National Poll: Trump and Clinton in the Lead

WASHINGTON /PRNewswire/ — One America News Network, “OAN”, a credible source for 24/7 national and international news, released today its most recent 2016 Republican and Democratic Presidential National Poll results conducted by Gravis Marketing.  The poll results show that GOP Presidential candidate Donald Trump has a significant lead with 30.8% support among Republicans.   Presidential Candidate Jeb Bush comes in second with 13.3%, trailing Trump by a margin of 17.5%. Scott Walker earned the third spot, receiving 12.5% followed by Ben Carson with 6.1%.   Mike Huckabee rounds out the top five with 5.6%.

252808-INFO

252810-INFO252811-INFO

Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton leads with a commanding 54.9% with Bernie Sanders the only other candidate in the double digit range with 18.4%. The only other announced Democrat Presidential Candidate to achieve more than 5% is Jim Webb at 5.1%.

The recently conducted One America News national poll results show overall unfavorable job approval sentiment for President Obama, with a split down Party lines.  President Obama’s overall approval rating is 44% with his disapproval rating at 51%.

According to Robert Herring, Sr., CEO of One America News Network, “Donald Trump’s strong showing in this recent national poll is consistent with what we’ve been seeing in the state polls.  He’s clearly been attracting strong interest from Republicans across the country. The Democratic poll results are clear. At best it’s a two candidate race at this point. Based upon the poll results, it looks like Hillary Clinton will secure the Democratic nomination, unless there is some sort of blow up or a surprise surge by an announced, or unannounced candidate. One America News is pleased to provide our viewers with on-going up-to-date poll results and we’ve more upcoming state and national polling underway utilizing the polling firm Gravis Marketing.”

Doug Kaplan of Gravis Marketing states, “Trump’s poll numbers are once again amazing. At this time in the process in 2008 and 2012, there were already multiple debates. The upcoming debates will be critical. I thinkJeb Bush, with a second place national poll result and sitting on a ton of money is in a strong position. On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton is coasting to the nomination.  We haven’t seen anything like this since Richard Nixon in 1960.”

Gravis Marketing, a nonpartisan research firm, conducted a random survey of 1,535 registered voters across the U.S. regarding the presidential election. The sample includes 732 Republicans and 803 Democrats. The poll has a margin of error of +/- 2.5%.  The total may not equal exactly 100% due to rounding. The polls were conducted on July 29th using interactive voice response, IVR, technology and weighted separately for each population in the question presented. The poll was conducted exclusively for One America News Network. See www.oann.com/pollnational

One America News Network has been providing extensive coverage of the 2016 Presidential campaign, including numerous exclusive one-on-one interviews with the leading candidates. One America News Networkwill be releasing on-going 2016 Presidential polling results, including national Presidential polling results at the end of July. Complete poll results are available at http://www.oann.com/pollnational

About One America News Network (“OAN”)

One America News Network offers 21 hours of live news coverage plus two one-hour political talk shows, namely The Daily Ledger and On Point with Tomi Lahren. While other emerging and established cable news networks offer multiple hours of live news coverage, only OAN can claim to consistently provide 21 hours of live coverage every weekday. Third party viewership data for Q2 2015 from Rentrak, namely accumulated viewer hours, shows that OAN surpasses other news channels such as Al Jazeera America, Fusion, Fox Business News, and Bloomberg TV as measured on AT&T U-verse TV, across 65 markets.

Since its debut on July 4, 2013, One America News Network has grown its distribution to over 12 million households with carriage by AT&T U-Verse TV (ch 208/1208 in HD), Verizon FiOS TV (ch 116/616 in HD), GCI Cable, Frontier Communications, CenturyLink PRISM TV, Consolidated Communications, Duncan Cable, GVTC and numerous additional video providers. One America News Network operates production studios and news bureaus in California and Washington, DC.   For more information on One America News Network, please visit www.OANN.com.

The GOP Debates Scorecard

The Republican National Committee plans to conduct at least nine debates in the 2015-16 presidential primary season, the first of which will be held at the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, Ohio, on August 6, 2015.  The debate will be co-sponsored by Fox News and Facebook and moderated by Fox News anchors, Bret Baier, Megyn Kelly, and Chris Wallace.  And although the RNC is determined to hold far fewer debates than the twenty held during the 2012 primary season, the party has left the door open to the possibility of up to three additional debates if the need arises.

In a July 28, 2015 column, titled “Kristol Clear Straw Poll #5,” Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol expresses what a great many people have been thinking, which is that the GOP debate format agreed to by Fox News and the Republican National Committee falls far short of the ideal.

Fox News has announced that, in order to avoid having as many as sixteen candidates on the stage at one time, each vying for their share of face-time before the a national TV audience, they will limit the number of candidates to ten.  Those candidates will be the top ten candidates taken from an average of the five most recent national polls… the polls to be selected by Fox.

According to one analysis of five recent national polls, Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Donald Trump, and Scott Walker are almost certain to be selected, while the two remaining slots will be filled by either Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, John Kasich, Rick Perry, or Rick Santorum.  Carly Fiorina, George Pataki, and Lindsey Graham, each polling at roughly one percent, are apparently out of the running for the first debate.

Kristol has issued a fervent plea to Fox News and the RNC.  He asks that they please abandon the “poorly-conceived ten-person, one-main-stage format” while there is still time.  He argues that there simply will not be a “statistically significant difference between the 8th through 10th place finishers and the 11th through 13th places.”  I would argue that there is insufficient reason to arbitrarily exclude any six of the sixteen candidates.  Kristol suggests that, out of fairness, the sponsors change the format to two eight-person debates, to be held on successive nights, or, in the alternative, two five-person debates and one six-person debate on three successive nights.

In order to demonstrate how the single ten-person debate would deny primary voters the opportunity to discover what some of the best, most capable, but lesser known candidates have to offer, I have developed a rating system which, as objectively as possible, points to some significant strengths and weaknesses in the candidates that the casual observer might overlook.

The rating system I have developed utilizes six separate factors: eligibility, personal appeal,

experience, directness, the Trump factor, and position on the issues, each scored on a scale of

one to ten.  (The “Trump Factor” being a measure of the extent to which each candidate has

either adhered to or ignored Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment, re: the Trump candidacy.)

A quick analysis of the sixteen candidates produces the following results:

Republican Candidate Ratings – Pre-Debates

Candidate Eligibility  Appeal Experience Directness  Trump Factor Issues  Total

Bush               10              5              10                2                   0                 3         30

Carson            10             10             5                10                   10               8        53

Christie           10              7             10               10                     5               8        50

Ted Cruz          0               7              7                10                     2               8         34

Fiorina            10             10             8                10                   10               8         56

Gilmore           10              ?                10             ?                     ?                 ?           ?

Graham           10              2                10             10                   0                 8         40

Huckabee        10              8                 8              10                  10               10        56

Jindal                0               2                 8              10                   5                  8         33

Kasich              10              8                10              8                    5                10         51

Pataki               10              6                10              5                    5                  8         44

Paul                  10              8                6               10                  10                5          49

Perry                 10             8                10              8                    0               10          46

Rubio                 0             10               10             10                   8               10          48

Santorum          0              5                  8               5                    8                8          34

Trump               10             8                  8              10                  10               8          54

Walker               10             10                10             10                  5              10          55

Using the above analytical format, the participants in the August 6th debate would be, in order of ranking, 1) Carly Fiorina, 2) Mike Huckabee, 3) Scott Walker, 4) Donald Trump, 5) Ben Carson, 6) John Kasich, 7) Chris Christie, 8) Rand Paul, 9) Marco Rubio, and 10) Rick Perry.  Those watching the debate on TV would be, in order: 11) George Pataki, 12) Lindsey Graham, 13) Ted Cruz, 14) Rick Santorum, 15) Bobby Jindal, and 16) Jeb Bush.  Former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore has just announced and cannot be properly evaluated.

What is most interesting about the admittedly subjective analysis is that former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, who regularly polls at 2% or less because she lacks name recognition, comes out tied for first place with Mike Huckabee, each winning 56 out of a possible 60 points, while Jeb Bush, the darling of the mainstream media and establishment Republicans, comes in dead last.  Bush comes in last because: 1) he is not an appealing candidate, 2) he was one of the first to openly criticize Donald Trump, and 3) he has a history of pandering to liberal special interests.

To date, only three of the sixteen candidates have distinguished themselves from the others.  Carly Fiorina and Mike Huckabee have unabashedly taken the fight to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, while Donald Trump has created a firestorm with his straight-from-the-shoulder characterization of many of the illegal aliens streaming across our southern border,

What is clear is that the same not-dry-behind-the-ears incompetents who’ve managed Republican presidential campaigns since Reagan left the White House are still hanging around Washington, just waiting to see how many more presidential campaigns they can screw up.  In the past two weeks they have blindly led at least seven or eight of the establishment candidates to deal with the Trump campaign in the most counterproductive way, saying some really dumb things about  a totally fearless man who can always be counted upon to deliver more punishment than he receives… proving once again that it’s not always a good idea to poke at a hornets’ nest.

The Washington inside-the-Beltway political consultants are unaccustomed to honesty and forthrightness in campaign rhetoric and Donald Trump, a breath of fresh air, is now conducting a graduate seminar for them.  As a case in point, two young female guests on The O’Reilly Factor on Monday evening, July 27… young women who were not alive when Ronald Reagan was president, but who now market themselves as knowledgeable campaign strategists… were both asked how the other candidates should react to Trump’s surge in the polls.  True to their training, both provided the only answer they knew.  They said, “It’s time for them to go on the attack.  They need to go negative.”  That is precisely what Trump’s opponents should not do.

What GOP establishment candidates totally ignore is the fact that Americans, in general, and conservatives and Republicans in particular, have been yearning for nearly thirty years for a presidential candidate with the courage to “tell it like it is.”  They’ve longed for a conservative willing to take on the mainstream media, bare-knuckled, a leader with enough “rough edges” on him/her to scare the crap out of liberals and Democrats, both inside and outside the mainstream media.  For now, at least, Donald Trump looks like a man who fits that description, although if his approach to campaigning has had any impact at all on more conventional Republicans, the GOP debates may yet uncover another contender or two.

In the meantime, while the establishment candidates are busy attacking one of their own, Mike Huckabee and Carly Fiorina are out there doing “the Lord’s work,” exposing Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for the frauds they are.  But if Trump’s method and message fails to teach the establishment a few powerful lessons, then it looks as if some of us old “graybeards,” veterans of the Goldwater, Nixon, and Reagan campaigns, will be forced to come out of retirement to show them how it’s done.

Hillary Clinton’s Ideological Vortex of Power and Planning by Jeffrey A. Tucker

Just trust her. Truly, just trust her: to know precisely how much energy we ought to use, where it should come from, how it should be generated, how we should get from here to there, and the effects that her plan will have on the global — the global! — climate, not just in the near term but decades or a century from now.

If you do this, you will have embraced “science,” “reality,” “truth,” and “innovation,” and, also, “our children.” If you don’t go along, you not only reject all those good things; you are probably also a “denier,” the catch-all epithet for anyone doubtful that the brilliance of Hillary Clinton and her czars know better than the rest of humanity how to manage their energy needs into the future.

Hillary’s campaign seems designed to prove that F.A. Hayek was a prophet.

That brilliant economist spent 50 years explaining, in book after book, that the greatest danger humanity faced, now and always, was a presumption on the part of intellectuals, politicians, and bureaucrats that they know better than the emergent and evolving wisdom of social forces.

This presumption might seem like science but it is really pretense. Civilization arises from, is protected by, and advances through the dispersed knowledge of billions of individual decision makers and the institutions that arise from them.

Hayek called the issue he was investigating the knowledge problem. Society needs to know how to use scarce resources, how to navigate a world of uncertainty, how to form rules that turn struggle into peace. It is a problem solved through freedom alone. No ruler, no scientist, no intellectual can substitute for the evolving process of decentralized decision making and trial and error.

The message is bad news for people like Hillary, who is supposed to embody the ideology called “liberalism” in America. Yet it is anything but liberal. It seems to know only one way forward: more top-down control. That’s a tough sell in times when everything good so obviously comes from anything but government, and, meanwhile, governments are responsible for every failing sector from health to education to foreign wars.

But here’s the problem. People like Hillary Clinton are stuck in an ideological vortex with no way out. Government planning is their thing, and they refuse to recognize its failures. So they press on and on, even to the point of preposterous implausibility, such as the claim that government can know everything that is necessary to know in order to plan the entire energy sector with the aim of managing the climate of the world.

Economist Donald Boudreaux puts matters this way: “why should someone who cannot ensure the proper use of a single private server be trusted with the colossal power necessary to design and to oversee the remaking of a trillion-plus dollar sector of the U.S. economy (a sector, by the way, in which this person has zero experience)?”

With this presumption comes the inevitable hypocrisy.

After unveiling her plan to ration energy use and plaster the country with solar panels, Ms. Clinton boarded a private jet that uses more fuel in one flight hour than I use in a year. “The aircraft, a Dassault model Falcon 900B, burns 347 gallons of fuel per hour,” wrote the muckraker who did a public service in exposing this. “The Trump-esque transportation costs $5,850 per hour to rent, according to the website of Executive Fliteways, the company that owns it.”

Notice how rarely it is mentioned that the US military, with hundreds of bases in over a hundred countries, is the worst single polluter on the planet. If we really believe in human-caused climate change, this might be a good place to start cutting back. But no, there’s not a word about this in any of Hillary’s plans. Government gets to do what it must do. The rest of us are supposed to pay the price, bicycling to work and powering our homes with sunshine and windmills.

When I first read about her energy plan, my response was: Why would any self-interested politician make the need for reduced living standards a centerpiece of her campaign? After all, her speech was made in a setting piled high with bicycles (oddly reminiscent of Mao’s China), while demanding a precise path forward for energy and everything that uses it (oddly reminiscent of Lenin’s first speech after he took control of Russian economic life).

As it turns out, people aren’t that interested. Sure, most people tell pollsters that they favor renewable energy to stop climate change. You have to say that or else risk being denounced as a denier. On the other hand, it seems like very few people really care enough to forgo the benefits of modern life, which is probably what will save civilization itself from plans like hers. Note that days after release, her pompous video only had only 54K views — pathetic given her celebrity and how much money her campaign is spending, but encouraging that nobody seems to put much stock in her plan for our future.

It’s extraordinary how quickly one branch of the political class has leapt from the delicate and ever-changing science of climate monitoring to the absolute certainty that extreme and extremely specific application of government force is the way to deal with it. Writes Max Borders: “The sacralization of climate is being used as a great loophole in the rule of law, an apology for bad science (and even worse economics), and an excuse to do anything and everything to have and keep power.”

The last point is critical. Everything done in the name of public policy in our lifetimes has become a handful of dust, yielding little more than unpayable debts and unworkable programs, and leaving in its wake an apparatus of compulsion and control that robs society of its inherent genius.

What to do? Give up? That’s not an option for these people. Instead, they find a new frontier for their schemes, a new rationale to sustain a failed model of social and economic organization.

I can think of no better words of rebuke but the closing of Hayek’s Nobel speech in 1974:

If man is not to do more harm than good in his efforts to improve the social order, he will have to learn that in this, as in all other fields where essential complexity of an organized kind prevails, he cannot acquire the full knowledge which would make mastery of the events possible.

He will therefore have to use what knowledge he can achieve, not to shape the results as the craftsman shapes his handiwork, but rather to cultivate a growth by providing the appropriate environment, in the manner in which the gardener does this for his plants.

There is danger in the exuberant feeling of ever growing power which the advance of the physical sciences has engendered and which tempts man to try, “dizzy with success”, to use a characteristic phrase of early communism, to subject not only our natural but also our human environment to the control of a human will.

The recognition of the insuperable limits to his knowledge ought indeed to teach the student of society a lesson of humility which should guard him against becoming an accomplice in men’s fatal striving to control society — a striving which makes him not only a tyrant over his fellows, but which may well make him the destroyer of a civilization which no brain has designed but which has grown from the free efforts of millions of individuals.

Yes, it surely ought to.


Jeffrey A. Tucker

Jeffrey Tucker is Director of Digital Development at FEE, CLO of the startup Liberty.me, and editor at Laissez Faire Books. Author of five books, he speaks at FEE summer seminars and other events. His latest book is Bit by Bit: How P2P Is Freeing the World. Follow on Twitter and Like on Facebook.

Poll: Teflon Donald Takes Double Digit Lead into GOP Debates

BOSTON /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — One week out from the first GOP debate, Donald Trump leads the Republican field with 31% of the vote, followed by Gov. Jeb Bush at 15% and Gov. Scott Walker in third at 13%. The survey was conducted July 26 to July 28, with 481 likely GOP voters at a 4.4% margin of error.

248896

Forty percent (40%) of respondents viewed Trump’s comments regarding Senator John McCain’s War record as unimportant to their vote while another 47% said they would be less likely to vote for Trump because of his comments about the Arizona Senator. Interestingly, 11% percent said they were more likely to vote for Trump because of his commentary on McCain.

Rounding out the top 10 Republicans in this poll were Sen. Ted Cruz at 8%, Gov. Mike Huckabee at 6%, followed by Dr. Ben Carson at 5%, Sen. Rand Paul at 4% and Sen. Marco Rubio at 4%. Carly Fiorina was in 9th place at 3% and Gov. John Kasich was tied with Gov. Chris Christie with 2% of the vote. All other candidates received under 1% of the vote; 7% of Republican Primary voters were undecided.

Sen. Hillary Clinton holds a significant lead with 54% of the vote in the Democrat Primary with Sen. Bernie Sanders in second at 33% and VP Joe Biden at 9%.  All other announced candidates register under 2% of the vote each. The sample size of likely Democrat Primary voters was 476 with a margin of error of 4.4%.

248897

In a head to head contest, Clinton holds a 2 point lead over Jeb Bush 44% to 42%, an 8 point lead over Walker 49% to 41%, and a 9 point lead over Donald Trump 49% to 40%.

The poll suggests that likely voters are not that thrilled with any of the presidential candidate as all held higher negative then favorable opinions except for Sanders who had a 33% favorable and 32% unfavorable opinion.

Clinton holds an overall 38% favorable and 48% unfavorable rating, Trump is at 31% to 56% rating, Bush at 25% to 52% and Walker at 24% to 38%.

Trump holds the highest favorable rating among Republican primary voters at 54% to 33%, with Bush at 40% to 39% and Walker at 46% to 20%.

ABOUT THE  EMERSON COLLEGE POLL

The Emerson College Polling Society poll was conducted Sunday July 26 through Tuesday July 28. The polling sample for both the Democrat and the GOP Primary consisted of 476 and 481 likely voters each, with a margin of error of +/-4.4% and a 95% confidence level. The General Election sample consisted of 950 likely voters with a margin of error of +/-3.1% and a 95% confidence level. Data was collected using an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system. The full methodology and results can be found at www.theecps.com.

RELATED ARTICLE: SHOCK POLL — Donald Trump Leads Jeb Bush in Florida

Is Politics Obsolete? How People Outpace Politicians by Max Borders and Jeffrey A. Tucker

Hillary Clinton talks of cracking down on the gig economy. Donald Trump speaks of telling American corporations where they can and can’t do business abroad. Bernie Sanders says we have too many deodorant choices. They all speak about immigrants as if it were 1863.

What the heck are these people talking about?

More and more, that’s the response many people have to the current-day political speeches and rhetoric. It’s a hotly contested election, somewhat like 2008, but this time around, public engagement is low, reports Pew.

That’s no surprise, really. Whether it’s the leftists, the rightists, or everyone in between, all of these politicians seem to be blathering about a world gone by — one that has little to do with the 21st century. If they’re not tapping into people’s baser instincts of fear and nativism, they’re dusting off 20th-century talking points about creating “good jobs.”

Maybe there was a time when the political culture seemed to keep up with the pace of innovation. If so, those times are long gone. The rhetoric of electoral politics is exposing the great rift in civic life.

The tools we use every day, the technologies we love, the way we engage each other, the means by which our lives are improving are a consequences of innovation, markets, community, and globalization — that is, by the interactions of free people. Not by politics. And not by the systems politics creates.

The political election is a tired old ritual in which we send our hopes and dreams away to distant capitals. Why do we outsource them to politicians, lobbyists, and bureaucrats: people who are trapped in a system that rewards the worst in people? What’s left of governance is logrolling, spectacle, and unwanted interference in the lives of everyone else.

Politicians seem more concerned with putting the genie of innovation and entrepreneurship back in the bottle than doing anything meaningful. After the election, we try our best to ignore them and get on with life.

Politicians seem more concerned with putting the genie of innovation and entrepreneurship back in the bottle than doing anything meaningful.

In 2012, US voters reelected Barack Obama, and now we’re gearing up to elect someone else. Candidates will talk about their visions and their wonderful plans for the country. But in the last three years, virtually none of the incredible, beautiful upheaval we’ve seen has had anything to do with the presidency or with anyone politician’s plans.

In fact, when you think about what government has done for us in recent years, only one new program comes to mind: Obamacare. Opinions vary on whether that program has been deeply disappointing or an unmitigated disaster.

Now, take a step back and observe the evolution of commercial society and how it is bringing us unprecedented bounty. The digital sector of emergent, market-generated, people-driven, technology-fueled innovation is fulfilling human aspirations and spreading useful services to people in all walks of life. National borders seem ever more arbitrary. Surprises await us around every corner. Our political systems can claim credit for none of it.

And yet, we are once again being asked to turn to politicians to drive progress.

Consider how much our lives and technologies have changed since the last presidential election. Smartphone ownership has gone from 300 million to 2 billion, meaning that most of the population of the developed world — and large parts of the rest — now have access to a wireless supercomputer in their pockets. As a result, we are more in touch than ever.

There are now dozens of ways for anyone to keep in contact with anyone else through text messaging and video, and most of the services are free. Transportation in cities has fundamentally changed due to ridesharing and app-based systems that are outcompeting municipal taxis. Traditional travel lodging has been disrupted through mobile applications that turn every empty room into a hotel, and finding permanent lodging is easier than ever. You can find the ratings for any service or establishment instantly with a click or a tap, long before you purchase. You can feasibly shop for and buy a house without ever having stepped inside of it.

Cryptocurrency is becoming a viable alternative to national monies, and payment systems on distributed networks are being customized for peer-to-peer exchanges of property titles.

The mass distribution and availability of mobile applications with maps means that you are never lost, and, moreover, that you can be intensely aware of everything around you, wherever you are or wherever you are planning to be. Extended families that are spread out over large geographic regions can stay constantly in touch, chatting and playing games.

The way we help our neighbors and communities is improving. We can contribute to charitable causes with just a click. We are closer to our neighbors and their needs — whether it’s a missing cat, a call for a handyman, or childcare for Saturday night. We can be on the lookout after a break-in and share video of the perpetrators instantly.

The way we consume music has fundamentally changed. We once bought CDs. Then we downloaded particular tracks and albums. With Internet everywhere, we now stream a seemingly endless variety of genres. The switch between classical and indie rock requires only a touch. And it’s not just new music we can access, but vast archives and recreations of music dating to antiquity. Instantly.

Software packages that once cost thousands are now low-cost downloadable apps. Many of us live in the cloud now, so that no one’s life is ruined by a computer crash. Lost hardware can be found with built-in tracers — even stealing computers is harder than ever.

Where we work no longer matters as much. 4G LTE means a powerful Internet connection wherever you are, and WiFi on airlines means staying in touch even while above the clouds. Online document signing means total portability and the end of the physical world for most business transactions. You can share almost anything — whether grocery lists or whole writing projects — with anyone and work in real time. More people than ever work from home because they can.

News is now crowdsourced through Twitter and Facebook — or through mostly silly sites like BuzzFeed. There are thousands of competitors, so that we can know what we want to know wherever we are. Once there was only “national news”; now a news event has to be pretty epic to qualify, and much of the news that we are interested in never even makes old-line newspapers.

Edward Snowden revealed ubiquitous surveillance, escaped prosecution, and now, thanks to technology, has been on a worldwide speaking tour, becoming the globe’s most famous public intellectual. This is despite his having been censored and effectively exiled by the world’s biggest and most powerful state. He has a great story to tell, and that story is more powerful than any of the big shots who want him to shut up.

Pot has been effectively legalized in many American cities, and the temperature on the war against it has dropped dramatically. When dispensaries are raided, the news flies all over the Internet within minutes, creating outrage and bringing the heat down on the one-time masters of the universe. There is now a political risk to participating in the war on pot — something unthinkable even 10 years ago. And as police continue to abuse their power, citizens are waiting with cameras.

Oil prices have collapsed, revealing the fallacy of peak oil. This happened despite pressure in the opposite direction from every special interest, from environmentalists to the oil industry itself. The reason was again technological. We discovered better and cheaper ways of drilling, and, in so doing, exposed vastly more resources than anyone thought accessible.

At the very time when oil and gas seemed untouchable, we suddenly saw electric cars becoming viable options. This was not due to government mandates — regulators tried those for years — but due to some serious innovation on the part of one remarkable company. It’s not even the subsidies, such as they are, that are making the difference; it’s the fine-tuning of the machine itself. Tesla even took it a step further and released its patents into the commons, allowing innovation to spread at a market-based pace.

We are now printing houses in one day, vaping instead of smoking, legally purchasing pharmaceuticals abroad, using drones to deliver consumer products, and enjoying one-day delivery of just about everything.

In the last four years, the ebook became a mass consumer item, outselling the physical book and readable on devices within the budget of just about everyone. And despite attempts to keep books offline, just about anything is now available for download, putting all the world’s great literature, in all major languages, at our fingertips.

Here we go again, playing “let’s pretend” and electing leaders under the old-fashioned presumption that it is politics that improves the world and drives history forward.

And speaking of languages, we now have instant access to translation programs that allow us to email and even text with anyone in a way he or she can understand regardless of language. It’s an awesome thing to consider that this final barrier to universal harmony, once seen as insuperable, is in the process of melting away.

These are all ways in which the world has been improved through markets, creativity, and free association. And yet, here we go again, playing “let’s pretend” and electing leaders under the old-fashioned presumption that it is politics that improves the world and drives history forward.

Look around: progress is everywhere. And it is not because we are electing the “right people.” Progress occurs despite politics and politicians, not because of them.

Max Borders

Max Borders is the editor of the Freeman and director of content for FEE. He is also cofounder of the event experience Voice & Exit and author of Superwealth: Why we should stop worrying about the gap between rich and poor.

Jeffrey A. Tucker

Jeffrey Tucker is Director of Digital Development at FEE, CLO of the startup Liberty.me, and editor at Laissez Faire Books. Author of five books, he speaks at FEE summer seminars and other events. His latest book is Bit by Bit: How P2P Is Freeing the World. Follow on Twitter and Like on Facebook.

Will the Film ’13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi’ impact the 2016 Election?

Scott Mendelson in his Forbes article “‘13 Hours’ Trailer: Is Michael Bay’s Benghazi Action Pic The Next ‘American Sniper’?” reports:

It is not surprising that Paramount/Viacom Inc. would choose the opening weekend of Mission: Impossible Rogue Nation to unveil the first trailer for their early 2016 release 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi. We now have the first trailer to what will surely be the first water cooler movie of 2016. The film is based on Mitchell Zuckoff’s acclaimed moment-by-moment account of what went wrong when the embassy was attacked by armed militants on September 11th, 2012.

Oh yes, we are all going to be talking about this one on January 15th, 2016. I won’t pretend I am an expert on the book or the incident just because I read some lengthy reviews of the book in order to prepare for this piece, but the book seems to focus on the handful of private security officers who attempted to defend the trapped civilians, as opposed to throwing partisan blame in one direction or another. I’m sure we’ll see Paramount, director Bay, and stars John Krasinski and James Badge Dale stressing the non-political nature of the story, how it’s about the bravery of the men who fought regardless of who was to blame, etc, etc.

But that won’t mean that this film won’t be something of a lightning rod basically a month away from the Iowa caucuses which will basically kick off the primary election process for the 2016 presidential race. [Emphasis added]

Watch the trailer for ’13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi’ set for release on January 15th, 2016:

RELATED ARTICLE: What Michael Bay’s ’13 Hours’ Reveals About the Benghazi Attacks

Hearst Television to Carry August 3rd New Hampshire Presidential Forum

LogoHearstTINEW YORK /PRNewswire/ — Hearst Television Inc., one of the country’s largest television station groups and a Peabody- and Cronkite-award-winning leader in television and digital political journalism, today announced it will televise the August 3 Voters First Forum, featuring GOP presidential candidates, in the 27 local Hearst markets across the United States.  The forum is produced and hosted by New Hampshire’s Union Leader newspaper and C-SPAN.

The two-hour forum will start at 7pm ET at the Dana Center at St. Anselm College in Goffstown, New Hampshire, on Monday, August 3.  Currently 14 candidates are scheduled to appear: Jeb Bush, Ben Carson,Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, Lindsey Graham, Bobby Jindal, John Kasich, George Pataki, Rand Paul,Rick Perry, Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum and Scott WalkerJack Heath of Manchester’s WGIR-AM Radio, host of the station’s New Hampshire Today program, will moderate the forum. Each candidate will have approximately five minutes to answer questions individually on the stage.

Hearst Television, collectively reaching nearly 21 million households, will provide the C-SPAN telecast to its stations for local broadcast.  The forum will air on either the station’s primary or digital channel and will be streamed from its website.  This enables broadcast-only viewers in these markets the opportunity of seeing the forum as part of Hearst Television’s ongoing Commitment 2016 initiative, which will include multiple debates at the national, regional and local levels, as well as other special political coverage leading up to November 2016.

Hearst Television reaches millions of viewers throughout key election states. Three Hearst stations serve viewers in the first three caucus and primary states: WMUR-TV in Manchester, NH, KCCI-TV in Des Moines, Iowa, and WYFF-TV in Greenville, South Carolina.

“This is an opportunity for us to provide our viewers a chance to see and hear from the large majority of the GOP candidates in advance of the first national debate,” said Emerson Coleman, vice president, programming, at Hearst Television.   “There are more than two million households in the cities we serve that may not otherwise have the ability to view this important event on television.”

C-SPAN will show the forum, in its entirety, on C-SPAN TV, C-SPAN Radio, and via livestream on C-SPAN.org.  In addition to C-SPAN, the Union Leader, WGIR-AM and St. Anselm, forum co-sponsors include: I-Heart Networks; the Cedar Rapids (Iowa) Gazette; KCRG –TV, Cedar Rapids; the Charleston (S.C.) Post & Courier; and WLXT-TV, Columbia, S.C.

About Hearst Television

Hearst Television, a national multi-media company, owns and operates 31 local television stations and two local radio stations, serving 32 U.S. cities and reaching approximately 19% of U.S. television households.  The TV stations broadcast 60 video channels, featuring local and national news, weather, information, sports and entertainment programming, and local community service-oriented programs.  The stations also host and operate digital on-line and mobile platforms that extend the company’s brands and content to local, national and international audiences.  Hearst Television is recognized as one of the industry’s premier companies, and has been honored with numerous awards for distinguished journalism, industry innovation, and community service.  Hearst Television is a wholly owned subsidiary of Hearst Corporation.  The Company’s Web address is www.hearsttelevision.com.

Will You Play Your Trump Card in 2016?

This political season has started with a big bang. So far, we do not even have to pay that much attention to the boring Democratic side of this process. What we have at this writing is more than 16 serious candidates for the GOP nomination for President of the United States of America.

I cannot recall a time when we had so many candidates to choose from. We, of course have the typical white male candidates. But we also have many minority candidates representing the Hispanic community and the Indian (from India) community as well as a strong female candidate. The diversity of this field of candidates is staggering, indeed.

But so far, there seems to be one candidate in particular that seems to be garnering the attention of the media and the nation. That candidate is Donald Trump, of course The reason? Well, the reason is very simple. Donald Trump is telling it like he sees it. He is saying what is on his mind and what he believes the problems are. And he doesn’t care if some folks don’t like what he says or how he says it. He is sticking to his guns and the people of this country seem to be liking that.

Now some say that Donald should bow out of the competition. Make no mistake about it this fight for the GOP nomination for president of the United States of America is a competition. It’s a take no prisoners competition where the winner takes it all and he or she just might take the The White House. So there is a lot at stake and the professional politician knows there is a lot at stake because what they cannot have is an unpolished, non-politician ruining their chances of being the next President.

The professionals will say how raw Donald is and they will say how UN-presidential Donald is. They state that as President you have to be more diplomatic. They say that nobody takes him seriously. They say that Donald has no real chance at getting elected. They say that Donald Trump cannot beat Hillary Clinton in the November 2016 election. In short they all will say anything to discredit and to get rid of The Donald because they know that Donald Trump cannot be bought. He cannot be bribed and he cannot be persuaded because he is an honest man with a true American heart and that scares professional politicians’ on both sides of the political aisle.

After all, how can you control a man who is used to calling all the shots? How do you control a man who is self-made and doesn’t need nor want any insider money? How do you control a man who already wields tremendous influence and power around the world in business and political circles? You can’t. They can’t. Let me suggest something for the professionals out there running for high office. Take note of Donald Trump and take note of how the voters seem to be supporting him. Take note that the American people are following him in growing numbers because the American people like the fact that he is not polished.

They know he is brash and bombastic and they know he is a little arrogant. They know he will do his best to clean house in Washington, D.C. if he is elected. They know that many world leaders would not want to negotiate with Donald because he would do what is best for this country and her people. I would suggest that the professionals begin to sound more like Donald and tell us the truth, not what they think we want to hear. Talk to us from the heart not what some poll data thinks we want to hear.

Be bold and bombastic and even a little arrogant in your presence and make the people believe that you are a strong leader that cannot be bought. Make the people believe that you are strong leader that cannot be persuaded and a strong leader that will look after the interest of the people of the United States of America and not their own selfish interest.

In return the American people will then follow you and the American people will reward you with higher office. The American people will back you and support you while in office and all it takes is for you to be more like Donald and less like, well less like you. After all, this nation was started and built by amateur statesmen and they built the most prosperous and most powerful nation this world has ever known. We have had professional politicians in charge for about 150 years or so now and look at the mess those professionals have made. Maybe it’s time we pick the men and women who are not so polished. and not so politically trained.

Maybe its time we choose a candidate with a little tarnish on them because they cannot do any more damage than what the professionals have already done.

RELATED ARTICLE: Is President Kennedy Now a Conservative Republican?

The ‘Trump Syndrome’

One man, speaking truth has panicked the entire Washington, D.C. political cartel.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Pat Buchanan predicts Donald will be part of ‘the Final Four’ 6 months from now

Jeb Bush Snares a Democratic Moneyman on Hamptons Tour

Jeb Bush tells MSNBC in Spanish Trump’s Immigration Comments ‘Hurt’ Him

Obama: ‘I’m a Pretty Good President’ And If I Ran For a Third Term, I Could Win

Have you been sexually harassed by Bill Clinton?

That is the $24 question asked on a new website titled “A Scandal A Day.” The website was launched just in time for the Democratic 2016 Presidential Primary. The lady behind this effort is Kathleen Willey.

Kathleen Willey was a White House volunteer aide who, on March 15, 1998, alleged on the TV news program 60 Minutes that Bill Clinton had sexually assaulted her on November 29, 1993, during his first term as President. She had been subpoenaed to testify in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case.

World Net Daily reports:

The site is partially aimed at recruiting other women who may have been assaulted by the former president.

Calling Hillary Clinton “without a doubt the most corrupt politician that this nation has ever seen,” Willey announced the launch of her new website Sunday on “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio,” broadcast on New York’s AM 970 The Answer and Philadelphia’s NewsTalk 990 AM and online.

[ … ]

“The Clintons have made it extremely easy for me,” she said in the radio interview. “I don’t have to do a lot of research, because it’s not just a scandal a day. It’s about two or three scandals a day. So what I’m doing is kind of a compilation of these scandals and explaining them in simple terms so most people can understand what’s going on, and what they’re up to and why they are lying every day.”

Read more.

Willey may be on to something given the Scandal A Day involving Bill Cosby. To date 35 women have come forward with allegations that Cosby raped them after drugging them.

cosby women New Yoker coverIn the New York magazine cover story article on Cosby: The Women, Noreen Malone writes:

More has changed in the past few years for women who allege rape than in all the decades since the women’s movement began. Consider the evidence of October 2014, when an audience member at a Hannibal Buress show in Philadelphia uploaded a clip of the comedian talking about Bill Cosby: “He gets on TV, ‘Pull your pants up, black people … I can talk down to you because I had a successful sitcom.’ Yeah, but you rape women, Bill Cosby, so turn the crazy down a couple notches … I guess I want to just at least make it weird for you to watch Cosby Show reruns. Dude’s image, for the most part, it’s fucking public Teflon image. I’ve done this bit onstage and people think I’m making it up … That shit is upsetting.” The bit went viral swiftly, with irreversible, calamitous consequences for Cosby’s reputation.

Perhaps the most shocking thing wasn’t that Buress had called Cosby a rapist; it was that the world had actually heard him. A decade earlier, 14 women had accused Cosby of rape.

Are you ready for Clinton: The Women?

RELATED ARTICLE: Camille Paglia: How Bill Clinton is like Bill Cosby – Salon

Virginia: Immigration Turning Another Red State Blue

There is an informative article at Breitbart, thanks to Julia (LOL! not the same Julia as the author of this article) for sending it, that pretty much confirms what I have been hearing anecdotally about Virginia.

Eric Cantor

Eric Cantor

I have no time this morning to go into it in any great detail, but here is how Breitbart writer, Julia Hahn begins:

The birthplace and final resting place of George Washington, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson—and once one of the most reliably-red of red states—is being rapidly turned into a progressive stronghold.

These changes are not the result of an inside agency, or a natural evolution in political thinking, but rather the result of one of the most impactful yet least-discussed policies of the federal government.

Each year the federal government prints millions of visas and distributes these admission tickets to the poorest and least-developed nations in the world.

[….]

A census study entitled “Immigrants in Virginia,” released by University of Virginia (UVA) researchers, documented the phenomenon: “Until 1970, only 1 in 100 Virginians was born outside of the United States; by 2012, 1 in every 9 Virginians is foreign-born.”

Republicans helping to make it happen!

While the influence of conservative voters in the Commonwealth continues to diminish, it is ironically Republican officials in Virginia who have led the push to resettle even larger numbers of immigrants inside the state.

Former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, for instance, in the months before his titanic fall from power, engineered the effort to provide more labor to Virginia employers through foreign worker visas.

Former-executive director of the Virginia Republican Party, Shaun Kenney, described conservatives who wanted to trim the ongoing resettlement efforts as “nativists” who “have no home in the modern Republican Party,” thundering, “drive ‘em out.” Ironically, Kenney’s immigration policies are having that exact effect.

There is much more, continue reading here.

Take heart, ‘Pockets of resistance’ are forming in Virginia, more on that later.

RELATED ARTICLE: Exodus from Puerto Rico could upend Florida vote in 2016 presidential race

A Golden Nugget Hidden in the Trump Spectacle

I know. I know. As a veteran political activist, I am suppose to be extremely upset with Donald Trump, out there saying what some on both sides of the political aisle consider to be outrageous things.

But folks, I cannot help myself. It is thrilling to watch someone in the arena of ideas not playing the game according to the dictates of the Left. For far too long, our anti-America enemies on the Left have been allowed to set the rules of engagement. The Left dictates what truths we can say out loud, what words we are permitted to use and what is racist or mean.

Please note. I am neither supporting nor opposing Trump’s comments. I am celebrating Trump’s refreshing unprecedented fearlessness in dealing with the iron-fist out-of-control bullying tactics of the Left/MSM.

I guess it goes back to my childhood living on the mean-streets of Baltimore projects. I detested bullies. They were cowards and mean opportunists. My cousin Jimmy, who loved to fight, taught me the power of a strong military. I was small as a child. When bullies took my lunch money, cousin Jimmy ended the problem. Nothing serious happened, but the bullies knew not to “mess” with Jimmy’s cousin, Peanut (my nickname).

I view the mainstream media and their Leftists partners as the ultimate bullies, whipping Americans into submission, silencing our right to free speech. It sticks in my craw that daring to state an opinion other than the Left’s combined consensus on an issue means your derriere is grass.

It also distresses me that whenever a conservative/Republican says something that the Left chooses to distort and become hysterical about, folks on our side run to microphones to say, “What so-and-so should have said or really meant to say is…” Why surrender to the Left’s distort-and-become-hysterical tactic?

Why kowtow to the Left/MSM, especially when we know they are wrongly interpreting conservatives’ comments on purpose; publishing distortions, exaggerations and lies about what a particular conservative/Republican said?

The Left/MSM allows Democrats to make off-the-cuff outrageous inflammatory statements insulting millions of Americans. Waters – “The tea party can go straight to hell!” Grayson — “Republicans want you to die quickly.” Schultz – “Republicans want to see you dead.” Carson – “The tea party wants blacks hanging on a tree.” Obama about middle America – “Clinging to their Bibles and guns.” Indicting millions, President Carter said an “overwhelming portion” of the opposition to Obama is because “he is a black man.”

Remember the Democrats’ outrageous lying ad showing a Republican pushing an old lady in a wheelchair over a cliff?

Then, there was the absurd shameful irresponsible Democrat ad warning blacks that if they do not vote, they will need to send their kids to school wearing bulletproof vests to protect them from being shot by white police.

Has the MSM demanded that these Democrats apologize/walk back any of their false statements or hate generating ads? No.

Meanwhile, a conservative/Republican has to market test every word that comes out of their mouths, less they suffer the Left’s hysteria/wrath and shoulda-coulda-woulda from fellow conservatives/Republicans. Folks, with the MSM deck so stacked against us, standing up to the Left is extremely challenging. I just wish our side was more forgiving and supportive of our fighters.

Name me one occasion in which a conservative/Republican walking back a statement caused the Left/MSM to forgive him or her. Never. To the Left, an apology is blood in the water, causing a media feeding frenzy to devour a conservative or Republican. Every time one sheepishly apologizes, it is another notch on the Left’s gun barrel; letting the world know they are in charge.

This is what makes Trump’s defiance so remarkable and exhilarating. Thus far Trump has not fallen for the Left’s tactic and become terrorized into walking back his comments. As a matter of fact, Trump routinely doubles down on his original statements. Sorry folks, but I love it. There’s a new sheriff in town. His name is Donald Trump.

Another trick of the Left/MSM is to claim that their hysterical reactions reflect the feelings of a majority of the American people. However, Trump’s addressing illegal immigration shot him to the top of the polls.

Some say Trump is muddying the waters for “serious GOP candidates.” I am not going to argue either way regarding that point. I will say that it is about time someone stood up to these vipers (Leftist media).

A recent incident bears witness to how far PC and Leftist bullying has gotten out of hand; infecting the Democratic party base. Democrat presidential candidate Martin O’Malley was speaking at a Democrat Netroots conference. He was interrupted by protesters screaming about “black lives matter”. The protesters demanded that O’Malley repeat their mantra. Allowing the protesters to hijack the meeting, O’Malley said black lives matter. But when O’Malley added white lives and all lives matter, the audience exploded in outrage, erupting with boos and curse words.

Now, here is the kicker folks, Democrat presidential candidate Martin O’Malley actually apologized for saying white lives and all lives matter. That is crazy and speaks volumes.

Am I grateful for what Donald Trump has done? You betcha!

Donald Trump and Other GOP Nominees Neck and Neck

NEW YORK /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Donald Trump has definitely ingested the race for the 2016 Republican nomination with a sense of, well, I guess the right adjective depends on where you stand on the political spectrum. But, especially after the criticism of POWs this past weekend, the path to the nomination is not an easy one for him. The talk has been that he might use some of his considerable fortune, a la Ross Perot in 1992, and run as an Independent. If so, what does that mean for the race with some of the leading Republican contenders right now and Hillary Clinton, the leading Democratic contender?

These are the results of an online survey conducted by Regina Corso Consulting among 2,012 U.S. adults 18 and older between July 20 and 22, 2015.

Clinton/Bush/Trump

If the election was a three way race, almost two in five Americans (39%) would vote for Hillary Clinton, while almost one in five would each vote for Jeb Bush (19%) or Donald Trump (18%); one-quarter (25%) are not at all sure. As expected, strong majorities of Democrats (74%) and Liberals (68%) would vote for Clinton, but among Republicans and Conservatives there is a divide. Two in five Republicans (41%) and one-third of Conservatives (33%) would vote for Jeb Bush while three in ten Republicans (30%) and Conservatives (29%) would vote for Trump. Among Independents, three in ten (31%) would vote for Hillary Clinton, one in five (21%) would vote forDonald Trump and less than one in five (17%) would vote for Jeb Bush.

Clinton/Walker/Trump

Changing the Republican nominee, two in five Americans (40%) would vote for Hillary Clinton, almost one in five (18%) would vote for Donald Trump and 15% would vote for Scott Walker while over one-quarter (27%) are not at all sure. Strong majorities of Democrats (75%) and Liberals (72%) would vote for Hillary Clinton while those on the other side of the aisle are even more divided. Three in ten Republicans would each vote for Scott Walker(31%) and Donald Trump (30%) and three in ten Conservatives would each vote for Scott Walker (29%) and Donald Trump (29%). Among Independents, almost three in ten (28%) would vote for Clinton, one in five (20%) would vote for Trump and 16% would vote for Walker.

Clinton/Paul/Trump

Looking at still a different possible Republican nominee, if the election were to be held today, almost two in five Americans (39%) would vote for Hillary Clinton, almost one in five (19%) would vote for Donald Trump and 17% would vote for Rand Paul. Over seven in ten Democrats (76%) and Liberals (71%) would vote for Clinton; at least one-third of Republicans (36%) and Conservatives (33%) would vote for Trump; and over one-quarter of Republicans (31%) and Conservatives (27%) would vote for Paul. Among Independents, over one-quarter (28%) would vote for Clinton while just over one in five would each vote for Trump (22%) and Walker (21%).

Musings

At this stage of an election, these polls should be looked at with a great deal of caution. Is this what will happen in November? Most assuredly it isn’t. But, these do give us an important takeaway – there is a desire for something different out there. One thing about Donald Trump that can’t be denied is he tells it exactly as he thinks and feels it. Many of those who have catapulted him to the top of a number of Republican primary polls probably aren’t saying they want him to be President or even the GOP nominee. They are saying they don’t want more of the status quo. A candidate who dares to be a little different can go a long way.

ABOUT REGINA CORSO CONSULTING:

Regina Corso Consulting is a full service research firm specializing on research for public release. They provide research for agencies and companies to help them drive their PR. For more information, please visit ReginaCorsoConsulting.com.

For full methodology/data, please click here.

Donald Trump to CNN: ‘People Don’t Trust You!’ [Video]

Donald Trump fired back at CNN’s Anderson Cooper for citing not-so-good polls about him, and told him, “The people don’t trust you.”

You First News reports:

Trump is leading in the polls, but complained to Cooper that he cited a less-than-flattering poll “I didn’t even know existed.” He said, “You only want to talk about the negative. Why don’t you bring up the positive?”

And Trump kept on this for a while, continuing to air his grievances to Cooper, before telling him, “The people don’t trust you, and the people don’t trust the media.”
Trump said that the media used to cover him “accurately,” but now he’s discovered that most of the political media “is really, really dishonest.”

Lindsey Graham: Trump Made Up Story About Begging Him to Mention Me on Fox News
Donald Trump was so offended by Lindsey Graham calling him a “jackass” that he gave out Graham’s personal cell number during a campaign event yesterday (https://youtu.be/u1sku13JYlo). Trump claimed that a few years ago, Graham reached out to him to ask him help him out with a mention on Fox News.

When Graham appeared on CNN today, he just laughed and told Brianna Keilar, “I don’t need his help to get on Fox News, and he’s just making that story up.”
He said that he met Trump a while back to talk about his China currency manipulation legislation––legislation that Trump supported––and again slammed The Donald for his comments about illegal immigrants and John McCain.

Graham also described Trump as a “political car wreck”; people will stop to gaze at it for a while, but eventually they’ll move on.

Donald Trump Full Speech in South Carolina 7/21/2015 – 2016 Presidential Campaign Rally https://youtu.be/kj9xsrhJKOQ

Lindsey Graham: Donald Trump Makes Up Story About Begging Him to Mention Me on Fox News

FULL SPEECH: https://youtu.be/kj9xsrhJKOQ

U.S. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump gives out his rival Lindsey Graham’s cell phone number Tuesday.
Donald Trump gave Lindsey Graham’s cell phone numbers to millions of his supporters.
update: Sen. Lindsey Graham posts satirical video about destroying his phone after Donald Trump gives out phone number on TV
Speaking at a campaign event in South Carolina, Trump blasted the senator — and then proceeded to give out his fellow presidential hopeful’s digits.

Trump explained that the Graham gave him the cell phone number “three or four years ago.”

Graham called Trump, hoping the bussiness mogel could help him get on Fox News. Trump said he would try to talk to his friends at ‘Fox and Friends,” and then took down the senator’s number on a Post-It note

On Tuesday, Trump showed off the yellow note — and then proceeded to read the number to the crowd, twice.

The phone number went straight to voicemail but a recorded message said it was the inbox for Lindsay Graham.

“He doesn’t seem like a very bright guy,” Trump said of Graham.

The phone number went straight to voicemail but a recorded message said it was the inbox for Lindsay Graham. CBS News confirmed that the number is Graham’s cell.

Graham wasn’t Trump’s only target during the Tuesday event, which was broadcast live. He also claimed presidential candidate Rick Perry wears glasses “to look smart” and blasted Macy’s for cutting business ties with him.

RELATED ARTICLE: Cruz on Trump: ‘He’s Taking on the Washington Cartel’ – Breitbart

Martin O’Malley Got $147,000 in Speaking Fees from a Company He Gave Lucrative Government Contracts by David Boaz

Martin O’Malley, the former governor of Maryland and Democratic presidential candidate, is no Bill and Hillary Clinton, who have made more than $100 million from speeches, much of it from companies and governments who just might like to have a friend in the White House or the State Department.

But consider these paragraphs deep in a Washington Post story about O’Malley’s financial disclosure form:

While O’Malley commanded far smaller fees than the former secretary of state – and gave only a handful of speeches – he also seemed to benefit from government and political connections forged during his time in public service.

Among his most lucrative speeches was a $50,000 appearance at a conference in Baltimore sponsored by Center Maryland, an organization whose leaders include a former O’Malley communications director, the finance director of his presidential campaign and the director of a super PAC formed to support O’Malley’s presidential bid.

O’Malley also lists $147,812 for a series of speeches to Environmental Systems Research Institute, a company that makes mapping software that O’Malley heavily employed as governor as part of an initiative to use data and technology to guide policy decisions.

I scratch your back, you scratch mine. That’s the sort of insider dealing that sends voters fleeing to such unlikely candidates as Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.

These sorts of lucrative “public service” arrangements are nothing new in Maryland (or elsewhere). In The Libertarian Mind, I retell the story of how Gov. Parris Glendening and his aides scammed the state pension system and hired one another’s relatives.

In some countries, governors still get suitcases full of cash. Speaking fees are much more modern.

This post first appeared at Cato.org.


David Boaz

David Boaz is executive vice president of the Cato Institute. He is the editor of The Libertarian Reader, editor of The Cato Handbook for Policymakers, and author of The Politics of Freedom.