The Worst U.S. President Ever!

I won’t be around to see it, but I have little doubt that future historians and others will conclude that President Barack Hussein Obama was the worst President ever to serve in that office.

The reason is simple enough. His decisions on domestic and foreign affairs have already demonstrated his astonishing incompetence. His major contribution may in fact be to ensure that the voters elect conservatives in the next two or more elections to come. If he is remembered for anything it well may be the emergence of the Tea Party movement whose influence has been seen over the course of two midterm elections.

One cannot help but think of such things as President’s Day, February 16, reminds us of Washington and Lincoln, both of whom were born during this month. For most it is just a day on which there are a variety of sales pegged to it. For all of us, however, it acknowledges the two Presidents without whom there would not be a United States of America.

Presidents Washington, Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt are routinely ranked at the top of the lists of those judged to have been of greatest service to the nation and, not incidentally, all three presided over wars that led to and maintained America’s sovereignty.

When I have read about Washington’s life, I am always impressed by the man and, not surprisingly, so were his contemporaries, the men he commanded over the long course of the Revolutionary War. The Americans of his time had the highest regard for him. It was Washington who set the pattern of only serving two terms. When the American artist, Benjamin West, told England’s King George III of Washington’s decision, the king said, “If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world.”

In his 1796 farewell address, Washington said, “Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity.”

Imagine a modern politician talking of religion and morality as the basis of political prosperity—least of all Obama who has disparaged Christianity and protects Islam.

America was particularly blessed and fortunate in its earliest years to have a succession of men who demonstrated extraordinary intelligence, courage, and moral integrity. Following Washington there was John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, and John Quincy Adams. Few nations have been so blessed as ours.

One can only examine Lincoln’s life with a sense of wonder as he rose from humble beginnings to the role of keeping the Union intact in the face of the secession of southern states and the horrendous war that followed. Gen. Robert E. Lee surrendered on April 9, 1865 and on April 14 Lincoln was assassinated by an actor, John Wilkes Booth. His death was the occasion of the first American national funeral as cities and towns did their best to out-do one another to honor him. It took his death for people to realize the magnitude of what he had achieved.

The advice Lincoln offered in his time is just as important, if not more so, in ours:

“You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away men’s initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.”

Franklin D. Roosevelt and, earlier, Theodore Roosevelt, are also highly ranked among the Presidents. Both men shared a zest for the job, enjoying it. Teddy regretted announcing that he would not run for a third term (which he did with the Bull Moose Party) and FDR ran and won four times! He did so during the Great Depression and World War II.

Two other families played a role in the presidency, the Adams and, in the modern era, George H.W. Bush was the 41st President and George W. Bush was the 43rd. It is popular to disparage both men, but history may come to another judgment.

President Obama has brought nothing to the presidency except his Marxist theology. He was the least prepared in terms of experience in the workplace and his elections have been more about the manipulation of public opinion and his two terms have been an endless succession of lies.

His signature legislation, ObamaCare, has undermined the nation’s healthcare system. His solution to the Great Recession added more debt in his six years in office than the combined debt of every previous President up to Clinton and did not stimulate the economy as promised.

His ignorance of history and of current events is vast. Google “What does Obama know?” and you will find many articles that document this.

He has been protected by a liberal mainstream media, but the voters have seen through that and have turned political power in Congress over to the Republican Party.

One thing is for sure. On future President’s Days, Obama will barely be noticed when Americans look back on those who did much to address the great issues and challenges of their times.

© Alan Caruba, 2015

Israel’s Republican Governor?

This morning I opened up a Ynet.com  Op ed, “Israel’s Republican Governor”,   by Tel Aviv University Professor Aviad Kleinberg, a member of the History Faculty and according to the information on him, a medievalist by specialization with interests in  religion and philosophy. Kleinberg conclusion was:

Despite his declarations, Netanyahu is thinking less about Iran and more about politics – both Israeli and American. While the Republicans are deriving pleasure from the slap in Obama’s face, the price will be paid by us.

Kleinberg starts off  trying to hoist PM Netanyahu with these comments:

“While there are those who are focusing on protocol or politics, a bad deal with Iran is being formed,” Benjamin Netanyahu has declared. The remedy for this bad agreement, it turns out, is a speech which the prime minister will deliver in Washington, D.C.

Netanyahu is suggesting the following equation: It’s true that this speech faces a strong opposition in the United States. It’s true that it is infuriating the administration and will create high tensions between Israel and US President Barack Obama. It’s true that there is a good chance that the administration will punish Netanyahu (i.e., the State of Israel) because delivering the speech is perceived as breaking the acceptable rules of the game between countries (a head of state does not make an official visit when the head of the state he is visiting makes it explicitly clear that he is not interested in the visit). It’s also true that to an innocent bystander, it seems like cynical attempt to grab the spotlight in order to advance the guest’s interests in the election campaign. But all that pales into insignificance in the face of the fundamental achievement – stopping the bad agreement with Iran.

You can read the rest here...

Times of Israel 2015 Election PollProfessor Kleinberg’s trust in President Obama’s effort via the P5+1 negotiations to prevent Iran from achieving a nuclear breakout and producing weapons is not reflected in the latest Times of Israel  (TOI) poll of Israeli views on the upcoming Knesset election issues and party list candidates released yesterday.  The TOI headline was, 3 in 4 Israelis don’t trust Obama to keep Iran from nukes.

The TOI poll findings were:

Asked whether they trust the U.S. president to ensure Iran not get the bomb, an overwhelming 72% do not, compared to 64% in our January 2014 survey.

Israeli voters give Obama a 33% favorable and 59% unfavorable rating, The Times of Israel’s survey also shows. Still, the president’s favorable and unfavorable ratings (33%/59%) aren’t much worse than those of several of Israel’s politicians such as Moshe Kahlon (45%/32%), Netanyahu (41%/54%), Isaac Herzog (38%/43%), or Naftali Bennett (38%/52%). Obama is on par with Yair Lapid’s current rating of 34% favorable and 59% unfavorable, and has a better perception than Tzipi Livni (29%/64%) and Avigdor Liberman (31%/61%).

Read more

Here is what I posted as a comment on the Ynet.com in response to Professor Kleinberg’s Ynet.com opinion:

Professor Aviad Kleinberg of Tel Aviv U’s history department betrays his expertise as a medievalist when it comes to opining on American politics. He of all people should recognize this less than Machiavellian ploy by the Obama West Wing seeking to dis Bibi for accepting Speaker Boehner’s invitation to speak before a Joint Session of Congress about Iran’s nuclear hegemony agenda and Radical Islamists on your borders.

One only need look at polls in the U.S. on the matter of the PM speaking before a Joint Session of Congress to realize that he has the backing of 50 % of Americans respondents.. Methinks the Professor protests too much in light of the agitprop by the Presidents’ media minders in the West Wing seeking to provide support for the so-called Zionist Union in the March 17 snap Knesset elections. Which has been revealed in both the liberal NY Times and Washington Post.

If Bibi ran as a Republican Governor here in the Sunshine State he’d win hands down. Can’t say that for ‘Democrats’ Tzipi and Bluji who can hardly match the PM’s Churchillian cadence nor his gravitas on mutual national security interests of concern to Israel and the West.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Obama’s Mainstreaming Jew Hatred in America – Caroline B. Glick

Obama Is Pursuing Regime Change in Israel- Foreign Policy Magazine

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review. The featured image is of U.S. House Speaker Boehner and Israeli PM Netanyahu taken on May 24, 2011 before his speech to a Joint Session of Congress. Source: NER.

Obama’s Fingers in the Cookie Jar?

In an October 21, 2008 column, titled “Obama is Bought, but Who Owns Him?” I quoted the Obama campaign’s last pre-election financial report which showed that their contributor base had grown from 1.5 million to 2.5 million, and that the total amount raised was approximately $600 million… 25% of it ($150 million) from those contributing from $2,000-2,300.  If that was to be believed, that segment of his contributor base had grown from 37,000 to 71,400 in just over three months, leaving the remaining $450 million to be contributed by some 2.43 million people, each giving $5, $10, $20… or, as Obama assured us, “whatever they could afford.”

Of course, no one but a product of our public education system would be unable to calculate that $450 million cannot be contributed by 2.43 million people in $5, $10, or $20 amounts.  To create a pool of that magnitude, each of those 2.43 million people would have to contribute, on average, just over $185.  That simply does not happen.  It has never happened before, and anyone who believed that actually happened will believe almost anything.  So how were they doing it?

In a July 25, 2008 column we pointed out that UBS Americas, headed by Robert Wolf… along with George Soros, one of Obama’s top two money men… had been accused of highly unethical and illegal banking practices in six months of hearings by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, headed by Senator Carl Levin (D-MI).  According to an article in The Nation magazine, UBS Americas, a subsidiary of UBS, of Zurich, Switzerland, “had advised wealthy Americans, including many of our worst villains, how to shelter funds from the IRS, as well as from prosecutors, creditors, disgruntled business associates, family members, etc.”

In a Statement of Facts in the criminal trial of former UBS executive Bradley Birkenfeld, it was alleged that UBS took extraordinary steps to help American clients manage their Swiss accounts without alerting federal authorities.   For example, UBS advised clients to avoid detection by using Swiss credit cards to withdraw funds, to destroy all existing off-shore banking records, and to misrepresent the receipt of funds from their Swiss accounts as loans from the Swiss bank.  According to The Nation, UBS established an elaborate training program which taught bank employees how to avoid surveillance by U.S. law enforcement, how to falsify visas, how to encrypt communications, and how to secretly move money into and out of the country…

It was the perfect instrument for funneling large sums of illegal campaign contributions into the coffers of an unscrupulous American politician.  Putting two and two together, I concluded that any number of foreign contributors, wishing to influence the outcome of the U.S. presidential elections, could transfer unlimited sums of money through this device, using the Swiss bank accounts of unsuspecting American depositors as vehicles.  The owners of the Swiss accounts would receive periodic statements indicating: a) debits of varying amounts, up to $2,300 each, and b) offsetting credits provided by the cartel, or by a wealthy “international financier.”

For most of the super wealthy, especially those attempting to hide income and assets from U.S. authorities, an unexplained debit of $2,300, followed by a credit of the same amount, would not even raise an eyebrow.  So who would ever know the source of such contributions?  No one.

On the receiving end of the transactions, a U.S. recipient, such as the Obama campaign, could receive thousands of individual contributions via Swiss credit card transfers, with unsuspecting fictitious contributors… their names, addresses, and occupations “borrowed” from Obama’s extensive list of $10 and $20 contributors… being entered by teams of staffers working in a “boiler room” setting, preparing falsified reports for the Federal Election Commission.

A subsequent report by Newsmax, having studied thousands of pages of Obama’s FEC filings, found some66,383 highly suspicious contributions, not rounded to even dollar amounts, from 37,265 donors.  For example, an insurance agent from Burr Ridge, Illinois, reportedly gave a total of $8,724.26, more than $4,400 over his legal limit.  He gave in odd amounts such as $188.67, $1,542.06, $876.09, $388.67, $282.20, $195.66, $118.15, and one of $2,300.

A self-employed caregiver in Los Angeles made 36 separate contributions totaling $7,051.12… more than $2,450 over her legal limit.  Thirteen of those contributions were later refunded.  However, in an odd coincidence, those 13 refunds, in amounts such as $233.88 and $201.44, came to an even $2,300, the maximum allowable in any one election.  Another contributor, a retired schoolteacher from Rockledge, Florida, is reported to have given $13,800… $9,200 over his limit.  However, when interviewed by Newsmax, that contributor could not remember giving that much money to Obama.

Lest anyone suggest that those 37,265 donors either emptied their piggy banks or emptied their pockets and purses periodically and just sent it all to Obama, pennies and all, allow me to suggest something a bit more sinister.  Those 66,383 contributions were the proceeds of foreign currency conversions, smuggled into the country in foreign credit card receipts, and deposited in Obama’s campaign coffers using the forged names of some of Obama’s $10 or $20 contributors.

But now it is alleged that Loretta Lynch, Obama’s choice to succeed Eric Holder, is up to her eyeballs in yet another Obama administration criminal enterprise in which the banking system was misused in much the same way as in the 2008 foreign currency smuggling operation.  According to a February 7, 2015 report in WorldNetDaily (WND), the Obama Department of Justice appears to be stonewalling the release of documents that could implicate Ms. Lynch in a massive cover-up of Obama administration involvement in the international money-laundering of Mexican drug cartel money.

WND reports that Lynch, while serving as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, “oversaw the investigation of drug-related international money-laundering allegations against London-based HSBC Holdings, LLC.”  WND had previously published a series of articles documenting charges that HSBC laundered billions of dollars that were traced back to Mexican drug cartels.  That investigation resulted in a $1.256 billion fine paid to the U.S. government, ending the investigation and avoiding the filing of criminal charges.

According to the WND report, the federal government’s unwillingness to prosecute HSBC was exposed by whistle blower John Cruz, a former HSBC vice president in New York, who called the bank a “criminal enterprise,” saying that the fine imposed by the Department of Justice was “a joke.”  After being forced out of HSBC, Cruz filed a $10 million lawsuit against HSBC, charging “retaliation and wrongful termination.”  At that point, whistle blowers in India and London joined Cruz in charging that the HSBC settlement amounted to a “massive cover-up.”

WND charged that, in retaliation for their reporting of Cruz’s evidence, “HSBC lodged a complaint that blocked Internet access to one of the WND stories, and WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi was fired by Gilford Securities, the New York City investment firm he had worked with for two years as a senior managing director.  However, the plot thickened when WND uncovered evidence suggesting that the Obama Justice Department failed to proceed with the investigation of money-laundering charges in deference to bank clients of the Washington-based law firm where Eric Holder served as a partner prior to becoming attorney general.

In a telephone interview on February 6th, Cruz told WND that the Obama administration “is continuing to cover up its role in the HSBC money laundering scandal.”  He went on to say that “the IRS has blocked every legal effort he has made to be credited as a whistleblower in the HSBC billion-dollar settlement.”  He said, “It is impossible that the Obama administration did not know HSBC was laundering drug money for the Mexican cartels, because the documentation I had showed the laundered money passed through the federal wire-transfer services.”

Cruz charged that the 1,000 pages of customer account information he provided show that HSBC’s money-laundering activities relied heavily on identity theft and purloined Social Security numbers that were “then used to create bogus retail and commercial bank accounts.”  Through those bogus accounts, HSBC employees systematically deposited and withdrew hundreds of millions of dollars on a daily basis, apparently without the knowledge of the identity-theft victims.  He explained that when a bogus bank loan was established under a stolen identity… causing much consternation among individuals who found they were the recipients of loans they knew nothing about… five percent of the loan proceeds went to the accounting firm that prepared the phony tax returns and the other 95 percent went to the HSBC managers.

Cruz explained that one manager was involved in the transaction, another manager was involved in notarizing the transaction, and senior management was involved when they approved the loans, even loans that had been rejected by underwriters.  In order to avoid prosecution for violation of the U.S. Bank Secrecy Act, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and the Trading with the Enemy Act, HSBC agreed to pay the $1.256 billion fine in a deferred prosecution agreement with Obama’s Justice Department.

With Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch having major roles in the cover-up, Ms. Lynch will have a great deal of explaining to do as her confirmation hearings continue.

In the meantime, it would be most interesting to study FEC contribution reports to learn how much HSBC money found its way into the hands of Barack Obama, the Democratic Party, and numerous Democratic candidates.

Greece Jumps from Scylla to Charybdis

A new Socialist party has seized Greek power by Iain Murray:

Every Greek child reads Homer in school. So Greek children are familiar with the legend of Scylla and Charybdis, from Homer’s Odyssey. The sailor Odysseus, returning home after the Trojan War, is faced with a desperate choice in the straits separating Italy and Sicily. To one side is the monster Scylla, who will tear his ship and eat his crew. On the other is the whirlpool Charybdis, which will suck his entire ship down to the depths. He chooses to sail past Scylla, and loses only a few of his crew. Greece, in its recent parliamentary election, faced a similar choice. But unlike Odysseus, Greek voters chose Charybdis.

The whirlpool was represented by Syriza, a radical leftist party that sprang out of nowhere to fill the void created by the collapse of PASOK, the long-established Greek Socialist party. It was the last PASOK government, headed by George Papandreou (from a family that produced three Socialist prime ministers), that steered Greece into these straits in the first place.

Papandreou was presented with the boon of cheap money following Greece’s entry into the eurozone in January of 2001. At the time, the European Central Bank (ECB) pursued policies aimed at shoring up Germany’s then-flagging economy by borrowing heavily to finance public spending. The result was the debt crisis that began in 2010.

Greek voters came to regard PASOK as the party of nepotism and corruption, and shifted their support to the Coalition of the Radical Left, known as Syriza for its Greek acronym. Syriza positioned itself as anti-corruption, anti-bank, and (at least implicitly) anti-euro, and for increased levels of public spending and welfare.

Syriza narrowly lost to the center-right New Democracy party in the 2012 election, but was able to capitalize on increasing public discontent with that party’s policies afterward. A majority of Greeks perceived New Democracy to be governing at the behest of the “troika” — the European Commission, the ECB, and the International Monetary Fund — that set conditions for the Greek bailout.

The troika’s conditions were characterized as an austerity program intended to lower the country’s debt burden. It consisted of a combination of increased taxes and lower public spending by means of privatization, staff layoffs, and welfare cuts. But it did not include major structural reforms, so the Greek economy has yet to recover, with unemployment at 25 percent overall and 60 percent among young people.

Syriza’s platform rejected austerity. Instead, it offered a return to prosperity by lowering taxes on the working class and increasing spending to stimulate demand, while providing “free” electricity. How would it pay for this? By more heavily taxing “the rich” — of course! — and by diverting money from bond repayments to public spending following a negotiated debt restructuring. It also expects the ECB to steer its new quantitative easing program toward buying Greek debt.

This set of policies, described euphemistically as “mild Keynesianism” by its prime author, is precisely what got Greece into trouble under PASOK — spending financed by the rest of Europe. But this time the rest of Europe is unlikely to stand for paying Greece’s bills. German finance minister Wolfgang Schaeuble has already signaled that he expects Greece’s new government to abide by its international agreements.

All this sets Greece on a straight course for another whirlpool: default and a possible “Grexit” from the euro. The new prime minister, Alexis Tsipras, has said he wants to avoid both eventualities, but it is hard to see how he can achieve this without forcing the troika and Germany into a humiliating U-turn.

There is a strong argument that Grexit would actually be good for Greece, which should probably never have entered the eurozone in the first place, but the Greek people remain strongly in favor of the European project. They would likely blame Grexit on Germany, leading to even greater political tensions. The fact that Syriza’s coalition partner, the right-wing populist Independent Greek party, is militantly pro-Russian would just exacerbate this further.

Not all the blame for this terrible situation should fall on Greek voters. While the austerity program of New Democracy and the troika looks impressively Thatcherite at first sight, it includes very high taxes and misses out on one vital element: institutional and regulatory reform. Greece’s financial and labor markets are still hopelessly bureaucratic. New Democracy’s attempts at reform were half-hearted at best.

As long as Greece remains beset by a bureaucracy that promotes corruption as the best way around it, its economy will remain in the doldrums, regardless of how austere or profligate any one government may be.

Greece does not have to choose between Scylla and Charybdis. As the accompanying cartoon from 1790s England suggests, it is possible to steer between the rocks of anti-establishment populism (in Greece’s case, Syriza) and the whirlpool of an arbitrary executive (the troika). It can do so if its sets a straight course for the safe harbor of liberty.

ABOUT IAIN MURRAY

Iain Murray is vice president at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

The Great 2016 TEA Party Dilemma

I had the honor of hanging out with a great group of patriots, the Fort Lauderdale TEA Party. I was the keynote speaker at their 309th consecutive meeting. My message articulates why Conservatism is best for all Americans and why Liberalism is destructive. My presentation also includes me singing which enhances my message because music strikes a universal emotional chord.

The audience at the meeting included the president of a high school Republican club. I asked why he chose Conservatism. He chucked and attributed it to his high IQ. There is hope for the future folks.

The extremely faithful and fired-up patriot leaders of the group are Danita and Jack; new friends of my wife Mary and me.

Jack informed me that a poll revealed that Jeb Bush topped his group’s list of least favored presidential candidates for 2016. A gentleman bent my ear for quite a while, ranting about how he will stay home on election day if Jeb Bush is our candidate. He vowed never again to hold his nose and vote for a RINO, citing having voted for McCain and Romney.

Remember, Obama was reelected in 2012 because four million Republicans chose not to vote. Some thought whats the point – Romney vs Obama, six of one, half a dozen of the other. Some Christians said they could not vote for a Mormon. I thought, “Great, so you sat at home and allowed a true devil to win!” Having said that, I do respect and appreciate that Conservatives are thinkers and are driven by character and principles.

I held my nose and voted for Romney because I knew the alternative was much, much worse; giving the most America hating arrogant out-of-control president in U.S. History four more years to urinate on our Constitution; purposely lower our status on the world stage and correct what he erroneously perceives as America’s injustices.

Our president is obviously an anti-America-as-founded far left radical operative; an enemy from within. During the Cold War some feared the Communists would overtake us without firing a shot. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Barack Hussein Obama.

My faith in God keeps me upbeat and confident that we will overcome the evil seeking to destroy our great nation. God’s Word instructs us not to grow weary in well-doing.

As for Jeb Bush becoming our nominee, I am thumbs down on him because of his support for Common Core (big government overreaching control of education) and amnesty for illegals.

However, if it comes down to Jeb Bush or another flaming RINO as our candidate, the Tea Party will be faced with a difficult dilemma.

Think of the consequences of Hillary becoming the first woman to sit in the big chair in the Oval Office. The Dems and MSM will make every issue about her gender. To silence all opposition to President Clinton continuing Obama’s fundamental transformation of America (socialist/progressive agenda), the Democrats and MSM will update their propaganda, branding all opposition “sexist” rather than “racist.”

We’ve seen this movie before. The MSM will beat the public over the head 24/7 with their lie until the public is repeating it; opposing Hillary is sexist, white cops murder blacks, white privilege is a problem, Republicans are at war with women and so on.

Hillary Clinton occupying the White House will in essence mean at least four more years of a Democrat regime believing themselves invincible, free to continue using the Constitution as toilet paper.

We can not allow the deep-pocketed GOP establishment or mainstream media to select our presidential candidate.

So, how do we avoid the great 2016 Tea Party dilemma, having to vote for a RINO? We must rally around a conservative candidate who probably will not walk on water (be perfect on every issue). I can support a non perfect conservative candidate as long as they are fearless and laser focused on stopping Obama’s insane evil agenda.

I am starting to hear patriots say they are “all in” for their favorite 2016 presidential candidate; Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, Dr. Ben Carson and so on. Fine, I am cool with that. I am not ready to go “all in” for anyone at this stage.

All I ask is that we unite and rally around the last conservative standing. Folks, I pray that our nation can recover and turn back the mess of 8 years under Obama, America’s first king. The last thing America needs is Hillary, America’s first queen.

VIDEO: President Obama call the Bibisitter

Our colleagues at Gates of Vienna with the aid of the talented Vlad Tepes had this cute Likud Campaign commercial, Bibisitter, translatted and subtitled.

So, President Obama, next time you and Michelle are out of town on official or fund raising trips you might call the Bibisitter to look after your daughters. He appears more able to look after things in Israel than those others you seem to be supporting in next month’s Knesset election, Tzipi and Buji.

Watch the Bibisitter Likud ad here:

Transcript:

0:03 Mami, what time did you call for the babysitter to arrive?
0:06 We’re late…
0:15 WOW… It’s the Prime Minister…
0:21 What an honor! What… what are you doing here?
0:24 Bibi: Did you call for a babysitter? You got a Bibi-sitter. Where are the children?
0:29 But you’re the Prime Minister. Are you the one to watch our children for us?
0:33 Bibi: Look, it’s either me…
0:35 Or Tzipi (Livni) and Buji (Hertzog) (both candidates, leading the Labor party)
0:38 No, no, no… Buji? It’s our kids who need to babysit HIM…
0:40 By the time we get back we won’t have a home…
0:42 He’ll even sell out our carpets (territories – same root in Hebrew)
0:46 And Tzipi? Tzipi?! She stays two hours in one place…
0:50 Bibi: By the time you get back, she’ll probably move to the neighbors’…
0:53 In the next elections you will decide who will protect our children…
0:57 In the next elections one should vote ONLY Likud…
1:00 It’s US or THEM… Only Likud… Only Netanyahu…
1:04 (on TV screen) Enough Tzipi
1:10 SHALOM (PEACE)…
1:12 Bibi: Not at any price.
1:14 (text) The Likud Under Netanyahu

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

Sarah Palin Is Right: Go on Offense, Tout Conservatism

Forty years ago when my Aunt Nee was the pastor of the Holy Temple Church of Truth, an east Baltimore storefront, during testimony service Sister Davis or Sister Clearly would spontaneously lead the tiny congregation in singing, “We’re Livin’ In the Last Days.” “They’re calling wrong right. They’re calling right wrong. Surely, we’re livin’ in the last days!”

As I listened to Sarah Palin’s speech at the Iowa Freedom Summit, I was elated that she once again displayed her exemplary leadership by not joining the chorus of those on our side who believe touting true conservatism is a loser. Palin said we should expose the Left’s false premises and educate the public to the benefits and virtues of Conservatism. Wow! How simple and right on target is that?
Many Republicans believe we have lost the argument and the only way to win votes is to abandon core principles, surrender and campaign according to the Left’s/Democrats’ false premises. In essence, they want the GOP to call wrong right and right wrong.

For example: Dems argue that requiring a photo ID to vote disenfranchises blacks. A GOP presidential contender suggested that the GOP drop the requirement to show a photo ID to vote, citing that it offends African Americans. Well, as an American who happens to be black, I find the absurd assumption that it is too challenging to ask blacks to find their way to the DMV to acquire a photo ID extremely insulting and offensive. Showing a photo ID is a reasonable common sense solution to combating rampant Democrat voter fraud. The GOP line should be the same for all Americans. If you want to vote, show a photo ID. Period.

Some on our side are pandering to Obama’s lie that raising the minimum wage will help fix income inequality; once again calling wrong right and right wrong. As Palin suggested in her speech, the GOP should be educating voters to the truth; explain why free market solutions are most beneficial to all Americans and the right thing to do.

Some GOP presidential contenders have embraced Common Core, big government overreaching control of the education of our kids.

I get a bit queasy when members of the GOP start using liberal lingo and embracing premises such as man-made climate change, income inequality and white privilege. My “danger Will Robinson” alert goes off when GOP members start talking about fixing Obamacare, despite winning the election on their vow to repeal it. Shockingly, many in the GOP secretly want to allow Obama’s outrageous executive amnesty to stand.

Man-made climate change is a hoax. Period.

Allowing absurd evil liberal Democrat premises to gain momentum have dire consequences. Their lie that white cops routinely murder blacks lead to the assassination of two NYPD officers. White privilege is another Democrat made-up crisis.

Remarkably, a St Paul, Minnesota school district spend $60k of taxpayer dollars attending “White Privilege” conferences. Talk about the bigotry of lowered expectations, the conferences suggest that black students should not be expected to be on time or work hard because neither concept are a part of their culture. Give me a break.

It is vital that our 2016 presidential candidate be over the “Obama is black thing”, unafraid to deal with Obama as an arrogant lawless tyrant.

Terrified of being called racist, the GOP has allowed Obama to act like a far left radical kid in America’s candy store; insulated from criticism and rebuke by his black-skin coat of armor.

Over the past six and a half years, a socialist/progressive zealot has crept out of the Left’s handsome well-spoken black man Trojan Horse. His mission is to destroy America as founded from within; the Constitution, the law, congress, the senate and the American people be damned. Obama’s strategy is to federalize as much of our land, economy and lives as possible, thus repealing as many of our freedoms as possible.

From the beginning, Sarah Palin and the Tea Party tried to warn America about Obama, only to be marginalized in the minds of many by the mainstream media. They branded Palin and the Tea Party stupid, crazy and a bunch of redneck racists hating on our first black president.

The mainstream media game plan to defeat us in 2016 is quite simple. First they hammer us with the notion that any GOP candidate who defends the Constitution and advocates for limited government is extreme. Thus, to win, we must embrace liberal Democrat false premises.

The MSM then selects a “moderate” candidate which they praise to the hilt. But once we fall for their con and make the moderate RINO our official presidential nominee, they launch a vitriolic campaign portraying our candidate as the devil incarnate.

As Palin has stated, in 2016 only a presidential candidate who inspires, pleasantly educates and boldly articulates Conservatism will do.

My Problem with Sarah Palin

With Sarah Palin once again hinting at a presidential run, pundits and politics wonks are all the more aflutter with 2016 talk. The predictable slings and arrows of the surly left are coming her way, while her excited fans are firing up the troops. Then there are those who say that while they like the ex-governor, they don’t believe she could win the presidency. My focus, however, is a bit different: I have an objection to Palin — one relating to something of which most are unaware.

Before getting to that, please indulge me as I ask a few questions that establish where we all stand. Are you adamantly pro-life, or might your position change if (as in polling) the question is framed as a woman’s “right to choose”? Do you stand foursquare against amnesty, or could you be persuaded to accept a “path to citizenship” for illegals? Do you uphold the proper and only definition of marriage, or have the unrelenting attacks on tradition worn you down to a point where you might conclude, “Well, none of this affects me, anyway”?

If you’re unwavering on all those issues, as I am, you’re a real Sarah Palin conservative.

Or are you?

You see, I’m pretty sure how Palin would answer those questions — and one answer is a real problem.

On October 26, 2008, Palin had an interview with Jorge Ramos of Spanish-language network Univision. She was asked about amnesty: “So you support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants?” Her answer:

“I do because I understand why people would want to be in America. To seek the safety and prosperity, the opportunities, the health that is here. It is so important that yes, people follow the rules so that people can be treated equally and fairly in this country.”

Sarah Palin supported amnesty…in so many words.

See if you can put enough lipstick on that pig.

Now, since our country is subject to a somewhat planned invasion that’s changing its face and involves the importation of leftist voters-to-be, I consider any pro-amnesty position a deal-breaker. I’ve been front and center on the issue, so much so that Pat Buchanan saw fit to quote me in his book Death of the West. I even stated, “Marco Rubio is dead to me” after he supported the Gang of Eight amnesty group in 2013.  And, believe me, I once had high hopes for the photogenic, articulate Rubio. But my principles aren’t negotiable (especially the one in question here).

Some may now say that Palin had to play ball, as she was running for the White House in 2008 with amnesty poster boy John McCain.

But as they say back home, that dog don’t hunt — certainly not grizzly in Alaska.

Remember that Palin has been billed by supporters as a breath of fresh air, the un-politician, a principled crusader and transformational figure. Her whole stated appeal is based on the notion that she’s not just another politician who goes along to get along.

But on Oct 26, 2008 she gave a quintessential politician-like answer. And on one of the biggest issues of our time.

Yet there’s more than just Palin’s words on immigration. There are also her actions — or perhaps inaction. As Examiner.com’s Victor Medina wrote in 2013 citing Lou Dobb’s reportage, “Palin did not appear to act on the fact that Alaska hosted two ‘sanctuary cities.’” As Dobbs put it, related Medina, “Alaska and Oregon both have state-wide policies that forbid state agencies from using resources to enforce federal immigration law. Apparently, this is by design from the highest levels” (emphasis added).

Now, since I’ve learned the hard way that criticizing Palin alienates some of my usual readers, I’ll state that I bear her no special animus. She’s no different from 1000 other politicians who either don’t understand the true impact of immigration (and a lot of other things) or have principles whose malleability is proportional to the power at stake. But that’s the point.

Palin is no different from 1000 other politicians.

This brings us to her true appeal. And if you’re a fan of hers, please try to take a step back, if you can, and view the matter from an emotional distance.

Question: can you cite for me one novel or unusually insightful thing Palin has ever said?

Just one.

Anyone?

Politics wonk that I am, I can’t think of anything. Don’t misunderstand me, there’s nothing wrong with most of what she does say; it’s conservative boilerplate, and that’s where you generally start. But that again is the point.

Palin says nothing 1000 politicians haven’t said before her.

So I ask, what’s her true appeal, really?

Let’s be honest, if we can’t point to even one thing that makes a much ballyhooed politician substantively different from less touted co-ideologists, the process of elimination tells us where the greater appeal must lie.

It’s not Palin’s oratory, either. Oh, it’s not bad, but she’s no Reagan or Alan Keyes. The difference is what she is.

No one would be talking about Palin if she weren’t attractive and female.

This is true even if, by chance, John McCain would have been willing to choose a “Scott” Palin to be his running-mate (which he wouldn’t have).

It’s the phenomenon I expounded upon in “Cultural Affirmative Action” and “The New Chivalry”: “when people in the market and media privilege others — sometimes unconsciously — based upon the latter’s identification with a ‘victim group.’”

And most every politically aware person grasps this phenomenon to some degree. The late Geraldine Ferraro addressed Barack Obama’s meteoric political rise in 2008 and said, “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position.” And Ferraro had noted herself that she wouldn’t have been the 1984 vice-presidential candidate were she not a woman. It’s the same reason, by the way, why Fox News hires a large number of attractive female hosts and pundits. Do you think it’s a coincidence? Is the largely conservative audience so taken with them solely because of their minds?

The fact is that it’s impossible to not benefit from fairer-sex status in politics today; it even elevates your brand among conservatives, though it’s difficult convincing many conservatives they’re thus influenced. With many motivations being unconscious, it’s common for people to not be completely aware of what drives them. How many Americans voted for Obama in 2008 without fully grasping the degree to which electing “the first black president” and wanting to feel unbigoted and open-minded influenced them?

This isn’t to say Palin fans don’t have some legitimate reasons to support her, only that the kind of heroine worship and savior-status attribution evident in some quarters — support vastly in excess of what boilerplate conservatism warrants — is due to a purely emotional reaction stoked by image and hope. Many conservatives, knowing that having a female or minority presidential candidate is advantageous today, want to believe in the Great Female Hope. Moreover, there is this politically correct notion, now seamlessly woven into our culture, of female specialness and superiority. So many today are looking for a woman to save us.

Then there’s simply the matter of conservative female politicians’ relative rarity (even many GOP women officeholders are quite liberal); it’s easier to be seen as a standout when you stand out.

So the perhaps unwelcome message here is this: as with the 2008 Barack Obama, Palin is a cult of personality.

If even now you count yourself a Palinista, realize that I’m not emotionally invested in the matter. After all, I know that political remedies won’t cure what at bottom are cultural problems, anyway. It’s also true that like so many other politicians, Palin demonstrates the ability to evolve. And at least she’s evolved in the right direction: two years ago she called the 2013 Gang-of-Eight Rubio “Judas” in a tweet. I only wonder what she now really thinks, deep down, about the 2008 Palin.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

Sarah Palin Too Toxic for 2016?

Sarah Palin saying “Of course” she’s interested regarding running for the presidency in 2016 has people buzzing. During that interview, Palin said we need a candidate who is ready for Hillary. I agree. Romney would be Mr. Nice Guy/gentleman unwilling to attack the girl.

As for Palin running, a woman wrote: “I have never given up on her (Sarah Palin). I am sooooooo hoping that she will be our spokesperson. My husband says the press and Obama have tainted her so much that it would be impossible for her to run. I say that ‘with God, all things are possible.”

To this woman, I say, “Right on sister!” No offense to her husband, but I find his mindset frustrating. We complain that there are far too few politicians with the cojones to push back against Obama’s unprecedented arrogance, lawlessness and tyranny. Despite their newly acquired control over the House and Senate, the GOP appears to be attempting to pull the wool over our eyes regarding amnesty. In their Spanish response to Obama’s SOTU, the GOP brought up immigration, desiring to “create permanent solutions” without mentioning immigration in the English version. What is up with that?

So tell me folks, how many politicians on our side truly are who they say they are; standing up for our principles and values – fighting for freedom and the Constitution? We lament that many politicians on our side are obsessed with winning an approving pat on the head from the MSM; reduced to political impotence. Oh if only there was a little blue pill for dis-functioning Republicans/conservatives.

Palin has proven that she does not give a rat’s derriere about what the MSM thinks of her. We pray for a voice on the big stage with the guts to stand up for Conservatism.

Sarah Palin fills the bill in spades; one of the few unafraid to get into Obama’s grill. I love it!Unapologetic to the Left (Democrats, Hollywood and MSM) Palin’s attitude is, “Say it loud. I’m conservative and proud.”

Not too long ago, a conservative savior arrived on the seen, exciting and inspiring millions. I remember being on the Tea Party Express national tour bus. We kicked off the tour in a dust bowl, Searchlight, NV with Sarah Palin as our headliner. Twenty five thousand people showed up, many camping out days ahead to reserve their spot. I witnessed the moving scene of seniors who had to park almost a mile away approaching the event using walkers; all coming to see their Sarah.

The Left launched an over the top viscous shock and awe champion to crucify Sarah Palin, her family and her disciples. When the Left sought after Palin supporters, sadly, many cowardly said, “I never knew her.” There is something deja vu about this scenario.

So, Palin courageously comes along and does everything patriots have been longing and praying for someone to do. Her reward is patriots distancing themselves from her. Classy. Real classy.

Since taking the national political stage by storm with her amazing VP nominee acceptance speech, the Left as gone crazy, insane with pure unadulterated hatred for Sarah Palin; no attack was too evil or too low. Every Palin family member was in-play including Trig Palin, her Down Syndrome child.

Intellectually challenged actress Pamela Anderson said, “I can’t stand her. She can suck it!”

Obama supporters showed up at Palin events wearing t-shirts which read, “Sarah Palin is a C***” in huge letters. The t-shirt was even featured on Obama’s website with no rebuke from the MSM or Democrats. http://bit.ly/1sCgoly

Howard Stern idiotically blamed Palin for the Arizona shooting and called her a “F***er and a c***!”

HBO show host Bill Maher called Palin a “dumb twat” Maher has used the c-word when referring to conservative women including Palin. This vile little man has also called Palin a MILF (Mother I’d Like to F***).

Despite the Left’s best efforts to humiliate and destroy her, Palin has hung tough, remaining faithful to the mission of the Tea Party; the preservation of our freedom, liberty and culture — traditional conservative principles and values; God, family and country.

And yet, there are those on our side who suggest that we kick Palin to the curb because she has become “too toxic”.

The field for 2016 is pretty crowded. I am not ready to select a candidate. However, if Palin throws her bonnet into the ring, my heart is with her 100%. He need a hero.

Greek Anti-bailout Party Win Threatens U.S. Hegemony

Greece just announced that its euroskeptic party Syriza has won the general elections by a big margin.

So what, you say?

First, what happens in Europe happens here later. But there’s a lot more to this story than that.

You see, while European politicians almost never wax so bold as to out-rightly complain about the U.S. forcing them to impose sanctions on Russia, they all know that these Russian sanctions are what led to the drop in the euro’s value, since Russia retaliated by imposing its own sanctions on Europe. Now, Germany won’t complain. The lower the euro goes, the more goods it exports. And since Merkel is generally seen as the head of the EU shadow government, that signals a major struggle between her and those in the EU who wish to give in to Syriza’s demands.

The most portentous of those demands is a restructuring of the Greek national debt. If the EU caves, then Greece gets to pay only part of their debt and leaves Europe (mostly Germany) paying the rest. Once they get away with this, they simply start the profligate spending process all over and the EU pays on into eternity.

So what does that have to do with the U.S. oligarchic government?

Think Russian sanctions.

Eventually, other countries will no doubt follow suit. After all, if one country gets to shed part of its debt Scot-free, why not another, and another?

Now one of the worst-off countries in the EU is France. Suppose the unthinkable happened and that huge economy decide to demand restructuring, or worse, defaulted.

That would be a calamity for the EU and the world economy, of which we are a part. But President Hollande has long complained that its debt burden to the EU is too onerous. He sounds as if he too might want to restructure. And how could they deny him this?

Further, Hollande is one of those European leaders who has complained of the Russian sanctions, which have come back to bite Europe in the derrière.

It looks as if Europe is headed toward a showdown with the US. At some point, it seems likely that individual nations will cry “enough” and tell the US to shove it.

If that happens, U.S. prestige will slide closer and closer to the gutter and our own sanctions against Russia will be less and less meaningful.

But what if the EU restructures everyone’s debt?

Would they do that?

Remember that the European Central Bank began a quantitative easing program just in time to greet the Greek elections with the money needed to meet Syriza’s demands — despite their pretense of denying this. Coincidence? To answer that question, consider that this quantitative easing came at exactly the wrong time economically. The euro was already dropping like a rock. Quantitative easing has an inflationary tendency. By contrast, the U.S. QEs started at a time when the US dollar was healthy and could hold up without a major loss of value. Not to mention the power of the petrodollar.

It looks like they knew they’d be forced to meet the Greek restructuring demands (although they continue to say they won’t, the usual pattern in these cases). If so, they may well be forced to meet the demands of many more countries.

Now the euro has dropped more today on news of the Greek election results.

As for the implications for the US, meeting these demands could easily collapse the EU. If that happens, it’s every nation for itself.

The chances that each individual nation would follow US demands to maintain the sanctions against Russia are slim to none. It is more likely that an increasingly rebellious Europe would tell the US to do what Victoria Nuland told the EU to do to itself.

But that is only the beginning of woes if you are an élite within the beltway.

They would almost certainly refuse to go along with US demands permission to launch an air strike against Iran – as will be demanded by Netanyahu before Congress. Or other subsequent military actions when they are truly needed to defend our homeland. After all, they’ve heard us cry “wolf” too many times in the past.

The U.S. oligarchy would then be alone, encircled as it were, just the kind of encirclement our elites hoped to impose on Russia.

What went around would have come around.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Alexis Tsipras, leader of the Syriza Party. Photographer: Kostas Tsironis/Bloomberg.

Ingoglia and Gruters: The Right Men in the Right Place at the Right Time

Did I use the word “right” enough times in my headline? The Republican Party of Florida has elected a new Chairman and Vice Chairman. I know both men well. Both men are much needed in a party that has gone adrift since 2008.  Florida twice went in the Democratic Party presidential race column. These men have the character, values and abilities to turn Florida deep red in 2016.

How can they easily do this? Ingoglia and Gruters need to focus their 2016 GOTV effort on a gold mine of 1 million untapped Florida voters.

Tom Trento in his column “A ’1 Million Voter Pot of Gold’ that will Turn Florida Deep Red” writes:

Florida, over the past two Presidential election cycles, has been carried by President Obama by a narrow margin. If Republicans lose Florida in 2016 then they cannot win the Presidency, regardless of the Republican nominee. That is a cold hard fact. Voters are won based on public policy issues that motivate them to go to the polls and pull the lever or touch the voter screen for the political party that best reflects their values and beliefs.

It makes no sense for Republicans in Florida to “chase” special interest left-of-center groups in a hope to get their vote, which will never happen. In makes a lot of sense to “chase” the obvious demographic that is with Republicans on most issues, the Christian vote. If more Conservative Christians get seriously involved in Florida politics, then the state will turn solid RED (Republican).

Many believe it is time for the Republican Party of Florida to stop “chasing” the little fish and cast a wider net, going for the big fish – Evangelical Christian voters. This voting block is needed to turn Florida a deep red state in 2016.

Ingoglia and Gruters understand that President Reagan had a simple but compelling strategy based on his three legged stool:

  1. Strong pro-national defense.
  2. Pro-free market economic policies.
  3. Pro-family policies.

To ignore one of these legs makes the stool unstable. History can repeat itself with a strong pro-American presidential candidate. For Floridians 2016 is now in the sunshine.

There is hope in Florida, for a change.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

How to Elect a Pro-Israel, Pro-American President in 2016

Who are the most liberal and conservative candidates for President in 2016?

Who are the most liberal and conservative candidates for President in 2016?

crowdpac rick perryStartup Crowdpac.com is a new political website that ranks 24 potential candidates for President in 2016. According to Crowpac’s methodology there are no moderate politicians running, to date. Crowdpac ranks the 2016 Presidential candidates in a unique and comprehensive way using a 20 point scale, with 10L a perfect liberal record and 10C the perfect conservative record. Their website states:

Crowdpac is the definitive resource for objective data on US political candidates. Our unique data model shows you where politicians stand on the issues, based on what they say, how they vote and who gives them money. Crowdpac’s mission is to help everyone participate more easily and effectively in the political process. Crowdpac is independent, non-partisan and for-profit. This is the new politics.

In the liberal camp the spread between being more liberal with Bernie Sanders at 8.3L or less liberal with Joe Biden at 4.4L is 3.9 points. On the conservative side the spread is 7.5 with Rand Paul being the perfect conservative at 10.0C and Governor Chris Christie the least conservative at 2.5C. Liberal candidates are much more like minded than are the conservative candidates. The separation between the least liberal candidate (Biden) and the least conservative candidate (Christie) is 8.1 points, according to Crowdpac’s scale.

The infographic below provides an overview of the rankings:

ranking liberals and conservatives

For a larger view click on the image.

crowdpac hillary clintonCrowdpac polls show that liberals are backing Hillary Clinton by a large margin, while conservatives are still making up their minds. The polling spread between the two top liberal candidates (Clinton and Warren) is 49.5%, while for the top two conservative candidates (Bush and Christie) it is 5.8%. Bush and Christie are the most liberal candidates on the conservative scale.

Many have written that President Obama is the most liberal President in the history of the United States. He is also one of the most unpopular as are his policies. So what does the data from Crowdpac really telling us? Are voters looking for a conservative liberal or liberal conservative or neither?

Time will tell.

RELATED CHART COURTESY OF THE WASHINGTON POST:

public office seats won and lost

This chart shows the number of seats won (blue) or lost (red) at the state and federal levels by U.S. Presidents since 1953. The graphic is courtesy of the Washington Post.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Political Startup Ranks the Most Conservative, Liberal 2016 Candidates

Conservative Lawmakers Prepare to Split From Republican Study Committee

Does The Democratic Party Have a Future?

Betrayal! RINOs Secretly Crafting Broad Amnesty Bill, McConnell Says Forget Reversing Obama’s Amnesty; GOP Suicide Countdown Begins

Republicans Bracing for Obama’s Massive Spending Hike

EDITORS NOTE: The features images are courtesy of Crowdpac.com.

Senator Ted Cruz: We need Bold, Positive Leadership

On Monday, January 12th, Sen. Cruz addressed the Heritage Foundation’s 2015 Conservative Policy Summit to discuss a bold, positive agenda for the new Congress. View video below.

A ‘1 Million Voter Pot of Gold’ that will Turn Florida Deep Red

Florida, over the past two Presidential election cycles, has been carried by President Obama by a narrow margin. If Republicans lose Florida in 2016 then they cannot win the Presidency, regardless of the Republican nominee. That is a cold hard fact. Voters are won based on public policy issues that motivate them to go to the polls and pull the lever or touch the voter screen for the political party that best reflects their values and beliefs.

It makes no sense for Republicans in Florida to “chase” special interest left-of-center groups in a hope to get their vote, which will never happen. In makes a lot of sense to “chase” the obvious demographic that is with Republicans on most issues, the Christian vote. If more Conservative Christians get seriously involved in Florida politics, then the state will turn solid RED (Republican).

Here are the 2012 demographics showing that one million Christians Do Not Vote:

19,000,000 …….. FLORIDA POPULATION (2010 US Census)

15,000,000 ……… VOTING AGE CITIZENS (over 18)

12,000,000 ……… REGISTERED VOTERS (80% of voting age pop.)

12,000,000 ……… VOTING AGE CHRISTIANS (80% of voting age pop.)

8,474,179 ……… TOTAL NUMBER OF VOTES CAST IN 2012

4,235,270 …….…. OBAMA VOTES IN 2012 – (50%)

4,162,081 ….……   ROMNEY VOTES IN 2012 – (49.1%)

73,189 ……….… OBAMA OVER ROMNEY VICTORY MARGIN in 2012

9,000,000 ………. POTENTIAL EVANGELICAL / PROTESTANT CHRISTIAN VOTERS (60% of pop)

3,000,000 ………. CATHOLIC CHRISTIAN VOTERS (20% of pop)

2,250,000 ………. EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS WHO ACTUALLY VOTE*

6,750,000 ………. PROBABLE EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS WHO DO NOT VOTE

1,000,000 ……… PROBABLE CATHOLIC CHRISTIANS WHO DO NOT VOTE

7,000,000 ……… CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE OF ALL CHRISTIANS WHO DO NOT VOTE

1,000,000 ……. EXTREMELY CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE OF NON-VOTING CHRISTIANS

NOTE: *Typically 50% of evangelical Christians are registered to vote and ONLY 50% of those registered actually do vote. That means that ONLY 25% of very serious, conservative Christians actually vote.

It is critical that the Republican Party of Florida provide positive incentives for these 1 million Christians to register as Republicans and vote Republican in 2016 and beyond. If the Republican Party of Florida does this Florida will remain deep red for the foreseeable future.

How to Elect a Pro-Israel, Pro-American President in 2016

The State of Israel and Jewish people worldwide are facing increased Jew-hatred, homeland terrorism and possible military attacks from many elements of the Islamic world. A dispassionate analysis indicates that Israel’s only stable national security partner is the United States of America.  Therefore it is essential that the national security relationship between these two countries is immediately repaired, strengthened and secured for many decades to come.

What is the Israel Security Project?

The Israel Security Project (ISP) is a two-year social media activist campaign to secure a pro-America, pro-Israel President of the United States while developing an “army” of Zionist activists to help build the national security bonds between America and Israel so that our relationship is strong, vital and maximized in order to defeat world threats including the Islamic State’s onslaught toward a Global Caliphate going right through Jerusalem.

Why initiate the Israel Security Project?

The United West team has successfully proven their capabilities over seven years and are uniquely positioned with significant national security relationships in both the USA and Israel to educate, motivate and lead elected officials and regular citizens to impact elections and achieve stated objectives.

How will the Israel Security Project social media component operate?

The United West will focus on the two primary areas of social media and grassroots activism to implement the Israel Security Project. Our social media component features a daily commercial one-hour radio show strategically broadcast in the Palm Beach/Broward Florida market from North Miami in the south to north Palm Beach in the north; an internet TV show broadcast worldwide with segments featured on Breitbart TV; investigative TV documentaries also broadcast on various internet outlets, worldwide. Additionally, all of our second-tier social media elements, like Face Book and Twitter are integrated into our first-tier social media productions resulting in a media digital footprint that reaches millions of viewers per year.  Demographically, our listening/viewing audience boasts a disproportionate number of elected officials, conservative community leaders, grassroots activists, military personnel and evangelical Christians.

How will the Israel Security Project grass roots component operate?

The United West has a proven track record mobilizing grass roots activists in America, strategic parts of Europe and now in Israel. Through our social media expertise we will have immediate and ongoing access and communication with thousands of Zionist activists in the USA, Israel and parts of Europe to implement the various phases of the Israel Security Project that results in a pro-America, pro-Israel, pro-West President.

What is the Israel Security Project “Christian Component?”

One of the distinguishing aspects of our Israel Security Project is Tom Trento’s Christian bona fides. Tom, an evangelical Christian is a graduate of two outstanding Christian schools, holds earned degrees in law enforcement, theology and philosophy of religion and has been a leader in the Christian community for over 30 years. The United West is an organization comprised primarily Jews and Christians but all associates are Zionists. In our two-year ISP campaign The United West will maximize Tom Trento’s deep Christian reach in order to build an “army” of Zionist activists standing with the State of Israel.

How is the Israel Security Project funded?

The United West is a non-profit 501 c-3, educational organization that is completely funded by donations.

For more information: Tom@TheUnitedWest.org