Trump leads in Digital Presidential Campaign Proficiency Poll

/in , , /by

IRVINE, Calif. /PRNewswire/ — EPiServer™, a leading provider of digital marketing and digital commerce solutions, today announced the results of its Digital Presidential Campaign Proficiency Poll, tracking the digital savviness of the top U.S. presidential hopefuls. The poll results can be viewed online at:www.episerver.com/knowledge-base/infographics/us-presidential-digital-campaign-proficiency

EPiServer evaluated seven top presidential candidates (based on aggregated national poll numbers from RealClear Politics as of Aug. 27, 2015) during the time period of Sept. 5-10, 2015, ranking them in order of digital campaign proficiency in the race to the White House. Candidates were ranked on various criteria, including quality of web site content and organization and volume of daily unique visitors, as well as breadth of social media use, volume of followers and level of engagement.

The polling shows clear digital campaign leaders and laggards. The candidate leading the pack in digital electioneering is Donald Trump, with an overall digital campaign score of 75. Bernie Sanders and Ben Carsonalso received top scores for their digital campaign efforts. On the flip side, while Jeb Bush may have the presidential bloodline, the poll results show his digital campaigning lacks luster; Bush received the lowest digital campaign score of 24. Slightly above Bush, but also lagging in digital campaign proficiency according to the polling was Ted Cruz. Marco Rubio’s and Hillary Clinton’s digital campaign proficiency scores put them in the middle of the pack, with only a three-point spread between the two candidates.

EPiServer has no affiliations to any presidential candidates or political parties, but does have more than 8,800 customers in some 30 countries that leverage its EPiServer Digital Experience Cloud™. Encompassing the tools for the creation, management, and publishing of digital content, with personalization and analytics built in, the Digital Experience Cloud provides marketers, digital and online teams with the power, insight and agility to act on a business moment, and the confidence to realize their aspirations with a technology foundation that supports more than 30,000 websites worldwide.

EPiServer says studying the digital swagger of politicians can reveal best practices and innovative strategies that can be leveraged by commercial and non-profit entities, which aspire to deliver standout digital experiences.

“If you want to see cutting-edge digital marketing in action, keep an eye on the U.S. presidential campaign,” said Joakim Holmquist, EPiServer’s Director of Digital Marketing. “Digital media expertise and persona mapping/audience targeting was quintessential in Obama’s winning the presidential race in 2008. Now, eight years later, digital technologies and strategies have gotten even more sophisticated.

“The marketers managing these political campaigns have the marketing funnel worked out so clearly – they are employing sophisticated conversation mining, persona mapping and message personalization. They are ‘all-in’ and there’s a lot to be gained or lost.”

Holmquist goes on to say that this time around the next president of the United States will be Commander-in-Chief of the digital domain, even before being sworn into office.

“The Obama digital team was groundbreaking in its data driven marketing and testing of images, buttons and copy on landing pages to find the optimal mix that would make visitors opt in their e-mail addresses and eventually donate money. This time around anything digital will be tested and optimized. Whether it is online ads, email campaigns or social sharing, it will be subject to tests to determine the best headlines, copy, and images.”

Analytics is playing a greater role in digital campaigning, thanks to greater proficiency in aggregating and analyzing data. “Using advanced algorithmic attributing modelling, data from all different channels will be combined and crunched to show hidden correlations and provide insights into campaign efforts,” says Holmquist. “The savviest digital team will more accurately understand outcomes and reallocate spend to optimize campaigns for the overarching goals of getting more volunteers and more donors, which will eventually translate into more votes, which could ultimately translate into securing the presidency.”

More commentary from Holmquist on this topic can be found on the EpiServer blog at: www.episerver.com/about-us/our-blog/joakim-holmquist/us-presidential-digital-campaign-proficiency/

episerver logoAbout EPiServer

EPiServer connects digital commerce and digital marketing to help organizations create unique digital experiences for their customers, with measurable business results. The EPiServer Digital Experience Cloud™ combines content, commerce, multi-channel marketing, and predictive analytics in a single platform to work full-circle for businesses online – from intelligent real-time personalization and lead-generation through to conversion and repeat business – with unprecedented ease-of-use. Sitting at the center of the digital experience ecosystem, EPiServer empowers digital leaders to embrace disruptive, transformational strategies to deliver standout experiences for their customers – everywhere they engage. Founded in 1994, EPiServer has offices in Australia, Denmark, Finland, The Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, UAE, UK and the USA. For more information visit www.episerver.com.

Why Don’t All Sandwiches Cost $1,500? by Chelsea German

/in , , , , /by

What would life be like without exchange or trade? Recently, a man decided to make a sandwich from scratch. He grew the vegetables, gathered salt from seawater, milked a cow, turned the milk into cheese, pickled a cucumber in a jar, ground his own flour from wheat to make the bread, collected his own honey, and personally killed a chicken for its meat.

This month, he published the results of his endeavor in an enlightening video: making a sandwich entirely by himself cost him 6 months of his life and set him back $1,500.

(It should be noted that he used air transportation to get to the ocean to gather salt. If he had taken it upon himself to learn to build and fly a plane, then his endeavor would have proved impossible).

The inefficiency of making even something as humble as a sandwich by oneself, without the benefits of market exchange, is simply mind-boggling. There was a time when everyone grew their own food and made their own clothes. It was a time of unimaginable poverty and labor without rest.

The greater the number of people involved in exchange, the more beneficial the process becomes.

This morning, thanks to international trade, I am drinking coffee grown in Latin America, viewing a computer screen with eyeglasses made in Europe, and typing this blog post on a keyboard made in Asia.

Fortunately, freedom to trade internationally has improved, on average, around the world. Increased trade has helped raise living standards and decrease global poverty.

However, the recent trend in the United States is less positive.

If trade protectionist politicians, like Bernie Sanders on the left and Donald Trump on the right, have their way, then U.S. freedom to trade internationally may deteriorate further. They put down trade by claiming that it harms the U.S. economy and destroys jobs.

Yet, there is a widespread agreement among economists that free trade is key to prosperity. (Learn more about the relationship between increased trade and jobs here).

This morning, as you drink your coffee, take a moment to consider where it comes from. You probably would not be drinking it right now if it were not for trade. This video elegantly draws attention to the myriad ways in which the exchange of goods and services across national borders touches lives and helps raise living standards.

Almost everything you use is the product of a complex web of human cooperation, often extending beyond your country. Even something as simple as a bag of groceries or a pencil is the end result of a “symphony of human activity that spans the globe.”

This post first appeared at Cato.org.

Chelsea German

Chelsea German

Chelsea German works at the Cato Institute as a Researcher and Managing Editor of HumanProgress.org.

Gun Rights Group Thanks Hillary Clinton For Energizing Gun Owners

/in , , , /by

BELLEVUE, Wash. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms today publicly thanked Hillary Rodham Clinton for energizing the nation’s firearms owners to political action and virtually assuring their heavy turnout for the 2016 presidential election.

“Thanks to all of her anti-gun-rights statements, Hillary Clinton will guarantee that gun owners will exercise their voting rights next November,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “She seems eager to double down onBarack Obama’s failed attempts to stick pins in gun owners.”

Clinton, the former Secretary of State and U.S. Senator from New York, has a history of supporting gun control measures. She supports a ban on popular modern sport-utility rifles and original capacity magazines, and she suggested that gun owners are “a minority of people that hold a viewpoint that terrorizes a majority of people.”

“Just as it has been for the past seven years, since Barack Obama was elected in 2008, a Clinton nomination in 2016 will guarantee continued strong gun sales and expanded gun ownership,” Gottlieb contended. “Even among those who favor expanded background checks there is strong sentiment for protecting gun rights rather than controlling gun ownership.

“At the annual Gun Rights Policy Conference held over the weekend, one of the biggest concerns among the activists in attendance was a Clinton nomination, followed by a Clinton election victory,” he said. “American gun owners are convinced that she will turn the Oval Office into a nuclear war room against the Second Amendment.

“Between now and November 2016,” he continued, “we expect Hillary Clinton to try to stigmatize and marginalize gun owners, but in fact she will energize those millions of law-abiding citizens whose votes she fears the most. That’s why we’re grateful for her campaign rhetoric.

“By this time next year,” Gottlieb predicted, “if there is any apathy within the firearms community, it will have been transformed into activism.”

With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (www.ccrkba.org) is one of the nation’s premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.

RELATED ARTICLE: San Francisco’s Firearms Regulations Force City’s Last Gun Store to Close

Republican Leadership Trumped Again

/in , , /by

The political story of the year by far is the sudden resignation of House Speaker, John Boehner.  His announcement last Friday sent tectonic shock waves throughout the body politic.

Boehner’s resignation was a direct result of Donald Trump’s presidential candidacy; not Trump the person, but rather what Trump represents.

In many ways, as a candidate, Trump is very flawed; but what he represents is very much real.

Trump’s unconventional approach to campaigning and his theatrics are wearing very thin on the voters.  He must now begin to address the American people with substantive policy initiatives.  We know he is  very wealthy, we know he loves Mexicans and they love him too, and we know his hair is real, etc.

But now Trump has to convince the electorate that he has a plan to deal with ISIS, that he has a plan to reduce government spending, and that he has a plan to create jobs in this anemic economy, etc.

That’s Trump the candidate.  Trump the symbol is totally different.

Trump is the vessel the Republican base has chosen to represent their anger and disillusionment with the party.  The party establishment refused to listen to the base when they quietly voiced their dissatisfaction.  They were simply told to write a check, vote for them, and just shut the hell up.

Many in the party no longer know what we stand for as Republicans; other than Trump (illegal immigration), can you name the signature issue of any other candidates for president?  The world is falling apart right in front of us, both domestically and internationally and Republicans are not putting forth any solutions; just caving in to Obama at every chance.

I think it is extremely condescending for some to attempt to chide the base of the party for having “unrealistic” expectations from the Republican Congress.  Well, if this be true, the fault clearly falls on these same people for raising the expectations thusly.

The base was told last year that if they voted for Republicans, they would stop Obama’s amnesty; repeal Obamacare, and cut spending.  Congress has not done nor attempted to do any of these things.

The base doesn’t need lecturing and condescension; they are fully aware that Obama has the power of the veto.  The base doesn’t mind losing a vote, but they at least want to see Congress put up a fight for the principles that they claim to believe in.  Make Obama veto a border bill or make Obama veto a spending bill.

The base will respect and support loses when the leadership stands by their (and our) principles.

The unwillingness of our leaders to fight for our values has led to the creation of Donald Trump.  Trump would have no raison d’etre for his candidacy if Republicans had fought against Obama’s liberal agenda.

So, replacing Boehner with someone who is going to continue the status quo is not the solution.  Republicans should pick up to three issues that they are going to focus on like a laser beam for the rest of the year.  I would choose national security, a border bill, and decreasing spending as the three priorities for the rest of this year.  Force Obama to come our way on these issues or use the power of the purse to force his hand and use the nuclear option in the senate.

Even if the party’s establishment is successful at getting rid of Trump, who will address the issues that he represents?  The American people don’t want amnesty, yet it seems the Republican Party’s leadership is hell-bent on giving it to those in the country illegally.

The American people want us to take a tougher stand on China’s hacking and espionage; but instead they get a state dinner.

Again, Trump is not the problem, so take him down if you must; but then what?  To be very candid, several of our guys running in the presidential primary could legitimately be running in the Democratic primary based on where they stand on the issues.

We know we can’t count on the mainstream media to fairly portray the Republican message.  But there are over two hundred Black newspapers begging the Republican leadership to engage with them.  There are many Black reporters who can’t get Republican leaders or their staffs to return their calls.

The Black media is not hostile to Republicans; they don’t know Republicans.  How many Republican presidential candidates have engaged with the Black media?  When has the House/Senate leadership ever engaged with the Black media?

When oil companies have depleted the oil from their known reserves; they begin to engage in “exploratory” drilling to find that new source of reserves.

To my Republican Party, the Black community is that new source of oil.  You have thoroughly depleted your proven reserves (the White, male vote).  When will you start drilling for “Black gold” (pun intended)?

If you don’t want to engage with the Black community because it’s the smart thing to do; at least do it for political survival.  Please, don’t get trumped again by your ego.

The Anti-Alinsky Handbook: Rules for Republicans?

/in , , , /by

It’s not easy to be a conservative.

As the saying goes, “If I had a nickel” every time someone angrily bashed conservatism to me on the campaign trail, or while on the radio, yet simultaneously had almost no idea what conservatism actually was, I would be making regular appearances in Forbes magazine.

The Left, and their allies in the media, have done an incredible job of deluding many Americans into voting against their own interests and, at the same time, instilling into their supporters that conservatives hate them. This strategy has convinced many to vote against conservatives, not necessarily in favor of liberals, and conservatives have struggled for decades to fight back. The methods by which the Left uses to accomplish this is a theme of Fred Siegel’s excellent book The Revolt Against the Masses. In the book, Siegel discusses the Left’s “Iron Triangle,” consisting of interest groups, congressional committees, and their allies in the media and their strategies for ensuring that an ideological narrative is spread far and wide.

Here’s how it works for the Left; an interest group takes control of a narrative such as the “War on Women.” After the narrative and the wording of the message is agreed upon, these interest groups push their bought-and-sold congressional allies to call hearings on the topic, (i.e. Sandra Fluke’s congressional testimony) guaranteeing widespread public attention. Finally, an anxious, and ideologically biased media operation kicks into gear to cover the hearings and to ensure that the most “powerful” soundbites are pushed out to the media ecosystem.Sadly, what follows is what frequently happened to me when campaigning and greeting voters. I would introduce myself, then a pleasant conversation about issues would ensue, quickly followed by an expletive and the campaign material being thrown back at me when they read that I was a Republican because they were waging a completely fictitious “war on women.”

We can learn from the tactics of the Left and, as a movement, we can leverage our own “Iron Triangle” to combat the malicious narratives of the Left and to transmit the truth about conservatism. Using the conservative “Iron Triangle” of conservative media, social media, and a revived grassroots, we can begin to take back the narrative and take the fight to the Left.

A useful example of this was the battle to combat Maryland’s “storm water management fee.”  This disastrous tax was designed to tax property owners based on the amount of impervious surface on their property, liberals reasoning that this led to runoff which polluted the Chesapeake Bay. The catch is that most Marylanders were already suffering under a brutal tax load along with a number of additional fees designed to combat storm water runoff. A number of conservatives in the state knew, based on feedback from their grassroots contacts, that this was an opportunity to fight back against the Maryland democratic machine and to leverage their assets to focus the attention of heavily-taxed, and frustrated Marylanders. Although there was no formal coordination, when the term “rain tax” came up in conservative activist circles, to describe the storm water management fee, it spread like wildfire within the conservative “Iron Triangle.”

A Marylander at the time, I saw an opportunity to move the narrative from the conservative siloes into the wider political conversation and did an interview on the subject with Breitbart, along with many other conservatives and libertarians who pushed the story in order to fight back against the reviled “rain tax.” Quickly the story grew, and generated national attention as concerned Americans shared the story over and over on the various social media platforms.

With a gubernatorial election occurring at the time, a number of the candidates for governor reached out to their conservative media contacts and saturated the airwaves with discussions of the ridiculous “rain tax.” Following the social media saturation and the widespread attention of both conservative and mainstream media, grassroots groups in Maryland picked up the message and ran with it. Future governor Larry Hogan’s grassroots group “Change Maryland” put out numerous graphics shedding light on the economic damage of the “rain tax” and candidates for local and state office took every opportunity to discuss it.

The rest is history, Larry Hogan won the Maryland governorship, in a political upset for the ages, in deep-blue Maryland and, although this wasn’t the only reason Hogan won, it was certainly one of the more significant factors.

The lesson here with regard to changing the political narratives of the Left is simple; we don’t need to emulate the morally corrupt practices of Alinsky and his acolytes because our message is RIGHT. The Left needs these corrupt practices because they are selling snake oil. Taking people’s money, their child’s education, their control of their health care, and their political liberty, requires a deviation from accepted moral standards. We should NEVER seek out these tactics or we have become what we dread most: a group of people who worship an ends, while completely disregarding the value of, and the example set by, the means.

I would rather be right alone than wrong in a group and I’m sure you would as well.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Conservative Review. Featured image courtesy of Congressional Quarterly.

Putting American Interests First

/in , , , /by

140713-Ben-Carson-ftrWhy does it seem that many Americans are more loyal to those who use their religion to abuse women, blow up churches, torture animals, enslave black Africans, and call for jihad on America than to a patriot like Dr. Ben Carson?  I understand he didn’t exactly trip over himself to initially say that a Muslim should be president, but please give me a break.  When a television talk show host asked Dr. Carson that got you question regarding the United States having a Muslim as president question, the good doctor simply stated, “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation I absolutely would not agree with that.”  To me he exhibited a high degree of understanding of reality and conviction when he doubled down on his views concerning the matter, when he told Sean Hanity on FOX News “We don’t put people at the head of our country whose faith might interfere with carrying out the duties of the Constitution.”

Let us not forget that the question asked Dr. Carson was a hypothetical one. He simply answered it as such.  Now based upon the multi century history of those who practice Islam, Mr. Carson was, is and will always be justified in giving the answer he gave.

The pro-jihadist group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations feigned their outrage at what Dr. Carson said.  In fact, they called for political leaders from “across the political spectrum to repudiate these unconstitutional and un-American statements and for Dr. Carson to withdraw from the presidential race.  Such hypocrisy would have me falling over with bellowing laughter if it were not connected to such an important and volatile subject.  Arson was lambasted by CAIR members for what they called a religious test.

But yet the jihadist, sharia law pushers they support are on a daily basis calling for a takeover of the United States and abolishment of our Constitution.  Also, One News Now columnist Bryan Fischer pointed out recently that article VI reads:  “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”  He revealed that the only restriction is on the federal government.  It bans the federal government and the federal government only from requiring a candidate for public office to pass a religious test.  In other words, only the federal government can violate Article VI.

So, a candidate for public office could not violate Article VI.  It is not a restraint on candidates, but rather it is a restraint on the federal government.  More to the correct point, it should be noted that the ban on a religious test is a ban on the government, not the voters.  While the federal government cannot apply a religious test, voters can use any test they want to.

At the time of the founding of our Republic, every colony had a religious test for holding public office.  Believe it or not eight states still do today.  This is as constitutional as you can get, whether the bigoted anti-Christian progressives of today like it or not.

But back to the issue of presidential candidate Ben Carson’s remarks regarding him not advocating the putting of a Muslim in the White House which makes perfect sense.  Let us not forget that numerous imams, jihadists and ISIS terrorists are always calling for the overthrow of America and death to Israel.  I believe that Islam is an abusive political ideology that is utilized masqueraded as a religion.  Perhaps if presidential candidates Ted Cruz and Carly Fiorina would take a closer look at reality rather than pander to the incurably ignorant masses and the progressive dragon media, they would realize that Dr. Carson did what any decent American presidential candidate would do.  All he did was gauge the issue according to constitutional directives, not politically correct dogma.  At least Carson has so far placed U.S. interests above that of incompatible Muslims.

Concerning another matter, I find it very interesting how so many political office holders, media pundit personalities and others seeking political office all agree that it is impossible to deport millions of illegal immigrants who are wreaking havoc throughout our republic.  The truth is, they can but the politicians don’t have the stones to do it.

Believe it or not, president Dwight D. Eisenhower utilizing Operation Wetback deported 13 million illegal immigrant Mexicans over two years during his administration.  Also at the onset of the great depression, President Herbert Hoover deported over two million illegal immigrants.  Both presidents put American interests first and did what had to be done, without the higher technology available today, which could greatly aid in the justifiable need to deport millions of disrespectful illegal immigrants.  Maybe there should be a put America first test for those seeking to assume the presidency.

LIKELY FOES: CNN’s Liberal vs. Rising Conservatism in Black Americans

/in , , , , /by

AUSTIN, Texas, /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Brad O’Leary, publisher of TheOLearyReport.com, former NBC News Radio/Westwood One talk show host, author of the The United States Citizens’ Handbook and former feature writer for USA Today Weekend magazine, is bringing light to the current rise stemming from longstanding historical roots in conservatism within the Black community in his latest Op-Ed piece, listed below and on TheOLearyReport.com:

How much of the Black population will support Republicans on the three major issues in the 2016 Presidential election?

When George Bush ran for president he got 8% of the Black population’s vote. There was a time when Republican candidates could only count for 8% of the Irish population’s vote. It is perhaps time for the Black voters to feel just as the Irish did, that the Democratic Party deserted them.

According to CNN’s most recent poll, the three major issues that American voters will focus on will be immigration, abortion and guns.

Now, who am I to say that CNN’s liberal bias, if correct may be a danger for the Democratic Party?

CNN will tell you that according to the polls, that the Democrats will be favored. However if you look at that result and the results from other polls in judging Black population responses, it may explain one of the reasons that Donald Trump seems to have the support of 20% of the Black population.

In addition to political polls there is an incredible amount of consumer polling that has been done on the Black population. That polling should frighten the Chairman of the Democratic Party.

First let’s take the Second Amendment and gun ownership. There is no question that gun control was historically a major political effort started at the beginning of the Civil War and was principally designed by the leadership of the Ku Klux Klan, who did not want Black people, especially in the South, to own guns, not even for hunting.

In some places in the South, if a Black person wanted to hunt and keep in mind that most families were fed that way, they had to get permission from the sheriff for a twenty-four hour period for hunting. We have heard stories from many people about that era, including from Condoleezza Rice, who has always supported the 2nd Amendment because her family historically owned guns namely to protect themselves from the Ku Klux Klan.

Today we have many significant Black leaders like Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke and Detroit Police Chief James Craig, who both urged people to buy guns to protect themselves.

We have seen a number of consumer polls indicate that a majority of the Black community, following recent riots, does not fear the police. Instead they fear the drug dealers and the hoodlums who are trying to stir up division and hatred making Black neighborhoods and streets unsafe. It is no wonder that the percentage of the Black population that supports the Second Amendment has increased in the last few years. Recently during the Miss Universe contest, one of the contestants, Miss South Carolina USA, Meagan Pinckney was asked about gun ownership, presumptuous but possibly by a judge, who might have believed that since she was Black and from the South she would give a gun control answer. Contestant Pinckney stunned the television audience by showing her knowledge and support of firearm ownership. Her opinion is not just from her but it is from her peers as well.

Hillary Clinton has made her position clear. She would make it difficult for anyone who is White, Asian or Black to buy a gun, particularly in the cities. At the same time Donald Trump and all the other candidates for president are the strongest group of 2nd Amendment supporters that this country has ever seen.

The second issue CNN touts is such a clearly a Democratic majority supported issue. This issue is abortion.

Now there is no question that a majority of voters believe in a woman’s right to choose. But in a paradox of thinking, a greater majority of Americans think that abortion is either manslaughter or morally unacceptable in today’s society. That doesn’t include the rather substantial number of Americans who believe that 3rd term abortions where a fetus can be seen as moving, breathing and is deemed capable of life outside the womb, is acceptable in massive numbers.

The number of people in the Black population who believe that abortion is morally unacceptable is greater than anyone has ever believed.  The reason that Proposition 9, a heated topic of its own, which would allow gays to marry in California, was defeated at the ballot box largely due to the rallying of Black Christian voters who voted against it in massive numbers. This supports the concept that the Black population is actually quite conservative.

If you do not believe me, do your own test. In New York, five Black fetuses are aborted for every one White fetus. So go to the Black churches in a very liberal city like New York and ask the pastor and congregation what they think of abortion?

Frankly every time Hillary fights for more abortions and protecting the bargain basement selling of fetuses by Planned Parenthood she is also turning off church going Black women. Now that is an issue that no one can claim any of the Republican presidential candidates, including Trump, doesn’t have a clear opinion on. That opinion is there needs to be a stop to aborting Black babies.

Now we get to the third issue that CNN is so excited about, the issue of immigration, which clearly makes Trump and most Republicans extremists. Once again let’s consider how the Black population views immigration and some of the other effects that come from immigration. A rapper by the name of Azealia Banks unexpectedly reflected the conservative outlook of the Black population with her recent pro-Trump comments,

“Do you think it’s bad that I sort of agree with Trump’s stance on immigration? Not for any reason other than black Americans still not having been paid reparations for slavery and the influx [of] INTERNATIONAL immigrants (not just Mexicans), are sucking up state aid, and government money, space in schools, quality of life etc.?? It’s selfish, but America has been really good at convincing me that everyone else’s problems are more important than my own. I want my f*****g money!!…Me first!!!…Thoughts?”

Two areas of life that are directly impacted by immigration are job creation and drivers licenses.

Let me be clear about what the Black population thinks about immigration. For the most part they think the same as Whites and Asians. They think it favors Wall Street, it boosts corporate profit and it increases the value of many stocks. And no one polled is aware of how big immigration is every year. Only 10% of all Americans select the correct immigration numbers.

The Black population is opposed to Hillary’s immigration policy and they are opposed to the attempt by states to let illegals (“Sorry Mr. President that is my word.”) have driver’s licenses without automobile insurance. There is such a law that was just passed in California and the governors in other red states are completely supportive of giving illegals documentation. Now if anybody out there would like to see the polling that proves that this is true, I would be happy to send it to you. 65% of Hispanic citizens of the United States also opposed driver’s licenses without insurance. No surprise because illegal Hispanics hiding from “White” justice aren’t hiding in White neighborhoods.

The Black population believes and correctly so, that Hispanics take jobs away from them, particularly Hispanic teenagers versus Black teenagers.

EDITORS NOTE: For more analysis and commentary from pollster Brad O’Leary, please contact: Radio/TV Show Bookings: grassrootsbehavioral@gmail.com or (737) 704-1578. Readers may download The United States Citizens’ Handbook at no cost: www.USCH.us . Please visit: www.TheOLearyReport.com.

Trump: NO Syrian refugees, take care of Americans first!

/in , , , , , /by

I missed this one yesterday, but the ever-watchful Leo Hohmann at World Net Daily spotted it. Trump’s campaign manager made clear Mr. Trump’s position on the Syrian ‘refugee’ issue and the broader issue of refugee resettlement to America. The spokesman alluded to the abuse of the word ‘refugee’ which might escape the average listener’s ear.

Lewandowski and Trump

Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski (left).

A legitimate refugee must prove he or she is personally persecuted for religion, race, political persuasion, they CANNOT simply be running from a war (or crime or a bad economy).  The media and the NO Borders Left (the one-worlders) have been perverting the word for years.

They want any person running from anything to be classified as a ‘refugee’ eligible for admission to the first world.

Here is the news from Trump campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, making it clear that Americans come first!

World Net Daily:

Donald Trump has issued very few specifics in how he would deal with the world’s refugee crisis, but on Tuesday his campaign manager offered a bombshell sure to score him points with the GOP’s conservative base.

Corey Lewandowski said the United States “should take in zero” Syrian refugees.

“This is very simple, the bottom line is we should take in zero,” Lewandowski said when asked by radio host John Fredericks what a President Trump would do about the refugee crisis.

“And the United States, to be clear, has a process for bringing refugees into the country, and an individual must qualify as a refugee to begin that process, is how it works,” Lewandowski continued. “Individuals caught in a civil war do not necessarily qualify as refugees.

“If Mr. Trump were the president of the United States, we would not be bringing refugees into the country under this criteria,” Lewandowski said.

Secretary of State John Kerry announced Sunday plans by the Obama administration to increase the number of refugees brought directly from the Third World to America, from 70,000 this year to 85,000 in 2016 and 100,000 in 2017.

WND reported Monday that two bills are now in play in the House, one introduced by Rep. Brian Babin, R-Texas, that would halt all refugee resettlement pending a full investigation of the program’s financial and security impact; and the second authored by Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, would require congressional approval of all resettlements and require priority to be given to Christian refugees.

Put Americans first!  

In the Tuesday radio interview, Lewandowski delivered a much stronger line of argument, saying “it is time – and Mr. Trump has said this, time and time again – to put Americans first.”

“While I understand our position in the global economy, and how important the United States is in world public affairs, it is time to look at the people who are in our country first who are struggling – the middle class, the bottom class of people who can’t survive – and give them opportunities,” said Lewandowski. “And this is exactly what the issue is, when it comes to not just bringing in refugees, but illegal immigrants.

Continue reading here.  Hohmann lists the towns and cities in America already ‘welcoming’ Syrian refugees (whether they know it or not!).

A reminder that when I first tell a new person about how the UN/US State Department Refugee Admissions program works, they are outraged and ask—-but what about the poor and homeless people we have in our town already?  Can’t we take care of them first (before we import more poverty)?

Be sure to see Hohmann’s article this week about the actions going on in Congress with the McCaul and Babin bills.   After discussing the bills, Hohmann reports that these 2016 Republican Presidential candidates are supporting the Obama Syrian resettlement plan.  We will let you know if others get on board with Obama.

Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham and John Kasich have all said the U.S. should consider taking in more Syrian refugees, essentially agreeing with the policy of Obama and Democrats in Congress.

Of course they could modify their positions and say that we will only take persecuted Christian Syrians in reasonable numbers, to be cared for privately by individual churches, but don’t hold your breath!

RELATED ARTICLES:

Ben Carson: Put Americans first, not Syrian refugees

The Refugee Crisis Is Going to Get Worse

In Twin Falls, Idaho last night, US State Department official: we don’t force refugees on communities that don’t want them

Jewish groups blast Obama: No leadership! Proposed Syrian refugee numbers too low

Germany: ISIS recruiting among refugees

Reuters: Trump and Carson are fueling “Islamophobia”

/in , , , , /by

One would think that if there is any genuine “Islamophobia” — that is, unjust suspicion of innocent Muslims — that it is fueled by Islamic jihad attacks and plots, by the perpetrators of those plots justifying their actions and making recruits among peaceful Muslims by pointing to Islamic texts and teachings, by the Islamic State proclaiming itself to be the true embodiment of Islam and justifying its bloodlust and depravity by reference to the Qur’an and Muhammad, by the failure of Muslim communities in the U.S. and the West to do anything beyond pro forma condemnations to stop Western Muslims from joining the Islamic State and plotting jihad attacks in the U.S. and Europe on its behalf, etc.

But no: for Reuters, and the rest of the mainstream media, it’s all the fault of Ben Carson and Donald Trump.

Carson and Trump

“American Muslims fear a new wave of Islamophobia,” by Tim Reid, Reuters, September 21, 2015:

Muslim Americans responded with a mix of frustration, exasperation and anger to what many see as a growing wave of Islamophobia fueled by two of the Republican Party’s most popular presidential candidates, Donald Trump and Ben Carson.

At the Islamic Institute of Orange County, which houses a mosque and a school in Anaheim, in southern California, tensions were already mounting since a group of white men screamed at mothers and children arriving at the center on this year’s anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, calling them cowards who did not belong in America.

Many of the country’s 2.8 million Muslims say such tensions could become uglier during a presidential race that they fear is already tapping a vein of anger and bigotry.

“It’s pretty troubling that someone running for president would make those claims,” Zuhair Shaath, Palestinian-American, said of Carson, a retired neurosurgeon who on Sunday said Muslims were unfit for the presidency of the United States.

Carson’s campaign defended his comments on Monday, saying he was not suggesting a Muslim should be barred from running for president. But his campaign said he would not advocate for that person becoming a leader and would not support it.

Later on Monday, Carson said he “absolutely” stood by his comments but would be open to a moderate Muslim candidate who denounced radical Islamists.

The remarks by Carson, who is near the top of opinion polls for the crowded field of Republican candidates for the 2016 election, followed billionaire Trump’s failure to challenge comments made on Friday by a supporter who labeled U.S. President Barack Obama a Muslim.

Trump later clarified his silence, saying he was not obligated to correct an audience member and that “the bigger issue is that Obama is waging a war against Christians in this country. Christians need support in this country. Their religious liberties are at stake.”

Some Muslims say they fear that the remarks could strengthen the appeal of Carson and Trump, who have cast themselves as non-politicians in a race in which blunt comments laced with misogyny and xenophobia have done little to derail the popularity of Trump, who is leading in opinion polls of likely Republican voters.

The comments also come after a 14-year-old Muslim boy from Texas was taken away in handcuffs last week for bringing to his Dallas-area school a homemade clock that staff mistook for a bomb. Ahmed Mohamed’s arrest sparked allegations of racial profiling and turned his school into an object of online outrage that culminated with Obama inviting Mohamed to the White House.

Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, called on Carson to “withdraw from the presidential race because he is unfit to lead, because his views are inconsistent with the United States Constitution.”

In an Anaheim neighborhood known as “Little Arabia”, Abdallah Soueidan said the comments will inevitably cause trouble. “They are stirring things up,” said Soueidan, 57, who moved from Lebanon 37 years ago.

His 18-year-old son, Radwan – a college volleyball player in jeans and T-shirt – said he reads hate-filled anti-Muslim screeds online all the time. But, referring to Carson, he said: “I don’t know how a presidential candidate could say a thing like that. It doesn’t sound American at all.”

“WE ARE ALSO VOTERS”

While the U.S. Constitution forbids religious tests for those seeking public office, religion and presidential politics have long been a combustible mix.

In 2007, as Republican Mitt Romney campaigned for his party’s nomination, he faced fears among Evangelical Christians over his Mormon faith. In 1960, John F. Kennedy stressed the separation of church and state while campaigning to become the country’s first Roman Catholic president.

Aicha Fokar, 20, said Carson’s comments perpetuated “a really sick stereotype that’s been kind of embedding itself in the American culture.”

“It discourages young Muslims from standing up for their rights or for being proud about their faith,” said the student n Lubbock, Texas. “Everyone’s just trying to say things to get as many votes. I don’t think they understand what happens to us.

They don’t understand that we are also voters.”

In Dearborn, a Detroit suburb home to the country’s largest Muslim population, Marshal Shameri said Trump should have done more to dispel misconceptions of Islam. But he did not view the comments as an attack on his faith….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Irving Mayor: Obama tweeted support of Muslim clockmaker before clock pic released

Washington Post quotes Islamic apologists’ taqiyya to “prove” Ben Carson wrong about taqiyya

Dr. Ben Carson: “I do not believe Sharia is consistent with the Constitution of this country”

/in , , , , , , /by

Bravo. Islamic law infringes upon the freedom of speech, forbidding criticism of Islam. Islamic law denies equality of rights to women. Islamic law denies equality of rights to non-Muslims. If a Muslim renounced all this, he or she could be an effective Constitutional ruler, but in today’s politically correct climate, no one is even likely to ask for such a renunciation. Instead, no one even acknowledges that these really are elements of Islamic law. Carson is right, and deserves the gratitude of every free American for refusing to back down before the authoritarian, thuggish forces that work so actively to demonize and marginalize anyone and everyone who speaks honestly about Islam, Sharia, and the jihad threat.

“Carson doubles down on no Muslims in the White House,” by Jonathan Easley, The Hill, September 20, 2015:

Republican presidential hopeful Ben Carson is standing by his view that a Muslim should not be president of the United States, telling The Hill in an interview on Sunday that whoever takes the White House should be “sworn in on a stack of Bibles, not a Koran.”

Carson ignited a media firestorm in a Sunday morning interview with Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press,” in which he said he “would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation.”

“I absolutely would not agree with that,” Carson said.

In an interview with The Hill, Carson opened up about why he believes a Muslim would be unfit to serve as commander in chief.

“I do not believe Sharia is consistent with the Constitution of this country,” Carson said, referencing the Islamic law derived from the Koran and traditions of Islam. “Muslims feel that their religion is very much a part of your public life and what you do as a public official, and that’s inconsistent with our principles and our Constitution.”

Carson said that the only exception he’d make would be if the Muslim running for office “publicly rejected all the tenants of Sharia and lived a life consistent with that.”

“Then I wouldn’t have any problem,” he said.

However, on several occasions Carson mentioned “Taqiyya,” a practice in the Shia Islam denomination in which a Muslim can mislead nonbelievers about the nature of their faith to avoid religious persecution.

“Taqiyya is a component of Shia that allows, and even encourages you to lie to achieve your goals,” Carson said.

Pushing back at the media firestorm over his remarks, Carson sought to frame himself as one of the few candidates running for president willing to tell hard truths.

“We are a different kind of nation,” Carson said. “Part of why we rose so quickly is because we wouldn’t allow our values or principles to be supplanted because we were going to be politically correct. … Part of the problem today is that we’re so busy trying to be politically correct, that we lose all perspective.”

Carson told The Hill that the question of a Muslim president is largely “irrelevant” because no Muslims are running in 2016. He said the question, which Todd is posing to all of the Republican presidential hopefuls who go on his show, “may well have been” gotcha journalism meant to trip the candidates up.

However, he acknowledged the question “served a useful purpose by providing the opportunity to talk about what Sharia is and what their goals are.”

“So often we get into these irrelevant things, because obviously if a Muslim was running for president, there would be a lot more education about Sharia, about Taqiyya,” Carson said….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Nigeria: Islamic State murder 85 in series of jihad bombings

Naked pro-“Palestinian” protesters apologize: “This is not an attack on Islam, it is our way of protesting”

Hamas-linked CAIR ejects Breitbart reporter from anti-Ben Carson press conference

/in , , , , /by

“We believe in a conversation,” Awad said, but Hamas-linked CAIR really only wants a conversation with those who toe its line. In reality, Hamas-linked CAIR works hard to shut down, demonize and marginalize anyone who speaks honestly about the jihad threat. The only conversation they want is one with their sycophants in the mainstream media and the Obama Administration.

It’s a manifestation of a deep insecurity, as well as an underlying authoritarianism and thuggery, for Hamas-linked CAIR to expel Munro and bar him from the premises. It demonstrates that underneath all Hooper’s bluster, he is a coward: he knows he can’t counter what Munro says, and can’t answer any probing questions (as opposed to the loving softballs he routinely gets from the mainstream media), so he has to resort to strongarm tactics. There are cowardly little bullies like Hooper all over America today — on college campuses, in the media, in politics, and in general almost every place where there used the possibility of free and honest discourse.

Munro Hooper

“CAIR’s Islamists Eject Breitbart From Their Anti-Carson Press Conference,” by Neil Munro, Breitbart, September 21, 2015:

Islamic advocates ejected a Breitbart News reporter from a Sept. 21 news conference in Washington D.C. The Council on American-Islamic Relations was hosting the event to complain about Dr. Ben Carson’s criticism of Islamic intolerance.

Ibrahim Hooper, an American convert to the 1,200 year-old religion, also threatened to eject the Breitbart reporter from any future conferences, and admitted in front of multiple TV cameras that he had ejected the reporter from a prior press conference.

Speakers at the event included CAIR’s co-founder Nihad Awad and several others. “We believe in a conversation,” Awad said. “What unites us as Americans is…. our Constitution,” he claimed.

At the end of the statements, Awad’s spokesman announced that Breitbart’s reporter he would not be allowed to ask questions during the short question and answer period.

Immediately after the question and answer session, Hooper intervened again to stop a conversation about Islam between Breitbart and one of the speakers.

“He is just one of the hate-mongers,” Hooper said about the Breitbart reporter. The CAIR speaker said he wanted to continue the conversation, but Hooper insisted that the reporter be forced out from the event. “Could you take it outside? We have you to leave. We have to ask him to leave. We have asked him to leave in previous news conferences, so we just ask you to leave, please,” Hooper said.

To clarify: “Yes, I’m throwing you out,” Hooper added.

Debating the Debates

/in , , /by

Every time I think the media has sank below the point of no return on the scale of embarrassment; they prove to the world that there is truly no floor for how low they can go.

Of course I am talking about last week’s Republican presidential debate hosted by the Comedy News Network (CNN).  Their on air talent did not try to hide the fact that their stated goal, individually and as a supposed news outlet, was to get the candidates to attack each other personally.

Both the preliminary and main debates each spent the first 20 minutes or so talking exclusively about Donald Trump; not about the policy positions of Trump, but rather about some personal comment he made about one of the candidates.

For CNN, the debates were all about theatrics and “gotcha” moments; it was all about ratings and ultimately money by selling advertising during the debates.

During future presidential elections, all debates, both Republican and Democrat, should be hosted by C-SPAN where they are known to make their on air talent as invisible as possible.  Debates should be about the issues that are affecting the American people, not all the sideshows that the media are interested in promoting.

Most of the elite media, with its openly liberal bias, makes these debates about them and their networks, not about the American people.

I am also very amazed and amused by the elite media’s constant lecturing about diversity (see actor Matt Damon lecturing Black film producer Effie Brown about the lack of diversity in Hollywood) and yet they rarely display it when given the opportunity.

Why does the media and both the Republican and Democratic Party continue to ignore the more than 200 Black owned newspapers we have in the U.S.?  To my knowledge, there has never been a reporter from a Black newspaper asked to be part of a presidential debate by either party.

CNN and FOX News think so little of their own Black on air talent that they made a conscious decision to go with their default positon—all White!

I also put the blame on the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ).  I don’t know why they have not made a public fuss about the lack of diversity in these presidential debates.  I am not a journalist, I am a columnist, but yet I spend more time advocating for their members than they do—go figure.

We have had two Republican debates, yet not one question about about how amnesty for illegals would further decimate the Black community; not one question about “specific” Republican solutions to the high Black unemployment rate under Obama; not one question about how Obama’s policies have devastated Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs); not one question about “specific”

Republican solutions to the shrinking percentage of loans from the Small Business Administration (SBA) to Black businesses going from 8% under Bush to 1.8% under Obama.

Do you really think a white reporter is even aware of these indices affecting the Black community or even care about them?  This is why diversity is important; it makes you aware of things that normally would be of no consequence to you simply because you have no direct connection to the issue.

When the most vulnerable of a society is stronger, those at the top are even stronger.

Yet the media has feigned righteous indignation all because last week Donald Trump didn’t chastise a questioner at one of his town-hall meetings for castigating the Muslim community.  Really?

Weak people take strong positions on weak issues; but I digress.

In these two presidential debates so far, I can guarantee that no Blacks had any input into who the panelists would be or the questions that would be asked.

Am I the only one who continues to notice the optics of these debates?

None of the candidates have been seen arriving at the venue with any Blacks accompanying them; no Blacks have been seen in the spin rooms after the debates representing any of the candidates on TV, radio, or newspapers; I am not aware of any Blacks being involved in the debate preparations of any of the candidates.

For all the talk of the renewed focus on diversity within the Republican Party, there is absolutely no visible evidence of it anywhere.

If the Republican Party and these various news networks are not able to identify Blacks to participate in their efforts, please contact me and I will be more than happy to introduce you to very capable Blacks with relevant experience.

Have you ever wondered where Republicans find white staffers for their campaigns?  Have you ever wondered where the media finds all of their white on air talent?  Hmmm, just wondering.

I will continue to speak and write about these issues because if they are not dealt with immediately, we Republicans will continue to lose the White House; and on this issue, there is no debate.

EDITORS NOTE: Raynard Jackson’s new book is now available for purchase on his website:  www.raynardjackson.com

5 Reasons Serious TV Debates Are Impossible by David & Daniel Bier

/in , , , /by

If you’re looking for a sober intellectual dialogue on the state of American public policy, don’t watch presidential debates.

They repudiate every requirement for such a discussion. They remove serious ethical questions from their philosophical foundations and offer answers fit only for bumper stickers and thirty second soundbites. They teach us one lesson: that no economic or moral issue is too important or complex to be solved with a slogan — hocus pocus campaign cure-alls for every social ill.

The blame lies partly with a political class devoid of substance, but it is impossible to ignore the forum in which the country has chosen to discuss the fate of its government.

“The medium is the message,” Marshall McLuhan asserted in his 1964 book Understanding Media. McLuhan overstated his case, but it is true that certain media lend themselves to some kinds of messages more readily than others. And, much like trying to send a sonnet via smoke signals, television’s form precludes certain content.

The kind of message that TV transmits most easily is entertainment. There’s nothing wrong with entertainment, but it is not a substitute for sober, rational analysis. The medium of television imposes almost insurmountable constraints on thoughtful conversation, and that’s why even if candidates with serious ideas were allowed into the debate, it would do little to help them.

Serious TV debates are impossible for at least five reasons:

1. Television is entertainment.

Almost by definition, television is not serious — it’s entertainment. It is where the vast majority of people go to turn off their brains and relax. If you invite friends over to watch the debate, I’m sure you won’t forget the chips and beer.

The TV debate setting invites citizens to join the challengers for America’s highest political office at a location that is the political equivalent of a circus, a movie theater, a ballpark, a clown show, a strip club, or a porn studio, because the location — your television set — is the same location as all these other diversions.

Even worse, it is as if they are all going on simultaneously in other rooms. Upset your audience — talk about children being burned alive by U.S. bombs overseas — and the burlesque is always just one click away.

Everything about television debates screams diversion, not rational discussion. Commercials reduce any candidate to the level of a Cialis ad, minus the disclaimers. The flashy promo and the upbeat intro-music transform political discourse into reality TV. Its not-so-subtle message is, “This is going to be fun!”

TV’s demand is that debaters be more amusing, not more intellectual. It’s why CNN runs stories on “Hollywood Debate Advice.” What does Hollywood know about public policy? Nothing, but in the age of TV, “politics is show business,” as Ronald Reagan put it.

Reagan was not only right — he excelled at it. After his 1984 debate with Walter Mondale, a single joke by Reagan about his age was replayed over and over again in post-debate coverage. Even today, that joke lives on as the most successful debate moment ever.

2. Television is about image.

Books — the media of lengthy, intelligent discourse — have substance: words, sentences, paragraphs, chapters, which form propositions about the world. They have meaning that takes real intellectual effort to grasp.

By contrast, images appeal to our eyes, not our minds. Images lack propositional content, so they can be viewed without any mental effort. Their appeal is mainly emotional (fast moving = exciting). The appeal of constant visual stimulation is why Michael Bay kept the average length of any shot inTransformers to about 1 second. People are absorbing views on the candidates (“Trump looks more presidential”) that have no intellectual content whatsoever. They might as well be choosing new drapes.

As Michael Shermer explains in Scientific American, when voters are given the choice between an educated, experienced, and ideologically-aligned candidate and a good-looking one, they overwhelming choose looks. Famously, Nixon won the first televised debate with John F. Kennedy among radio listeners, but lost it among television viewers — lighting and makeup might have changed history.

Dozens of academic papers have been published on how TV viewers can believe they are learning material while they watch, but can’t correctly answer even basic questions about the show’s content (see here, here, and here).

Because books force people to think and create abstract ideas from concrete shapes, readers do much better at holding information. TV debates create the illusion of informing the public, but as many talk shows and opinion polls demonstrate, most Americans lack even elementary information about the candidates — and the political system they are running in.

To most Americans, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are two faces, not two sets of ideas, and the content of their speeches reflects that reality. Rand Paul and Carly Fiorina are just two less “presidential” faces, and they get less “face-time” on cable news.

In print, there are no faces: there is only idea-time.

3. Television precludes lengthy exposition.

Any candidate that refuses to dutifully repeat conventional beliefs faces an insurmountable hurtle: time constraints.

“The beauty of concision — saying a couple of sentences between two commercials — is that you can only repeat conventional thoughts,” notes linguist Noam Chomsky. “Suppose you say anything the least bit controversial. People will quite reasonably expect to know what you mean… If you say that, you better have some evidence. In fact, you better have a lot of evidence because that’s a pretty startling comment. But you can’t give evidence if you’re stuck with concision.”

In a TV debate, anything that requires more than two minutes to explain will never be explained. This makes debates ripe ground for platitudes about “cutting red tape,” “eliminating waste,” “investing in America,” and “fixing the tax code.”

Anything complicated or controversial — a serious conversation about the causes of terrorism, for example, or the adverse consequences of drug prohibition — is out of the question. They hate America, bomb their countries; drugs are evil, save the children. Now for words from our sponsors.

Almost as bad for libertarians, concision presupposes every problem can be solved not just in two minutes, but in two minutes by the president. Before Rand Paul finishes explaining why it’s not the president’s job to create jobs, his time is up.

The workings of voluntary society never figure very prominently in presidential debates, because every single social problem, real or imagined, is being posed to a politician. One can’t simply say, “the president can’t do anything about recessions” or “curing drug addiction isn’t my job” — the presumption is, it is your job, since you’re here and we’re asking you.

4. Television forbids complexity.

Debate success leaves no viewer behind. Complexity is banned, not just because of time constraints, but because the TV waits for no one. There is no time for pondering or digesting. The rip tide of sounds and images drags you along.

The first 2016 debate allowed 60 seconds for candidates’ answers, but, even if it had given them 5 minutes, it still allowed zero seconds for audiences to think about them before the next soundbite — and so that is the maximum amount of thought candidates can require of viewers.

Successful candidates make sure to require nothing of viewers because a viewer who is confused will change the channel or miss the punch line. A person lost in thought ceases to watch, which is the whole point of TV.

Knowledge of history is irrelevant on TV — the only thing that matters is now. Books are written in past tense: history is their domain. TV is made in the present — who cares what led to 9/11 or the recession or the rise of ISIS: what will you do now?

Neil Postman writes in Amusing Ourselves to Death that after “be entertaining,” TV’s central commandments are “thou shalt have no prerequisites, no perplexity, and no exposition.”

Nothing should go over the head of a single potential voter, so preach to the lowest common denominator. You can’t expect your viewer to bring any prior knowledge of issues with them — and you can’t provide them with any — so just appeal to common emotions and conventional wisdom.

It’s no wonder typical debate transcripts read on a sixth grade level. Matt Welch says of the current Republican front-runner, “Trump’s real adversary is the full-length transcript. These aren’t speeches, they’re seizures.”

And audiences love them.

5. Television is anti-intellectual.

Television forbids complexity and exposition, and it exalts entertainment and image. It is, in other words, a fundamentally anti-intellectual medium. It communicates emotions, not ideas.

Consider the most famous moment from the Bill Clinton-H.W. Bush debates. During the “town hall” debate, a woman asked a barely coherent question about how the national debt personally affected the candidates.

Bush launched into a discussion of interest rates, only to be interrupted, and told to “make it personal.” He responds defensively and staggers through his answer. But Clinton understands his medium, and rather than answering, simply says, “Tell me how it has affected you.”

That’s what a debate is really about: us. Just as commercials aren’t really about products, but about the desires of their consumers (“beer will make you attractive to women,” “shampoo will make you sexy,” “Rogaine will get you a promotion”), so too are debates about candidates emotionally connecting with voters: reassurance, not uncertainty; strength, not weakness; understanding, not disinterest; warmth, not distance.

“Mitt Romney still has an empathy or connection gap,” explained CNN’s John King in 2012. An empathy gap? In this world, truth is an afterthought, the job of nit-picky “fact-checkers.”

Debates aren’t about the truth, they’re about verbal reassurance — in the moment, with a calm look and a steady voice. Rationality has no part in this world.

A version of this piece was first published in 2012 and is unfortunately still relevant.

David Bier

David Bier

Daniel Bier

Daniel Bier

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

Term Limits Convention Supporters Go Back to the Future

/in , , , /by

“As in 1913, the goal of the Term Limits Convention campaign today is to impose on Congress members an amendment they refuse to enact themselves.”

Once upon a time in America, there was an election reform that was monstrously popular with both parties and every nearly demographic. While politicians grandstanded on the issue from time to time, Congress would never enact the reform because it would affect their own personal power and position directly. As popular as the reform was, it could never get out of committee.

Frustrated, citizens utilized a provision of the U.S. Constitution – Article V – that says that if two-thirds of the states call for a convention for the purpose of proposing a constitutional amendment, Congress ‘shall’ call such a convention. And the amendment it proposes is to be sent back for ratification by three-quarters of the states.

State after state passed official calls or ‘applications’ for the convention. When the number of calls approached the requisite number for the convention, Congress saw the writing on the wall and finally passed an amendment itself and sent it to the states for ratification. A year later, the popular election reform was the law of the land.

The year was 1913 and the reform was the direct election of Senators, the campaign for the 17th Amendment.  But in light of a new national campaign, this story may be retold in the future as how citizens finally imposed term limits on the U.S. Congress.

Earlier this month, U.S. Term Limits sent a message to supporters offering its assistance and direction in shepherding term limits convention applications through 34 state legislatures.  The goal of the Term Limits Convention campaign is to impose on Congress members the term limits they refuse to enact themselves. While the full list of 2016 target states has not yet been released, Florida is on the list.

The parallels between the two campaigns are uncanny, and there is a good reason for it. The Founders knew there would be times when the self-interest of Congress would clash directly with that of citizens and wisely gave the people and the states an end run around Congress in such situations.  If Congress had refused to act in 1913, the states would have had their convention and the people’s will imposed on Congress.  It was the convention that gave people the leverage.

It is precisely for cases such as term limits that the Article V convention route was added to the U.S. Constitution.

While there is a plausible case to be made on the merits against the direct election of senators, there is no question the process by which it was approved was a success of the U.S. constitutional machinery and the wisdom of its authors.

Can this method be used successfully to add Congressional term limits to the U.S. Constitution? Time will tell, but there are compelling reasons to believe the answer is ‘yes.’

  • Only issues of overwhelming bipartisan popularity can make it through the Article V gauntlet. Because of the high number of states needed for calling the convention (34) and ratification (38), radical or sectarian amendments cannot survive this process.  On the other hand, term limits fit the bill perfectly:  Recently polling show that 75% of Americans support term limits, including large majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents. These majorities have been consistent since polling on the issue started in the 1950s.
  • The call for a convention is simply a bill passed by legislatures. The term limits in question will not apply to the politicians voting on the bill, which is the self-interest problem faced in the U.S. Congress. In fact, Congressional term limits will actually create open seats and opportunities for state legislators – many of which are already term limited!
  • State legislators have other reasons to support the term limits convention bills: they are enormously popular with voters and they don’t cost any money.

If any issue can succeed via the convention route, it is term limits. Citizens have recently gathered together to launch the campaign and legislative sponsors are currently being sought for sponsors in several first-year target states.

The unanswered question is, will a sufficient number of citizens get engaged – contacting their legislators, sharing the term limits info with other activists, writing the checks – to sustain the effort until state number 34 makes the call?

If they do, Congressional term limits will be the law of the land in the United States.

How Do You Define Destructive?

/in , , , /by

Recently, on one of the rare and I truly mean rare occasions of watching an episode of Extra, the television gab fest that regularly expounds upon the likes of liberal/progressive luminaries like Kim Kardashian, Kanye West and Miley Cyrus.  However, this particular episode they were extolling about the virtues of Hillary Clinton, which is why I bothered to watch it.  I was able to tolerate that program because every so-often we must pay attention to what the enemy has to say or what they are up to.

So on this particular Hillary appearance she boldly labeled republican presidential candidate Donald Trump as destructive.  Now before I go any further in regards to the Hillary situation I will elaborate on the definition of destructive as defined in the 1828 American Dictionary of The English Language by Noah Webster.  Destructive: Causing destruction; having the quality of destroying; ruinous; mischievous; pernicious; with of or to; as a destructive to the morals of youth.  I’ll add destructive to an economy; destructive to the family structure; destructive to the military or even an embassy staff.

So when Hillary Clinton yelped about how destructive Donald Trump is, believe it or not I kind of agree, to a point.  For decades Mrs. Clinton has promoted the wicked concepts of big government and so-called nanny goat solutions to all facets of life.  She honestly believes or more accurately, has fooled millions of Americans into believing that government health care, high taxes and government deficit spending are actual paths to prosperity or good living.

However, there is much evidence to the contrary.  For example Texas, Florida, Indiana, Ohio along with several other states have proven that actually, the opposite to be the truth.  Those states all have growing economies, with budget surpluses which fully demonstrates the false nature of Hillary’s thinking.  In fact, Donald Trump along with many other mega business tycoons have demonstrated how the policies that Hillary supports are not good for business by taking a lot of their business dealings to other nations where laws are not nearly as oppressive as those here in this onetime land of opportunity.

Whether it’s the American corporate tax (the highest in the world) or extreme environmental regulations that have so damaged our nation’s economy that she no longer has one of the top ten living standards among nations.  Also, before Obamacare the United States was blessed with the overall best medical care in the world, but now that is no longer the case.  Those destructive policies are fully supported by one Hillary Clinton, of course.

By all means, Hillary’s proclamation that Donald Trump being destructive is as insanely stupid as her handling of emails.  Whether you like Donald Trump or not, it cannot be denied that he has definitely invigorated the presidential campaign process by bringing to the forefront issues of most importance that could potentially soon harm our Republic beyond the ability to repair her.  Even now, it seems as though, that without a direct intervention from God, the United States may soon be one nation gone under.

Perhaps when Hillary Clinton squawks about Trump being destructive, she might be thinking about when the Donald called her the worst secretary of state in our nation’s history.  His point is well taken because under her watch, along with the worst president of all time, Barack Hussein Obama the United States needlessly lost embassy personnel at the hands of murdering muslims in Benghazi.

The only thing she was concerned about was shifting the blame to a supposed video defaming Mohamed, the pedophile founder of the muslim political movement masquerading as a religion.  The woman has no discernable conscience.  Also the mere fact that millions of Americans still want her to be president illustrates the moral depravity of our times.

It is my hope and desire that as light destroys darkness that truth from whatever source, whether it is Trump, Dr. Carson or Jesus Christ will continue to be brought forth and enlighten those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.  Then together, “We the People” can re-establish America as that shining city on a hill republic under God with liberty and justice for all.