everyone does it?

Hillary Clinton isn’t proposing wildly unaffordable stuff; Bernie Sanders hasn’t offered details about how he’d pay for single-payer, but you can be sure that he would propose something.

Seriously? Sanders says he wants a Scandinavian style welfare state, without raising taxes on the middle class. And we are supposed to treat that seriously?

Then the left wonders why working class blacks and Hispanics are not flocking to Sanders. Maybe those minorities are smarter than then these puzzled pundits assume.

Maybe a Hispanic family with two people each making $30,000 to $35,000 doesn’t want to face a 60% income tax, plus a 25% VAT. Maybe they moved from some place like Brazil, and know what happens to all that money once a non-Nordic government gets their hands on it. Maybe they’d rather spend their own money.

Someone should go into working class black and Hispanic neighborhoods, with all the data on income and sales tax rates in Denmark, and ask people if they also want to pay those rates. You might be surprised by what you find.

A version of this post first appeared at the Money Illusion, where Scott blogs.

Scott SumnerScott Sumner

Scott B. Sumner is the director of the Program on Monetary Policy at the Mercatus Center and a professor at Bentley University. He blogs at the Money Illusion and Econlog.

Brandwatch: Tracking the Presidential Candidates’ Social Buzz

NEW YORK /PRNewswire/ — Brandwatch, the industry flagship for social intelligence, today launched its 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Data Visualization which analyzes, illustrates and interprets the public’s online conversation around each presidential candidate.

The 2016 Presidential Election Visualization – which will be updated in real-time at – will allow the general public to examine:

  • Individual Candidate Conversations: Each candidate’s conversation will be broken down across sentiment and volume of mentions to showcase fluctuations in their respective campaigns.
  • Candidates Within Their Party: As candidates fight to win their party’s nomination, the visualization will reveal how each candidate’s social presence compares to those against whom they are currently running.
  • Popular Issues: Major topics and issues being addressed within each party will be highlighted to expose which platforms and policies the candidates and their supporters address the most online.
  • Momentum Shifts: Each graphic will allow viewers to adjust the data timeframe between three months, two weeks or the past day to show how each candidate’s conversation has gained or lost momentum online.

Brandwatch’s live visualization will allow anyone to witness the public social media reaction to every aspect of a modern day presidential campaign. For example, statements and comments to the media, new campaign and social ads, late-night television appearances and debate commentary will be reflected in the data visualization.

In addition, Brandwatch will publish a monthly newsletter summarizing the major trends in online conversations for each candidate and political party. It will provide subscribers with a month-over-month look at how each candidate is fairing online, and who is losing or gaining ground in their pursuit of the Oval Office. To subscribe to the monthly 2016 Election Social Intelligence newsletter, contact

“Social media is becoming a new way to poll, even more so with accurate voter panels based on built-in demographics in our Brandwatch platform,” said Nate Walton, Director of Professional Services, Brandwatch. “Polling with social data gives us an edge over survey or phone data because it allows us to discover trends and dissect topics in near real-time. In social the panel doubles as a focus group, telling us what to look for while also providing insights. Favored candidates, political villains, and the issues touching a nerve change minute to minute, day to day. Our 2016 election data visualization will run for the entire year leading up to election night. The goal is to accurately, and beautifully, analyze this social election.”

Visit the Brandwatch 2016 Presidential Election Visualization, here:


Brandwatch is the world’s leading social intelligence company. Brandwatch Analytics and Vizia products fuel smarter decision making around the world.

The Brandwatch Analytics platform gathers millions of online conversations every day and provides users with the tools to analyze them, empowering the world’s most admired brands and agencies to make insightful, data-driven business decisions. Vizia distributes visually-engaging insights to the physical places where the action happens.

The Brandwatch platform, ranked highest in customer satisfaction by G2Crowd in the Spring 2015 social media monitoring report, is used by over 1,200 brands and agencies, including Cisco, Whirlpool, British Airways, Sony Music, and Dell. Brandwatch continues on its impressive business trajectory, with more than 50 percent of revenues now from North America and strong tech industry backing from venture capitalists including Partech Ventures, Highland Europe, Nauta Capital, Gorkana and independent investors.

GOP Debate: No-Fly Zones, Military Spending, Confronting Putin

Military spending, the implementation of a no-fly zone over Syria and policy towards Russia were hot topics at the November 10th Republican presidential debate. The following is a summary of what each candidate said in regards to national security, as well as Lindsey Graham who was denied participation but commented online.

Donald Trump

Trump stood out as the only candidate to support Russia’s military intervention in Syria, even going so far as to say he gets along with Russian President Putin. Trump said he has no issue if Putin wants to “knock the hell out of ISIS, apparently unaware that the primary targets of Russian airstrikes are not ISIS or Al-Qaeda. He said he’d tell other countries like Germany to defend Ukraine instead of U.S. taxpayer money being spent.

Trump and Rand Paul were the only two candidates to call for the U.S. to stay out of the civil war in Syria. Trump said he was told by a U.S. general recently that we don’t know who the Syrian rebels are and so he opposes arming forces that could be worse than the Assad regime.

He supported increased military spending, arguing that the deterrence it creates will save money.

Trump is currently the frontrunner. He is leading nationally with a polling average of 25%; an increase of 2% since the last debate. He is tied for the lead in Iowa with 24% (3-point increase); New Hampshire with 27% (3-point decrease) and South Carolina with 29% (4-point decrease). You can read our factsheet on his stances related to Islamist extremism here.

Ben Carson

Carson supports President Obama’s deployment of 50 special operations personnel to Syria to train “moderate” rebels, saying that it is better than nothing. He said the U.S. needs a presence in the area to counter Russia and China.

Carson made an important point about the need to make the Islamic State (ISIS) “look like losers” because the appearance of success is what drives their strength. The Clarion Project has written about how jihadists rely upon success to validate their ideology. He said that the U.S. military should help retake an Iraqi outfield outside of Anbar Province to begin destroying the Islamic State caliphate.

Carson is currently the runner-up. He is in second place nationally with a polling average of 24%. He ties Trump for the lead in Iowa with 24%; is in second in New Hampshire with 15% and is in second in South Carolina with 23%. You can read our factsheet on his stances related to Islamist extremism here.

Marco Rubio

Rubio’s biggest clash was with Rand Paul over his proposal to increase defense spending by $1 trillion, with Rubio deriding him as a “committed isolationist.” He had another big moment when he said that Islamist terrorists do not hate the U.S. just because of its support for Israel, but because of its values such as allowing women to drive.

Rubio called for countering Russian influence in the Middle East and described Putin as an organized crime figure.

Rubio is in third place nationally with a polling average of 12%, a 3-point increase since the last debate. He is in third in Iowa with 13% (3-point increase); third in New Hampshire with 10% (2-point increase) and tied with Cruz for third in South Carolina with 10% (2-point increase).

Ted Cruz

Cruz shined during the discussion about increasing the defense budget by saying there’s a middle path where the cost is paid for by cutting government spending on programs like subsidies. He said, “If you think defending the country is expensive, try not defending it.”

Cruz is in fourth place nationally with a polling average of 10%. He is in fourth place in Iowa with 12%; in sixth place in New Hampshire with 7% and tied with Rubio for third place in South Carolina with 10%. You can read our factsheet on his stances related to Islamist extremism here.

Jeb Bush

Bush said that Islamic terrorism is the biggest threat with the Islamic State caliphate growing to the size of Indiana. Bush supports using the U.S. military to implement a no-fly zone over Syria and arming the remnants of the Free Syrian Army, an umbrella of “moderate” Syrian rebels. He said that creating safe zones inside Syria would stem the flow of refugees.

Bush is in fifth place nationally with a polling average of 6%. He is in fifth place in Iowa (6%); fifth place in New Hampshire (7%) and fifth place in South Carolina (7%). You can read our factsheet on his stances related to Islamist extremism here.

Rand Paul

Paul spoke out the strongest against having the U.S. military impose a no-fly zone over Syria (which he mistakenly referred to as Iraq) and pointed out that Russia already owns the skies over the country. He said that supporters of a no-fly zone would have to be willing to shoot down Russian aircraft and to send their children to possibly die in another Middle East war.

He also blamed his competitors who support arming “moderate” Syrian rebels for contributing to the rise of ISIS. Paul pointed out that the rebels are allies of Al-Qaeda.

He criticized Rubio’s plan for a $1 trillion increase in military spending, mentioning that the U.S. defense budget is more than the next 10 countries combined. Rubio responded by calling him a “committed isolationist.” He criticized Fiorina for saying she would not speak to Russian President Putin, at least for awhile.

Paul is tied for sixth place nationally with Fiorina and Kasich at 3% in the polling average. He is in 11th place in Iowa with 2%; ninth place in New Hampshire with 3% and 10th place in South Carolina with 1%. You can read our factsheet on his stances related to Islamist extremism here.

John Kasich

Kasich spoke in favor of a no-fly zone along the Turkish and Jordanian borders that could potentially shoot down Russian aircraft if there were multiple violations. He would also counter Russia by providing weapons to Ukraine and working with Finland and the Baltic States.

Kasich said he would end all public criticism of Israel and be committed to keeping the Jordanian monarchy in power “for 1,000 years.” He praised Egypt as a “moderate” force along with Bahrain. He would demand that Saudi Arabia stop its funding of radical clerics around the world, but continue to work with the Saudis in areas of mutual interest.

He also would have a policy of responding to cyber attacks with retaliation to destroy the attacker’s mechanisms.

Kasich is tied for sixth place nationally with Paul and Fiorina at 3%. He is in 10th place in Iowa with 2%; fourth place in New Hampshire with 9% and seventh place in South Carolina with 2%. You can read our factsheet on his stances related to Islamist extremism here.

Carly Fiorina

Fiorina clashed with Rand Paul when she said she would not talk to Putin, but then clarified to say she’d be willing to speak to Russia after a period of time where strength had been established. She expressed support for a no-fly zone over Syria and for providing increased aid to Arab allies to fight the Islamic State.

Fiorina said that Jordanian King Abdullah has been denied requests for bombs and material aid and Egypt has been denied intelligence-sharing and that she’d grant both. She would grant requests for arms to the Kurds and ally with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, as well.

To pressure Russia, she would rebuild the 6th Fleet, assemble anti-ballistic missile systems in Poland, conduct military exercises in the Baltic States and possibly send a few thousand troops to Germany.

Fiorina is tied for sixth place nationally with Paul and Kasich at 3%. She is in sixth place in Iowa at 5%; seventh in New Hampshire with 6% and sixth in South Carolina with 4%. You can read our factsheet on her stances related to Islamist extremism here.

Mike Huckabee

Huckabee’s brightest moment came when he was discussing the Syrian refugee crisis. He said that only one of five refugees in Europe is actually Syrian and accepting large amounts of is a security and economic risk.

Huckabee said the U.S. should instead provide humanitarian aid to the refugees to keep them closer to their home, instead of bringing them into America where they may have trouble assimilating. He is open to accepting refugees who are fully vetted.

He blamed the administration’s Middle East strategy for creating the refugee crisis and allowing Christians to be slaughtered and not helping the Kurds enough. Huckabee said he’d pressure neighbors like Saudi Arabia to take care of the situation.

Huckabee is tied with Christie for ninth place nationally at 2%. He is in eighth place in Iowa with 3%; 12th place in New Hampshire with less than 1% and eighth place in South Carolina with 2%. You can read our factsheet on his stances related to Islamist extremism here.

Chris Christie

Christie’s biggest moment on security came when he discussed how he’d respond to cyber attacks from adversaries like China. Christie said he is a victim of Chinese hacking and that they stole his social security number and fingerprints when they hacked into governmental personnel data.

Under his administration, “They’re going to see cyber warfare like they have never seen before” if they did it again. Christie would respond by hacking into the Chinese government and publishing incriminating information like corruption for its population to see. This is a policy that Christie would presumably apply to other countries involved in cyber attacks on the U.S. like Iran and North Korea.

Christie is tied with Huckabee for ninth place nationally at 2%. He is in ninth place in Iowa with 3%; eighth place in New Hampshire with 5% (a 2-point increase) and 11th place in South Carolina with 1%.

Bobby Jindal

Jindal made no significant statements regarding national security policy.

Jindal is tied with Santorum for 11th place nationally with 1%. He is in seventh place in Iowa with 3%; tenth in New Hampshire with less than 1% and 13th place in South Carolina with less than 1%. You can read our factsheet on his stances related to Islamist extremism here.

Rick Santorum

Santorum made no significant statements regarding national security policy.

Santorum is tied with Jindal for 11th place nationally with 1%. He is in 12th place in Iowa with 1%; 13th place in New Hampshire with less than 1% and 12th place in South Carolina with 1%. You can read our factsheet on his stances related to Islamist extremism here.

Lindsey Graham

Graham did not qualify for either debate, but commented online during the event. He mocked Rand Paul for opposing increases to the defense budget, saying that the Army is on track to be the smallest it’s been since 1940 and the Navy will be the smallest since 1945.

Graham also made some interesting comments about Egypt. He said that “so goes Egypt, so goes the Middle East,” and that he would help President El-Sisi confront radical Islam but pressure him to avoid strong-arm tactics to maintain power and to permit free press and rule of law.

“To win the war against radical Islam, there has to be economic and social justice,” Graham wrote online.

Graham is in 14th place nationally with less than 1%. He is in 13thplace in Iowa with less than 1%; 15th place in New Hampshire with less than 1% and ninth place in South Carolina with 2%. You can read our factsheet on his stances related to Islamist extremism here.

George Pataki & Jim Gilmore

George Pataki and Jim Gilmore did not qualify for either debate. You can read our factsheet on Pataki’s platform here and our factsheet on Gilmore here.

You can read the Clarion Project’s factsheets on each candidate’s positions related to Islamist extremism here.


Ryan Mauro is’s national security analyst, a fellow with Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security. Mauro is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio. Read more, contact or arrange a speaking engagement.


Democrat Candidates: Wide Differences on Islamist Terror

GOP Debate on Mute About National Security

CAIR Berates Trump for Support of Closing Extremist Mosques

National Security Highlights From First Democratic Debate

The Dems Should Practice What They Preach

A few weeks ago I was speaking with some neighbors at a community HOA meeting and a gentleman named Jim approached me with some suggestions. Jim was visibly frustrated at the direction of the country under the policies of President Barack Obama and suggested the Democrats should practice what they preach. When I asked him what he meant, he mentioned a series of proposals the Democrats should consider for their national convention. At first, I laughed with Jim, not at him, but then I thought to myself, “Jim is right.”

If the Democrats really believe in the things Jim mentioned, there is no good reason for them to not take a leadership role and implement the following 4 suggestions at their convention:

  1. The Democratic National Convention should be declared a “gun-free” zone. The Democrats have largely coalesced behind a gun-control legislative strategy that makes public safety contingent on a criminal’s adherence to the rule of law. The gun-control wing of the Democratic Party is trying to convince law-abiding Americans that our current set of firearm laws, which criminals ignore, can be supplanted by a new set of firearm laws, which the criminals will surely obey. The Democrats should experiment with this theory at their convention. After all, if criminals are willing to change their behavior through a new government edict then they will surely change their behavior if the very same politicians and bureaucrats get together and declare the convention to be “gun-free.” Although the United States Secret Service, my former employer, is charged with securing the event, they can save the time, and expense, by forgoing magnetometers and leaving their weapons in the office because the “gun-free” status of the event will deter any criminal or terrorist from entering the event with a firearm.                                                                                  
  2. The Democratic National Convention should waive any photo identification requirements for entry to the event. The Democratic Party’s fight against voter ID laws is premised on the idea that voter fraud is a non-existent problem and that being asked to provide an identification at the polls is an unnecessary obstacle. If Democrats believe providing an identification when deciding the future of our country is too high of a hill to climb, then asking for identification at a glorified political rally such as the Democratic convention is completely unnecessary. As a member of the Secret Service assigned to the 2004 Democratic National Convention, I received a very expensive and sophisticated credential used to access the event. Looking back on this, I now see what a waste of taxpayer money these credentials were. We should have just followed the lead of the Democratic Party and declared the event an “identification-free” zone.

To read more, click here.

Where do the 2016 Presidential Candidates Stand on Sexual Justice?

In light of the public health crisis of pornography, rising rates of campus and military sexual assault, and the prominent issue of human trafficking, America needs a president who will stand for sexual justice.

The National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE) released the 2016 Presidential Candidates Survey on Sexual Exploitation today, in an effort to gauge the positions of all presidential candidates regarding the multi-faceted spectrum of sexual harm.

Which candidates will publicly speak about issues like federal obscenity laws, or websites like that profiteer by advertising the sale of people (who are often trafficked) for sex? Which candidates are going to prioritize solving human trafficking, or ensuring restitution for victims of digital media sexual exploitation abuse of children? NCOSE believes in sexual justice – freedom from sexual exploitation, objectification, and violence. It’s vital for the presidential candidates to make their positions known.

ACTION: Ask the candidates to respond to this survey, and to defend dignity, here.

To learn more about this survey, and to view the complete list of questions, visit:

Six in 10 Senior Citizens disprove of the job Obama is doing as President

WASHINGTON, /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Marking one year to the 2016 general elections, Bring The Vote Home (BTVH) – a nationwide initiative that is surveying seniors on a wide range of issues while empowering them to engage fully in America’s electoral process – today released the results of polling data that surveyed more than 2,000 registered voters over age 65. The data found broadly-held concerns that cut across party lines: more than six in 10 respondents (63 percent) disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing as President and nearly seven in 10 seniors (69 percent) think 2016 Presidential candidates from both the Republican and Democratic parties are not paying enough attention to issues affecting seniors.

On the issues of the economy, national security, health care, seniors, women, education and energy, 38 percent of senior registered voters said candidates’ position on seniors’ issues is of greatest importance to them when casting a vote for Senators or Congressmen. The health of the nation’s economy came in second, with 25 percent of voters most concerned about this issue area.

When respondents were asked about each of the leading Democratic and Republican candidates individually, the majority of respondents expressed a surprising lack of confidence in their ability to handle issues affecting seniors. For example, 55 percent of senior voters do not trust Hilary Clinton to handle seniors’ issues and 48 percent do not think Donald Trump is up to the task. These views carry over to the national political parties as well, with 41 percent of senior voters saying they trust the Democratic Party and 42 percent saying they trust the Republican Party to best handle seniors’ issues.

“These poll results should grab the attention of every candidate’s campaign as they strategize for the coming year,” stated Eric Berger, CEO of the Partnership for Quality Home Healthcare. “This polling data reveals that American seniors want a candidate who will be an advocate for them on issues specific to those over 65, including healthcare.”

The BTVH poll also concluded that individual states have room to improve helping seniors cast their vote, with only four in 10 seniors indicating their state does a good job educating homebound seniors on how to register or obtain an absentee ballot.

For this reason, BTVH has launched a new website that offers seniors, disabled Americans, and their healthcare clinicians the information they need to register to vote and receive an absentee ballot. BTVH was originally developed so that Medicare home health patients (who are homebound) could fully participate in the democratic process by enabling them register to vote and obtain absentee ballots. BTVH has expanded to offer additional resources, including information about their lawmakers’ views on home health and senior polling data on the views and opinions of American seniors.

“America’s seniors dedicated their working lives to protecting and building our country,” added Berger. “That is why the Bring The Vote Home initiative is dedicated to ensuring that their voices are heard.  Through its voter registration, absentee ballot, candidate information, and monthly polling programs, Bring The Vote Home is working to enable all seniors – homebound and otherwise – to be full and equal participants in America’s democratic process.”

The BTVH survey was conducted as part of a Morning Consult Poll from October 29 to November 1, 2015. The poll surveyed 2,003 registered voters, age 65 and older, and has a margin error of two percentage points.

To view the National Seniors Poll Charts, click here.

To read the National Seniors Poll Results Memo, click here.


Bring the Vote Home is a nationwide initiative that is surveying seniors on a wide range of issues while empowering them to engage fully in America’s electoral process.  To learn more, visit