Cruz: His Momma is Natural Born. Thus, So is He.

Stunning pundits who said a conservative could not score high in New Hampshire, congrats to Ted Cruz for finishing strong in the primary.

Okay folks, here is why Ted Cruz is eligible to be president according to the Constitution. First, I wish to give a shout-out to my dear friend, Mike “Mr Constitution” Holler, author of “The Constitution Made Easy.” Mike explained and confirmed Cruz’s eligibility.

In a nutshell, the first immigration law passed by Congress and signed by George Washington says, “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens…” An additional qualification is that the father of such children must have lived at some time in the US. There you have it folks.

The Congressional Research Service published a paper on this question.

“Considering the history of the constitutional provision, the clause’s apparent intent, the English common law expressly applicable in the American colonies and in all of the original states, the common use and meaning of the phrase “natural born” subject in England and the American colonies in the 1700s, and the subsequent action of the first Congress in enacting the Naturalization Act of 1790 (expressly defining the term “natural born citizen” to include those born abroad to U.S. citizens), it appears that the most logical inferences would indicate that the phrase “natural born Citizen” would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth.” Such interpretation, as evidenced by over a century of American case law, would include as natural born citizens those born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction regardless of the citizenship status of one’s parents, or those born abroad of one or more parents who are U.S. citizens (as recognized by statute), as opposed to a person who is not a citizen by birth and is thus an “alien” required to go through the legal process of naturalization to become U.S. Citizen.”

While some question Cruz’s eligibility out of respect for the Constitution, I suspect others have ulterior motives.

GOP establishment elites are exploiting ignorance regarding Cruz’s eligibility because they despise Cruz. Who does this guy think he is bucking the system; standing up for The People against the Washington Cartel; getting into the face of GOP Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell? By the way, McConnell announced that the GOP will not oppose Obama in anyway this year; fearful it would anger voters and hurt the GOP’s chances of winning the White House

McConnell’s surrender gifted Obama free rein to continue regarding the U.S. Constitution as little more than toilet paper. Thus, our outlaw president will fast-track implementing as many anti-American and anti-God leftist dream initiatives as possible in his remaining time in office.

Ted Cruz has been and continues to be a rare voice sounding-the-alarm and pushing back against Obama repealing our God-given freedom and liberty.

Then, there are those who simply do not believe a true conservative can win the general election. They are using the bogus issue of Cruz’s eligibility as cover for not supporting a fellow Christian and stand up guy.

Voters who do not believe a true conservative can win the presidency are, in essence, saying they believe we have lost our country. Righteousness, morals and traditional values no longer rule the day. Thus, Cruz is too goody-two-shoes for the masses.

Well, I do not believe that folks. I believe that if we rally behind Ted Cruz, a good man can still win the presidency in America.

Proverbs 29:2 – “When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.”

Let’s put the “righteous in authority” folks, Ted Cruz.

No, Women Are Not Obliged to Vote for Hillary by Sarah Skwire

“There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other.”

It’s one of Madeline Albright’s most famous lines, and she’s brought it out on any number of occasions. Starbucks even put it on a coffee cup. I understand why. It’s eminently quotable and suggests a kind of tough-minded sisterhood that can be appealing. I can see its ready application, for example, when helping a drunk friend get home safely from a party or when holding another mom’s infant so she can use the restroom in peace.

But Albright should have been a lot more careful before she applied her signature line to what she sees as an obligation for women to vote for Hillary Clinton in the democratic primaries. Because the minute that you take her line out of the context of relationships among people and move it to the political context it loses whatever tough-minded charm it has, and it becomes a bullying, sexist, prescriptivist piece of obnoxious nonsense.

I don’t believe in hell, so threatening me with it has never had much purchase. But to the best of my understanding, for religions that do believe in hell, the things that get people sent there are sins against God or against other people. Taking a political action that someone doesn’t agree with (voting for someone other than Hillary Clinton) doesn’t seem to fit that bill in any way. Suggesting that it does mingles church and state in ways that sit uncomfortably with long American traditions.

And even if voting in a way that Albright thinks is wrong is a sin that leads to damnation, if Albright really is a believer in eternal torment and hellfire, she should probably be led by the many New Testament verses that counsel believers to use gentle correction and instruction toward those who have gone astray.

If Albright isn’t a believer in eternal torment and hellfire, she might be well advised to keep theology out of her politics entirely.

But even if we leave aside the myriad objections that arise when a bullying and inaccurate theology is dragged into the political realm, Albright’s insistence that women have a duty to vote for Clinton because she is also a woman remains moronic.

It is sexism of the oldest and most annoying type. With one comment, Albright managed to suggest the following:

  1. Women should shut up and vote the way they are told to vote.
  2. All women should vote the same way.
  3. All women have the same interests and objectives.
  4. Women who have made choices others disagree with have chosen incorrectly and must be brought back into line.
  5. Women cannot be trusted to recognize (and vote in favor of) their best interests.

Women have, over the centuries, gotten quite practiced at responding to these particular bits of idiocy. So while it’s disconcerting, at best, to hear this tosh from a woman of Albright’s stature and experience, it’s not particularly challenging to formulate an intelligent response. In fact, one thing that makes Albright’s comment so maddening is that, to many women, it seems so incredibly retrograde when applied to politics. It ignores the very real progress made by 21st century feminist thinkers in recognizing the different kinds of lives lived by different kinds of women — from different classes, of different colors, with different religions, of different sexualities, and in different bodies. By shouting right over that kind of nuance, Albright’s comment sounds like it’s stuck in the feminism of the 1960s.

But it’s worse than that. In its gender essentialism — its insistence that women are all women and therefore all alike — Albright’s comment could have been ripped right out of the first years of the 20th century. Or the 19th century. Or the 18th.

Happily, we have had Mary Wollstonecraft around for the past nearly 225 years to respond to that kind of nonsense. Albright would do better if, like Wollstonecraft, she would “consider women in the grand light of human creatures, who, in common with men, are placed on this earth to unfold their faculties.”

Telling a woman how she should vote because she is a woman is no less insulting than telling her that she shouldn’t vote because she is a woman. Both approaches deny an individual the opportunity to unfold her unique faculties as she sees fit. Both approaches reduce a complex individual to a single characteristic. Politics routinely does this to all sorts of groups — women, people of color, people of faith, gun owners — and it is in every case an insult to the dignity of the individual.

But Albright’s comment does something even worse. Or perhaps, for our purposes, it does something even better. Albright’s comment reveals the truth about politics. And that truth is that Clinton’s run for the White House, like Sanders’s run, or Trump’s, or Bush’s, or Cruz’s, or anyone’s, is not about serving the people.

We are told to vote for Clinton because we have a special duty to help other women. But Albright and Clinton do not mean that we have a special duty to the women standing next to us in line at the grocery store, or to the women who are suffering from poverty, or out of work, or abused by their spouses, or harassed by their bosses. They mean that we have a special duty to one woman: Hillary Clinton. It is our duty, as women, to help her to a spot in the White House, because no woman has done that before. Seeing her up there proves … something. And it will make us all feel … something.

That’s pretty weak tea, Albright.

But it is, at least, weak tea that exposes the fundamental truth about politics. It’s not about helping women. Or men. Or people of color. Or the unemployed. Or whomever we are told it is about helping.

It’s about helping the politician.

And I’ll be damned if I’m going to do that.

Sarah SkwireSarah Skwire

Sarah Skwire is the poetry editor of the Freeman and a senior fellow at Liberty Fund, Inc. She is a poet and author of the writing textbook Writing with a Thesis. She is a member of the FEE Faculty Network.

VIDEO: Terrorists to Register 1 Million U.S. Muslim Voters

Nihad Awad, Executive Director of the Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR), calls for Muslims to use their mosques for Voter Registration and Polling Stations with the aim of registering 1,000,000 Muslim Voters!

According to the Investigative Project on Terrorism:

Nihad Awad is among the founders of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and serves as its executive director. In that role, he has attained a degree of political clout, invited to stand beside President George W. Bush at the Islamic Center of Washington days after the 9/11 attacks. Before that, Vice President Al Gore appointed Awad to a civil rights advisory panel for the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security.

These are influential recognitions for a man with past ties to Hamas, designated a foreign terrorist organization by the United States in 1995. In fact, Awad publicly declared “I am in support of the Hamas movement,” during a March 1994 symposium at Barry University.


The aim of CAIR is to CHANGE the way AMERICA looks.

Click here to read the full dossier on CAIR.

TrustTheVote™ Project Launched

WASHINGTON, D.C. /PRNewswire/ — 2016 NASS Conference – The non-profit technology research institute Open Source Election Technology (OSET) Foundation today announced that it is collaborating with Amazon Web Services (AWS) on the Foundation’s TrustTheVote Project.  The project is an open source initiative that makes the software used to run elections free to the States and counties managing elections. OSET and AWS are working together on thought leadership and outreach to champion the cause with decision-makers and researchers also working to improve elections. The cloud-driven open source approach means that anyone can adopt and adapt OSETs existing apps for voter services, like online registration and results reporting, and launch these apps and services faster and more cost effectively.  With the open source nature of the tools, modification and improvement is possible by anyone.

Finding ways to innovate the critical infrastructure of elections administration is imperative. In 2014 the US had 178,636 election precincts and over 114,000 physical polling places spread out over 7000 Election Jurisdictions in all 50 states and 3,143 Counties. Elections occur every week, including primaries, ballot initiatives, and voter referenda. American University estimated that there were 519,682 elected officials United States in 2012. A study released in September 2015 by the Brennan Center for Justice revealed that the vast majority of the nation is relying on archaic voting technology with severely limited budgets to make any improvements to either elections administration tools or voting machinery.

OSET launched the TrustTheVote Project to foster innovation in elections technology, which is outdated, difficult to maintain, and in the case of voting machinery, relies on proprietary software that’s difficult to inspect or audit.  The administration tools project is run on AWS’s GovCloud (US), because it offers a cost effective, secure, compliant, and scalable solution that doesn’t require buying hardware, and can be delivered easily anywhere in the country. OSET’s TrustTheVote Project so far includes software for handling voter registration services, ballot generation, and election results reporting.

The OSET Foundation’s goal is to improve the critical infrastructure that makes fair and verifiable elections possible and help revitalize an industry that needs innovation.  “Cloud technology combined with open data, open standards, and open source development has the potential to be a game-changer in election administration,” said Teresa Carlson, VP, Worldwide Public Sector, Amazon Web Services, Inc. “The OSET Foundation is taking advantage of the cloud’s ability to help lower costs, while increasing innovation in voter registration services, creating ballots, and reporting election results.”  Gregory Miller, Chief Development Officer for the OSET Foundation explained, “There are several aspects of managing elections that can be innovated. There is enormous opportunity to innovate the many aspects of managing election processes.”

AWS is supporting OSET with cloud computing credits, and elections administration software will be available on AWS Marketplace, and helping with outreach to elections officials. “Now on the AWS GovCloud (US), the TrustTheVote Project technology can be developed, demonstrated, and proven for any State or county looking to rapidly deploy election administration services, while gaining the agility, cost savings, compliance, and scalability offered by the AWS Cloud,” said John Sebes, Chief Technology Officer for the OSET Foundation.

For example, the TrustTheVote Project offers open source online voter registration and services portal software for any State or county to use for a fraction of the cost of building such web services from the ground up.  “We are thrilled to host this technology on the AWS Cloud to further our open source efforts to innovate election administration in the digital age for the benefit of the public,” added Miller.  “Cloud-based voter registration, ballot design, and elections results reporting is an ideal start to lowering costs and improving the public trust in our democracy. I anticipate this is the beginning of a unique collaboration to help develop new elections technology for the public benefit.”

About the OSET Foundation

The Open Source Election Technology (“OSET”) Foundation is a 9-year old tax-exempt 501.c.3 non-profit technology research and development institute located in the heart of the Silicon Valley focused on electoral innovation.  OSET is led by a team of social entrepreneurs comprised of seasoned technologists with extensive hardware, software, and systems design experience from leading Tech Sector companies including Apple, Netscape, Facebook, and Sun Microsystems.  OSET is focused on making voting systems more verifiable, accurate, secure, and transparent using open source principles to treat this technology as “critical democracy infrastructure.”  The OSET mission is to reinvent voting technology using open data, open standards, and open source in order to increase confidence in elections and their outcomes, and improve voter participation.  The outcome of that mission will deliver lower cost higher quality publicly owned election technology and rejuvenate the commercial industry to deliver, deploy, service, and support resulting democratic voting systems globally.

RELATED ARTICLE: Is Twitter Censoring Non-Politically Correct Viewpoints?

Bernie trounced Hillary in NH Primary despite his Israel Hating Advisers

Bernie Sanders may have trounced Hillary Clinton in yesterday’s New Hampshire primary by a significant double digit margin with his Wall Street bashing and Swedish-style entitlement giveaways trolling for millennials and the economically disaffected.  However little known are his foreign policy advisers who are notoriously anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian. Among them are Jim Zogby of the Arab American Institute, former Defense official Larry Korb and, of course, the Soros-funded operatives of J Street.

Adam Credo’s article in yesterday’s Washington Free Beacon article noted the views of these ‘foreign policy’ advisers, “Meet Bernie Sanders’ Israel Hating Advisers.”   You thought his stint in a left Socialist Hashomer Hatzair Israeli kibbutz in his 20’s would make him a lifelong Zionist defender of the Jewish State. As my mythic cousin Vinny from Brooklyn would say, FERGEDABOTIT. Just look at his brother who lives in the UK, a supporter of the anti-Israel pro-Palestinian Labor Party leader, Jeremy Corbyn.  Bernie congratulations Corbyn on his victory winning the Labor Party leadership. The UK Daily Mail article  noted his email to Corbyn saying:

The Democrat presidential hopeful said he is ‘delighted’ to support a leader who ‘tells the billionaire class that they cannot have it all’.

‘At a time of mass income and wealth inequality throughout the world, I am delighted to see that the British Labor Party has elected Jeremy Corbyn as its new leader,’ he said in an email to Daily Mail Online.

‘We need economies that work for working families, not just the people on top.’

His words come after then Argentina’s President  Cristina Kirchner, since ousted by conservative successor Mauricio Macri, gushed that ‘hope has triumphed’ and that Corbyn ‘stands with Argentina’ in their anti-American stance.

Bernie also has a close friendship with notorious left wing anti-Israel advocate Noam Chomsky who endorsed him for President. They both share an Israeli kibbutz experience that in Chomsky’s case bolstered his Israel hating obsessions.

Watch this You Tube video of Chomsky’s endorsement of Bernie for President:

Note these comments from Noah Pollak, executive director of the Emergency Committee for Israel, Michael Rubin, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and Yehudit Barsky, fellow at Institute for the Study of Global Anti-Semitism and Policy in Kredo’s Washington Free Beacon article:

Sanders, who is Jewish and had family members slaughtered during the Holocaust, recently disclosed that his top foreign policy advisers include J Street, a dovish Middle East advocacy group that backs some of Congress’ most vocal critics of Israel, former assistant Secretary of Defense Larry Korb, and James Zogby, an Israel detractor who heads the Arab American Institute.

The inclusion of these advisers in the Sanders’ campaign, which has already come under fire for ignoring prominent Jewish-American political organizations, has prompted speculation from some that the presidential hopeful will pursue anti-Israel foreign policy priorities.

“Bernie seems to care very little about foreign policy, and so his views are shaped inordinately by advisers,” said Noah Pollak, executive director of the Emergency Committee for Israel, an advocacy organization. “And now we know who those advisers are. Two of them—Zogby and J Street—are leading anti-Israel apologists for terrorism. By his association with these extremist groups, Bernie fails the commander-in-chief test.”

“If advisers are a crystal ball to the future of foreign policy, then Sanders seeks a policy which doubles down on many of the failed assumptions that have undercut Obama’s policies,” said Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon adviser and terrorism analyst. “America’s adversaries are real and are motivated by ideology rather than grievance. To rest American national security on the good will of anti-American despots and Islamists is never a good gamble.”

Zogby has accused the Jewish state of committing a “Holocaust” against the Palestinians and has referred to Israelis as “Nazis.” He has also described sitting members of Congress as “Israel firsters,” an anti-Semitic trope that implies dual loyalty to the Jewish state.
Zogby also has come under fire for exploiting the memory of the Holocaust for political purposes.

Zogby claimed in a 2010 blog post for the Huffington Post that “the plight of Palestinians is to the Arabs, what the Holocaust is to Jews world-wide.”
His comparison immediately drew outrage, with researchers from the UK Media Watch organization describing it as “grievously insulting.”
“Nothing that I could say to highlight his words would make them any more insulting or horrid than they are on their own,” a representative of that group wrote at the time.

“Zogby has two goals: to make Arab Americans more powerful than Jewish Americans and to be their preeminent leader,” Yehudit Barsky, a fellow at the Institute for the Study of Global Anti-Semitism and Policy, wrote in a profile about Zogby’s anti-Israel attitudes.

J Street has faced similar criticism for its efforts to pressure Israel into making security concessions to the Palestinians that could endanger its survival.

J Street accused the Jewish state of “fanning growing flames of anti-Semitism” due to its efforts to stop daily attacks on civilians during Israel’s 2014 battle against Hamas terrorists.

The group’s leaders also have accused leading Israeli politicians of being racists.

We’ll see how Bernie Sanders fares in the upcoming Democratic primaries.  Given his radical background there was a reason why the media took to calling the city he was elected to serve the People’s Republic of Burlington.  With the FBI released a letter yesterday that Hillary is under investigation because of alleged confidential intelligence abuses using her private email server, you never know what can happen next in the 2016 Democrat Presidential nomination race.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.

Dear GOP Establishment: You’re Fired!

While political analysts have been scratching their collective heads over the 2016 race to the White House, for the average political spectator, the fissures and fractures of a broken establishment, at least for the GOP, became glaringly apparent on the evening of President Obama’s final State of the Union.

Their pick for a Republican response to President Obama’s speech was South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, a seemingly perfect messenger.

However, something went horribly wrong during the course of the address when the disconnect with the party majority was clear.

What GOP strategists had hoped would be a creation of the Nikki “Fresh Face” Haley State of the Union response, resulted in a Nikki “Backlash” Haley rancor instead that set itself up to be perfect Sarah Palin sequel, you betcha. The Nikki Haley litmus test exposed an internal state of confusion within the old guard, further reinforced in the following weeks by real life Sarah Palin’s endorsement of one Donald J. Trump, not to mention other subsequent and normally highly unlikely endorsements from Jerry Falwell, Jr. and Willie Robertson.

In a surprise outcome, the people didn’t really buy in to the message of the youngest current governor in the United States who also happens to be pretty, as she tested the waters to see if women, swing voters, minorities (including immigrants) would follow suit. “Operation Fresh Face” backfired, leaving ordinary conservatives wondering if we are dumb or just plain stupid.  Surely, the governor with the least amount of experience and the most commercial face will be able to cast the future vision of the party.

Only one problem.  Nikki Haley, like most liberals, despises the Republican party base and its current front runners.  And why?  Because they sound too angry.

In an effort to purify the party, she picked up rocks and threw them at her own people, rather than taking her chance in the national spotlight to oppose what the majority of conservatives would perceive as the current failing administration.  She tackled what she thought were the biggest demons and, meanwhile, failed to see that she was standing inside a burning house.

What Nikki Haley failed to realize, is that plenty of regular pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-gun folks would rather trump the establishment by casting a vote for what that might ordinarily be considered a less than optimal choice with, at times, reprehensible rhetoric, simply because he is under no one’s thumb.

If ever there was a Nikki Haley campaign for Vice-President, it suffered a failed launch on the night of the SOTU.  Her only success was to finally put a nail in the coffin of conservative voters’ hopes that established GOP decision makers are actually listening to their base.  But should events turn beyond all reason, it is now clear that the only thing Haley has established is that she would make an excellent running mate for someone like a super PAC hopeful Jeb Bush.

Moreover, that both liberals and conservatives alike should kiss the establishment as they once knew it goodbye, is the hallmark of this 2016 presidential race.  Loyal modern day liberals stand by while Bernie Sanders steps out of the shadows to give Hillary night sweats.   The Pinterest generation has put their 27 dollars worth where their mouth once was:  Nobody has to do the thinking for us.  We want action, not bureaucracy.  Meanwhile, in both establishments, the most sought after strategists in the world are too entangled in known protocol that has always worked before to successfully troubleshoot the trending phenomena.

So, as for the GOP, Nikki Haley, and her puppeteers, while they may have earned a gold star for diversity, they clearly continue to miss the big picture.  Even the most fresh faced Republicans like this, allegedly, self-misrepresented white girl on her voter registration, a Sikh Indian all of her life yet Methodist by marriage, and a very pretty, sweet, and intelligent lady CANNOT be selected as the GOP voice if the Republican’s expect a White house victory.  The only good to come of it would be picture perfect Christmas cards and increased SNL ratings.

Even after a devastating loss for the Clinton establishment in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton is salivating.  For without even lifting a finger, the GOP establishment is defeating itself by wounding its own frontrunner. It’s time to LISTEN, for the voice of the angry majority to be HEARD, as they let America in on a little secret.

Dear Establishment:  You’re Fired!


New Hampshire Republican Primary Results

New Hampshire Democratic Primary Results

Trump First Candidate to Reply to the ‘Sessions Test’ on Immigration, Trade & Crime

jeff_sessions_cc_imgBreitbart News reports that Donald J. Trump is the first GOP candidate to reply to the ‘Sessions Test.’

On February 5th, Breitbart News exclusively reported that Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) issued a list of five questions that all candidates must answer if they wish to seek the Republican nomination. In recent years, Sessions has emerged as the intellectual thought leader of the nation-state conservative movement. Sessions has articulated how mass immigration combined with reckless trade deals is compressing wages and decimating America’s middle class.

Sessions’ questionnaire consisted of five straightforward questions addressing immigration, trade, and crime in the United States.

The first candidate to reply to Sessions’ questionnaire was GOP frontrunner Donald J. Trump. In his response, Trump declares, “After my inauguration, for the first time in decades, Americans will wake up in a country where their immigration laws are enforced.”

Trump’s full, unedited answers to the Sessions’ test are below:

Question 1: How would you vote (or how did you vote) on fast-track, and would you support or oppose advancing a final trade agreement which enters the United States into a new international commission with binding authority on future United States trade policy?

ANSWER: I was steadfastly opposed to giving Obama his Fast-Track powers, and would have absolutely voted against it. This is one of the strongest distinctions between me and the other candidates in this race. The Congress, apparently under the magical spell of donors, gave massive new powers to a President who has repeatedly abused his authority. The other candidates in this race actually fought on Obama’s side to give him more power to abuse.

As for creating a new international commission with authority over United States trade policy I am, again, steadfastly opposed. No foreign power should be given any control over the United States. Yet the other candidates who supported Fast Track allowed President Obama to do just that. It’s not too late to save our sovereignty: when I win the nomination, I will put America back in charge.

trump book cripled americaQuestion 2: If the vote on the Trans-Pacific Partnership were held today, and you had a vote to cast in Congress, would you vote for it or against it?

ANSWER: I have strongly and consistently opposed the TPP. For decades, I have warned about how our terrible trade deals are killing the middle class. We are getting taken to the cleaners. My message on trade has been consistent from the beginning, and if politicians had listened to me years ago we would have saved millions of jobs, rebuilt our crumbling infrastructure, and saved trillions of dollars.

My candidacy is the only way to stop this terrible deal that will send our manufacturing – including our auto manufacturing – overseas.

TPP allows foreign countries to cheat by manipulating their currency, making it impossible for American companies to fairly compete. Yet other candidates in this race have voted in favor of the currency manipulation that is killing our middle class.

What our incompetent leaders don’t understand is that the United States holds all the cards. Other countries need access to our markets. Yet we refuse to use that leverage, and we negotiate one terrible job-killing deal after another. We buy from other countries, but they refuse to buy from us.

Under my Administration, we are bringing these jobs back to America. No more one-sided deals.

Stopping the TPP is a matter of economic security and national security. When I am the nominee, I will stop Obamatrade in its tracks and bring millions of new voters into our party – putting new states in play in the general election.

Question 3: Upon entering office, will you promptly and unconditionally terminate and rescind all of President Obama’s illegal executive amnesties – which provide work permits and entitlements to illegal aliens – including President Obama’s first executive amnesty in 2012, which remains in effect?


RELATED ARTICLE: Racket smuggling children to USA using fake families busted

A Tip for the Presidential Candidates: Study These Presidential Smiles

OAK BROOK, Ill. /PRNewswire/ — Presidential candidates, and indeed most politicians, know the power of a good smile on the campaign trail. But what style of smile does the public prefer – the toothy grin of John F. Kennedy or the wry smile of Ronald Reagan?

Newly released data by Delta Dental Plans Association may be of interest to the candidates as it provides a detailed look at the presidential smiles most liked by the public.

pesidential smiles survey

Survey findings by-the-numbers, ranking the smiles of the past five presidents from each party:

“When a president smiles, they connect with so many people,” said Jennifer Elliott, vice president of marketing for Delta Dental Plans Association.  “A great smile is something that leaves a long-lasting impression and, clearly, people have strong opinions about which presidents had the best smiles.”

Some other interesting notes from the survey:

While John F. Kennedy only took a slight 2% edge with women (46% vs. men: 44%), President Barrack Obama had an 11 point difference with women (30%) over men (19%). However, the opposite rang true for Bill Clintonwith more men (22%) thinking he had the best smile than women (12%).

Ronald Reagan was the clear front runner with older generations (66%) who thought he had the best smile vs. less than half of Millennials (48%). One-fourth of Millennials (25%) are likely to view George W. Bush as having the best smile compared to only 12% of their older counterparts.

“A healthy smile is a powerful thing,” added Elliott, “whether on the campaign trail or not, it can have a positive impact on those around you.”

Results taken from a Fall/Winter omnibus survey conducted for Delta Dental Plans Association by Kelton Global between October 26th and 29th, 2015 among 1,013 nationally representative Americans 18+. The margin of error is +/-3.1 percent.

About Delta Dental Plans Association

The nonprofit Delta Dental Plans Association, based in Oak Brook, Ill., is the national association of Delta Dental member companies, which collectively make up the nation’s leading dental benefits provider, with enrollment of 68 million Americans. For more information, visit our website at

Marco Rubio holds the coat tails of Mitch McConnell

Why would Marco Rubio get behind and support a Republican in Name Only (a.k.a. GOPe) like Mitch McConnell (R-KY) over the conservative TEA Party patriot Matt Bevin?

Well, first of all you must understand that Marco Rubio is not a TEA Party conservative. He just played one on TV in a previous movie role and fooled thousands of people across the great state of Florida.

Rubio is a weak capitulating boy wonder that is afraid of his own shadow. He does not belong in the U.S. Senate or in the White House. He is now owned and operated by the embedded GOP establishment in D.C.

Why Senior Chief, are you not friends of this guy? You have his cell phone and personal email accounts ?

Yes, indeed I do and that information will remain private and confidential. I will never release it. But with that said, my political opinion of Marco Rubio is that of disgust and disdain. He is a fake and a total failure to his constituents.

Marco Rubio stuck a knife in the back of this retired Navy Senior Chief Petty Officer after he got what he wanted from me politically. Then his true colors washed ashore like the wreckage from a Malaysian jet airliner.

Hmm, so you have a beef with the guy and want to hurt him politically?

I do what must be done to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Friendships are flushed when people on my very short friends list act in a treasonous way.

If I cut you off and bury you, the chances are you handed me the scissors and the shovel. In this case I had to pull a knife out of my back first before I could start digging the hole in which to plant this lair.

So to answer the question why is Marco Rubio backing Mitch McConnell over the TEA Party Conservative Matt Bevin. I offer you some suggestions.

In 1964, Mitch McConnell was ceremoniously thrown out of the U.S. Army for an incident whereby he propositioned another male soldier and grabbed his p****s for extracurricular activity. The recruit promptly reported this incident to his superiors who then took action against McConnell. McConnell was thrown out of the Army for engaging in homosexual behaviors and disrupting good order and discipline.

Then the alleged cover up started when McConnell used his connections to a U.S. Senator who very nicely changed the reason why he was thrown out of the Army. His discharge was changed from gay sex to having some sort of eye illness which was all bogus.

According to some accounts Mitch McConnell also loves going to Thailand to attend private parties where wealthy and powerful gay and bisexual American men procure young Thai men for gay sex.

One report has Mitch McConnell seen with one of his male buddies at one of these parties. Not accusing but lets get a Freedom of Information Act release on Mitch McConnell’s flights abroad. Just curious if the tax payer is funding it?

Perhaps Marco Rubio who was also allegedly engaged in foam parties can relate to this guy. Just my opinion. Not accusing. Do not hide who or what you are. Integrity!

So what other reasons would you see Marco backing this GOPe liberal Mitch McConnell instead of Matt Bevin the conservative TEA Party Senator? Does Marco Rubio agree with abortion? Good point.

Mitch McConnell actually supports Planned Parenthood and when the tax payers of the United States saw the videos of them selling baby parts for profit the out cry was to defund this slaughter house of unborn children. Planned Parenthood was scheduled to be successfully defunded in a Highway Bill but Mitch McConnell blocked an amendment that would have stopped it. Instead he let it go through as fully funded. That my friends is working hand in hand with Satan himself.

So you have to ask yourself why would a Catholic boy like Marco back a person that supports the slaughter of unborn children? Good question. Do you want this man Marco Rubio in the White House now?

Perhaps Marco Rubio was happy when the unconstitutional Obama-Romneycare passed because he signed up using tax payer money for the subsidy of about $15,000, which is our money by the way.

So why would Marco get behind Mitch McConnell and publicly support defunding Obama-Romneycare and then take the tax payer subsidy?

Perhaps it is because Mitch McConnell also supports Romney – Obamacare.

In May 2014 Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) implied and then followed through by funding Romney Obama care when he said he would not support repealing, Kentucky’s state-run health care exchange.

In order to stop Romney – Obama care one must defund it and return the money back to the U.S. Treasury. McConnell thinks other wise. Marco signed up for it.

Marco makes $174,000 a year and can well afford private insurance but instead he put his hands in our wallets and we are paying his insurance premiums now. The fact that Romney – Obamacare is unconstitutional does not matter to these two.

Perhaps Marco Rubio agrees with Mitch McConnell’s position much like Obama’s that the rich (the job creators) are not paying enough taxes and must redistribute more of their wealth. Forget the fact that nobody reading this has ever worked for a poor person unless doing a volunteer civic duty. Agreed ?

Here are Mitch McConnell’s own words, part of a verbatim transcript from Mitch McConnell’­s 1990 reelection campaign ad, entitled “Fair Share”:

“Hi, I’m Mitch McConnell. I’m sure you’ve been watching this mess in Washington. I’d like you to know how I feel about it.

I haven’t voted for one of these lousy budget packages for years and I won’t vote for this one. It would raise taxes on the wrong people.

Unlike some folks around here I think everyone should pay their fair share. Including the rich.

In a time of financial difficulty, we all need to make sacrifices, and asking people with a lot to pay just a little more, is not unreasonable. It’s just simply the way you solve financial problems”.

Patriots, who was the last person you heard say a rich mans pay check belongs to someone else because they must pay their fair share ?


We as tax payers are also funding illegal immigrants which Marco and Mitch also support. I can say with full authority that the U.S. Constitution is under a full frontal assault from these two guys.

They both need to be removed from office as soon as possible to protect the fiscal and moral and constitutional well being of this nation.

So there you have it ladies and gentleman. A perspective from the Senior Chief on the man leading the U.S. Senate Mitch McConnell and his man cub Marco Rubio, now holding his coat tails and learning from his Senate mentor how to steer this nation towards Socialism/Communism/Marxism.

Is Marco Rubio a man you want in the White House? An indecisive weak capitulating turn coat who gave John Kerry a job, gave Obama his TPP bill and has been MIA on most every other major piece of legislation critical to the constitutional governance of this nation?

I don’t think so either. He not only let down his constituents but he also is an embarrassment to his team that works hard for him. They are forced to cover their eyes when he acts and votes like a left wing New World Order socialist.

RELATED ARTICLE: Opinion: Marco Rubio goes into freefall among those betting on the New Hampshire primary

Old School Politics

Alright, alright; enough about my column from last week where I called out several RNC staffers by name because of their total disloyalty and disrespect towards me.  No more jokes about me being introverted and never speaking my mind.

I will admit last week’s column was very pointed and blunt—by design.

I came into the Republican Party in the middle of the Reagan administration; right after I graduated from Oral Roberts University.

But I really cut my political teeth during the Bush 41 campaign and subsequent presidency.   I got a chance to see the Reagan and Bush administrations up-close, which is why I am the person I am today.  Last week’s column reflected that influence.

The disrespect shown to me by this RNC would have never been tolerated by team Bush.  I had something similar happen back in St. Louis while Bush was seeking the presidency and the Bush family personally shut it down immediately and let everyone know in no uncertain terms that I was part of the Bush team and they would not allow anyone to disrespect me or the Bush campaign by extension.

This is why the Bush family is so beloved by everyone, even Democrats.  They put a premium on loyalty and will protect those who are part of their team.

I learned the art of politics from the likes of my former Senators Jack Danforth, Kit Bond, and John Ashcroft.  I had the honor of sitting at the feet of luminaries like former secretary of state Jim Baker and former secretary of commerce Bob Mosbacher.

Can you imagine a kid from the hood of St. Louis being able to call people like these friends?  I am still in touch with the Bush family and all those who were instrumental in my political career.  I am even still in touch with many of my high school and college teachers.

Unfortunately, today’s politics are totally transactional and not personal.

By transactional I mean people only deal with you because you have the right title or you have something a person needs and people deal with you strictly on the basis of that paradigm.

These types of relationships are totally foreign to me.  Former senate majority leader Trent Lott, former house majority leader Tom DeLay, and former congressman Tom Davis are good friends who I stay in regular contact with.  The reason I still stay in touch with them is because our relationship was never predicated on their titles; but rather on a personal friendship.

Over the years, some of my friends ended up going to jail because they crossed certain ethical boundaries.  I helped some of them get jobs or consulting contracts after they served their time.  I gave some of their family’s money when everyone else had turned their backs on them.

So, let’s just say I was very heartened last week with all the phone calls and emails of support after my friends found out what I was going through.

Maybe one day these RNC staffers will learn the value of relationships; because I would never hire any of them for any job.  If they will screw over me, what makes you think they won’t do the same thing to you?

Now I hope you have some insight into what made me write last week’s column, beside all the obvious reasons.

Old school politics are about relationships that should last a lifetime.  Old school politics is why I created the Black Republican Trailblazer Awards luncheon in the first place.  Every honoree I have ever chosen has a personal story of how they have impacted me.

I will continue to host these awards every year to promote Black Republicans who have left an indelible mark on the Black community, the Republican Party, and America.

The Republican Party has a great story to tell relative to Blacks, but they seem totally uninterested and incapable of communicating that story.  The Black staffers in the RNC have absolutely no institutional memory or curiosity of who the Black trailblazers are.

Black Republicans role in civil right have been allowed to be erased from the history books because of the Republican Party’s ineptitude in telling their own history.

Why do Republicans continue to go to groups like the NAACP or the Urban League for validation in the Black community when they need look no further than Black Republicans like Bill Coleman, Bob Brown, Bob Woodson, Kay James, Allegra McCullough, etc.?

No one will tell our story better than us.  The Trailblazer awards is my vehicle to communicate this story and we will continue to use this vehicle to make America aware that the Republican Party has always been intimately involved in every major stride the Black community has made in this country.

The reason Blacks find this hard to believe is that we have allowed Black liberals to totally erase us from the historical record.

Ted Cruz is NOT a Legal U.S. Citizen at all

The debate over whether or not Senator Ted Cruz is eligible for the U.S. Presidency is about to end. It has now been confirmed that Senator Ted Cruz is neither a “U.S. natural born Citizen” or a “legal U.S. citizen.”

According to all relative legal citizenship documentation available at present, Senator Ted Cruz was born Rafael Edward Cruz, a legal citizen of Canada on December 22, 1970 and maintained his legal Canadian citizenship from birth until May 14, 2014, 43 years later.

The Cruz Campaign for the U.S. Presidency has claimed that Senator Ted Cruz was a “citizen at birth” via his U.S. mother and a “dual citizen” of both Canada and the United States in 1970 and that by renouncing his Canadian citizenship in 2014, he would become eligible for the Oval Office.

There are several problems with this claim… which make the claim false

  1. “citizen at birth” is a 14th Amendment naturalization term based upon “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

Senator Cruz was born in Canada, subject to the jurisdiction of Canada. Further, any U.S. citizen by virtue of the 14th Amendment only, is a “citizen” and not a “natural born Citizen,” as you will see below. (Source is Cornell Law on the 14th)

  1. “dual citizenship” was prohibited in Canada in December 1970. (Source is Canadian Law)

From May 22, 1868 until December 31, 1946, all residents of Canada were British subjects. There was no such thing as a Canadian citizen or Canadian citizenship until January 1, 1947.

From January 1, 1947 until February 15, 1977, Canadian law prohibited “dual citizenship.” Foreign parents giving birth to a child in Canada in 1970 were forced to choose between Canadian citizenship only, or citizenship in another country, and to declare that with Canadian officials at the time of birth. The parents of Ted Cruz chose and declared “Canadian citizenship” for Rafael Edward Cruz.

  1. United States laws make it possible to be a legal U.S. citizen by only the following means…
  1. a) NATURAL BORN CITIZEN – “As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.” (The Natural Law as understood by the Founders in Article II of the US Constitution)
  1. b) NATIVE BORN CITIZEN – All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. (The 14th Amendment definition for “citizen”)
  1. c) NATURALIZED CITIZEN – the legal act or process by which a non-citizen in a country may acquire citizenship or nationality of that country. It may be done by a statute, without any effort on the part of the individual (aka anchor baby), or it may involve an application and approval by legal authorities, (such as a Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA) form filed with the US State Department at the time of birth). (This includes “anchor baby” or “citizen at birth” born here or abroad, under the 14th) Source is U.S. State Department
  1. “dual citizens” are prohibited from being “natural born Citizens” as it pertains to Article II requirements for the Oval Office.

As the stated purpose of the Article II “natural born Citizen” requirement for the Oval Office is to prevent anyone with foreign allegiance at birth from ever occupying the Oval Office, and all “dual citizens” at birth are born with “dual national allegiance” at birth. The mere condition of “dual citizen at birth” would be a direct violation of the known purpose and intent of the natural born Citizen requirement in Article II. Source is a letter from Founder John Jay in proposing the NBC requirement for the Oval Office.

Now, Senator Ted Cruz has repeatedly stated that he has never “naturalized” to the United States, which eliminated the possibility that Ted Cruz is a “naturalized” U.S. Citizen.

Senator Ted Cruz has also documented the fact that he was not a “native born citizen” of the United States, but rather a “native born citizen” of Canada on December 22, 1970, who maintained his legal Canadian citizenship until May 14, 2014.

The Harvard opinion letter written by two of Senator Cruz’s Harvard friends, Neal Katyal & Paul Clement, a mere “commentary” on the subject, relies upon the 14th Amendment naturalized citizen at birth concept, despite the fact that Ted Cruz was not “born in or under the jurisdiction of the United States,” was never “naturalized” to the United States, and completely ignoring the fact that Canada prohibited “dual citizenship” in 1970, as well as the fact that “dual citizenship” alone would prevent him from “natural born U.S.” status.

All of this explains why Senator Ted Cruz has no legal U.S. citizenship documentation of any kind. He is not a “natural born” – “native born” or “naturalized” citizen of the United States. Because someone must be one of the three in order to be a legal citizen of the United States, Senator Ted Cruz cannot possibly be a “legal U.S. citizen” of any form.

Only days ago, a 17-year-old first time voter at a New Hampshire town hall meeting for Senator Ted Cruz asked a very reasonable question… “How and why, until recently, were you unaware that you were a Canadian citizen?”

As the young man explained, this is not an eligibility question, but a credibility question… which Senator Cruz refused to answer, preferring instead to regurgitate the talking points carefully crafted by his Harvard friends and eventually, shouting the young man down, after a Cruz fan in the audience shouted “better a Canadian than a Kenyan!” (VIDEO) Meanwhile, a growing number of Constitutional Law Professors agree, “Cruz is NOT eligible.”

Of course, Senator Marco Rubio is also “ineligible,” as a “native born citizen at birth” by virtue of 14th Amendment “anchor baby” policies only.

In the end, the only possible way to consider Senator Ted Cruz eligible for the Oval Office is if every “undocumented resident alien” is eligible for the Oval Office, which I personally believe is the real agenda of both political parties, as they work to meld the USA into the global commune where there is no legal difference between “natural born Americans” and “undocumented aliens.”

The fact that so many Americans do not know or care to know the truth about the Constitutional “natural born Citizen” requirement for the Oval Office, demonstrates just how far down the road of “hope and change” for the destruction of the Constitutional Republic, the enemy within has already achieved.

Soon, “natural born Americans” will be in the American minority… and they will be ruled by foreigners who have no legal U.S. citizenship at all.

That Voice

So many issues, so little time, which is why I am studiously avoiding any issues about Hillary other than that voice!

I am definitely not going into the terminal dishonesty thing, you know, when she told the American public, and also the parents of the murdered victims in Benghazi, that the four patriots who lost their lives to a savage Islamic attack was because of an anti-Islam video; that Wall St. and specifically Goldman-Sachs is not donating to her campaign and that, according to Dick Morris, FEC reports say that Hillary has received $21.4 million from the financial and insurance industry––almost 15 percent of the total $157.8 million she raised, and she’s still trolling them for big money.” How about that she won a smashing victory in Iowa (by six coin tosses that magically landed in her favor)? Dozens of websites have catalogued Hillary’s lies,  starting decades ago with her debut on the political scene. Also here and here and don’t miss this one. Not going there.

I’m definitely not going into the incompetence thing, the colossal failure of her secretly-conducted socialized-medicine initiative as First Lady, her stunning lack of accomplishments in the U.S. Senate, or, most damning, the dangerous state of the entire world under her tenure as Secretary of State, which has resulted in a chaotic, devolving Europe, saturated in Islamic-terrorism; a catastrophic Middle East, also inundated with Islamic terrorism; and the mysterious loss of six-billion dollars! Uh uh, not going there.

Also definitely not going into the crook thing, the perjury thing, the slush fund thing vis-à-vis The Clinton Foundation and the zillions she extorted––oops, accepted––from thug nations and tin-pot dictators throughout the world while, ahem, representing our country. Or the e-mail thing and the threats to our national security her fecklessness brought about, or the laughable denials, or looming Leavenworth. Not going there.

Most definitely not going into the abused-wife syndrome, the paranoid streak, the harassment and attempts to destroy the women assaulted by her, ahem, better half, or the laughable notion of her being a role model for any woman, much less the millions of American women who earned their way without the taint of scandal and criminality. Sooo not going there!

And definitely not going into Hillary’s disturbing laugh, which according to writer Elspeth Reeve, has been covered extensively. A few years ago, Reeve cited the National Journal which compiled “The Comprehensive Supercut of Hillary Clinton Laughing Awkwardly with Reporters” and The Washington Free Beacon, which created “Hillary Clinton’s Interview Tour: A Laughing Matter,” to name but two out of hundreds of articles that have covered Hillary’s aberrational trait over the years. Nope, not going there.


For years I’ve wondered what that clap-your-hands-over-your-ears assault weapon is that emanates from Hillary Clinton’s mouth, specifically her wince-evoking, cringe-producing, decibel-shattering voice.

I don’t mean ear-splitting shrillness or the screech of a banshee, although God knows those are prominently featured in her vocal repertoire, but rather the shrike-like, hectoring tone that suggests that Hillary was born without the normal fluttering of the vocal cords, a function that helps to moderate speech sounds. This results in campaign speech in which every promise sounds menacing. Quite a feat!

I’m going to produce more jobs, Hillary says, get incomes rising again, make Obamacare work, improve early-childhood education, pay down student debt, fight for more abortions (oops, “defend a woman’s right to make her own health care decisions”), on and on, and yet every word comes out sounding like the patronizing, finger-wagging lecture of a screech-owl harpy.

Hillary fan Geraldo Rivera speculates that this unfortunate trait might result from a hearing loss, the kind that makes people who don’t hear very well think that other people need to be shrieked at to hear their message.

Steven Hayward from simply describes her pronouncements as “cackling.”

Writer Elspeth Reeve asks: why do so many people hate the sound of Hillary’s voice? “It’s just so loud and annoying. Or maybe it’s like a nagging wife…inauthentic—that phony Southern accent! Those flat Midwestern vowels! Whatever it is, her voice is burned into your brain.” Maybe “she sometimes SPEAKS SO LOUDLY in hopes of conveying ENERGY and FORCEFULNESS.”

Republican pollster Frank Luntz explains to Sean Hannity: “Forget the words. Listen to the way she communicates. It’s ALL AT THE SAME LEVEL…her voice turns people off. Because they feel like they’re being lectured.”

Journalist Peggy Noonan compares Hillary to an irritating landlord. “She lately reminds me of the landlady yelling up the stairs that your kids left their bikes in the hall again.”

According to writer Kathy Miller, Hillary hired a voice and drama coach, Michael Sheehan, after her last unsuccessful presidential run in 2008, paying him $7,500. Yoo hoo, Hillary, ever consider a malpractice suit?


A person’s emotional affect is simply the way they display their feelings. They can be manic or flat, bubbly or dour, sincere or snarky, relaxed or intense, serious or light-hearted, on and on.

Once you see someone three or five or 10 times, you “get” what they’re all about. Unless, they have distinctly different affects…the stern executive during the day and the party girl at night; the all-American dad on the weekends and the internet troller of child porn during his working day.

Most of us fall along this spectrum. But few of us, in our travels, change our speech patterns when we go from state to state.

Not so of Hillary, who segues from high-falutin’ Wellesley girl when she’s courting East Coast donors to plantation Southerner when she’s addressing a black audience, for instance when she cited the hymn of James Cleveland: “Ah don’t feel nowhere tired….” Talk about cringe-producing!

Then there’s her affect of sincerity––eyes a little too wide open, gaze a little too fixed, head a little too bobbling, smile a little too plastered, the tacit message a little too “get me away from these irritating hicks!”

And there, too, is old Bubba, standing behind her…stooped, skinny, wizened, looking not a little out of the loop, applauding on cue, still too narcissistic to want her to win, but still counting on her to perpetuate the gigantic Ponzi scheme they created.


Was Hillary born with that weaponized voice of hers, or did she acquire it along the way? My bet is on the latter. It’s not uncommon for people who are essentially––when all the layers of the onion are peeled back––inauthentic to appropriate behaviors of other people, the better to make themselves appear to be the real thing.

It’s as if Hillary looked around and observed how a regular person or even an animated character acts when he or she is angry or impassioned or wants to get a point across or appeal to someone, and she said to herself, “Aha, I’ll take Alec Baldwin’s anger from Column A, Ida B. Robinson’s passion from Column B, Johnny Appleseed’s ardor from Column C,” on and on, and then adopts whichever behavior fits the occasion.

But it never works, never comes across as authentic because, well, it isn’t! Hence the strangely hyena-like laugh, the hectoring tone, the weird meet-and-greet affect, and, occasionally, the bursts of raw anger––“What difference does it make?”––in which the public gets a vivid and decidedly unpretty picture of what lies beneath the phony façade.


Looming over the entire Clinton agenda is ole genuine Bernie Sanders, grabbing the young vote, the far-left vote, the entitlement vote, the socialist and communist votes, and now we learn the woman vote, effectively telling the largely anti-Semitic world that American Democrats prefer a Brooklyn-born Jew to a female career-politician with an alienating affect, a scandal-ridden past and present, and indictments of downright treason hanging over her head,

Yes, Hillary’s dishonesty thing looms large with voters, as does her incompetence thing and crook thing and abused-wife thing and weird laugh thing,

But nothing is as predictive of her ultimate defeat as the voice thing, even though she can’t help it, anymore than someone afflicted with barnacles. Millions of people may want a woman in the White House, so much that they overlook Hillary’s Mt. Everest heights of deficits and failures. In and of itself, as even her advocates grudgingly admit, living with that voice for the next four years will compel every man in America to buy earplugs and every woman in America to wonder what the entire estrogen fetish was all about.

I predict that nothing––not the trendiest public-relations firms or the most credentialed drama coaches––will stop the American public from voting against Ms. Hillary because of that voice!

Two-Thirds of Americans Believe Money Buys Elections by Daniel Bier

Everybody knows that money buys elections. That’s what opponents of theCitizens United decision have been ominously warning us for six years, and their message resonates. A CNN poll found that 67 percent of Americans think that “elections are generally for sale to the candidate who can raise the most money.”

The trouble is that there is very little evidence for this. Even though the candidate with the most money usually wins, the general rule is that moneychases winners rather than creates winners. People give to candidates they think are likely to win, and incumbents (who almost always win) and candidates in safe districts still raise money, even if they’re not challenged. On the flip side, donors and parties don’t waste support on long-shot races.

More importantly, money never guarantees any election. For instance, billionaire Meg Whitman spent $144 million of her own money on the California governor’s race; Jerry Brown spent just $36 million but crushed Whitman, 53 percent to 40 percent.

Mitt Romney, the GOP, and their PACs outspent Barack Obama and friends by over $120 million, and we know what came of that. Anthony Brown (D) outspent Larry Hogan (R) almost five to one in the 2014 Maryland governor’s race and lost, in a state that is two to one Democrat.

We can likely add Jeb Bush’s candidacy to this list. The Jeb! campaign and pro-Jeb groups have collectively raised $155 million. Only Hillary Clinton has raised more. According to the New York Times, he’s dominating “the money race” among Republicans.

But in the actual race, he got a dismal sixth place in Iowa, with 2.8 percent of the vote. Polls put Jeb fifth in New Hampshire and fifth nationally. Currently, Betfair places his odds of winning the nomination at 5.2 percent.

In fact, the whole Republican race shows that money can’t simply buy votes. Scott Walker raised $34 million in three months, spent all of it — and then dropped out, five months before Iowa. Meanwhile, Donald Trump has dominated news coverage and polls for months with only $19 million.

When you plot money vs. poll numbers, what jumps out is how little correlation there is:

… And money vs. Iowa caucus votes:

… And money vs. odds of winning the nomination:

Jeb and Jeb-PACs have spent $89.1 million so far and received 5,238 votes — over $17,000 per vote received. Trump has spent just $300 per vote.

This is not to say that money doesn’t matter — you can’t run a campaign without it, and campaign finance laws are designed to make it difficult for upstart challengers to become competitive. But after a certain amount (about $500,000 for a typical congressional race), there are rapidly diminishing returns, and dumping more money on a failing campaign will not save it.

There’s a lot of baseless fears about free speech, but the idea that the people with the most expensive microphone will always get their way is one of the easiest to disprove. More speech, more discussion, and more competition in the field of ideas is not what’s wrong with American politics — but they might be part of the solution to it.

Daniel Bier

Daniel Bier

Daniel Bier is the editor of Anything Peaceful. He writes on issues relating to science, civil liberties, and economic freedom.

VIDEO: Debate Questions on Immigration That Don’t Get Asked

WASHINGTON, D.C. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — As in previous presidential elections, several recent debates have featured questions posed by non-journalists via YouTube. They weren’t very good.

Debates in New Hampshire on February 4th (the Democrats) and Saturday, February 6th (the Republicans). To help journalists and ordinary voters try to extract the actual immigration views of the candidates, the Center for Immigration Studies has posted a series of video questions addressing critical aspects of the immigration issue that don’t receive the attention they warrant.

This first batch of questions ranges from a former Executive Director of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation asking about the impact of mass legal immigration on American workers, to a retired Border Patrol agent asking about people fraudulently passing through legal entry points (as opposed to jumping the fence). Other questions for the candidates are posed by the mother of a man killed by an illegal alien, a former Foreign Service Officer, a law professor, and others.

Watch the video questions for the presidential candidates here:

As the presidential debates continue, both in the primaries and the general election, the page will be updated with more video questions from citizens. To have your own brief (30 seconds) video question for the candidates be considered for inclusion, send it to

The learn more about the Center for Immigration Studies click here.

Top priorities for small business owners in the 2016 Presidential Election

NEW YORK, NY /PRNewswire/ — OnDeck® (NYSE: ONDK), the leader in online lending for small business, today released the results of a new survey that reveal the top priorities for small business owners in the 2016 Presidential Election. According to more than 1000 small business owners across the nation, economic growth, healthcare costs and tax policy are the three issues most critical to the health and success of their business.

More than half of small business owners surveyed cited the need for economic growth as an issue crucial to their future. Forty percent are concerned about healthcare costs and forty-one percent are focused on tax policy issues. And while these concerns loom large, the majority of small business owners (75 percent), regardless of political affiliation, say they have faith in the current roster of presidential candidates to do something about them. 

Snapshot: Critical Election Issues for Small Business in 2016

OnDeck surveyed more than 1000 small businesses via Facebook and email to identify the issues that are of greatest concern to them in the 2016 Presidential Election.

  • 56.6% are focused on economic growth
  • 41.1% are closely monitoring tax policy
  • 40.5% are concerned about healthcare costs
  • 24.2% care about new or changing regulations at the national and state level
  • 21.8% are concerned about the strength of the skilled/educated workforce

The OnDeck survey also found that 94.1% of the small business respondents voted in the last presidential election in 2012. That engagement level is striking when you consider that less than sixty percent of eligible voters in the United States voted at the polls during that same election.

“Small business owners help drive the economic growth engine of our country, and they are passionate and actively engaged in political dialogue surrounding today’s key issues,” said James Hobson, chief operating officer at OnDeck.  “We hope small businesses will have a strong voice in the election since we know that when this country embraces its entrepreneurial spirit, the positive benefits ripple throughout our economy.”

ondeck logoAbout OnDeck

OnDeck (NYSE: ONDK) is the leader in online small business lending. Since 2007, the company has powered Main Street’s growth through advanced lending technology and a constant dedication to customer service. OnDeck’s proprietary credit scoring system – the OnDeck Score® – leverages advanced analytics, enabling OnDeck to make real-time lending decisions and deliver capital to small businesses in as little as 24 hours. OnDeck offers business owners a complete financing solution, including the online lending industry’s widest range of term loans and lines of credit.

To date, the company has deployed over $3 billion to more than 45,000 customers in 700 different industries across the United States, Canada and Australia. OnDeck has an A+ rating with the Better Business Bureau and operates the educational small business financing website  For more information, please visit