Hamas-linked CAIR demands apology from Scott Walker for “enabling ISIS”

The Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), designated a terror organization by the United Arab Emirates, is in full outrage mode at Republican presidential candidate Scott Walker, trying to intimidate him into speaking less accurately about the nature of the jihad threat. It’s their usual tactic: charging anyone who dares to note the Islamic character of Islamic terrorism with “hatred” and “bigotry.” Usually this works, in our cowed and confused culture, and Hamas-linked CAIR seems to have won at least a partial victory over Walker — we’ll know for sure who won when we see if he ever uses the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism” again.

Aside from Hamas-linked CAIR, that is a stupid phrase anyway. Is there “moderate Islamic terrorism”? If not, then why use the word “radical” at all? Because even Walker, for all his courage in standing up to the forces of politically correct authoritarianism in other contexts, can’t bring himself to use the phrase “Islamic terrorism” straight, without a modifier — he knows the firestorm that would ensue, and so draws back. Now he will probably draw back even farther. And yes, I am well aware that however watery and weaselly the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism” may be, Walker has already distinguished himself as more forthright, honest and courageous than most of his rivals just by using it. Most of them won’t even go that far toward the truth about the jihad threat.

More below. “Muslim advocate: Scott Walker is ‘enabling ISIS’ with ‘radical Islam’ rhetoric,” by Jesse Opoien, The Capital Times, August 29, 2015:

A representative for America’s largest Muslim civil liberties advocacy organization said Gov. Scott Walker is “enabling ISIS” by allowing the terrorist group to co-opt the Islamic religion.

“With this, Scott Walker is actually enabling ISIS by characterizing their acts as being Islamic terrorism,” said Robert McCaw, government affairs manager for the Council on American-Islamic Relations. “He is taking a peaceful religion of 1.6 billion people and misappropriating it to ISIS, allowing them to wrap themselves in the religion’s name and stake a claim to it.”

Here again we see the familiar sleight-of-hand. Hamas-linked CAIR would have us believe that Scott Walker is responsible for allowing the Islamic State “to wrap themselves in the religion’s name and stake a claim to it,” as if no one ever associated ISIS with Islam until Walker started talking about “radical Islamic terrorism.” In reality, people associate the Islamic State with Islam because the Islamic State associates itself with Islam, and nothing Scott Walker says or doesn’t say is going to change that. No young Muslim is going to decide to join the Islamic State because a non-Muslim politician referred to jihadis as “Islamic extremists,” thereby validating them as Islamic. No Muslim looks to non-Muslim authorities to validate what is or isn’t Islamic and who is or isn’t a Muslim. Hamas-linked CAIR’s real objective here is obvious: to intimidate Walker (and everyone else) into never speaking of Islamic terrorists as Muslims. Why? So that American Muslim advocacy groups such as Hamas-linked CAIR will not be called to account for not doing anything to stop jihadist recruitment in mosques in the U.S., and instead opposing counter-terror programs all over the country — after all, those terrorists aren’t Muslims, so the true, peaceful Muslims can’t be expected to do anything about them.

McCaw was referring to Walker’s first foreign policy address as a presidential candidate, delivered on Friday at The Citadel military college in South Carolina, during which he referenced Islamic extremists or radical Islamic terrorism 11 times.

As a presidential candidate, there are plenty of things Walker has pledged to do differently than President Barack Obama. Chief among them is to use the words, “radical Islamic terrorism.”

The Wisconsin governor isn’t the only Republican presidential contender to highlight this difference. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal have also made frequent calls for a commander-in-chief who will declare the problem with forces like ISIS to be radical Islamic terrorism.

Obama has generally refrained from attaching a religious affiliation to terrorist groups like ISIS or Al Qaeda, referring to them as “violent extremists” and “terrorists.”

Addressing a group of foreign ministers in February at the State Department, the president made clear that it’s an intentional choice. He said those groups are “desperate for legitimacy” and should not be granted it.

“All of us have a responsibility to refute the notion that groups like ISIL somehow represent Islam, because that is a falsehood that embraces the terrorist narrative,” he said.

“All of us have a responsibility to refute the notion that groups like ISIL somehow represent Islam” — great. Where are the Muslim refutations of the Islamic State’s understanding of Islam? (There are some, but they’re mostly just exercises in detour and deception). Where are the programs in mosques and Islamic schools in the U.S. to teach young Muslims why they should reject the Islamic State’s view of Islam? There aren’t any. Now, why is that?

The president added that the U.S. is “not at war with Islam, we are at war with those who have perverted Islam.”

Walker’s tone was significantly different in his hawkish foreign policy address, which called for the U.S. to stop being “passive spectators while the world descends into chaos.”

The governor pledged to secure U.S. borders “at any cost,” fight terrorists abroad leaving “all options” on the table, restore the U.S. alliance with Israel and strengthen the defense budget.

He called for increased investment in counterterrorism and surveillance programs, implementing a no-fly zone over Syria, imposing harsh sanctions against Iran and restoring a strong alliance with Israel. He promised once again to terminate the U.S.-Iran nuclear deal on “day one” in the White House.

All of this was tied to an overarching theme of the need to “defeat radical Islamic terrorism.”

“The policy of a Walker administration will be to confront radical Islamic terrorism using the full range of statecraft options. We must give our intelligence professionals the legal and constitutional tools they need to keep us safe,” Walker said.

Jenni Dye, research director for the liberal group One Wisconsin Now, suggested Walker’s message was driven by the conservative Milwaukee-based Bradley Foundation, whose president and CEO Michael Grebe is Walker’s presidential campaign chairman. Grebe also served as chairman for Walker’s two gubernatorial bids and his recall campaign.

The Bradley Foundation was deemed one of the “top eight funders of Islamophobia” based on IRS filings from 2001-2012 in a report by the liberal Center for American Progress. Recipients of Bradley funds noted in the report include the Middle East Forum, David Horowitz Freedom Center and Center for Security Policy.

“The virulent Islamophobia promoted and funded by the Bradley Foundation, run by Scott Walker’s campaign chair, is filling the void that is his foreign policy experience,” Dye said. “Even their millions can’t paper over the fact this guy is dangerously unprepared. His simplistic saber rattling reveals an ignorance of history and a shockingly cavalier attitude about sending the brave men and women of our armed forces into harm’s way.”…

While retailing all this far-Left propaganda, “journalist” Jesse Opoien doesn’t bother to inform his readers that Hamas-linked CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case — so named by the Justice Department. Several former CAIR officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror. CAIR operatives have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups. CAIR’s cofounder and longtime Board chairman (Omar Ahmad), as well as its chief spokesman (Ibrahim Hooper), have made Islamic supremacist statements. Its California chapter distributed a poster telling Muslims not to talk to the FBI; a Florida chapter distributed pamphlets advising the same thing. CAIR has opposed every anti-terror measure that has ever been proposed or implemented.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Detroit: Iraqi Christian refugees from Muslim persecution protest proposed mosque

UNC’s “Literature of 9/11” course indoctrinates students to love jihad terror, hate America

Oh, How the Mighty Megyn Has Fallen

Most people, including me, know that Megyn Kelly is not only gorgeous, but also smart, sassy, incisive in her interviews, and also genuinely funny. But the interview she conducted Wednesday night, August 26,  with Jorge Ramos was disgraceful––the kind of toadying and biased interrogation that should be Exhibit #1 in journalism schools across the country about how not to be a legitimate journalist.

Ramos is a reporter for Univision, the company being sued by presidential candidate Donald Trump after they terminated their contractual relationship (including television broadcast obligations) with the Trump-backed Miss Universe Organization. The official charges include breach of contract and defamation, with the plaintiffs seeking more than $500-million in damages. Univision took its punitive action after Mr. Trump said that Mexican immigrants, including criminals and rapists, were teeming over our southern border––in other words, for exercising his constitutional right to free speech.

The Kelly interview was about Mr. Trump’s ousting Ramos from a press conference the previous evening, after the candidate pointed to an audience member who had a question to ask. Instead, Ramos stood up and preempted that question, not with a question of his own, but with a virtual filibuster of grievances. And what did Ramos have the chutzpah to whine to Megyn Kelly about? That his free speech was being curtailed! Now that is rich!

Kelly had no doubt watched the film of exactly what had taken place. But not a peep out of her to give her audience the context of what had actually transpired. She also knew that Trump initially responded to Ramos’s outburst by saying repeatedly, “you weren’t called on, sit down.” Peepless.

Kelly also knew that Trump’s personal aide came out to the lobby to invite Ramos back into the auditorium. Not a peep. And she knew that the two men then engaged in a lengthy back and forth, apparently to the satisfaction of both of them. Still no peep.

Did Kelly’s viewing audience learn of any of these mitigating circumstances? Again, not a single peep from Kelly, who allowed––indeed encouraged––Ramos to go on and on in the victim role he so clearly basks in.

Did Kelly ask Ramos if it were true that his daughter works for Hillary Clinton? Would that not have been highly relevant? Not a peep!

Megyn’s interview was as dishonest as it gets in the world of what should be legitimate journalism (although in today’s America, “legitimate journalism” may be the ultimate oxymoron!). While Ramos portrayed himself as the victim of big bad Donald Trump, and himself as the virtuous believer in Free Speech and the right to be heard, Megyn put on her most sincere listening face, but failed to challenge any of Ramos’s lies.

KELLY FITS NEATLY INTO THE PACK

The pack, that is, of other TV personalities who forgot but were then reminded that they were simply employees. Both Paula Zahn and Alisyn Camerota were Fox News Network news readers, commentators, hosts, co-hosts, anchors, whatever––both delivering their commentary with a distinctly conservative flavor.

When they moved to CNN, however (Zahn in 2001; Camerota in 2014), their commentary magically became unmistakably liberal.

But it wasn’t magic at all. Both women worked for the big business of American media, with bosses who issue directives and, in essence, tell them what to say––not the exact phrasing, but certainly the slant. That’s how business works…the boss calls the shots and the employees either comply or get booted.

And if you think that the bosses have the final say, think again. The major outlets––both print and electronic––take a lot of their marching orders from the White House. That’s right, and while the government-controlled press/TV/radio didn’t begin with Mr. Obama, his regime has certainly taken it to unprecedented heights. As just one example, have we heard about one single civilian casualty in the thousand of drone strikes Mr. Obama has ordered over the past almost-seven years in the Middle East? Even one? I rest my case.

DINOSAURS

But I digress. For decades, the media have prided themselves on having the greatest influence on who gets elected and who doesn’t, particularly in the big contests for president (of which there is only one) and senators (of which there are only 100). They also like to pick their favorite spokespeople, even if those selections are completely unrepresentative of public sentiment.

Karl Rove of Fox is a perfect example. A big kahuna in the President George W. Bush years and a virtual encyclopedia of electoral minutiae, Rove likes his politicians rather tame and manipulable, and that is why he appears to call the shots for Reince Priebus, the head of the Republican National Committee, who faithfully echoes Rove’s white bread sentiments.

Clearly, Rove and his Democrat counterparts–recycled dinosaurs, all––are kept on because of the pricey contracts they’ve signed. It is certainly not that they shed any light! And then along comes Donald Trump and all they can do is hurl snooty insults and wage bets against the obvious frontrunner.

Yes, that Donald Trump, the guy who tells it like it is, never fails to remind you that he knows how to negotiate and strike deals and make America great again, the guy who has learned through thousands of negotiations how to “read” people (and the language they use) with unerring accuracy.

Even before he “read” Megyn Kelly, he came out of the candidate’s box with an insult to Sen. John McCain and a virtual manifesto against illegal immigration. And how did the media––both conservative and liberal––react? With reflexive horror, well-practiced political correctness, tsk-tsk raised eyebrows, and uniform condemnation.

WE THE PEOPLE

And how did the public react––that would be me and you and all the other ignorant rubes who the media elites believe can’t hold a candle to own their immense wisdom and knowledge?

We-the-People not only gave Mr. Trump huge poll ratings, but also heaved a huge sigh of gratitude. At last, they seemed to say, a guy who speaks to our concerns and doesn’t give a damn about the political correctness that violates our First Amendment rights every minute of every day, a guy who not only wants to protect our southern border, but also do away with every aspect of the horrors we’ve experienced over the past several years, including:

  • The diminishment of our military (and the shabby treatment of our veterans)
  • The horrific socialized medicine nightmare of Obamacare
  • The ghastly dumb-down-our-kids education fiasco known as Common Core
  • The crushing national debt
  • The Mt. Everest heights of unemployment
  • The infiltration of the America-loathing and anti-Semitic Muslim Brotherhood into the highest reaches of our government (including State, Homeland Security, the Pentagon, Health and Human Services, and the White House itself!)
  • On and on…

We know that not a single Democrat candidate for president is speaking out on these America-destroying issues? All you hear from them is victim, victim, victim, more money, more money, more money. Nothing with the Democrats has changed in over 70 years––and nothing has succeeded!

But the Trump promise to do away with or change or fix our problems is ringing true to the American public. Why? Because he’s proved it again and again in his own business life, surmounting losses and turning them into profits, and in his personal life, weathering disappointments in his marriages––and yet his two former wives are his biggest fans, and his children are model citizens!

Yes, there is an embarrassment of riches on the Republican side, and at least four or five candidates are impressively articulate in stating their plans for a better America. But none of them has the business experience and toughness and aggressiveness (which we need right now) of Mr. Trump.

The same Mr. Trump who perceived, quite accurately, I think, that Megyn Kelly was more than provocative in the first debate, indeed in a “gotcha” mode to entrap, embarrass, and diminish him. To the entire country’s surprise, Trump fought back, accusing Kelly of being, in essence, unprofessional and of gratuitously baiting him.

The next day…poll numbers boomed for Mr. Trump!

However, Mr. Trump went a step further. He went directly to Megyn’s boss, Roger Ailes, president of Fox News and chairman of the Fox Television Stations Group, and according to the candidate’s own report, it was a productive meeting in which Ailes promised that Fox would “be fair” to him Mr. Trump. All good. And then––coincidence?––Megyn announced she was leaving for a two-week vacation.

But when she came back, Mr. Trump tweeted that Megyn was not on her game, and apparently both Rupert Murdoch, the owner of Fox (and The New York Post, among numerous other holdings), and Roger Ailes, decided that they would summon all their power and influence to take Trump down. Clearly, they’ve dispatched General Megyn Kelly to the front lines.

On Wednesday, the news was preoccupied by the tragic death of two young media people from Virginia who were murdered while on air. But throughout the day there was a steady drumbeat of anti-Trump commentary and innuendo on Fox.

If things continue on the same trajectory for Mr. Trump, I suspect he may end up thanking Fox for kicking his polls numbers into the stratosphere!

Nora Patterson former Democrat and Planned Parenthood Board Member running for Florida Senate

nora patterson at opening of pp facility in sarasota

Nora Patterson (sixth from the left) at ribbon cutting of largest Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Florida, located in the City of Sarasota.

Career politician Nora Patterson has filed to run for the Florida Senate in District 23. Patterson will be running against Florida State Representative Greg Steube and and former Florida State Representative Doug Holder in the Republican primary in Sarasota County, Florida.

Patterson is a long time supporter and former President of the Board of Directors of the largest Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Florida, located in Rosemary District, a minority area in North Sarasota County.

In 1998, when running for the Sarasota City Commission, Rod Thompson from the Sarasota Herald-Tribune reported that Patterson “has served as president of the board of directors for Planned Parenthood of Southwest Florida” … and she is “very much a supporter of Planned Parenthood.”

john and nora patterson

John and Nora Patterson at the March 2013 Planned Parenthood annual dinner. Source: Gulfshore Media, LLC.

In June, 2006 Patterson, with her husband John who is a partner with Shutt & Bowen, LLP law firm, attended a Planned Parenthood fundraiser. Sarasota Magazine reported on the Ruby Gala and wrote:

At the Ruby gala, big names were everywhere: Cornelia Matson in regal purple, Lee Peterson, Nancy Reinheimer, Betty Schoenbaum, Anita Holec, Caren Lobo, Flori Roberts,Leila Gompertz-too many to name. And husbands galore! Many politicos-Mayor Mary Ann Servian, former Mayor Mollie Cardamone, Commissioner Ken Shelin, School Board members John Lewis and Carol Todd, County Commissioner Nora Patterson and Betty Castor. Alex Sink, and other candidates for office were also there.

In 2007 Sarasota County voted for an $8 million bond to help fund a new Planned Parenthood abortion clinic.

While a Sarasota County Commissioner Patterson was the only one to vote to continue using county taxes to continue funding for Planned Parenthood. Steven Ertlet from LifeNews.com in 2008 reported:

Sarasota County in Florida has cut the money it sends to a local Planned Parenthood abortion business. Officials, citing poor economic conditions and the need to better balance the city budget, removed the second $12,500 of the original $25,000 allocated for Planned Parenthood family planning programs.

[ … ]

Nora Patterson was the only member of the commission to vote to retain the Planned Parenthood funding. The county gave the abortion center a $30,000 grant in 2007 and $28,000 in 2006.

Zac Anderson from the Sarasota Herald-Tribune reports, “Patterson is viewed as a moderate on a number of issues. She is a former Democrat who supports abortion rights ‘up to a certain point in the pregnancy’ and once served as president of the board of Planned Parenthood of Southwest Florida, although she noted her board stint was before the local affiliate performed abortions.” [Emphasis added]

Patterson’s efforts to distance herself from Planned Parenthood is misrepresenting the fact that she has consistently supported abortions, and the funding thereof, using Sarasota tax dollars ever since she left as President of Southwest Florida Planned Parenthood.

Stephanie Armour from the Wall Street Journal reports:

Three Planned Parenthood Federation of America clinics in Florida were ordered to stop performing second-trimester abortions after an investigation found they didn’t have the proper licenses, the state Agency for Health Care Administration said Wednesday.

The investigation also found one clinic that wasn’t keeping proper logs relating to fetal remains, according to the agency. The state may take additional actions, including administrative sanctions, against the clinics.

“Licenses are in place to protect the patient from unscrupulous operators and the state of Florida will ensure every facility is held accountable for its actions,” the agency said in a news release.

[ … ]

Florida Gov. Rick Scott last month ordered an investigation of Planned Parenthood clinics in the state following an antiabortion group’s release of undercover videos of Planned Parenthood officials discussing the procurement of fetal tissue for research following abortions.

Perhaps Sarasota County voters should judge Nora Patterson on the company she keeps? That company being Planned Parenthood, and the industrial complex that makes a profit off of baby body parts.

Nora Patterson has been a loyal soldier in the war against the innocent and unborn.

RELATED ARTICLES:

4 Ways the Senate Could End Taxpayer Funding of Planned Parenthood

What the New York Times Didn’t Tell You About the Planned Parenthood Video Analysis

Black Pastors Demand Smithsonian Remove Planned Parenthood Founder’s Bust

‘Planned Parenthood Is Flailing’: Bobby Jindal Fights Back After Louisiana Sued for Terminating Medicaid Contract

The Feminist War on Family Science

The Invaders: A Parable

Pulling into our driveway after a relaxing month long cruise, my wife Mary yelled, “What the?” Mexican flags, shirtless heavily tattooed men, barefoot children, women (many pregnant) old cars, discarded beer cans and trash were all over our property. I recruited my Spanish speaking neighbor. He yelled over the blaring Mexican music expressing my outrage to the group’s leader. The leader told me to go “f” myself. He said they have a right to a better life.

The invaders had an insane tangle of extension cords plugged into my electrical outlets. Sinking into the mud of my once beautiful lawn, I called the police. Sheriff Bob showed up to inform me that the mayor decreed ours a sanctuary community. He also conveyed the mayor’s zero tolerance for my hateful racist attitude.

Code enforcement cited me for various violations. I was ordered to clean up my property, add bathroom facilities and upgrade my electrical power to accommodate the daily influx of new residents.

Mary yelled from our bedroom, “Oh, my gosh!” Her jewelry including her 30th wedding anniversary diamond earrings, was gone.

A neighbor updated me on our community’s crisis. Beloved elderly, Mr Ben, was beaten and murdered, eight students were raped, numerous neighbors were assaulted and several homes were burglarized. Remarkably, not a word of the crime-wave was mentioned in our newspaper. Clearly, the mayor was behind the media blackout.

As a matter of fact, Community Times reporters flooded us with articles praising the invaders and our loving mayor for welcoming these saintly souls seeking a better life. Me and fellow neighbors who opposed the invasion and complained about the cost were branded haters, selfish and racists. The mayor made us owners responsible for providing food, health-care and education for the invaders occupying our properties.

Widowed Miss Shirley, the community gossip, gave Mary the scoop. She reported to Mary that many of the invaders worked for wealthy contributors to the mayor’s reelection campaign. The invaders were paid peanuts to work as domestics, janitors, laborers and maintaining properties.

My feisty Irish wife said, “One thing for sure, the mayor and his rich pals don’t have to worry about their estates being invaded. Their homes are protected behind 12 foot fences armed with barbwire, electric and cameras. Meanwhile, we’re forced to be their invader’s welcome wagon!”

Folks, the above tale is fiction; a parable I wrote years ago illustrating illegal immigration. I was stunned that so many readers thought my outrageous tale was true; a sad commentary on the insanity we have come to expect from government.

Both political parties have a vested interest in supporting the invasion. Big business gets cheap labor. Democrats have blacks on the path to aborting themselves into extinction. Illegals offer Democrats’ a fresh crop of future voters; an underclass unskilled, uneducated and dependent on government.

Insidiously, both parties and the mainstream media prey upon the goodness of the American people. Anyone opposing the invasion is branded racist, heartless and mean.

GOP presidential contender Jeb Bush calls embracing illegal aliens an “act of love.” Rush Limbaugh says this is not immigration. We are being invaded

For several years, I was honored to sing my original, “Celebrate America” at U.S. Naturalization Ceremonies in Maryland. I took pride knowing my song was the first thousands heard as new Americans after taking their oath of allegiance. Every ceremony was electric, the hall radiating with emotion and excitement; tears flowing down countless faces. Unbelievably, Obama decreed that new applicants will no longer be required to pledge their allegiance

A moving memorable scene. In his 80’s or 90s, family members raised the gentlemen from his wheelchair to his feet. A grandchild held up his right hand. His entire family was tearful as he recited the oath. Folks, these people truly wanted to be Americans. They studied, passed the test and were anxious to assimilate and contribute. After reciting their oath and hearing the emcee say, “Congratulations”, the hall always erupted in applause and cheers of elation.

Obama refuses to obey federal immigration law. Ordered to break the law, border security allows everyone to enter, including gang members, rapists and murderers

Obama is endangering and devastating American families, loved ones raped and murdered by invaders. Then, Obama showers the invaders with welfare and government checks. Yes, government checks

Under-reported (hidden) is the epidemic of strange diseases infecting our kids because Obama forced public schools to take-in invader’s children.

Obama rolling out the red carpet welcome-mat to invaders is a huge slap in the face to legal new American citizens and those respecting our laws following the legal immigration process.

As practically every Obama policy, his amnesty for illegals is another self-serving evil anti-American agenda item disguised as love. Thank God a few GOP presidential contenders have the backbone to firmly saying, “No!”

Poll: Trump leads Republican field and Clinton in West Virginia

CHARLESTON, W.Va. /PRNewswire/ — If the 2016 General Election were held today, 26 percent of West Virginians would vote for Democrat Hillary Clinton, while 58 percent would vote for an unspecified Republican candidate, according to a survey conducted by Orion Strategies, a strategic communications firm with offices in Charleston and Buckhannon.

Donald Trump holds a commanding lead among Republican presidential candidates, according to the Orion Strategies poll. Twenty-nine percent of respondents said they would vote for Trump, compared to eight percent for his closest challenger, Marco Rubio – who is statistically tied with Jeb Bush, Mike Huckabee, Ben Carsonand Ted Cruz.  Still, a plurality of Republican and Independents are undecided.

Orion Strategies today released the first results of a new, wide-ranging statewide poll that measured voter attitudes toward next year’s election and significant national issues – including questions about Obamacare, Planned Parenthood, the use of body cameras by police and the treaty with Iran.

“Every year or two, Orion Strategies compiles a list of all the questions we ourselves want to ask,” said Curtis Wilkerson, president and CEO of Orion Strategies.  “We poll often, but almost all of the polling we do on a regular basis remains proprietary. So this is always a fun and enlightening project.”

Orion Strategies also asked a number of questions regarding West Virginia-based state issues. The results of the state-oriented poll questions will be released tomorrow.

The live-interview telephone survey was conducted among historic, likely voters in West Virginia.   A total of 406 respondents completed the entire survey – giving the poll a 4.9 +/- margin of error with a 95 percent confidence rate.  The sample was proportionate to each of the three congressional districts in the state. All 55 counties were called, and results were collected from 54 of those counties.  Partisan registration among respondents was 52 percent Democratic, 34 percent Republican and 14 percent Independent.

Orion Strategies conducts polling and research surveys on behalf of various clients, including trade associations, law firms, universities, media outlets and political campaigns.  The firm also conducts surveys for change of venue requests on prominent court cases. Curtis Wilkerson, Principal of Orion Strategies, is a member of the American Association of Public Opinion Research.  Learn more about Orion Strategies at www.orion-strategies.com

Key Findings of the Survey

In the 2016 General Election for President, would you likely vote for a Democratic or Republican Candidate?

28%

Democratic

52%

Republican

If in the 2016 General Election for President, your choices were Hillary Clinton and a Republican candidate, for whom would you vote?

26%

Clinton

58%

Republican Candidate

If the 2016 Republican Presidential Primary in West Virginia were held today, for which candidate would you vote? (Republicans and Independents only)

29%

Trump

8%

Rubio

7%

Bush

7%

Huckabee

7%

Carson

5%

Cruz

2%

Walker

2%

Fiorina

1%

Kasich

1%

Paul

32%

Other/Undecided

If the 2016 Democratic Presidential Primary in West Virginia were held today, for which candidate would you vote? (Democrats and Independents only)

23%

Clinton

12%

Sanders

16%

Biden

49%

Other/Undecided

If in the 2016 General Election for President, your choices were Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, for whom would you vote?

30%

Clinton

53%

Trump

17%

Undecided

Other key findings:

  • 61% believe that things in West Virginia are not headed in the right direction
  • 36% believe that Planned Parenthood should receive state and federal funding, while 54% do not
  • 77% oppose paying college athletes salaries in addition to athletic scholarships, with 17% in support
  • 91% of respondents support the use of body cameras by all law enforcement officers
  • 63% believe that the death penalty should be reinstated while 23% are opposed and 13% undecided
  • 19% believe Congress should ratify the current proposed treaty with Iran, with 62% against and 18% undecided
  • 29% of respondents agree with the recent Supreme Court ruling upholding the ability for same sex couples to marry, while 66% were opposed

Respondents were asked two similar questions with altered names at very different points in the poll:

–Do you believe that Obamacare is effective in providing more healthcare to residents in West Virginia?

35%

Yes

50%

No

–Do you believe that the Affordable Care Act is effective in providing more healthcare to residents of West Virginia

40%

Yes

46%

No

In regards to United States President Barack Obama, how would you rate his job performance?

8%

Excellent

16%

Good

13%

Fair

64%

Poor

SOURCE Orion Strategies

Poll: Clinton Leads Trump; Ties With Bush, Rubio, Walker in Virginia

ROANOKE, Va. /PRNewswire/ — Among Virginians, likely Democratic Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton leads Donald Trump (45%-32%), but is in a virtual tie with Jeb Bush (42%-41%), Marco Rubio(41%-40%), and Scott Walker (42%-38%), according to The Roanoke College Poll.

Despite the attention given to the Planned Parenthood videos, opinion regarding abortion is unchanged sinceJuly 2013. Virginians polled are more likely to see the Confederate battle flag as a symbol of Southern pride (42%) rather than as a racist symbol (31%).

The Roanoke College Poll interviewed 608 residents in Virginia between August 10 and August 20 and has a margin of error of +4 percent.

“Clinton’s lead over potential Republican opponents appears to have shrunk, although the comparisons are not perfect,” said Harry Wilson, director of the Institute for Policy and Opinion Research. “Of course, it is still very early, but no one likes to lose momentum. While she appears to be replicating the Obama winning coalition among blacks and women, she is not creating an age gap.”

“Despite the media attention to the Planned Parenthood videos, overall opinion regarding abortion is unchanged. Opinion regarding abortion is generally thought to change slowly, if at all, and that certainly seems true in this case. We may have reached a tipping point on symbols, especially when it comes to removing statues dedicated to Civil War veterans. The racial and regional differences regarding the flag are what we would expect to see. Perhaps most interesting is that those who had ancestors who fought for North were more sympathetic to the battle flag and its symbolism than those who did not have any ancestor in the War.”

More information is available at http://www.roanoke.edu/about/news/rc_poll_politics_aug_2015.

Will The Trash Crisis In Lebanon Bring Hezbollah to Power?

Trash has been piling up in the streets of Beirut for nearly two months.  This weekend violence erupted in the Grand Serail in central Beirut with the Army rushing in with water cannons to quell the crowds; dozens were reported injured.  An alleged non –sectarian activist group “You Stink” is directing its ire at the government, which lacks a President, usually a Maronite Christian in the confessional political system of Lebanon.  The Sunni premier, Tammam Salam is under fire, as Cabinet Ministers rejected new tenders to end the trash dispute.

Noteworthy is the alliance between Hezbollah’s and the Christian Maronite group Lebanon Forces are suggesting that a new government be elected, despite the postponement of a national election till 2017.  Such is the topsy turvy politics in Lebanon’s enigmatic political system, given the overarching problems of contending with Hezbollah involvement in the Iranian regime backed alliance with Syria’s Assad. The Lebanese trash crisis gives new meaning to the well tuned phrase by 19th Century American journalist, Charles Dudley Warner: “politics make strange bedfellows.” Despite the alleged resilience and durability of the Lebanese confessional political system, could failure to obtain new tenders for the removal of stinking piles of trash on the streets of Lebanon’s cities result in Hezbollah emerging as the eminence grise behind a new government in Beirut?

Reuters has the latest developments in the roiling trash dispute turned violent, Lebanese ministers walk out of meeting over garbage crisis:”

The powerful Shi’ite party Hezbollah and its Christian allies walked out of an emergency Lebanese cabinet meeting on Tuesday in protest at a proposed solution to a garbage disposal crisis that has ignited violent protests in Beirut.

The national unity government led by Prime Minister Tammam Salam also canceled a tender to select new refuse collection firms, underscoring the difficulties it faces overcoming the crisis that has brought popular calls for it to step down.

Public anger that has come to a head over the trash crisis turned violent at the weekend, with scores of protesters and security forces injured. Salam has threatened to resign, expressing frustration at the failings of his cabinet, which groups Lebanon’s rival parties.

Failure to agree a solution to the crisis has laid bare wider political stagnation in Lebanon, where sectarian and power rivalries have been exacerbated by Syria’s four-year-old conflict.

Ministers including members of Hezbollah and Christian politician Michel Aoun’s Free Patriotic Movement walked out of Tuesday’s emergency meeting, the information minister said.

Hezbollah in a statement slammed the “mounting and worsening corruption” it said the garbage crisis reflected.

A government statement released after the walkout said tenders announced on Monday to award contracts for waste disposal to private companies had “included high costs”, and had therefore been rejected.

Media reports and activists had accused the cabinet of awarding the contracts to a number of companies based on regional and political affiliation, reflecting alleged corruption and politicization of the issue.

The government said that as a temporary measure rubbish, which has festered on the streets of Beirut, would be tipped in Akkar province in north Lebanon, in return for a $100 million “sum” that would go toward development projects in that region.

The information minister said it was the proposed sum that triggered the walkout. Akkar, one of the poorest regions in Lebanon, is mostly Sunni but also has many Christian areas.

You stink cartoon Daily Star

“You Stink” Cartoon. Source: The Daily Star, Beirut

Worsening problems emerge in the trash crisis.

Beirut-based activists from the “You Stink” campaign held two large rallies over the weekend and a smaller march on Monday, with calls for a solution to the rubbish crisis quickly turning into calls for the cabinet to resign.

Protest organizers have called on Lebanese at home and abroad to join them in a large rally on Saturday.

Lebanon’s army commander General Jean Kahwaji said late on Monday the armed forces would protect any peaceful demonstrations but would not tolerate “security violators or infiltrators” who sought to sow “sedition and chaos.”

Organizers of protests, which began peacefully, have blamed the violence on troublemakers whom they say are connected to rival sectarian parties. The U.N. special coordinator for Lebanon on Monday urged “maximum restraint” by all sides.

Calm has prevailed since the weekend clashes, however, and later Tuesday, workers were removing concrete blast walls erected the day before outside the cabinet headquarters which protesters had covered with colorful anti-government graffiti.

The protest campaign, which has mobilized independently of the big sectarian parties that dominate Lebanese politics, blames political feuding and corruption for the failure to resolve the crisis that has left piles of uncollected garbage stinking in the scorching sun in recent weeks.

The cabinet and parliament are deadlocked, and politicians have been unable to agree on a new president for more than a year while Syria’s war next door has aggravated sectarian tensions and driven more than one million refugees into the country.

The Salam cabinet, formed last year with the blessing of regional rivals Saudi Arabia and Iran, has avoided a complete vacuum in the executive arm. It brings together Sunni Muslim former Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri’s Future movement, Shi’ite Hezbollah and Christians.

Mordechai Nisan

Dr. Mordechai Nisan

But it has struggled to take even basic decisions and tension in cabinet has escalated over appointments in the security agencies and army.

This latest crisis comes as we are about to publish in the September edition of the NER   a book review and interview with Dr. Mordechai Nisan, a well published author  lecturer and  respected Israeli expert on Lebanon and minorities in the Middle East. In our interview with Nisan we asked a question about the survivability of the 80 year confessional political system in Lebanon. Here is the exchange:

Gordon:  Did the assassination of Lebanese PM Hariri and the Cedars Revolution of 2005 spell the demise of the confessional system in Lebanon?

Nisan:      The durability of Lebanon’s confessional political system remains in place. It is both traditional and consensual that the President be a Maronite, the Prime Minister a Sunni Muslim, and the Speaker of the Legislature a Shiite Muslim. These arrangements have persevered for some 80 years as an organic model for the special case of Lebanon.

In our review of his latest book, Politics and War in Lebanon: Unraveling the Enigma, we noted Nisan’s concluding commentary set against the background to the present political crisis:

With a vacant presidential post and parliamentary elections postponed until 2017, trouble looms for the country caught up in the vicissitudes of the Syrian civil war spilling over its borders bringing a flood of refugees and a roiling trash crisis.Nisan wrote about a hopeful sign, “The March 14 camp asked Patriarch Beshara a – Ra’I to suggest names for the presidential post. Maybe somehow two Maronites –patriarch and president would help save the country from oblivion.” The expression in Hebrew is, Alevai. Its English meaning, “That should only be.”

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

The Left’s Hate of Trump’s ‘Make America Great’ Message

While on an aerobic machine at the gym, I caught Trump on TV. It occurred to me that Trump’s high poll numbers really represent the American people vs the America hating Left. Trump’s campaign slogan is “Make America Great Again.” Them’s fightin’ words to the Left.

For decades the Left has used its domination of the media and public education to indoctrinate our kids into believing that it is racist and mean to think of America as great. The Left says such pride and patriotism is an insult to the rest of the world.

You think I am crazy? Public elementary schools banned Lee Greenwood’s “Proud to be An American/God Bless the USA” in NY and Florida, thus far.

A Brooklyn elementary school principal blocked patriotism from teachers’ plans for a school assembly. Students were going to march in carrying US flags while singing a patriotic song. Here is one of the offensive lyrics. I’ll always do my part, I love my land that’s free.” 

The Ninth Circuit court upheld a San Francisco school district’s ban on wearing American flag t-shirts to school on a Mexican holiday

Professors at the University of California, Irvine join students in trying to ban the America flag on campus because they say it contributes to racism.

Years ago a white friend told me her son came home from middle school a tearful basket case. He was filled with guilt about the evils his white forefathers thrust upon minorities. Today, my friend’s son is an America hating Communist. He also believes white males are the greatest source of evil in the world.

A product of public education, a millennial relative said she would be traveling near South Dakota. I suggested she visit Mt Rushmore. Her reply was venomous, “I wouldn’t travel across the street to see those guys.”

Trump saying such things as wanting to “make America a winner” and “make our military strong” is extremely crass to the Left; repulsive as showing Dracula the cross.

Despite being drilled by the Left to hate their country, I believe American youths instinctively desire to love their homeland. Trump is making it okay to say it out loud.

Even some Republicans are uncomfortable with Trump boldly advocating for America; vowing to make decisions in our best interest. Well trained by the Left, most professional politicians cringe hearing Trump say take the oil, make Mexico pay for the wall and stop giving money to countries that hate us. Talk of putting America first infuriates liberals; deeming it racist and insensitive to the global community.

Ann Coulter is a rare voice on the big stage clamoring for an immigration policy rooted in America’s best interest rather than people to whom we owe nothing. Most pundits fear Leftists branding them racist, heartless and cruel. Consequently, Coulter’s unapologetic common sense is rare.

Not only do Leftists support Obama governing against America’s best interest, they have been cheerleaders for his long list of decisions designed to tear down our country. Obama’s latest betrayal is his insane Iran nuke deal.

Displaying off-the-chain condescension, Obama repeatedly tells us, issue after issue, we are not seeing what we are obviously seeing. For example. Obama says his deal prevents Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. Meanwhile, it is obvious to the world that Obama is green-lighting Iran acquiring a nuclear bomb. Obama’s ego is boundless. For crying out loud, Iran is already breaking the deal

Despite this Administrations’ pattern of telling us we are not seeing what we are obviously seeing, Admiral Lyons says Obama’s strategy is simple for any thinking American to see. “It’s anti-American; anti-western. It’s pro-Islamic. It’s pro-Iranian and pro-Muslim Brotherhood.” 

Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry know Americans would reject dethroning us as the world super power and making citizens subservient to government. Insidiously, this Administration masks its betrayals with lofty words like fairness, compassion and patriotism. Obama’s definition of patriotism includes opening our borders to illegals – taking our guns – taxing businesses out-of-business – repealing Constitutional freedoms and addicting as many able-body Americans to government assistance as possible.

Then along comes this outsider untamed by PC. Fearlessly, he speaks the truth. Wait a minute. This is a crazy way to run a country. I’m gonna make America great again! The people heard and responded positively. The Left is outraged.

This is not an endorsement of Trump for president. I am simply saying the Left’s hatred of Trump’s message reflects their hatred of America and those who love her.

A Watershed Moment in U.S. History

After weeks of agonizing by establishment Republicans and the mainstream media… agonizing over the question of what a bull-in-the-china-shop candidate like Donald Trump is doing among the largest-ever field of well-qualified Republican presidential candidates… Trump has announced a simple, straightforward plan for immigration reform, a plan that could represent a “watershed moment” in U.S. history.  The Trump plan is based on three core principles:

  1. That the U.S. – Mexican border must be secured by building a wall or a fence along the entirety of our southern border,
  2. That all immigration laws currently on the books must be fully and rigidly enforced, and
  3. That the number one priority for any future immigration plan must be based on what is in the best cultural and economic interests of the American people… and nothing else.

As part of his immigration plan, Trump calls for a nationwide system to identify and locate all illegal aliens… those who have entered the country illegally, as well as those who’ve entered legally and overstayed their visas.  To accomplish that end, Trump proposes tripling the number of immigration and customs enforcement (ICE) agents.

What he suggests is precisely what conservatives and Republicans have been promoting ever since mass illegal immigration began.  However, Trump departs from Republican orthodoxy by taking a totally no-nonsense approach to the problem of the so-called “anchor babies,” defined as infants born to pregnant foreign women who come to the Unites States, illegally, just to insure that their babies can acquire U.S. citizenship by being born on American soil.

The purpose of the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, was to grant U.S. citizenship to former slaves and their children who were born on U.S. soil.  The authors of the amendment could never have conceived of a time when pregnant women would travel great distances from foreign lands for the sole purpose of taking advantage of the 14th Amendment.  The “anchor baby” concept has created an entire underclass of undocumented aliens who are allowed to remain in the country under an unwritten law that protects families from being separated and prevents infants with U.S. citizenship from being forcibly deported along with their illegal alien parents.  Trump, who says what conservatives and Republicans have always feared to say, merely scoffs at suggestions that to deport all illegal aliens would separate foreign parents from their minor children.  In an August 16 appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” he made his position on “anchor babies” crystal clear, saying, “We have to keep the families together, but they have to go.”

He also ventures outside Republican orthodoxy by taking a no-nonsense approach to the status of Obama’s so-called “Dreamers” – non-citizens who were brought to the United States illegally as children, who’ve grown up here, who’ve been educated here, and who would be political and cultural strangers in the native lands of their parents.  He expresses no desire to separate “Dreamers” from their illegal alien parents by allowing them to remain in the United States while their parents are deported.  Instead, he insists that Obama’s executive order shielding the “Dreamers” from deportation must be rescinded.

So what is it about Trump’s immigration reform plan that would qualify it as a “watershed moment” in American history?  Its significance is not that it has a chance of being enacted and fully implemented; as a nation we are still far too politically correct and we have far too many “squeaky wheels” among liberals and Hispanic activists to accomplish that anytime soon.  No, the significance of Trump’s immigration reform proposal is much more subtle.  Just as Rush Limbaugh’s major contribution to our national persona is not that he has caused elections to be won or lost, but that he has caused millions of politically uncommitted Americans to understand where they fit in the political spectrum, Trump’s straightforward approach to solving the illegal immigration problem has made it okay for previously hesitant Americans to openly agree with his no-nonsense approach.  It is what most Americans have always believed, but were afraid to put into words for fear that they would be branded as racists or xenophobes.

The point is, Americans are fair and reasonable people.  Scratch almost any American and you’ll find a person who would fully expect to be deported from a foreign country where they were living illegally.  So why would they not expect foreigners living in the United States illegally to react in the same way?  In short, it’s time we expected our uninvited guests to act like grownups, and Trump’s no-nonsense approach to the problem of illegal immigration gives us all license to finally put those expectations into words.

But more importantly, his courageous stance on illegal immigration also provides us with the opportunity to bring other critically important issues to the fore… issues that, until now, have been stuck in quagmires of constitutional uncertainties and/or political correctness.  Of these, none are more important than the unrelenting invasion of radicalized Muslims and the chilling threat of Islamic terrorism inside our own borders.

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, “Islamists arrive in the United States despising the country and all it represents, intending to make converts, exploit the freedoms and rights granted them, and build a movement that will effect basic changes in the country’s way of life and its government.  The superpower status of the United States makes it especially attractive to those who wish to change the world order; what better place to start?  Islamists do not accept the United States as it is but want to change it into a majority Muslim country where the Qur’an replaces the Constitution.”

The United States has already provided refugee status for more Muslims than all the other nations in the world combined.  Yet, in spite of that insanity, the Obama administration has recently announced that we are prepared to receive an additional 70,000 unvetted Muslim refugees, including many with strong ties to ISIS and al-Qaeda.  Some come seeking safety, some come seeking a better life, but many others come in the hope of doing us great harm.

In order to neutralize and reverse radical Islam’s contribution to the cultural infestation of the United States, we must attack the problem of Muslim immigration with the same level of courage with which Donald Trump approaches illegal immigration.  In short, we should not hesitate to confront Muslim infiltration by enacting new legislation, tailoring the language of the

Communist Control Act of 1954 to read as follows:

SEC. 1.  PREAMBLE.  The Congress hereby finds and declares that certain organizations exist within our borders which, although purporting to be political or religious in nature, are in fact instrumentalities of foreign political or religious entities or ideologies whose purpose it is to overthrow the Government of the United States by any available means, including force and violence.  Such organizations operate as authoritarian dictatorships within our borders, demanding for themselves the rights and privileges generally accorded to all political parties and religious denominations, but denying to all others the liberties guaranteed to them by the U.S. Constitution.        

SEC. 2. PROSCRIBED ORGANIZATIONS.  Any political or religious organization as described herein, or any successors or affiliates of such organizations, regardless of the assumed name, whose object or purpose is to overthrow the government of the United States by force or violence, or the government of any State, Territory, District, possession, or political subdivision thereof, are not entitled to any of the rights, privileges, and immunities attendant upon legal bodies created under the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States or its political subdivisions; and whatever rights, privileges, and immunities heretofore granted to said religious or political organizations, or any subsidiary or affiliate organizations, by reason of the laws of the United States or any political subdivision thereof, are hereby rescinded:  Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed as amending the Internal Security Act of 1950, as amended.

With that statute on the books, making the practice or the promotion of Islamic jihad illegal, we can make it very uncomfortable for radical Islamists.  We can make their presence in our country so unpleasant that they will long for a return to whatever hellhole they and their predecessors crawled out of, ccausing them to self-repatriate in increasingly large numbers.  With eyes and ears planted in every mosque and every Muslim cultural center in America, radical Islamists could be readily identified and FBI agents could quickly make arrests.

American policymakers could take a lesson from the Slovakians.  When asked by United Nations officials to accept “their share” of Muslim refugees, a spokesman for the Interior Ministry, Ivan Metic, replied, “We could take 800 Muslims, but we don’t have any mosques in Slovakia so how can Muslims be integrated if they are not going to like it here?”  Clearly, what Metic was saying is that building permits for mosques might be very difficult to obtain in Slovakia.  Officials in the United States and other western nations should learn to be equally “welcoming” to Islamists.

What Donald Trump’s straightforward no-nonsense approach has done is to finally make it acceptable to debate some of our major national problems by putting political correctness behind us.  When all is said and done, Trump may not be electable.  However, if his presence in the race ultimately makes it permissible for us to deal with racial discord, immigration reform, and the threat of radical Islam without fear of being branded racist, Islamophobic, xenophobic, or politically incorrect, his candidacy will truly be seen as a “watershed moment” in U.S. history.

NOTE: Such organizations acknowledge no constitutional or statutory limitations upon their conduct or upon that of their members.  The membership of such organizations, while relatively small in number, gives scant indication of their capacity ever to attain their objectives by lawful means.  Rather, the peril inherent in their existence arises not from their numbers, but from their failure to acknowledge any limitation as to the nature of their activities, and their dedication to the proposition that the present constitutional Government of the United States ultimately must be brought to ruin by any available means, including resort to force and violence.  Holding that doctrine, their role as the instrumentalities of hostile foreign political powers or religious ideologies renders their existence a clear, present, and continuing danger to the security of the United States. 

Which GOP Presidential Candidate Will Keep Their Word if Elected?

My wife and I were a very nervous and excited young couple purchasing our first home. Our home builder was a dear friend of my parents. Upon going to closing, there were numerous odds and ends the builder had not completed. He vowed to complete my home asap and asked that I sign a paper for the bank stating that he completed all the work on my home.

My mom cautioned me not to sign the paper. Mom said, “Eaten bread is soon forgotten.” I ignored Mom’s counsel. Sure enough, after my builder received his check from the bank, I had to chase him for over a year to complete my home.

Just like my builder said whatever necessary to get paid, politicians make voter-pleasing promises on the campaign trail. After they are elected, they forget their promises. Therefore, the final Jeopardy question is – Which GOP presidential contender will keep their word if elected? Having been burnt so many times, trustworthiness, character and backbone must be paramount in selecting our nominee.

In this primary season, we have witnessed honorable conservative candidates dialing back their original comments or apologizing due to pressure from the mainstream media and the candidate’s handlers. This raises concerns in me about how these candidates will holdup under world class attacks once they are in the WH.

Leftists (mainstream media, Democrats and liberals) viciously insulted and accused president Ronald Reagan of every nasty thing imaginable. It takes a rare human being to stand firm in the midst of 24/7 relentless character assassination. Thus, my question. Which GOP contender will follow through with their conservative promises?

At the top of my list is Senator Ted Cruz. On several issues, Cruz seems to always end up on the opposite side of the GOP establishment and Leftist Democrats; in-sync with We the People. Cruz never follows the crowd. Eagles fly alone.

Remember Cruz getting hammered by Democrats and Republicans for fighting to defund Obamacare? Win or lose, We the People desperately needed to see someone on our side not simply rolling over and playing dead in surrender to Obama as he transforms our great country.

Cruz boldly says he is a Christian. During the GOP debate, I was struck by how naturally Cruz shared his dad’s testimony; transformed from an alcoholic abandoning his wife and three year old Ted to giving his heart to Jesus and reuniting with his family. Politicians do not speak that freely about God and Jesus these days in the political public square. Obviously, Ted Cruz rejected the Left and MSM’s memo banning God. As I said, eagles fly alone.

Some GOP contenders are wishy-washy on illegal immigration, even joining the liberal mainstream media in calling Trump racist for addressing it. Imagine how easily such a president’s position could be swayed when he or she is trashed by the media.

Another GOP contender hopes to win black votes by exempting them from having to show a photo ID to vote. We do not want a president who is willing to surrender to the absurd Democrat party lie that it is too challenging for blacks to find their way to the DMV to acquire a photo ID. Americans do not want another president pandering to various voting blocs and selectively enforcing our laws.

While any of our GOP 17 are far superior to another socialist in the WH, a few are GOP establishment, big donor and Chamber of Commerce Trojan horses. They talk a good conservative game before the election. But once in the WH, they will prove to be a Manchurian candidate of the Washington cartel.

The Bible repulses the MSM like showing Dracula the cross. Still, Cruz quoted scripture, “you shall know them by their fruit.” Cruz said we see lots of “campaign conservatives.” He added that to win in 2016, we need a consistent fiscal, social and national security conservative. Cruz also touted that he has been a defender of life his entire career. This guy paints in bold colors folks.
Cruz looked America squarely in the eye and made bold promises during the GOP debate causing him to surge in the polls. On his first day as president, Cruz vows to rescind every illegal and unconstitutional executive action taken by Obama. He will instruct the DOJ to investigate the shocking videos and prosecute Planned Parenthood for any criminal violations. He will defend religious liberty, cancel the Iran deal and move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.

Cruz also vows to repeal Obamacare.

Again, as I stated, while all of our contenders know how to say what We the People want to hear, the $64,000 Question (1950s TV game show) is which one is “for real?” Who will keep their word?

Here is Cruz’s last statement of the GOP debate. “I will keep my word. My father fled Cuba, and I will fight to defend liberty because my family knows what it’s like to lose it.”

I believe him, folks. I believe him.

The Biggest Bomb Thrower of All

With all the talk about political “civility” directed at the GOP by those in the mainstream media, I find it a bit ironic that their ire isn’t directed at the biggest rhetorical bomb-thrower of them all: President Barack Obama.

It’s time for us all (myself included) to abandon the idea that President Obama is just a good guy supporting bad policies. Having been a Secret Service agent on his protective detail, it is not easy for me to concede this, but it is necessary. I have a personal attachment to Barack Obama, likely developed through years of interactions while on his detail, and despite the litany of disastrous policies emanating from his White House; it has always been tough for me to believe that he is not a “nice guy.”

I can recall a number of television and phone interviews where I forcefully defended the President personally (not ideologically), after which I received a deluge of emails from people upset that I was doing so. After witnessing his latest in a series of low-blow rhetorical attacks on his political opposition, however, I’ve regretfully come to the conclusion that he is simply not the man I thought he was.

I’ve been frustrated and upset at him in the past, for destroying our healthcare system (and cancelling my insurance policy in the process), taxing away any chance of an economic recovery, and for forcing the tentacles of the government deeper into my life and yours; but I’ve always cooled and settled on the idea that while he was an ideologue and poor leader, he remained a generally decent guy. But decent men and women do not stand in front of the world, before the most powerful bully pulpit in the history of mankind, and act and speak as he does.

Attacking political opponents in the Washington DC political cesspool is nothing new or earth shattering but, the rhetoric used by this President to speak about his political opposition is close to unprecedented.

To prove my point, here are some of President Obama’s low lights:

  • On political opposition to the disastrous Iran deal, and a joint opposition letter drafted to the Iranians, President Obama stated, respectively, that hegemonic, Iranian extremists were “making common cause with the Republican caucus.”  And, “I’m embarrassed for them.”
  • On political supporters of common-sense voter ID requirements, President Obama stated, “The real voter fraud is people who try to deny our rights by making bogus arguments about voter fraud.”
  • On political supporters of right-to-work legislation, President Obama stated they are “are more concerned about German shareholders than American workers.”
  • On Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren’s opposition to Trade Promotion Authority, President Obama stated “the truth of the matter is that Elizabeth is, you know, a politician like everybody else.”
  • On Fox News’ coverage of the struggling economy, President Obama stated, “We’re going to have to change how our body politic thinks, which means we’re going to have to change how the media reports on these issues.”
  • On those who oppose his continued attacks on the Second Amendment, President Obama stated, “As long as there are those who fight to make it as easy as possible for dangerous people to get their hands on a gun, then we’ve got to work as hard as possible for the sake of our children.”
  • On political opposition to his massive debt and deficits, President Obama stated, “it’s encouraged our enemies, it’s emboldened our competitors”
  • On political opposition to Obamacare, President Obama accused opponents of “exploiting fears instead of getting things done.”

Truth be told, I am an emotional person who takes assaults on our liberties and freedoms personally, and I have been known, on talk-radio, television, and in print, to loudly call out the Left for their three-front war on our future; but I’m not trying to be the “nice guy,” I’m trying to sound the alarm about the danger we are in. So, in going forward, let’s dispense with the mainstream media nonsense about how “nice” of a guy President Obama is and focus on the real man behind the ideology—a man who, I truly believe, is angry, resentful, and bitter towards those who cherish freedom, liberty, and a limited-government which enables the limitless flourishing of individuals.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Conservative Review. The feature image is by Carolyn Kaster | AP Photo.

Is the “Libertarian Moment” Over? by David Boaz

That’s the question Dave Weigel asks at the Washington Post. His premise is that Rand Paul’s presidential campaign seems to have slowed down, so maybe that means any “libertarian moment” has passed. (I’d say Weigel asks, but doesn’t answer, the question.)

Nick Gillespie of Reason correctly tells Weigel that ideological movements and moments aren’t tied to any one political leader: “It’s a mistake to conflate Rand Paul’s electoral success with that of the libertarian moment.”

Gillespie also says Paul would be more successful if he were more libertarian:

Rand Paul’s high visibility is better understood as a consequence of the libertarian moment than its cause. There’s a reason why he’s been at his most electrifying and popular precisely when he is at his most libertarian: calling out the surveillance state, for instance, and leading the charge against reckless interventions in Syria and Libya.

And:

“Hopefully his father’s endorsement will goad him to become THE libertarian alternative,” says Gillespie, “rather than the seventh or eighth or 10th most conservative candidate in the GOP race.”

And of course the election is just beginning. The Donald Trump circus has dominated the past month, but eventually the differences between serious candidates such as Bush, Walker, and Paul will get more attention. And in that competition Paul’s “libertarianish” approach will stand out against a dozen candidates racing to the right.

Weigel isn’t the first to raise the question of whether the rise of ISIS, with its brutal videos, set back a rising tide of non-interventionist sentiment among American voters. As I told Weigel, “I still think the growing aversion to intervention will reassert itself reasonably soon.” The temporary success of ISIS won’t wipe out 15 years of war-weariness. As soon as February, when the voting starts, voters may be reverting to their skepticism about intervention.

Ed Crane has written in the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere that a plurality of Americans support free enterprise, social tolerance, and “a healthy skepticism of foreign military adventurism.”

David Brooks wrote recently that the swing voters in 2016 will be people who don’t think big government is the path to economic growth and don’t know why a presidential candidate would open his campaign at Jerry Falwell’s university.

Those are the voters who push American politics in a libertarian direction.

You can see that libertarian direction in this chart put together by David Bier, who elaborated on what it shows here:

In any case, we shouldn’t judge freedom by what politicians and voters are doing in any particular year.

We live in a world where we have extended the promises of the Declaration of Independence to more people — gay people can get married! — where we have all the knowledge in the history of the world in our pockets, where politicians and police are increasingly monitored, where unregulated or lightly regulated technologies are challenging comfortable monopolies.

Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch have taken the idea of “the libertarian moment” far beyond politics and elections, as in this article that I quoted in the introduction to The Libertarian Reader:

We are in fact living at the cusp of what should be called the Libertarian Moment, the dawning not of some fabled, clichéd, and loosey-goosey Age of Aquarius but a time of increasingly hyper-individualized, hyper-expanded choice over every aspect of our lives, from 401(k)s to hot and cold running coffee drinks, from life-saving pharmaceuticals to online dating services.

This is now a world where it’s more possible than ever to live your life on your own terms; it’s an early rough draft version of the libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick’s glimmering “utopia of utopias.”

Due to exponential advances in technology, broad-based increases in wealth, the ongoing networking of the world via trade and culture, and the decline of both state and private institutions of repression, never before has it been easier for more individuals to chart their own course and steer their lives by the stars as they see the sky. …

This new century of the individual, which makes the Me Decade look positively communitarian in comparison, will have far-reaching implications wherever individuals swarm together in commerce, culture, or politics. …

The Internet alone has created entire new economies, modes of scattered and decentralized organization and work, and a hyper-individualization that would have shocked the Founding Fathers.

And of course if we move beyond the United States to the world at large, it’s pretty clear that the large trends in the world — not without counter-trends — are toward human rights, women’s rights, gay rights, democratic governance, and freer markets.

If we’re not quite in a libertarian moment, we’re in a libertarianish era.

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.

EDITORS NOTE: This post first appeared at Cato.org.

Trump jumps to A- grade on NumbersUSA Presidential candidate score card

Puts a discussion of LEGAL immigration on the table with his Immigration white paper.

Here is Roy Beck writing at NumbersUSA earlier this week:

The weight of Donald Trump’s front-runner status and his detailed plan released over the weekend tipped the balance among the Republicans’ 2016 Presidential field so that the dominant position now is that immigration policy is a jobs and wage issue.

And he joins several candidates in raising the question in one way or another of whether LEGAL immigration ought to be reduced.

Several candidates had already been advancing the idea in recent months that federal policies on LEGAL immigration are not serving the interests of the American worker.

Continue reading here.

And, go here, to see the latest scores.  Rick Santorum still has a solid A, Trump A-.  The next closest candidate is Scott Walker with a B,  and then all of the other candidates at this time have lower scores.

I say it is about time that LEGAL immigration numbers are scrutinized and we thank Trump for forcing the discussion when a whole bunch of Presidential candidates haven’t had the guts to address immigration at all, let alone put their ideas in writing.

trump illegals veteransTrump on refugees

Here (below) is what Trump says in his brief mention of the Refugee Admissions Program of the UN/U.S. State Department. Find the abuses in the program and the money saved should be used for America’s children:

Refugee program for American children. Increase standards for the admission of refugees and asylum-seekers to crack down on abuses. Use the monies saved on expensive refugee programs to help place American children without parents in safer homes and communities, and to improve community safety in high crime neighborhoods in the United States.

It is a good first step. It is up to all of you to impress upon your elected officials (at all levels) and ultimately the mainstream media that this program has gone seriously and irreparably awry.  We have more work to do.  They don’t know yet what you know.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Asst. Secretary of State Anne Richard will answer questions about refugees in Spartanburg, SC this coming week….

Is FBI attempting to chill free speech in report that reads like it was authored by the Southern Poverty Law Center?

National Suicide: Number Of Syrian Muslim Refugees To U.S. Expected To Quadruple

Cool map tells us which immigrant ethnic group holds demographic dominance in each state

VIDEO: Donald Trump ‘Is The Country’s Collective Middle Finger To Washington’

Here is my recap of the top headlines and breaking news stories. The lead story is titled, “Donald Trump is the Middle Finger of the Republican Base’.”

Here is what is hot and what is not:

RELATED ARTICLE: Donald Trump’s Soaring Popularity “Is The Country’s Collective Middle Finger To Washington”

The Unpolished Politician is what will ‘Make America Great Again’

Today I learned that Barack Obama has proposed an Amendment to the Constitution that would limit the 1st Amendment.  It would seem that President Obama doesn’t like the fact that we have freedom of expression, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. We also have a repeat of the 2008 Democratic Presidential Nomination race because Hillary is back and she is touting her 40 plus years of public service.  She does this in spite of the fact that she could possibly have committed major crimes while serving as Secretary of State under President Obama. Let that sink in for a moment.  The Secretary of State under the most spiteful president in our nation’s history now wants to be our president.

Now, Hillary claims still, that she is a ‘champion of the people’ and only wants to take care of the lot of us.  The problem with taking care of us is that Democrats and RINO Republicans have to pounce on and trounce the Constitution. The Democrats are very familiar with the thrashing of the Constitution.  They like doing it in fact they love doing it and they support anyone who says they will continue to do it. For example, look at the rising support for Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.  This is the main reason that candidates like Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Dr. Ben Carson, and Carly Fiorina are on the rise because they talk about preserving the Constitution and reducing government in our daily lives.  While RINO types of candidates like Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and Lindsey Graham are on the decline in support.

One of the best slogans we have seen in years comes from Donald Trump.  It’s simple and to the point.  ‘Make America Great Again’. He is the only candidate I have heard actually say that and of course some would argue that America is still great and that Mr. Trump has it wrong.  I would agree that America is still great but we are not as great as we once were and that is what Trump is talking about.  He wants to take us back to when the Constitution was still the rule of law , freedom was the rule of the market, and personal responsibility was the rule of the people.  That is the kind of greatness Trump is talking about.

Let me be clear on this.  You cannot be for the Constitution and personal responsibility if you are for laws that subject the American People to government over regulation and laws that dictate how you act and think not only in public but in the privacy of your own home.  And if you are not for the Constitution you cannot be a lover and supporter of the United States of America.

We have more laws, rules and regulations on the books than ever before. We now have less freedom to protect ourselves, our family and loved ones, and our hard earned property yet we still have more crime. The Democrats and the RINOs  to this day continue to add more laws, rules and regulations to “protect” us.

It would seem that Americans are eager to elect officials that simply want to rule over us, instead of govern us.  We see this in the growing crowds that an admitted socialist is garnering on his quest to garner the Democratic Nomination for President. To me those large crowds are a little troublesome because when you break down what he is saying one has to ask the question how are we going to pay for all of this new spending and government takeover that Senator Bernie Sanders is proposing? If someone dares to ask him that question he and his supporters look at you like you are crazy.

When you force them to face the facts that even if you confiscate all the wealth from the top 50% of this country, it would not even begin to cover the new spending let alone the huge debt we already have they look at you like you are crazy.  When you explain that even if you take the entire private economy and confiscate a full year of value and production, it is still LESS than what the national debt currently is they look at you like you are crazy.  And that debt is only going to continue to grow.

When you point out that taking money out of the private sector actually takes money out of their own back pocket and you prove it via facts, figures, and numbers as stated by the government itself, they continue with that glassy eyed look. And when you finally tell them that what made this country great was freedom and opportunity and freedom from government over regulation they will look at you like you are really crazy.  And when you prove it to them historically, many of them continue to look at you with those same big, glassy eyes.

The sad part is they get it.  Don’t let them fool you they really do get it.  Now you will have some that will capitulate and convert to a more conservative point of view and you will have others who will ignore you because they are all about class warfare, jealousy, and not about what is doing what is best for the nation but in the end it is all about high taxation and regulation. This class warfare, this high taxation, this over regulation is not American.  It is not America.  It is not what makes America great.

What makes America great is the people doing what they do best without the interference of the government.  That is what made America great in the first place and that is what Donald Trump says will make us even greater in the future.

For liberals who don’t get that, well maybe we can get you some government issued sunglasses.