Elections Archives - Page 804 of 839

Hillsdale College Students on the GOP Presidential Debate

September 18, 2015/in Commentary, Elections, Policy, Politics/by Dr. Rich Swier

HILLSDALE, Mich. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Hillsdale College students joined nationally syndicated Salem Radio Network host Mike Gallagher during live coverage of the CNN Republican Presidential Debate and in a post-debate focus group. Student reactions to the debate included:

Students at Hillsdale College engage with nationally syndicated radio host Mike Gallagher during the Republican Presidential Debate on Sept. 16, 2015.

Christy Allen, senior, political economy major from Paradise Valley, AZ: “Chris Christie had a great performance tonight, but Carly Fiorina did something really special. There is no question she belonged in that debate, and she went a long way in showing that she belongs in the White House.”

Mary Catherine Meyer, senior, English literature major from Littleton, CO: “Marco Rubio did well by addressing the issue of family several times. That is an important factor in our country’s future. Carly Fiorinaperformed wonderfully. She spoke about the torch and the sword; she showed us a bit of light tonight, and in her character, the strength that she would fight for it.”

Kristin Berg, senior, history major from Shelby Township, MI: “I went into tonight’s debate with an open mind, but it became obvious that Carly Fiorina is the strongest candidate. She was articulate and knowledgeable, and she made it very clear that her priority is the security and character of the country. She knows what America needs, and I look forward to seeing how she does in the race.”

Michael Aavang, senior, politics major from Stevens Point, WI: “I came into tonight’s debate a reluctant Trump supporter because of his assertiveness and expressed interest in doing what is good for America, but Carly’s true merit and grit came through, eclipsing his attempt at showmanship. She stoically and confidently addressed every question with articulate and educated responses. She showed she has the country’s interests at heart. I think she rightfully captivated the audience and will see a huge bounce in the polls.”

Dom Restuccia, senior, politics major from South Lyon, MI: “Rubio established himself as the commander-in-chief in the room with the most substantive answers, the greatest handling of foreign policy issues, and a clear articulation of conservative values. He demonstrated himself as the champion who can bring the many factions of the Republican party to bear with a 21st century campaign to face down the Democrat electoral machine. Yet Fiorina trumped “the Donald.” She had the two best moments of the night, going after Trump for attacking her looks and responding to questions on Iran, where she connected the issue of the Iran nuclear deal to the defense of innocent life.”

Jacob Weaver, sophomore, philosophy and history major from Novi, MI: “Tonight’s debate proved that we have a field of incredible candidates, all with unique backgrounds and qualifications. However, a good field of candidates does not save our country from jeopardy. I urge voters – for the sake of Americans past, present, and future – to seek a leader of passion, of prudence, and of principle.”

Conner Dwinell, junior, economics major from Lincoln, NE: “Carly Fiorina won in a landslide. If I wasn’t absolutely in her camp before, I am now. If you are looking for a firecracker and someone who is going to stick it to the man, I would move out of Donald Trump’s camp and into Carly’s.”

Emily Runge, senior, politics major from Newton, KS: “Marco Rubio and Carly Fiorina stood out to me tonight. They articulated their positions well, along with an overall vision for the nation. Particularly, they both did an incredible job overall on foreign policy. Over the next months, I want them to prove to me that they will follow through with their policies and deliver as President.”

Sarah Onken, senior, politics and mathematics major from Seymour, IN: “To say Carly Fiorina made an outstanding appearance this evening is the understatement of this campaign season. I appreciated Marco Rubio’s comments on the necessity of the strength of the family in our nation. This debate demonstrated that principled, articulate candidates such as Fiorina, Rubio, and Cruz will continue to do well in this primary season.”

Alex Buchmann, senior, politics major from Broomfield, CO: “Trump didn’t lose any followers, Carson maintained his followers, and Fiorina gained new followers. Everyone else on the debate stage has effectively been reduced to political pundits contributing to what has now become a privatized republican race.”

Bailey Amaral, senior, political economy and Spanish major from Houston, TX: “I’m proud to remain a staunch supporter of Ted Cruz. He demanded that conservatives stop surrendering and start standing on principle when asked about defunding Planned Parenthood. I was also blown away by Carly Fiorina and her commitment to defend America from its enemies abroad and restore its culture from internal decay. We have an American Thatcher on our hands. Fiorina won’t back down.”

Veronica Lyter, Ph.D. candidate in politics and statesmanship from Chicago, IL: “Carly Fiorina said that a leader challenges the status quo and produces results—this election, for Fiorina, is about changing the system. I would have liked to hear her speak more about what that change might look like and on what principles she would implement that change. The candidates seemed to agree unanimously that Planned Parenthood needs to be defunded, but the Planned Parenthood video scandal overshadowed the abortion issue as a whole. Also, I would have liked to hear the candidates speak more on abortion generally. Finally, the question of Kim Davis came up, but it overshadowed the whole issue of marriage. I would have liked to hear the candidates speak more about marriage and the family.”

John Brooks, MA candidate in politics and statesmanship from South Lyon, MI: “I was most impressed with Fiorina’s concern about the character of the American people as she discussed Planned Parenthood. The American Founders thought virtue to be of utmost importance for the perpetuation of the Union. Fiorina’s worry is well founded: can a nation that justifies infanticide long endure?”

Zachary Reynolds, MA candidate in politics and statesmanship from Alleyton, TX: “I was looking for substance, someone to get beyond political rhetoric. A few candidates gave us that, but none better than Carly Fiorina. She offered us a strong ideal connected to concrete policies and plans.”

“Hillsdale College is one of the crown jewels of American education,” said Mike Gallagher, nationally syndicated radio host and moderator of the student focus group. “I cannot think of a better place to be in America tonight than with these bright college students. I was so encouraged to see this group of Millennials so committed to the political process.”

Selected students will also be featured during The Mike Gallagher Show radio broadcast from 9 a.m. to noon EST on Sept. 17 to discuss the Republican debates.

About Hillsdale College

Hillsdale College, founded in 1844, has built a national reputation through its classical liberal arts core curriculum and its principled refusal to accept federal or state taxpayer subsidies, even indirectly in the form of student grants or loans. It also conducts on outreach effort promoting civil and religious liberty, including a free monthly speech digest, Imprimis, with a circulation of more than 2.9 million.

About the Salem Radio Network

Dallas-based Salem Radio Network (a division of Salem Media Group) provides 24/7 national news to over 1600 terrestrial radio stations and SiriusXM’s Patriot Channel on satellite radio through its SRN News and Townhall.com news services. SRN also produces national talk shows including Bill Bennett’s MORNING IN AMERICA, The Mike Gallagher Show, The Dennis Prager Show, The Eric Metaxas Show, and The Hugh Hewitt Show.

GOP Debate: Winners and Losers on National Security by Ryan Mauro

September 17, 2015/in Elections, Featured, National Security, Policy, Politics/by Clarion Project

American voters’ concern about Islamist extremism is at the highest level since 2002, with 66% of Republicans, 56% of Independents and 48% of Democrats describing it as a “critical threat.” National security is a major issue that received significant attention at last night’s Republican presidential debate.

The following is Clarion Project National Security Analyst Ryan Mauro’s compilation of the candidates’ expressed stances on fighting Islamist extremism at the debate and his personal assessment of the contest’s winners and losers among national security voters.

Winners

Businesswoman Carly Fiorina

Carly Fiorina is widely considered the biggest winner of the debate overall. Her performance included details on national security policy.

She criticized rivals who oppose the nuclear deal with Iran without presenting a broader strategy. She said she’d inform Iran that the regime would be prevented from moving money through the global financial system until it agrees to anytime-anywhere inspections.

Fiorina said the U.S. should not negotiate with Russia because it is on the side of Iran. She said she’d provide intelligence to Egypt and armaments to Jordan to fight the Islamic State, in addition to arming the Kurds.

She advocated a military buildup that includes increasing the 6^thFleet, military exercises in the Baltic States, installing anti-ballistic missile systems in Poland, modernizing all three legs of the nuclear triad, increasing the Navy to 300-350 ships and adding 50 Army brigades and 36 Marine battalions.

Fiorina is currently in 8^th place in an average of national polls with 3 percent. She is in 6th place in Iowa (5%), 4th place in New Hampshire (8%) and 6th place in South Carolina (4%).

South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham

Graham is the winner of the undercard debate that featured the bottom four candidates and virtually every answer of his related to national security. Of all the candidates, he was the most impressive on dealing with the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL). He explicitly said he is running for president to “destroy radical Islam.” Graham said he would “rip the caliphate up by its roots” and “will kill every one of these [ISIS] bastards we can find.”

Graham’s standout moment was challenging every candidate to state whether they support increasing troop levels in Iraq from 3,500 to 10,000 to fight the Islamic State, asserting that anyone who refuses to do so lacks the seriousness to be commander-in-chief. Graham’s overall plan calls for increasing U.S. troop levels to 20,000, split between Iraq and Syria.

He argued that the Islamic State grew in Syria and then propelled into Iraq because the Obama Administration rejected his recommendation that the U.S. military establish a no-fly zone in Syria and support the Free Syrian Army rebel force before it became too late.

Graham said there is no one left to train inside Syria, so the only option is a U.S.-backed regional army that includes Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and others. He said the only solution to the refugee crisis is the removal of Syrian dictator Bashar Assad.

He pointed out that he’s the only candidate who has served in the military (he was in the Air Force for 33 years). Graham has spent 140 days on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan over the course of 35 trips to those countries.

Graham is currently in 14^th place nationally (0.3%). He is in 14^thplace in Iowa (0.3%); 12^th place in New Hampshire (0.8%) and 7^thplace in South Carolina (4%).

Florida Senator Marco Rubio

Rubio gave the most detailed and articulate answers about foreign policy during the debate. He argued for a more interventionist U.S. policy that includes supporting democratic activists, such as by meeting with opponents of Putin in Russia.

He argued that the Syrian revolution began as a popular uprising and the Islamist terrorist presence could have been minimized if the U.S. had armed moderate rebels in the beginning of the conflict.

Rubio said that the Russian military movement into Syria is part of an overall strategy to “destroy NATO,” save the Syrian dictatorship and convince countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia to ditch the U.S. for Russia.

He is currently in 5th place nationally (5%). He is in 5^th place in Iowa (5%); 8^th place in New Hampshire (3%) and 5^th place in South Carolina (4%).

Rubio explained that he opposed giving President Obama authority to launch airstrikes on the Syrian regime after it used chemical weapons because the plan involved “pinprick” airstrikes. He said that he would only support military action that has victory as an objective.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie

Christie struck a chord when he spoke about his experience on 9/11 and prosecuting terrorists after the attack when he was the U.S. Attorney for the state of New Jersey. He defended the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks when Carson’s opposition was brought up. He also pledged not to have deals with or meet with leaders like those in Iran who chant “Death to America.”

He is currently in 11^th place nationally (2%). He is in 11^th place in Iowa (2%), 9^th place in New Hampshire (3%) and 12^th place in South Carolina (2%).

Losers

Businessman Donald Trump

Trump failed to show any grasp on foreign policy or to outline a strategy towards Islamist extremists when pressed. When he was asked about an embarrassing interview where he appeared not to know what the Iran-linked Al-Quds Force are and the names of prominent terrorist leaders, he simply stated that he’d hire a strong team that would keep him informed on national security.

He boasted of opposing the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein. He said the U.S. should stay out of the Syrian civil war and criticized President Obama for declaring that the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons would be an intolerable “red line.” Trump said that Rubio, Paul and Cruz should have supported President Obama’s request for authority to militarily enforce the “red line.”

Trump also expressed confidence that he could work well with Russian President Putin. Fiorina, on the other hand, said the U.S. should not negotiate with Russia.

He is currently in 1^st place nationally (31%). He is in 1^st place in Iowa (28%), 1^st place in New Hampshire (30%) and 1^st place in South Carolina (34%).

Dr. Ben Carson

Carson did not display an impressive knowledge of foreign affairs and national security. Serious damage may have been done when the moderator asked about his opposition to the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 after the 9/11 attacks. Carson explained that he told President Bush to focus instead on energy independence, which Christie politely took him to task for.

Carson also made sure to point out that he opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

He is currently in 2^nd place nationally (20%). He is in 2^nd place in Iowa (23%), 2^nd place in New Hampshire (15%) and 2^nd place in South Carolina (19%).

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul

Paul repeatedly stated his anti-interventionist view and said that U.S. military operations often backfire. A new poll shows that 69% of Republicans, 67% of Democrats and 57% of Independents favor having America active abroad.

Paul boasted that he “made a career” out of opposing the 2003 invasion of Iraq and argued that the U.S. should not topple secular dictators because they are replaced by radical Islamic forces. Paul and Trump were the only candidates to express opposition to a policy of overthrowing Syrian dictator Bashar Assad. He also said that U.S. backing of Syrian rebels would mean arming enemies of America.

He said it is “absurd” to immediately scrap the nuclear deal with Iran unless the regime violates it. He spoke in favor of continued diplomacy with Iran and Russia, pointing out that President Reagan met with the leaders of the Soviet Union.

Paul also said he opposes using U.S. ground forces in Iraq and Syria against the Islamic State, but supports continued airstrikes and arming Kurds.

He is currently in 7^th place nationally (3%). He is in 9^th place in Iowa (4%), 7^th place in New Hampshire (5%) and 11^th place in South Carolina (2%).

Ohio Governor John Kasich

Kasich damaged his chances by refusing to say that he’d scrap the nuclear deal with Iran. He argued that the U.S. should move in coordination with allies and not withdraw from the agreement unilaterally. He said that the U.S. should sanction Iran if they violate the deal or sponsor terrorism. Rand Paul likewise said maintenance of the agreement would depend upon Iranian compliance.

He was also twice criticized by Graham during the undercard debate for supporting the closure of some U.S. military bases. Graham countered that he’d increase the number of bases.

He is currently in 10^th place nationally (3%). He is in 10^th place in Iowa (3%), 3^rd place in New Hampshire (10%) and 8^th place in South Carolina (4%).

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush

Bush criticized rivals who focused on their pledges to scrap the nuclear deal with Iran. He would not commit to doing so and said that the discussion needs to be about an Iran strategy rather than a strategy to tear up the deal.

Bush encouraged viewers to review his 9-point plan for fighting the Islamic State and the Syrian regime.

He is currently in 3^rd place nationally (8%). He is in 4^th place in Iowa (5%), 5^th place in New Hampshire (8%) and 3^rd place in South Carolina (7%).

Other Candidates

Texas Senator Ted Cruz

Cruz’s standout moment was when he promised to “rip to shreds” the “catastrophic” nuclear deal with Iran.

Cruz said that he opposed giving President Obama authority for airstrikes on the Syrian regime in response to its use of chemical weapons because vital national security interests were not at stake. He said that the administration could not answer his questions about how Syrian weapons of mass destruction would be prevented from falling into the hands of the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda.

He is currently in 4^th place nationally (7%). He is in 3^rd place in Iowa (8%), 6^th place in New Hampshire (6%) and 4^th place in South Carolina (6%).

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee

Huckabee spoke passionately against the nuclear deal with Iran and said every candidate should announce that, if elected, he or she will not honor it and, as president, will “destroy” it.

He is currently in 6^th place nationally (5%). He is in 8^th place in Iowa (4%), 11^th place in New Hampshire (1%) and 10^th place in South Carolina (3%).

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal

Jindal’s standout moment was when he said that Muslim leaders must move beyond generic condemnations of terrorism and condemn terrorists by name. He called on Muslim leaders to preach that these terrorists do not qualify as “martyrs” and are destined for hell.

Jindal said that U.S. policy should be to force Syrian dictator Bashar Assad out of power.

He is currently in 13^th place nationally (1%). He is in 11^th place in Iowa (3%), 14^th place in New Hampshire (0.3%) and 13^th place in South Carolina (1%).

Former New York Governor George Pataki

Pataki said he would immediately scrap the nuclear deal with Iran and provide Israel with Massive Ordinance Penetrators (MOPs). However, he may have damaged himself by refusing to endorse Santorum’s call to target Iranian nuclear scientists. He also gave a vague answer about how he’d fight the Islamic State and expressed disagreement with Graham’s plan for a ground offensive with U.S. troops in Iraq and Syria.

He is currently in 15^th place nationally with less than a single percent of support. He is in 15^th place in Iowa with less than one percent, 13^th place in New Hampshire (0.3%) and in 15^th place in South Carolina with less than one percent.

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum

Santorum boasted that he authored legislation to sanction Iran and Syria when he was in the Senate. The moderator mentioned his past declaration that the U.S. should target Iranian nuclear scientists, which George Pataki refused to endorse.

He described the Iranian regime as an “apocalyptic death cult” and claimed that two-thirds of Iraqi and Iranian Shiites believe that the end of the world will happen in their lifetime. Santorum was making the point that the Iranian regime exports its radical ideology.

Santorum said he supports increasing U.S. troop levels in Iraq to 10,000 to fight against the Islamic State and that he’d support Lindsey Graham’s proposal for 20,000 troops if necessary. He stated that the legitimacy of the caliphate is based on its holding of territory.

He is currently in 12^th place nationally (1%). He is in 12^th place in Iowa (2%) and in 15^th place in both New Hampshire and South Carolina with less than one percent.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker

Walker’s comments on foreign policy focused on criticizing the nuclear deal with Iran, which he promised to scrap during his first day in office.

He is currently in 9^th place nationally (3%). He is in 7^th place in Iowa (4%), 10^th place in New Hampshire (3%) and 9^th place in South Carolina (3%).

Former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore

Gilmore failed to make the cut for the debate because he scores less than 1% in national polls. He registers less than a single percent in each of the three early states.

ABOUT RYAN MAURO

Ryan Mauro is ClarionProject.org’s national security analyst, a fellow with Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security. Mauro is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio. Read more, contact or arrange a speaking engagement.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Scientist, Activist, Beauty Queen – Meet Fabiola al-Ibrahim

Getting Personal: The Ayatollah’s Agitprop Video Against the US

Danish Teen Murders Own Mother After ISIS Radicalization

Keep the Beard or Lose Your Head: New Draconian ISIS Rules

America’s Biggest Problem

September 17, 2015/in Commentary, Elections, Policy, Politics/by Simona Pipko

When I read that 71% of the American people loath Political Correctness (PC), my love for those people tripled. I knew that Americans are not well educated on Soviet Fascism, but… I also knew that they were the fairest people in the world. Their loath for PC showed them out as even more sensitive to the adversarial and harmful actions against the American interests. They did not know that PC was the Stalinist ideological invasion into our culture, they felt it intuitively. I am not sure that Trump, like the vast majority of Americans knows about Soviet Fascism and the real source of PC, yet, with his magnetic personality he is symbolizes them all. It is an uprising against the ignorant political class in Washington.

Political Correctness—Ideological Tool of Soviet Fascism

I dedicated many pages to present to America Political Correctness, its real author and architect, and his agenda. If you read my books, you could see that I started approaching the subject by introducing the new terms like WWIII and Soviet Fascism decades ago. I did it because Political Correctness is the major method in fighting the war against Western civilization and implementing the Ideology of Soviet Fascism. Do you remember the four main components in my definition of WWIII? They are the following: Recruitment, Infiltration, Drugs and Assassinations. Recruitment and Infiltration are inextricably connected. Neither could have been achieved without Political Correctness.

Moreover, I gave you my definition of PC:

“… Political Correctness is a Stalinist policy, driven by the political agenda, a skillfully crafted design of quintessential system of leis and a long-term strategy of war against Western civilization and creation of One World Government.”

Yes, the Stalinist agenda is the creation of One World Government under the Kremlin auspices by using PC, its two arms of secrecy and deceit. If other two components of WWIII, drugs and assassinations are the physical force applied in the war by Soviet Fascism, recruitment and Infiltration are more a psychological one, aiming at the destruction of our culture.

It is needless to repeat the history of the 20’s century and talk about PC’s manipulation and brainwashing of human mentality, I have done it in my books and articles. And I am delighted by the recent article that brilliantly narrated and introduced an American understanding of the subject, presenting it even better than I could’ve done with my lack of eloquence in English.

The Thought Police 2016

In Obama’s America, political correctness reaches new heights of madness

America’s “big problem,” declared Donald Trump during the first GOP presidential debate, “is being politically correct.”

Many Americans first heard about “political correctness” back in 1990 from Newsweek’s iconic “THOUGHT POLICE” issue.

Newsweek’s astonishingly candid cover story accurately described the “PC” phenomenon – then blossoming on college campuses nationwide – as “Marxist” and “totalitarian” in origin.

Since then, political correctness and the powerfully totalitarian leftist agenda underlying it have turned many of America’s top universities into what historian William Lind calls “small, ivy-covered North Koreas.”

I can sign every word presented above. Please, go to my definition to PC: it was created and used since 1920s, when Stalin had been transforming Russia to the Soviet Union. Today we are experiencing the same transformation of America by Obama. And that is the reason, I am writing about Stalinism, which I call Soviet Fascism.

As I wrote in preceding columns: contemporary politics for me presents a dark room, Trump, as a real product of a successful American capitalism entered the dark room and turned light On. I do not know whether he knew that illegal immigration is one of the fronts in WWIII. Perhaps, as the majority of American people he felt it intuitively and he was right. And again, I am signing every word written below:

“Donald Trump is right about political correctness,” said Whistleblower Editor David Kupelian. “It is like a disease that has infected America and is destroying it. The cure is truth, spoken boldly and courageously, but without hate. That’s what readers will find in abundance in “THOUGHT POLICE 2016.”

The Mechanism Political Correctness Operates

In my articles written in 2011-2013, I gave several examples of PC’s machinery that infiltrated all spheres of our society: politics, the art, education, and so on. I do not know whether it is possible to recover some of the articles. Hence, I have to present some examples again and the recent one is the Nuclear Deal with Iran. Above mentioned Editor David Kupellan is right: The cure is truth, spoken boldly. Yes, and you are the witnesses of the system and incredible Lies the recent administration operates on. Look at the recent Nuclear Deal with Iran and how Obama and his administration is following Stalin’s precepts. Look at them:

Establishment of a false premise for a future theory or action.
Usage of the false premise as a foundation of the theory or action.

While introducing Stalin in the beginning of the series, among other epithets, I called him a charlatan of a highest class. Today, I’d like to show you the dreadful harm, which has been brought to the world by Stalinism and his PC. Please, look at the real definition of the word Premise in the Dictionary:

Noun

1. a previous statement or proposition from which another is inferred or follows as a conclusion. “if the premise is true, then the conclusion must be true”

1.Verb base an argument, theory, or undertaking on. “the reforms were premised on our findings”

Let’s take as an example the Nuclear Deal with Iran: the false premise was established by Obama in the beginning of the discussion—Nuclear Deal or War.

The alternative given to you by Obama is a false one and created in the best traditions of Stalinism and its Political Correctness against the American interests and our national security. The premise or assessment has been FALSE. There are definitely several alternative to deal with Iran to prevent the war. The logical one was–To double the sanctions that have already existed and to punish Iran for being the biggest sponsor of global terror while proclaiming “Death to America!” The double sanctions in reality could prevent the war and served our national security interests. Obama has done just the opposite.

On the top of that, look at the “yes-men” Democrats and the media, serving one party system, repeating the myth. Eugene Robinson is one of them:

“The Iran deal, in my view, is another remarkable (Obama) achievement. Beyond the fact that it definitively keeps Tehran from building a nuclear weapon for at list 15 years, the agreement offers Iran’s leaders a path toward renewed membership in the community of nations. The mullahs may decide to remain defiant and isolated, but at least they now have a choice.” Washington Post Writers Group. 9, 8, 15.

What world is Mr. Robinson live in? What does he know about the ideology of Soviet Fascism that was implemented in Iran by the Soviets and Russian KGB for the last decades? He, together with Obama invites to the community of nations the country that in cahoots with Russia is Balkanizing the world for the decades and killed 500 our soldiers in Iraq. What does he know about WWIII waged against Western civilization and millions innocent killed around the globe? Does he know anything about five secret agreements and Iran’s secret nuclear complex near Esphahan, never mentioned in the deal? Maybe Mr. Robinson knows that mullahs will self-inspect their nuclear and military facilities?

I would suggest to Mr. Roberts reading an excellent article written by the man, who reflects a real life of our times. Maybe Mr. Roberts can learn the dreadful network of our enemies who are weaving a rotten plot against American interests with both ‘slick Willi” and Obama for many years preceding the deal. For this reason, I am giving you the piece that confirms my opinion:

Tablet Magazine

MEET THE IRAN LOBBY

In the fight over sanctions and the nuclear deal, how did the supposedly all-powerful pro-Israel lobby lose to the slick operatives of the National Iranian American Council?

By Lee Smith September 1, 2015

“Trita Parsi, the Iranian-born émigré who moved to the United States in 2001 from Sweden, where his parents found refuge before the Islamic Revolution, should be the toast of Washington these days. As I argued in Tablet magazine several years ago, Parsi is an immigrant who in classic American fashion wanted to capitalize on the opportunity to reconcile his new home and his birthplace. And now he’s done it: The founder and president of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), the tip of the spear of the Iran Lobby, has won a defining battle over the direction of American foreign policy. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action not only lifts sanctions on Iran, a goal Parsi has fought for since 1997, but also paves the way for a broader reconciliation between Washington and Tehran across the Middle East.”

I was amazed reading the analyses presented by Lee Smith. The depth of knowledge of the subject and its intriguing history reflects the reality of our days. Furthermore the usage of the term “Agents of influence” presented by the Soviet military document of 1955 that I had given you many years ago and the term “slick” in describing Parsi is speaking for itself. Reading the article will also bring you to the September of 2015, as Hillary Clinton’s emails demonstrate, a 10-page plan sent to her by four key members of The Iran Project provided the blueprint for America’s strategy with Iran.

The Clinton Gang and 9/11/2001

Please remember my description of the Clinton Gang, its infiltration into all our intelligence agencies during Bill’s presidency and systematic activities against the American interests. Jerome Corsi is right: WALL STREET EXPERT: CLINTON FOUNDATION A ‘VAST CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY’. I have been writing about Clinton since I saw him in 1991. I knew who he was and if you take any of my books, you’ll see my loath for him and suspicious for his intelligence agencies. I was his enemy, a knowledgeable one and a victim of his intelligence agencies since 1993. If you read the last page of Baltic Winds, you will see the letter of the University’s Dean dismissing me from a teaching position, dated May 1993. It was a beginning of my constant persecution by Clinton’s intelligence apparatus.

Here is my cry and description of numerous abuses by our intelligence against me written in 2011:

“In the meantime, I continue living in the iron cage. My computer is monitored and my e-mails are going with the warning stamp or seal “suspect.” My telephone is wiretapped, I cannot talk freely and my mail is arrested the way it used to be in the Soviet Union. Some defaming information has been spread about me and a few of my “friends” stopped communication with me. I can’t call any radio show—my phone will be disconnected immediately. Moreover, this manuscript is read by Obama’s campaign—he is changing his behavior in accordance with his exposure by me. This means that the Kremlin read it also and is changing its politics accordingly. I do not know how many days are left for me.” P.331, What is Happening to America? The Hidden Truth of Global Destruction. Xlibris, 2012.

It took me a couple of days to complete this column, my computer was unexpectedly shut down several times. I can add more to that: All my books are a forbidden read—our intelligence agencies have been blocking information about them from the moment of their publication. Russia’s aggressive strategy and ideology are changing the world, yet, the White House and our Intelligence playing down the danger.

As you can see, the news that our intelligence agencies in 9/11 were working against our interests is not a revelation for me they are doing the same today. At the time of 9/11, I lived in New York- New Jersey and I knew John O’Neal, a man thinking alike me, a real patriot of America. A week or so prior to the crime of 9/11 he was assigned as a Chief Security to the Towers. Today it is an evidence of the intentional murder of almost 3.000 people including John O’Neal, a man who loved America the Beautiful. Please, remember the mechanism of Political Correctness in WWIII—recruitment and infiltration—a social and psychological front keeping fighting against Western civilization.

Reading this series of articles, you should know my opinion about some in our intelligence agencies working hand-in-hand with Russian Intelligence. I can give you a recent example of that. In November-December of 2014, I have watched a huge Russian military operation—cyberattacks on the websites of the organizations and persons who was exposing Soviet Fascism. You probably remember only a cyberattack on Sony. We were told that North Korea was doing it. Wrong! North Korea is the Stalinist State, inextricably tied to Russia, it can’t exist without Russia and completely subordinated to it. What we saw was the usual Russian camouflage to cover-up its own cyberattacks activities using the satellites.

Among November-December cyberattacks were many other victims including the person writing this column—my website, informing about me and my books was eliminated. There were also eliminated other websites that had been exposing and fighting against the Russian Intelligence for years. The most important was Hartia 97, a human rights group from Belorussia and other analogous human rights groups in the world. The news about the traitors in our intelligence is not news for me, I have been warning about the traitors for the last two decades, but my writings was blocked. Alas, that is a result we are now dealing with the sponsor of terrorism Islamic Iran. Do not be surprised by a recent trip of General Qasem Soleimani, a Chief of Quds Force to Moscow—The KGB has built a Revolutionary Guard, Quds Force, and the entire system of Soviet Fascism in Iran for the last decades. (read What is happening to America?) I expect Russia and Iran will fight in Syria to secure Assad.

The time has come now to expose both leaders of the party called Democratic, I was warning you for decades.The Obama/Putin Joint Venture, I named Destruction of the American Republic is a continuation of the Clinton Gang deeds, the actions against our interests by the Democrat Party—the enemy within. Mike Huckabee, has gone further “as to argue that Obama “will take the Israelis and march them to the door of the oven.” Don’t you sense a small and a warning of Soviet Fascism keeping fighting Western civilization? The 21^st century needs a President Reagan No.2, who realizes that Russia and now China are working hand-in-hand against us for decades.

Wake up America! Stop a catastrophic Iran’s Nuclear Deal!! Prevent the Iranian criminals from receiving $150 billion! Hold accountable the banks releasing the money. It is the time for America To BE or NOT TO BE.

To be continued at www.simonapipko1.com.

The Continuing Trump Debate

September 14, 2015/in Elections, Immigration, Must Read, Policy, Politics, Regulation/by Raynard Jackson

With the next Republican presidential debate coming in two days, I expect more theatrics than substance. With eleven candidates on stage, it’s impossible to have any type of substantive dialogue. Each candidate will have 10 minutes of total talk time. And of course the media will try to focus on trivial things like say something nice about one of your opponents or gotcha questions like what is the name of Putin’s vice president.

D.C. insiders continue to display their utter disdain for Donald Trump and his presidential campaign. As I have previously written, Trump is not the issue, but rather the lack of leadership and vision displayed by our Republican presidential candidates.

I challenge anyone to name me three issues that all Republicans can rally around as a contrast to the Democrats; and state them in a manner that would resonate with the average voter.

Far too many supposed Republican leaders and presidential candidates are to the left of Obama when it comes to amnesty for those in the country illegally. How can you aggressively support this type of policy when it will continue to depress wages of the lower and middle classes?

This cheap labor will also exacerbate the Black unemployment rate, which is the highest of any group in the country. Oh, I forgot, Blacks don’t count; so Republicans remain silent on this issue.

Isn’t it amazing that the two people who have specifically opposed amnesty solely on the grounds of its negative impact on the Black community have been Republican author and commentator, Ann Coulter and Donald Trump?

Isn’t it also amazing that these two people are often labeled in the media as “racist” and “xenophobic?” I have known Coulter for many years and she, second only to me, has constantly used her media platform to strongly encourage the Republican Party to do a better job courting the Black vote; especially using issues like blocking amnesty and supporting entrepreneurship as the gateway into the Black community.

More than anyone else in the Republican field, Trump understands the impact of illegal, cheap labor on the Black unemployment rate. On this issue, he is more in tune with the grassroots in the Black community than Obama, the NAACP, the National Urban League, and the Congressional Black Caucus—go figure.

Now these very same groups have come to the asinine conclusion that America has a “moral” obligation to take in refugees from Syria. Are you kidding me? America cannot afford to play Santa Claus to the world. These refugees are Europe’s problems, not ours. There are many ways to help without bringing them to our country.

We can’t even track notorious criminal gang members from Central America who are part of MS 13, but yet we are supposed to know who the terrorists from Syria are? What responsible family would take their only loaf of bread and send it to an unknown family on the other side of the world?

A person’s first “moral” obligation is to provide for their own family; anything thing else would be irresponsible.

One of the things that drives me crazy with Republicans who support amnesty is they always ask what are you going to do with the 30 million illegals who are already in the country? You can’t deport 30 million people they say. Oh really? Why can’t we?

Every Republican candidate for president has said that America is an exceptional country; of course they never define what they mean. Basically, American exceptionalism means we can do anything we put our minds to. We can put a man on the moon, we can liberate Kuwait from Iraq, and we can elect a Black to be president.

So, Republicans, which is it? Are we an exceptional nation or not? When they say we can’t deport 30 million people they mean they don’t have the will to deport 30 million illegals because deep down inside, like liberals, they believe in open borders and cheap labor; not free market capitalism.

So Trump comes along and says he will build a wall, deport those in the country illegally, and make America great again. These are simple sound bites that resonate with the American people; and the American people, thus far, believe Trump will deliver on his promises.

Slowly Trump is beginning to grow into a presidential candidate that must be taken seriously. The other candidates can’t match the size of Trump’s personality; but they can match him on the issues if they choose to tap into the frustration Americans are feeling about their lives and the wrong direction our country is headed in.

But if the other candidates are only going to offer Democratic lite policies, then Trump will definitely be our presidential nominee and will have a decent chance of becoming the next U.S. president. To this there is no debate.

What has Rand Paul done?

September 14, 2015/in Culture War, Elections, Featured, Policy, Politics, Regulation/by Tad MacKie

One of my readers recently replied to me that he had been a Rand Paul supporter but really couldn’t see what Rand had done that was consistent with what he talks about.

Here’s a recent campaign speech, given in Boise, Idaho, about 2 weeks ago, August 27th:

After watching Rand’s speech, I noticed a comment from viewer “Nate Dawg”. I was rather impressed and, after some fact-checking, editing, personalizing and adding a few links, I am happy to answer my reader’s concerns:

Is Rand Paul really a consistent and principled liberty lover? Let’s take a look at his history in the senate:

Introduced a 5-year balanced budget by cutting spending and not raising taxes.
Filibustered for 13 hours to stop Obama/Holder’s illegal drone strikes on Americans – and succeeded.
Filibustered for 11 hours to kill the PATRIOT Act – and succeeded.
Sued the Obama Administration/Justice Department for illegally collecting all Americans’ phone records, as they are still doing under the so-called FREEDOM Act.
Consistently advocates for social issues to be left to the states, just as his father did.
Only Senate Republican who opposed the efforts to bomb Syria in late 2014.
Opposed the US-funded war in Libya.
Detailed specific plans to form a coalition with Kurds, Turks, and Iraqis to defeat ISIS without ever putting U.S. boots on the ground.
Introduced sweeping criminal justice reform legislation (knows how to actually work with the other side).
Introduced groundbreaking legislation in the Senate that would begin to tear down the, totally failed, War on Drugs, making marijuana a schedule 2 drug (allows vital research to be done on THC and CBD, as well as reduces the penalties for possession), and allowing medical marijuana and recreational marijuana in states that legalize it.
His plans for making social security and other entitlements solvent are crystal clear, phasing in raising the age of eligibility and means tests for wealthier recipients. (This would solve the massive deficit coming out of SS and, most likely, lead to privatization in the form of personal accounts, which is a good thing.)
Released a detailed tax plan that would massively reduce the corporate tax rate (ours is the highest IN THE WORLD at 35%) and the personal rate to a flat 14.5% with a family of four, making less than $50K paying nothing. (Not the “Fair Tax”, which I support, but still a “radical” plan, clearly laid out.)
Consistent top ratings from all three major gun rights advocates groups (NRA, GOA NAGR).
Rated as “the most conservative candidate” with a, “10C” conservative record (the highest available and higher than Ted Cruz), AND is rated better than ALL the major Democratic candidates, when it comes to Civil Liberty issues.
Opposed the Iraq Invasion of 2003 (this was before he was elected to the Senate).
And, last but not least, he has some fun in the process.

This is a direct quote from Nate Dawg:

“He’s not perfect, nobody is. But he’s exactly what this country needs. Not another charlatan hurling vague, vitriolic rhetoric at anyone who challenges him, but a clear-minded, sober, logical problem-solver who presents common-sense solutions to systemic issues.”

I, whole-heartedly, agree. And, Rand Paul’s actions line up pretty darn clearly with his talk…

EDITORS NOTE: Please click here for Tad MacKie’s YouTube page.

VIDEO: Playing Politics with a Tragedy

September 14, 2015/in Elections, Gun Rights, Policy, Politics, Regulation, Video/by NRA Institute for Legislative Action

In this News Minute from the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, Jennifer Zahrn reports that gun control activists like Hillary Clinton and Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe are exploiting the recent tragedy in Roanoke, Virginia to push gun control.

An Electoral Strategy for 2016

September 11, 2015/in Elections, Featured, Politics/by Paul R. Hollrah

To be elected president or vice president of the United States requires a total of at least 270 votes in the Electoral College. Through the strategic spending of other people’s money, especially among minority populations in our major urban areas, Democrats have fashioned an electoral map that gives them a relatively firm base of 22 blue states with a combined total of 257 of the needed 270 electoral votes. Of the remaining 281 electoral votes, they only have to pick up 13 in order to elect a president and a vice president.

Republicans, on the other hand, have a firm base of 23 red states with a combined total of 191 electoral votes, leaving a total of 6 swing states… Colorado, Florida, Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia… with a combined total of 90 electoral votes. In order for a Republican to win in 2016, and beyond, he/she must carry all 23 of the red states, plus at least five of the six swing states. They could afford to lose either Colorado’s 9 electoral votes or Iowa’s 6 electoral votes, but not all 15. To lose both Colorado and Iowa, while carrying Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Virginia would leave them with a total of just 266 electoral votes, four short of an electoral majority. It appears to be a nearly insurmountable obstacle for Republicans, but is it?

With a bit of foresight and strategic planning, Republicans could do a great deal between now and November 2016 to mitigate the Democrats’ electoral advantage. In a December 7, 2012 column, titled, Real Electoral College Reform, I analyzed what would happen to the political balance of power in the United States if all 50 states were to adopt the Maine-Nebraska method for allocating electoral votes.

In the Electoral College, each of the 50 states are allotted two at-large electoral votes, one for each of their two U.S. senators, and one vote for each of the state’s congressional districts. With the exception of Maine and Nebraska, the winner of the popular vote in each state takes all of the state’s electoral votes. In Maine and Nebraska, however, the candidate who wins the statewide popular vote is allotted that state’s two at-large electoral votes, while the remainder of the electoral votes are allocated based on the winner of the popular vote within each of the state’s congressional districts.

If the Maine-Nebraska formula had been in effect in all 50 states in 2012, and assuming that the vote for the presidential candidates of each party would roughly approximate the votes for the congressional candidates of the respective parties in each congressional district, Obama would have lost 115 of his 332 electoral votes to Mitt Romney in the twenty-six states, plus DC, in which he won a majority of the popular vote. On the other hand, in the twenty-four red states carried by Romney-Ryan, they would have lost only 39 electoral votes to Obama-Biden.

The end result? In 2012, instead of a 332 to 206 vote victory for Obama-Biden in the Electoral College, the Maine-Nebraska system would have produced a comfortable 282 to 256 vote victory for Romney-Ryan, an outcome that would have been far closer to expressing the will of the people than the present winner-take-all system.

To understand this phenomenon one need only look at the county-by-county electoral map of the United States with the counties colored either red or blue. It is reflective of: a) the preference for Republican principles among a substantial majority of the people, and b) the overwhelming size of the vote for the Democratic “sugar daddy” in the inner city precincts. The electoral process is disproportionately skewed by the fact that, in the heavily-populated inner-city precincts, the vote is nearly always 95-110% for Democratic candidates, while in the suburbs and the rural areas the vote is nearly always within the 60-40 range, one party over the other.

If it is true that “all politics is local,” as the late House Speaker Tip O’Neill once remarked, then to replace the current winner-take-all system with the Maine-Nebraska electoral system would help to bring political decision-making much closer to the people because of the increased interest generated in local and congressional elections.

The Maine-Nebraska electoral system would deemphasize the key battleground states such as Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia and require candidates to campaign in all fifty states. As matters now stand, presidential candidates spend little time in states such as California, New York, Oklahoma, and Texas because the outcome of presidential voting in those states is almost always a foregone conclusion. Had the Maine-Nebraska system been in place for the 2012 General Election, Obama would have found it necessary to defend the 15 votes that Romney could have won in California and the 6 votes he could have won in New York, while Romney could not have ignored the 12 electoral votes that Obama might have captured in Texas.

Liberals and Democrats are notorious for expressing appreciation for whatever they see as being most “democratic.” But is there a chance that Democrats in the bluest of blue states… such as California, Illinois, New York, Massachusetts, and Oregon… would agree to such a reform once they figured out that the Maine-Nebraska system would cause them to lose a significant number of electoral votes to Republicans, and that the Maine-Nebraska system would all but guarantee that no Democrat could be elected president or vice president for many years to come? Among liberals and Democrats, when it come to a choice between what is best for the country and what is best for their party, the country will always come out on the “short end of the stick.”

So, while we cannot expect to ever see an electoral system in which all 50 states utilize the Maine-Nebraska formula, is there something that can be done now to level the playing field a bit? The answer is yes, and it can easily be accomplished in advance of the 2016 General Election. Here’s what must be done:

At the present time, there are 11 states with a total of 139 electoral votes that were carried by Barack Obama in 2012 which now have Republican governors. Of those 11 states, the states of Florida, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, and Wisconsin now enjoy Republican majorities in both houses of their legislatures. What this means is that, if the governors and legislative leaders in those 5 states understood what could be accomplished, they would take immediate steps to repeal the winner-take-all electoral system and adopt the Maine-Nebraska system. With Republican majorities in both houses of their legislatures, Democrats would be powerless to stop them.

Even if Democrats should win the popular vote in each of those 5 states in 2016, as they did in 2012, the Maine-Nebraska formula would create a much different scenario than the winner-take-all system: Instead of winning all 29 of Florida’s electoral votes, Democrats would win 12 and Republicans would win 17; instead of winning all 16 of Michigan’s electoral votes, Democrats would win 7 votes and Republicans would win 9; instead of winning all 6 of Nevada’s electoral votes, Democrats would win 3 and Republicans would win 3; instead of winning all 18 of Ohio’s electoral votes, Democrats would win 6 and Republicans would win 12; and instead of winning all 10 of Wisconsin’s electoral votes, Democrats would win 5 and Republicans would win 5.

Applying these totals to the expected blue state and red state totals, the Democrats’ expected advantage would increase from 257 electoral votes to 258, while the Republican disadvantage would move from 191 electoral votes to 237. As matters now stand, Democrats have to take only 13 (14%) of the 90 swing state votes while Republicans have to take 79 (88%) in order to win the presidency. On the other hand, if Republicans in those 5 states were to adopt the Maine-Nebraska system in the current legislative sessions, Democrats would have to take 12 (28%) of the remaining 43 swing state votes to win, while Republicans would have to take 33 (76%) of the remaining 43. Taking 76% of 43 votes is easier than taking 88% of 90 votes.

But what if many of the low-information Obama voters in Florida, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, and Wisconsin decide to stay home in November 2016, giving Republicans popular vote victories in all 5 states? After 8 years of disastrous Obama-Biden-Clinton-style governance, it is a distinct possibility. Under that scenario, Republicans could put another 10 electoral votes in their column. Democrats would have 248 electoral votes and Republicans 247 electoral votes before the 43 electoral votes of Colorado (9), Iowa (6), North Carolina (15), and Virginia (13) were won or lost. Democrats would have to win 22 (51%) of the remaining 43 swing state votes, while Republicans would have to win 23 (53%). The playing field would be substantially leveled.

However, in order to greatly increase their chances of victory, Republicans should not hesitate to target Minnesota, with 10 electoral votes; New Hampshire, with 4 electoral votes; New Mexico, with 5 electoral votes; and Pennsylvania, with 20 electoral votes… all winner-take-all states, and all states that Obama carried with less than 53% of the vote in 2012. After eight years of Obama-Biden, at least 5% of the good people in those four states should be anxious for a change.

In the meantime, those readers who live in the states of Florida, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, and Michigan might wish to place copies of this analysis into the hands of their governors and their legislative leaders. With seven states utilizing the Maine-Nebraska system we may witness the beginning of a trend as other blue states follow suit. The question is, do Republican leaders in Washington and in the state capitals have the political sense to recognize the advantage they enjoy? Given their past history, we know that they are not always quick to act when political advantage falls into their laps. It may be necessary to lean on them a bit.

Judge Could Order Questioning of Hillary Clinton’s Backup E-mail Archives

September 10, 2015/in Courts & Law, Elections, Must Read, Politics, Regulation/by Dr. Rich Swier

HOLMDEL, N.J. /PRNewswire/ — Judge Reggie Walton of the U.S. District Court for the D.C. Circuit is expected to hear arguments to order the State Department to question Hillary Clinton on the existence of emails on backup tape archives, The Hill Reported, but information management company Index Engines can explain exactly what this means and how it is done.

When Clinton implemented an email server to control and manage her correspondence, her team hired Platte River Networks to host this environment. This is a third-party organization that likely has procedures in place to protect data and ensure it can be restored in the case of a disaster such as a flood or fire by copying all email ever created onto backup tapes.

This standard “IT” process produces a snapshot of what actually happened and it is secure and tamper proof, and represents a factual record of the past and are much more reliable than the records stored on local servers and hard drives that can be accessed by many and easily spoiled.

In this case, the backup of the email server most likely occurred at an offsite location chosen by the hosting provider, Platte River Networks, and the data was placed on tapes that are typically preserved in offsite storage vaults. When the main server was shut down, the tapes could have been forgotten about.

Index Engines has software that can quickly scan backup tapes, index the contents of the email, and make it searchable and accessible without the use of any other third party software or infrastructure. Through this process keywords, time frames and file types can be quickly produced and extracted without corruption.

“Data never dies,” said Tim Williams, CEO of Index Engines. “All modern organizations have robust data protection processes that make copies of everything and archive it on backup media to ensure it can survive a disaster. In cases like this, those copies represent the factual truth. They can’t be changed after the fact.

“When an email is sent, it is copied and archived and preserved many times over. This is a disaster recovery feature standard in any data center. What Hillary Clinton probably didn’t know is that exact copies of what existed is archived in data center disaster recovery archives, or backup tapes, that allow for a rebuilding of an email server in case of a failure.”

EDITORS NOTE: To learn more about securing your organization’s legacy tape data, contact info@indexengines.com or visit www.indexengines.com.

Republicans Constantly Validate Black Democrats

September 7, 2015/in Commentary, Elections, Policy, Politics/by Raynard Jackson

I am fond of saying that many times Republicans try to do the right thing, but do it the wrong way.

Branch Rickey, former president and general manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers, scoured the Negro Leagues in 1943 to find the best and brightest baseball players who he could sign to integrate baseball. He wasn’t just looking for raw talent; he was also looking for the “right” person(s).

Jackie Robinson was not the only good ball player in the league back then; for sure he was definitely one of the elite. But he also had the other skill-sets that would allow him to endure the racist taunts he was about to encounter as the first Black to play professional baseball with white folks.

Rickey chose Robinson not only because of his skill, but also because of his personality which would allow him to keep his composure under the strain of hostility he was about to face. Rickey constantly validated Robinson specifically and constantly discussed publicly the need for diversity within baseball and ultimately America.

Where are the Branch Rickey’s of the Republican Party today? There are none. The last one was former N.F.L. quarterback and former congressman Jack Kemp who died in 2009.

I was plucked out of obscurity by the Bush family in St. Louis when I was fresh out of college from Oral Roberts University. They had no prior relationship with me, but they, like Rickey, scoured Missouri politics to find the best person(s) with the right political background; but also with the right temperament to proudly represent the Bush family’s name as the then vice president was about to launch his presidential campaign in 1988. According to them, “they had been following my career and noticing my work in the Republican Party in Missouri.”

My work got me noticed, but my relationships got me opportunity. I didn’t have to run to be a delegate to our party’s national convention, I was told I would be a delegate; and thus it was so.

My point is very simple, I grew up in a Republican Party when relationships mattered and the party took care of their own. This is no longer the case.

Republicans today spend more time rewarding their enemies versus rewarding their friends.

Why would Rand Paul have lunch with Al Sharpton last November in the Senate dining room? By doing it in the Senate dining room, he meant for the media and other members of the U.S. Senate to see them together; thus validating Sharpton as someone to be sought out for private counsel. I wonder why there is no account of Paul making a similar validation of a Black Republican with relevant party credentials.

Why would Jeb Bush meet with members of the Black Lives Matter group when he has never met with any relevant Black Republicans? Are you kidding me? When you have no Blacks in your inner circle you tend to make foolish decisions like this.

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley is the most recent example of validating Black Democrats and ignoring Black Republicans. She was in town last week to speak before the National Press Club. I thought the section of her speech about her accomplishments as governor was very good; but the speech was horrible when she began to talk about race relations and the Black community. I also found it to be very offensive.

It was quite obvious that the speech was written by a White staffer. Memo to Republicans, you cannot have a White person write a speech about Blacks and race relations! Period. End of discussion. I found the speech like the tinkling cymbal or sounding brass, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

The most offensive part of her speech was when she began to gush over her budding friendship with Jesse Jackson. I have known Jesse since my high school days in St. Louis and will acknowledge that he has done some good things for America.

But again, why would she not use the occasion of her speech to validate some Black Republicans, not only from her state; but from around the country. I will tell you why; because she doesn’t know any. She doesn’t know Bob Brown, Harold Doley, Kay James, Shannon Reeves, Sarah Harper, or Buster Soaries.

When have you ever heard Obama effusively praise a Black Republican other than when someone like former Sen. Ed Brooks dies? When have you ever heard Massachusetts Gov. Devall Patrick singing the praises of a Black Republican? When have you ever heard DNC chair Debbie Wassermann Schultz ever praise a Black Republican.

But yet you hear our leaders showering praise upon known Democrats like Bob Johnson and Cathy Hughes; who are both good people and very accomplished. Yet, their media empires constantly bash Republicans, especially those from the Black community.

If you can’t acknowledge Black Republicans in a speech, should we be surprised that we are not acknowledged in your staffing decisions or your consultant decisions?

As I often say, “the best way to get attention as a Black in the Republican Party is to be a Black Democrat.”

A Biden-Warren Ticket in 2016?

September 6, 2015/in Commentary, Elections, Politics/by Paul R. Hollrah

Will Joe run, or will he not? That is the question. If I had to venture a guess I’d say that, before year’s end, Hillary Clinton will be either sitting on the bench or exchanging her large selection of polyester pantsuits for a selection of orange or black-and-white striped jumpsuits. Her campaign is in steep decline, and when the talking heads on the major networks, CNN, and MSNBC begin to devote major segments to the question of her political future, the end cannot be far away. But who do the Democrats have to replace her? Unlike Republicans, the Democrats have little or no “bench” strength. Bernie Sanders, the doddering old socialist from Vermont is drawing large crowds, but we can’t be sure if people come to hear his plan for turning the U.S. economy into another Greek economy, or if they come to see whether or not the Black Lives Matter storm troopers will once again drive him from the speaker’s platform.

On Saturday, August 22, Elizabeth Warren, the freshman Democrat senator from Massachusetts, was summoned to Biden’s official residence at the Naval Observatory in Washington. And while their meeting was not videotaped for public consumption, there’s not much doubt about the subject matter of their chat. They discussed the very real possibility that Hillary Clinton will soon be forced out of the race, perhaps with criminal indictments lodged against her.

So exactly who is Elizabeth Warren and what has she ever done, if anything, to make her a viable candidate for president or vice president of the United States? Warren has roughly the same presidential qualifications as Barack Obama, who was roughly as qualified as, say, Rosie O’Donnell. Yet they are the sort of candidates most liberals prefer because they’re full of you-know-what. In other words, like Obama, she has no presidential qualifications whatsoever. And wouldn’t it be fun to see Warren, who has spent her entire adult life lecturing about personal and corporate bankruptcy, debate Donald Trump, who is not only skilled at using the bankruptcy statutes to his benefit, but who has become a multi-billionaire trying not to go bankrupt?

Warren graduated from Rutgers Law School in 1978, and has since taught at a number of major law schools, including Houston, Texas, Michigan, Penn, and Harvard. During that academic career she has gained fame as a leading authority on the subject of bankruptcy law.

Warren freely admits that for most of her adult life she was a Republican. However, she has also explained that she became a Democrat in 1995 when she stopped believing in a free market economy… i.e., capitalism. In fact, it is she who has taught Barack Obama to say that, if you’ve achieved some financial success in your life, or if you’ve built a large and profitable business, “you didn’t do that yourself… someone else did that for you.”

In 2012, after announcing her candidacy for the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts, the Boston

Herald reported that Prof. Warren had described herself on Harvard job applications as being part Cherokee and part Delaware Indian. In the debate that followed it could not be proved that she had any Indian blood whatsoever in her lineage. Instead, she supported her claim by saying that, as a young woman, she could remember her older brothers speak of their Native American heritage. And since it looked good on a Harvard job application she simply ran with it.

Warren was elected to the U.S. Senate in November 2012, defeating Senator Scott Brown and regaining the Kennedy seat in the U.S. Senate. However, the fact that she was the first female senator from Massachusetts was rarely mentioned by Warren or other Democrats… presumably because they did not wish to call attention to the fact that the first black man elected to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts was Republican Ed Brooke, elected in 1966, some 46 years earlier.

And that brings us to vice president Joe Biden. The current vice president of the United States grew up in Scranton, Pennsylvania and Wilmington, Delaware, where his father worked as a used car salesman, providing a practical grounding for Biden’s later political career. He met his first wife while he was a student at the University of Delaware and she a student at Syracuse University. Even at that early stage of their relationship he told her that his long term goal was to become a member of the United States Senate by age 30, before running for president of the United States. During his college career he majored in history and political science, earning a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1965, ranking 506th in a graduating class of 688… not necessarily the greatest predictor of long term success at the top of the political world.

After earning a law degree in 1969 Biden was elected to the Newcastle County (Delaware) Council, and just two years later he ran successfully for a seat in the U.S. Senate. However, on December 18, 1972, just days before he was to take his seat in the U.S. Senate, he suffered the first of two major family tragedies in his life. His wife and three children were involved in an auto accident while Christmas shopping in a small town west of Wilmington. His wife and year-old daughter were killed and his two sons were seriously injured, but both recovered fully.

During his Senate career, which spanned six full terms, he was a member and former chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee where he gained a well-deserved reputation for being wrong on almost every significant foreign policy issue. He was also a longtime member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, serving as chairman of the committee for eight years and ranking minority member for eight years. He served as chairman in 1987 when Senate Democrats conducted the shameless public “drawing and quartering” of conservative Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, and as ranking minority member in 1982, during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, a partisan sideshow that Justice Thomas referred to as a “high-tech lynching.”

In 1987, Biden launched the first of two campaigns for the presidency. However, in September 1987 he was publicly denounced for having plagiarized several lines from a speech by Neil Kinnock, leader of the British Labour Party. His dishonesty quickly became a national issue and he was forced to abandon his presidential ambitions.

But then, beginning in 2003, Democrats began to take notice of a young man they thought might be a future Democratic presidential candidate, an attractive young black man from the south side of Chicago, a former “community organizer” and a sitting member of the Illinois state senate, a man named Barack Hussein Obama. The only problem was that, having been born with dual US-British citizenship, and having acquired dual US-Kenyan citizenship at age 2, Obama was

ineligible to serve as president of the United States.

To solve that problem, Democrats introduced two resolutions in the 108th Congress in 2003, and two resolutions in the 109^th Congress in 2005, all aimed at amending the U.S. Constitution to make Obama eligible for the presidency. They even went so far as to pluck him from almost total political obscurity and gave him the plum assignment of making the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. It was the political launching pad that sent Obama to the United States Senate in 2005 and to the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008.

But Democratic leaders were still concerned about Obama’s lack of eligibility and his complete lack of experience. In an attempt to submerge the issue of his ineligibility, Democratic leaders caused House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, chairman of the 2008 Democrat National Convention, and Alice Travis Germond, convention secretary, to delete the words, “… and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution,” from official nominating certifications sent to 49 of the 50 states, certifications that allowed state election officials to print ballots.

Although one would think that either the delegates to the Democratic National Convention, the Democratic members of the U.S. Electoral College, or at least one member of the U.S. Congress, Democrat or Republican, would care enough about the Constitution to question Obama’s eligibility, that was not the case. All failed in their constitutional obligations and in November 2008, the low-information voters of the United States caused Barack Obama and Joe Biden to be elected president and vice president of the United States, respectively.

But there was a reason Biden was selected as Obama’s running mate. Democrats knew from the outset that, not only was Obama totally without experience and qualifications, he was hopelessly naïve and was unable to utter a simple declaratory sentence without having a teleprompter telling him what to say. To resolve that problem they caused Biden to be selected as Obama’s running mate. With Biden occupying the vice president’s chair, he would be in a position to whisper in Obama’s ear, hopefully preventing him from making any really stupid mistakes.

Unfortunately, that’s not the way things worked out. Within five minutes of entering the Oval Office, Obama made it quite clear to Biden and everyone else that he didn’t need anyone’s advice. What we have witnessed since that day is much like a high school student who won a Kiwanis Club “President for a Day” contest and who arrived at the White House with no one but his high school social studies teacher (in Obama’s case, Valerie Jarrett) as his principal advisor.

On May 30, 2015, Biden suffered the second major personal family tragedy of his life. His son, 46-year-old “Beau” Biden, a former attorney general of Delaware, died of brain cancer. It is reported that the younger Biden’s deathbed wish was that his father seek the 2016 Democratic nomination for president of the United States.

With the impending demise of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy, there is every reason to believe that

Biden will enter the race. But there is also every reason to believe that, if he does, Democrats across the country will use Beau Biden’s death, shamelessly, as a sympathy factor to help gain support for his campaign. They used that tactic in 1964 to help LBJ win in the wake of JFK’s death, and there’s no reason to believe they won’t use the same classless tactic again in 2016.

Trump to Deliver National Security Address at Veterans for a Strong America Event

September 4, 2015/in Elections, Featured, National Security, Policy, Politics/by Dr. Rich Swier

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. /PRNewswire/ — Donald J. Trump will join Veterans for a Strong America (VSA) Chairman Joel Arends and VSA board members, dignitaries and supporters for a major national security address aboard the battleship USS Iowa Tuesday, September 15, 2015 in Los Angeles, California on the eve of the CNN presidential debate focused around national security.

Arends, a decorated veteran of the war in Iraq, said, “Donald Trump is a long standing supporter of veterans and the military and we are honored that he has chosen our organization and event for his major national security address.”

The “Make America’s Military Great Again” event will focus on topics of concern for our veterans, the military, and their families. Public opinion polls show that national security issues are among the top concerns for all age groups of Americans. VSA’s 500,000 supporters nationwide are particularly vocal about reforming a broken and corrupt VA Health Care system, rebuilding our military after six years of drastic budget cuts, defeating ISIS and preventing the rise of a nuclear Iran.

Arends continued, “Donald Trump has stated very clearly he supports an American military that is so powerful it will be challenged by no one, and that he equally supports caring for veterans when they return home by providing them with the healthcare and treatment they deserve. Mr. Trump knows what America’s military and veterans community needs and he is prepared to fight to achieve it. It’s an honor to host Mr. Trump for this historic address.”

Jonah Goldberg, AEI fellow writes, “There are many reasons the non-politicians — Trump, Ben Carson, and Carly Fiorina — are doing so well, but near the top is the fact that they haven’t internalized the language of political consultants and pundits.”

ABOUT VETERANS FOR A STRONG AMERICA

Veterans for a Strong America is an Iraq and Afghanistan veterans organization dedicated to mobilizing Americans to communicate the importance of a robust national defense and to ensuring that America remains a strong nation by advancing liberty, safeguarding freedom and opposing tyranny.

Bernie Sanders Is Wrong: Trade Is Awesome for the Poor and for America by Corey Iacono

September 2, 2015/in Economy, Elections, Featured, Policy, Politics/by Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Democratic presidential hopeful, is no fan of free trade. In an interview with Vox, Sanders’ made his anti-trade position clear: “Unfettered free trade has been a disaster for the American people.”

He also noted that he voted against all the free trade agreements that were proposed during his time in Congress and that if elected President he would “radically transform trade policies” in favor of protectionism.

Sanders and his ilk accuse their intellectual opponents of promoting “trickle-down economics,” but that is precisely what he is advocating when it comes to trade. The argument for protectionism ultimately relies on the belief that protecting domestic corporations from foreign competition and keeping consumer prices high will somehow benefit society as whole.

However, the real effect of protectionism is to increase monopoly and consequently reduce overall economic welfare. In fact, according to a paper by economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, “Government policies…such as tariffs and other forms of protection are an important source of monopoly” that lead to “significant welfare losses.”

In contrast to Sanders’ assertion that the expansion of free trade has been a disaster for the American people, there is a near unanimous consensus among economists that the opposite is true.

An IGM Poll of dozens of the most renowned academic economists found that, weighted for each respondent’s confidence in their answer, 96 percent of economists agreed, “Freer trade improves productive efficiency and offers consumers better choices, and in the long run these gains are much larger than any effects on employment.”

When the vast majority of economists of all sorts of ideological stripes agree that free trade is a good thing, maybe, just maybe, they’re onto something.

In fact, they surely are. Using four different methods, economists at the Petersen Institute for International Economics estimated the economic benefits from the expansion of technology that facilitates international trade (such as container ships), as well as the removal of government imposed barriers to international trade (such as tariffs). Since the end of World War II, they generated “an increase in US income of roughly $1 trillion a year,” which translates into an increase in “annual income of about $10,000 per household.”

This result is mostly driven by the fact that foreign businesses produce many goods which are used in the production process at a lower cost than their domestic competitors. Access to these low-cost foreign inputs allows American businesses to decrease their production costs and consequently increase their total output, making the nation as a whole much wealthier than it otherwise would have been.

Moreover, contrary to common conjecture, the benefits of international trade haven’t simply accrued to the wealthy alone. Low and middle income individuals tend to spend a greater share of their income on cheap imported consumer goods than those with higher incomes. As a result, international trade tends to benefit these income groups more so than the wealthy.

Indeed, according to the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, middle income consumers have about 29 percent greater purchasing power as a result of international trade.

In other words, middle income consumers can buy 29 percent more goods and services as a result of the access to low-cost imports from foreign countries.

Low income consumers see even greater gains with 62 percent higher purchasing power as a result of trade. In contrast, the top 10 percent of income earners only saw an increase in purchasing power of 3 percent as a result of trade.

On top of that, international trade has provided benefits by bringing new and innovative products to American consumers.

According seminal research by Christian Broda of the University of Chicago and David E. Weinstein of Colombia University, the variety of imported goods increased three-fold from 1972 to 2001. The value to American consumers of this import induced expanded product variety is estimated to be equivalent to 2.6 percent of national income, about $450 billion as of 2014. That’s not exactly small change.

The spread of free trade has also made considerable contributions to environmental protection, gender equality, and global poverty reduction. As a result of the spread of clean technology facilitated by freer trade, “every 1 percent increase in income as a result of trade liberalization (the removal of government imposed barriers to trade), pollution concentrations fall by 1 percent,” according to the Council of Economic Advisers.

The CEA also has found that “industries with larger tariff declines saw greater reductions in the [gender] wage gap,” suggesting that facilitating foreign competition through trade liberalization reduces the ability of employers to discriminate against women.

In regards to global poverty reduction, research has shown that in response to US import tariff cuts, developing countries, such as Vietnam, export more to the US, leading to higher incomes and less poverty.

Despite the large gains from trade America has already reaped, there is still room for improvement (contrary to Sen. Sanders’ accusations of “unfettered” free trade). The PIIE economists estimate that further trade liberalization would increase “US household income between $4,000 and $5,300 annually,” leading the them to conclude that, “in the future as in the past, free trade can significantly raise income — and quality of life — in the United States.”

Ultimately, the conclusion that most economists seem to reach is that, from being a disaster, the expansion of free trade has been a tremendous success, and that further trade liberalization would most likely make Americans, and the rest of the world, considerably better off.

Don’t let fear-mongering about foreigners and China scare you: free trade benefits everyone, especially the poor, while protectionism benefits only the politically powerful.

Corey Iacono

Corey Iacono is a student at the University of Rhode Island majoring in pharmaceutical science and minoring in economics.

The Illusion of Inclusion in the Republican Party

September 1, 2015/in Commentary, Culture War, Elections, Politics/by Raynard Jackson

I want my readers to fully understand why I criticize my party when it comes to their total lack of engagement with the Black community. I have stated ad nauseam that Blacks are begging Republicans to give them a reason to vote for them; but so far the party has failed to even acknowledge the existence of the Black community.

Fifty two years ago, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King made a profound statement that was just as true then as it is now, unfortunately. On December 18, 1963 he was invited to speak to the students at Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo. He was asked, “Don’t you feel that integration can only be started and realized in the Christian church, not in schools or by other means?”

King’s response in part was, “We must face the fact that in America, the church is still the most segregated major institution in America. At 11:00 a.m. on Sunday morning when we stand and sing and Christ has no east or west, we stand at the most segregated hour in this nation.”

Borrowing from King, I would say the most segregated major institution in America is the Republican Party. Republicans often confuse diversity and inclusion with having a Black on staff.

Blacks are nowhere to be found when policies and direction of the party or a presidential campaign is concerned.

During the work week, I literally spend half of my day fielding calls and meetings from prominent Black Republicans asking for my assistance in helping them navigate issues within the party as it pertains to them and the lack of diversity within the party. They praise me for my columns challenging the party; but for various reasons, they are totally afraid to join me publically in this fight to make our party more representative of America.

Many of these people are fearful of being blacklisted (pun intended) from jobs or consulting opportunities within the party so they much rather someone like me remain the point person for pushing my party to do what’s in its own best interest. Mind you that Blacks are not getting any work from the party anyway, so the fear of being blacklisted is a bit ridiculous—we are already blacklisted de facto.

I am a businessman and yes, I am always interested in more business; but not at the expense of my integrity. I can always get more money; but I can’t get more integrity.

Last week I had lunch with a major leader within our party (he is white). To my astonishment, he actually encouraged me to continue challenging the party. He indicated that people at the highest levels of the party follow and read my columns, but they don’t quite know how to respond to my writings. I interrupted this person and told him that was total BS. I told this person to allow me to interpret what his colleagues were saying to him.

“Republicans want Blacks that make them feel good, Blacks they are “comfortable” with, or Blacks that will just do what they are told. There is a difference between hiring Blacks and hiring Blacks with credibility who know what the hell they are doing.”

There are fewer than ten Black Republicans in the country that has the skill set to get the party where it needs to be within the Black community.

I am referring to Blacks who have “earned” credibility within our community, not those deemed by the party to be credible; Blacks who have the professional competence in PR and communications; Blacks that have the political instincts and experience to engage with the Black community; and most importantly, Blacks who understand that all of the above skills must be brought together simultaneously.

Republicans confuse hiring a Black(s) with having the right Black(s). Rarely have I seen Republicans hire the right Black(s) for a job and then empower them to get the job done. Far too many in our leadership still believe if they focus too much on the Black community, they will alienate those on the far right of our party. I ran into this roadblock as recently as last month.

Just last week, I had another in a lifelong series of bizarre experiences within my party. I am frequently asked by Roland Martin to host his national radio show. Between his radio and TV shows, many Blacks get their news from Martin.

So when I was asked to host for Roland last week, I sent an email to one of the top tiered presidential campaigns asking if they wanted to have their candidate call into the show for an interview with me. None of the Republican campaigns has engaged with Black media to this point. Here is his response, “Hey Raynard – Fully booked on hurricane [Katrina] stuff tomorrow. Thanks for reaching out though. “

Please tell me this is a joke. This is what happens when you have an all-white staff—they are totally incapable of connecting the dots. You are doing Hurricane Katrina related media, which disproportionately impacted the Black community; you have a chance to speak directly to the Black community on Roland’s show; you have a “friendly” doing the hosting; but yet they were unable to connect the dots. This is exhibit A in how to continue to lose elections.

EDITORS NOTE: Please watch the below video of Raynard Jackson debating the Voting Rights Act. Raynard shows how you can’t have a logical conversation with liberals on this issue (notice how Raynard’s name was conveniently left off of the closing credits when they listed the guests for the show):

Holding Hypocrites to a Higher Standard

August 31, 2015/in Commentary, Culture War, Elections, Politics/by Dan Bongino

As a former candidate for public office, and a committed activist for conservatism, I am not surprised by the rise of Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and Carly Fiorina. You shouldn’t be either.

It’s certainly not breaking news that Americans, across the entire ideological spectrum, are disgusted by the stench emanating from Washington D.C. In speaking with conservatives and libertarians, they are fed up with a completely ineffective Establishment wing of the Republican Party that has lost nearly every significant battle against the tax-and-spend, secular-progressive Left. And, fanning the flames of frustration, not only has the GOP establishment lost these battles in spectacular fashion but they have been complicit in many of the Left’s destructive policy victories.

In speaking with many moderate Democrats, they are angry at an administration that has failed to produce results for middle class families and a party that seems to be lurching to the extreme left on social issues ranging from abortion to marriage. But, one common theme I have heard repeated again and again, regardless of the person’s political party affiliation, is “the system is rigged against me.”

This “the system is rigged against me” attitude is not some fantasy made up to frighten little children, it is reality, and nothing is going to change until the handcuffs come out, and the perp walks start. If that sounds harsh then ask yourself “why?” Why is it harsh to ask people, whom we elect to make profound policy decisions, which will deeply impact our lives, to not abuse their power to devastate the lives of others. We’re not talking about a derelict corporate board that makes poor investment decisions and costs investors some of their money here. We are talking about a group of people who are employed, and paid handsomely, to lead a government which controls nearly 4 trillion dollars in tax remittances, and has a monopoly on the use of force.

Why do we hold our elected politicians to a lower, not a higher, standard of conduct than every other American? These pampered D.C. power brokers get away with things that would have you in a prison cell or a courtroom yet, they are rarely punished. Yes, few are caught, and even fewer are jailed, but the rest spit in our faces as they continue to live by a completely different set of rules than the ones you and I MUST live by.

Mishandle classified U.S. secrets – no problem, go run for President!

Don’t pay your taxes – no problem, accuse your opponents of racism and get re-elected to Congress!

Use insider information to make sweet business deals – no problem, become the Senate Majority Leader!

Use the IRS to destroy the lives of political opponents, and to tilt elections in your favor – no problem, become the Commander-in-Chief!

Your family profits handsomely from a bill you helped pass – no problem, become the Speaker of the House!

Violate the spirit and the letter of the law while engaging in a secret plan to undermine a local mining project – no problem, ignore a subpoena and take a vacation!

None of this white hot, steaming pile of garbage is going to change until the punishment fits the crime. We should be demanding responsible investigations, arrests, perp walks and, when found guilty, prison, and nothing less. The outrageous conduct of many members of the political class warrants aggressive prosecutions to deter future activity of this sort. Pardons, country club “prisons,” statements such as “the country just needs to move on,” and weak community-service-only sentences for corrupted members of the political class only serve to confirm to an already frustrated American working class that they are being ruled, not governed. Handcuffs will change all of that.

You don’t have to be a comic book fan, or a gifted philosopher to understand the simple meaning of Uncle Ben’s words to Peter Parker in the Spiderman movie, “with great power comes great responsibility.” They’ve taken the power, now they must own the responsibility.

RELATED VIDEO: O’Keefe Undercover Video Shows Hillary Campaign Skirting Election Laws

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Conservative Review. The featured image of Democrat Hillary Clinton is by Jim Mone | AP Photo.

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

August 30, 2015/in Elections, Must Read, Policy, Politics, Religion/by Jihad Watch

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