A Watershed Moment in U.S. History

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Communist Control Act of 1954 to read as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which GOP Presidential Candidate Will Keep Their Word if Elected?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cruz also vows to repeal Obamacare.

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

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

I believe him, folks. I believe him.

The Biggest Bomb Thrower of All

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is the “Libertarian Moment” Over? by David Boaz

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

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

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

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

And:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Boaz

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

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

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

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

Here is Roy Beck writing at NumbersUSA earlier this week:

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

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

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

Continue reading here.

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

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

trump illegals veteransTrump on refugees

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

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

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is what is hot and what is not:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Could the Jig Finally Be Up for Huma Abedin?

In FrontPage this morning I explain why the current mini-controversy over Huma Abedin bespeaks a much larger problem with America’s contemporary political culture.

They got Al Capone for tax evasion, and they may get Huma Abedin for “violating rules regarding vacation and sick leave” and for the “possible exchange of unsecured, classified data.” To be sure, these are serious charges, and the available evidence makes it abundantly clear that there is ample warrant to investigate and perhaps even charge Abedin. However, it is a sign of a serious problem with today’s political culture that even more serious allegations regarding Abedin have never been investigated, and almost certainly never will be.

Huma Abedin’s Muslim Brotherhood connections have been fully exposed by Andrew McCarthy and bruited about for years. The facts are quite public, albeit largely ignored: Abedin’s parents are both members of the Muslim Brotherhood, but her links to the organization are not just familial. Abedin was for twelve years the assistant editor of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs (JMMA), which was founded by Abdullah Omar Naseef, a Muslim Brotherhood operative and al-Qaeda financier. Naseef and Abedin both appeared on the JMMA’s masthead from 1996 to 2003.

Consider that Abedin worked closely for seven years with a member of the Muslim Brotherhood who financed al-Qaeda in light of the Obama Administration’s foreign policy during the years that Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State. Everyone acknowledges that Abedin and Clinton are extremely close, and that Abedin controls access to Clinton and has tremendous influence over her. Hillary Clinton’s tenure at the State Department was distinguished by the remarkable sight of Egyptian anti-Muslim Brotherhood protestors holding signs denouncing the President of the United States for supporting terrorism, and by the Benghazi debacle, when the Secretary of State sat back and did nothing as jihad terrorists murdered four Americans, including an ambassador.

Then there was the Benghazi cover-up, during which Clinton vowed to have a man who made a video criticizing Muhammad arrested and imprisoned for supposedly provoking the riots, thereby placing herself firmly in opposition to the freedom of speech and aligning herself with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s efforts to compel Western governments to criminalize criticism of Islam (under the guise of “incitement to religious hatred”).

Is it at all possible that Huma Abedin, whose parents were active in the Brotherhood and who worked for twelve years for a journal closely linked to the Brotherhood, had anything to do with the pro-Muslim Brotherhood orientation of the Obama/Clinton State Department? In today’s poisonous political culture, it isn’t possible even to ask the question without incurring charges of “Islamophobia” – as we saw in 2012, when Representative Michele Bachmann (R-MN) had the temerity to call for an investigation of possible Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the U.S. government.

Bachmann explained: “The concerns about the foreign influence of immediate family members is such a concern to the U.S. Government that it includes these factors as potentially disqualifying conditions for obtaining a security clearance, which undoubtedly Ms. Abedin has had to obtain to function in her position. For us to raise issues about a highly-based U.S. Government official with known immediate family connections to foreign extremist organizations is not a question of singling out Ms. Abedin.  In fact, these questions are raised by the U.S. Government of anyone seeking a security clearance.” And that was to say nothing about Abedin’s association with Naseef and work with the JMMA.

Now that Abedin is suspected of mishandling classified material, Bachmann’s questions about Abedin’s security clearance are piquant in retrospect. But when she first raised them, Bachmann was ridiculed and vilified, even earning a denunciation from John McCain: “These sinister accusations rest solely on a few unspecified and unsubstantiated associations of members of Huma’s family, none of which have been shown to harm or threaten the United States in any way. These attacks on Huma have no logic, no basis, and no merit. And they need to stop now.”

It was actually about more than just Abedin’s family, and a perfectly sound case could be made, in light of Obama’s foreign policy disasters, that Abedin’s Muslim Brotherhood links possibly did harm and threaten the United States. But Bachmann’s name was dragged through the mud in 2012 for talking about all this, and now none of the new allegations against Abedin raise any issue with her possible Muslim Brotherhood connections.

That few people care about those connections, and that those who do are dismissed as “far-Right bigots,” shows how myopic and foolish our contemporary political culture is. If Huma Abedin had a hand in the pro-Muslim Brotherhood tilt of the Obama/Clinton State Department, that would be a far graver offense than anything she is accused of now, just as old Capone was guilty of far greater crimes than tax evasion. But on the other hand, those tax evasion charges ended Capone’s operations for good, and so if Hillary’s infamous email server does the same to Huma Abedin, no one who values America’s historic role as leader of the free world will have any reason to complain.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Ahmadi imam says Muslim clerics have perverted Islam for 1400 years

Iran’s President warns of plots to portray Islam as a religion of violence

2016’s Winners and Losers

Alarm bells should be going off within the GOP establishment-class. A recently released poll of Iowa GOP voters showing Donald Trump in the lead with 22% support and Dr. Ben Carson in second place with 14% is a stinging rebuke to the political class. In analyzing this poll I came to the nearly irrefutable conclusion that Americans are looking for a dramatically different type of leadership, because the one trait these two candidates have in common is their lack of a political resume. Voters are beyond fed up with the “managed decline” attitude emanating from political insiders.

CNN Poll of Iowa: GOP Race 2016

I saw this phenomenon up close and personal during my campaign for congress and thought it had reached a crescendo, but I may have miscalculated the anger of the electorate. With this in mind I would like to cover the race for the GOP presidential nomination from an issues-based perspective rather than a candidate-based perspective. There are a number of well-done analyses on Conservative Review covering the gamut of candidate characteristics and voting records, but in this piece I want to cover what issues are winning and losing. For example, extrapolating from the results of the aforementioned Iowa GOP poll, it’s clear that long political resumes are no longer an asset. Therefore, term limits may be a “winner.”

Here are some other issues that are “winning” over the GOP electorate thus far, and some that are “losing:”

WINNER: Accountability

Hillary Clinton’s tanking poll numbers with regard to her “trustworthiness” are an ominous sign for the Democratic frontrunner, but they demonstrate that increased accountability is a winner in the eyes of the American people. After the Clinton email scandal, the IRS scandal, the terror attacks in Benghazi, the VA scandal, the GAO scandal, the Fast and Furious scandal, the AP / Fox News phone records scandal, the awful Iran “deal”, the Kate Steinle murder, and the Obama amnesty scandal, Americans of all political stripes are fed up with elected officials and government bureaucrats living by a separate set of “rules,” which would get the average American fined, arrested, and publicly humiliated.

WINNER: Conservative Immigration Reform

The establishment wing of the GOP, and some of their crony capitalist backers, have GROSSLY underestimated the importance GOP voters place on border security and a legal, and orderly, immigration process. Voter outrage is especially enflamed in the wake of President Obama’s lawless executive actions going undefeated in Congress. After watching the first GOP debate, and observing the GOP polling trends, I cannot see any GOP candidate who supports amnesty winning the GOP nomination.

WINNER: Tax Reform

A number of the GOP candidates on the debate stage, and in their campaign platforms, have eloquently spoken about a number of bold, serious, pro-growth-oriented tax reforms which would jumpstart job and wage growth, including the fair tax, a flat tax, a marginal income tax rate cut, and the elimination of economically-distorting, insider tax-deductions. With the recent release of another series of disappointing job numbers and stagnant wage growth, the GOP is again positioned to frame itself as the party of broad-based prosperity if we can relay our message clearly and concisely.

LOSER: Common Core

There are few issues which engender the degree of bipartisan revulsion the way that Common Core does. There are a couple of things you just don’t mess with and the education of our children is one of them. Jeb Bush’s weak defense of Common Core actually served to make the case for dumping Common Core in favor of local education standards, which suit the students of the local school districts, not the interests of power-hungry Washington D.C. bureaucrats.

LOSER: Planned Parenthood and Abortion-on-Demand

After being caught red-handed on videotape, harvesting and trafficking the organs of aborted children, this sick organization may be single-handedly responsible for creating a new generation of pro-life young Americans. The organ trafficking scandal put the issue on the center stage of the national political debate and forced America to confront the horror of abortion without the flowery talking points the far-left has used for years to disguise the genuine horror of what is happening. Also, the laws of political gravity are beginning to reestablish their preeminence with the Trump campaign after his puzzling response to a question about the taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood. Supporting, in any fashion, a policy which forces the taxpayers to fund this horrible organization is a complete and total loser among GOP voters.

LOSER: Political Correctness

Whether you support or revile Donald Trump, you cannot ignore him. His attack on our increasingly politically correct culture generated thunderous applause from the audience during the GOP debate. It generated applause because Republicans, Conservatives, Libertarians, and moderate Democrats are seething with frustration and disappointment at the far-left’s determination to generate false outrage and divide up America using PC word policing. These self-appointed authorities randomly declare people “racist,” “sexist,” and worse, for speaking out against bad policies. The circle of what the far-left declares to be “acceptable conversation” has been shrinking for years as they fascistically categorize a growing number of words as off-limits, and a growing number of Americans as racists, misogynists, xenophobes, homophobes, and worse. As this “acceptable” circle shrinks, and the number of people allowed inside lessens, those on the outside, designated extremists by the media-progressive alliance, will viciously fight back in support of forces willing to take on this alliance.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Conservative Review.

The Republican Party in Black and White

As one who makes a living in the world of public relations (PR) and strategic planning, I am paid to see things others are blind to.  Anyone can do PR.  Anyone can do strategic planning.  But very few can do both simultaneously, thus I created the term “straticist.”

A straticist not only see things others cannot see, but they also have the innate ability to connect seemingly unconnected dots into a meaningful mosaic.

This is why I don’t believe in polls when it comes to politics.  I don’t need a poll to tell me what the electorate is thinking, but 99.9% of political operatives live and die by polls.  This explains why Republicans are having such a difficult time trying to explain away the Trump phenomenon.

The party is surrounded by the same old white consultants and advisors from top to bottom, thus you keep getting the same results—losses.

Sometimes in life you can win and yet lose at the same time.  For example, because of the Congressional Black Caucus’ complicity in the redistricting after the 1990 census; they gained more majority minority districts in the U.S. House of Representatives, thus increasing the number of Blacks elected to the House.  But, as a direct result of this, Republicans took control of the House for the first time in over 40 years back in 1995; thus leading to the political polarization you see today.  Personal politics won, America lost.

In June I wrote a column titled, “Republican Presidential Candidates Lack Diversity.”  It created quite a stir based on all the phone calls and emails I received.  I even received a couple of calls from a few of the presidential campaigns explaining to me that they want to hire Blacks, but they have been having difficulty finding people to hire.  Of course everyone knows this is total B.S.

Where do they find white staffers and consultants to hire?  So, obviously, these campaigns have no relationships with any Blacks.  If this is the case, they don’t deserve to be president of the U.S.

So, this led me to do an experiment.  There are 17 Republican candidates for president.  I went to all of their websites and to my non surprise; very few even have a photo of a Black person on their sites.  Now this might not mean much in the big scheme of things; but these little nuances can make or break a campaign or the image of a brand.

If these campaigns were aware of their lack of diversity in their campaigns and websites and just didn’t give a damn, then I could accept that because at that point they made a conscious decision.  But I can’t and will not accept the fact that most of these campaigns are not even cognizant of their lack of diversity.

Persuasion may change the mind of the person who doesn’t care; but persuasion can’t change the mind of the person who is not aware.

The Republican Party continues to look like a Norman Rockwell painting.  How is that possible in a country where we are nearly a majority minority country?

I have repeatedly told all those in the party who will listen that Blacks are looking for a reason to vote Republican; but they can’t vote for that which they can’t see.

One of the basic tenets of advertising is that the consumer “must” be able to realistically see themselves using the product or service.

If we are not part of the campaign team, not on the website, or not in their advertisement, then the message gets overridden by the visual.

How can Blacks vote for a party that they are not represented in?  In PR, optics is just as important as message.  All of the most successful media campaigns in business or politics have had both great optics and great messaging simultaneously.

So is it any wonder that JEB Bush was found totally unprepared last week when he was accosted by Black Lives Matter members at one of his campaign events in Nevada?  I have been warning for months that race was going to be a top issue during this presidential election cycle.

How in the hell can these campaigns navigate issues of race with an all-white staff and advisors?  I am mortified that Republicans have white staffers writing speeches that candidates have to give before a Black audience.  I can’t remember the last time I have heard a Republican give a speech to a Black audience that made any sense.  I am not aware of one Black speechwriter in the Republican Party.

Republicans can’t afford to wait until our nominee is chosen to begin to deal with the issues of race.  Race is going to force some of these Republicans to drop out during the primary.  It’s just a matter of time before one of these Republican candidates say something stupid or inappropriate relative to race and will be forced to exit the race.

I can guarantee you that none of these candidates have been briefed by any Black Republicans who can help them navigate these tricky waters of race.

Republicans have ceded various media platforms to Black liberal Democrats.  You have absolutely no Black Republican surrogates in the media pushing back on the foolishness perpetuated by the other side.

When it comes to Blacks in the Republican Party, Republicans are truly colorblind or just blind to people of color.

P.S.  Click here for another interesting article about the Black vote. Now that a white person is saying the same thing as me, MAYBE the party will FINALLY listen to me.

Trump Immigration Reform Plan is Out!

Here is the plan (hat tip: Cathy) and here is a very thorough report by Matthew Boyle at Breitbart.

Presidential candidate Donald Trump, we learned, reached out to Senator Jeff Sessions for help crafting the very ‘comprehensive’ and detailed plan—a plan which addresses both LEGAL and illegal immigration with an eye to putting American workers first!

Stay tuned for more.

trump illegals veteransRELATED ARTICLES:

Cuban “refugee” numbers ticked up dramatically when Obama announced normalization of relations with Cuba

Pockets of Resistance growing and spreading, WND tells us where (so far)

IKEA murders could prove to be tipping point for Sweden

It’s August 2015, and Jeb Bush Doesn’t Know What Common Core Means Anymore

Jeb Bush is trying to distance himself from Common Core.

jeb bush 3

He is avoiding using the term, and when he was asked about Common Core while campaigning in Iowa on Friday, August 14, 2015, Bush responded, “The term Common Core is so darned poisonous, I don’t even know what it means anymore.”

He’s just a guy who supports “state-created higher standards”:

Bush has previously described the standards as “poisonous politically,” but on Friday, he seemed thoroughly exasperated by the term itself and looked to move past it.

“I’m for higher standards – state-created, locally implemented – where the federal government has no role in the creation of standards, content or curriculum,” Bush said in Iowa.

He doesn’t say that the government should have no role in creating assessments. Strategic omission since the federal government obviously funded two Common Core assessment consortia, PARCC and Smarter Balanced.

Jeb Bush arrived very late to the “I just want higher standards” party, but here he is, nonetheless. However, Jeb Bush knows full well the well-founded criticisms of the Common Core. On December 1, 2011, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), an organization in which Jeb Bush is active and highly influential, actually passed a model resolution opposing Common Core, the purpose of which was for legislators to carry back to their Common Core-endorsing states in order to formally oppose Common Core.

Here is the text of that resolution:

Resolution Opposing the Implementation of the Common Core State Standards Initiative

Model Resolution

WHEREAS, high student performance and closing the achievement gap is fundamentally linked to an overall reform of our public education system through a strong system of accountability and transparency built on state standards, and

WHEREAS, the responsibility for the education of each child of this nation primarily lies with parents, supported by locally elected school boards and state governments, and

WHEREAS, common standards have resulted in increased decision making on issues of state and local significancewithout the input of state and local stakeholders, and

WHEREAS, no empirical evidence indicates that centralized education standards necessarily result in higher student achievement, and

WHEREAS, special interest groups can expose the vulnerability of the centralized decision making that governs common standards and lower the standards’ rigor and quality to suit their priorities, and

WHEREAS, adoption of the Common Core standards would force several states to lower their standards, and

WHEREAS, the National Assessment of Educational Progress national test already exists and allows comparisons of academic achievement to be made across the states, without the necessity of imposing national standards, curricula or assessments, and

WHEREAS, imposing a set of national standards is likely to lead to the imposition of a national curriculum and national assessment upon the various states, a clear violation of the Elementary Secondary Education Act, and

WHEREAS, claims from the Common Core Initiative that the Common Core will not dictate what teachers teach in the classroom are refuted by language in the standards as written, and

WHEREAS, common standards will continue to lessen the ability for local stakeholders to innovate and continue to make improvements over time, and 

WHEREAS, when no less than 22 states face budget shortfalls and Race to the Top funding for states is limited, $350 million for consortia to develop new assessments aligned with the Common Core standards will not cover the entire cost of overhauling state accountability systems, which includes implementation of standards and testing and associated professional development and curriculum restructuring, and

WHEREAS, local education officials, school leaders, teachers, and parents were not included in the discussion, evaluation and preparation of the standards that would affect students in this state.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the {legislative body} of the state of {name of state} rejects any policies and procedures that would be incumbent on the state based on the Common Core State Standards Initiative. [Emphasis added excepting bolded, capped words.]

However, on November 19, 2012– almost a year following the ALEC vote to oppose CCSS– Jeb Bush’s Foundation for Excellence in Education (FEE) promoted the idea of an ALEC “final final vote.” The person promoting this idea was none other than former ALEC Education Task Force Director-gone-FEE Communications Specialist David Myslinski. Below is an excerpt:

Over the weekend, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) rejected an anti-Common Core bill, thus completing its 18-month exploration of the Common Core State Standards.This action reaffirmed ALEC’s position that states should be in charge of their education standards and supports the option for states to freely adopt Common Core.

By rejecting the bill, which would have tied the hands of state legislators, ALEC made clear its support of states raising student expectations through higher standards—working in consort with other states or working independently.[Emphasis added.]

Jeb Bush influenced ALEC to ditch its detailed resolution against Common Core. For Bush’s FEE to insinuate that a non-official piece of ALEC-generated model legislation would somehow have “tied legislator hands” is not enough to conceal the hypocrisy that the ALEC about-face was a Jeb Bush effort to “tie legislator hands” in favor of Common Core.

That Bush has faithfully campaigned for that Common Core is no secret. In April 2014, Bush told New York Times reporter Peter Baker that defending Common Core “was the right thing to do”:

… [Bush] made clear he would not shrink from views scorned by the dominant wing of the party. He defended his commitment to the so-called Common Core set of educational standards. “I just don’t feel compelled to run for cover when I think this is the right thing to do for our country,” he said.

And in November 2014, when Bush addressed his FEE, he clearly backed Common Core as though it were empirically proven to remedy all that ails American public education. As the Washington Times reports, Bush speaks of needing to “experiment” and “improve based on evidence”:

“We should be willing to experiment. We should always look to improve our thinking based on the evidence. This is why the debate over the Common Core State Standards has been troubling,” he said Thursday in a keynote address at a gathering of Foundation for Excellence in Education, a group he founded after his tenure as Florida governor ended in 2007.

“I respect those who have weighed in on all sides of this issue. Nobody in this debate has a bad motive. But let’s take a step back from this debate for a second,” he continued. “Only a quarter of our high school graduates who took the ACT are fully prepared for college. More than half who attend community college need to take some kind of remedial course. Six hundred thousand skilled manufacturing jobs remain unfilled because we haven’t trained enough people with those skills. And almost a third of high school graduates fail the military entrance exam. Given this reality, there is no question we need higher academic standards and — at the local level — diverse high-quality content and curricula. And, in my view, the rigor of the Common Core State Standards must be the new minimum in classrooms.” [Emphasis added.]

In November 2014, Bush was certain about his push for Common Core. In November 2014, Bush’s very public view was that America should be willing to “experiment” with Common Core. Now, he could not ask America to consider the evidence that Common Core would actually deliver since the experiment must precede the “wait and see.” However, Bush does not promote Common Core “results” as “wait and see”; he promotes Common Core as the Known and Recognized American Public Education Solution.

But that was nine months ago.

It’s now August 2015, and the political pressure to remain wed to Common Core has Jeb Bush reckoning with a Common Core poison that apparently has given him some amazing memory loss.

He isn’t even sure what Common Core means anymore.

But I think Jeb Bush most certainly does know what Common Core means:

According to RealClearPolitics, in the Iowa Republican Presidential Caucus for August 7 – 11, 2015, Bush is sitting at 7th place.

His Common Core faithfulness is albatrossing his efforts at being the third Bush to reside at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

And the Beat Goes On…

In an October 2008 column titled “Obama is Bought, but Who Owns Him?” we disclosed what should have become the nation’s largest ever campaign finance scandal.

Just days earlier, Obama had boasted that his fundraising base had increased by 1.0 million people, from 1.5 million to 2.5 million in the five month period between May and October, and that the total amount raised approached $600 million.  This represented a significant increase from his May 31, 2008, report when he claimed that one-fourth of his $265 million, or $66.26 million, came from those contributing $2,000, or more… some 33,200 people.

If we can assume that, as of October 2008, 25% of his contributions still came from individuals giving $2,000 to $2,300, that major contributor base would have grown from 33,200 to 65,200 people in a time span of just five months.

While it is true that Obama is the kind of guy who could read Bill Clinton’s golf scorecard off a teleprompter and make it sound convincing, simple arithmetic should have told him that 75% of his October total, or $450 million, could not be contributed by 2.44 million people in “$5, $10, or $20” amounts, or whatever they could afford,” as Obama assured us.  Each of those 2.44 million people would have had to contribute, on average, $185 to create a pool of $450 million, and that simply does not happen.  It has never happened before in American politics and it did not happen in 2008.

So what was the truth of the matter?  In our July 25, 2008 column, and again in our October 21, 2008 column, we pointed out that UBS Americas, headed by Robert Wolf… along with George Soros, one of Obama’s top two money men… had been accused of highly unethical and illegal banking practices in six months of hearings by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.  According to an article in The Nation, UBS Americas, a subsidiary of UBS, of Zurich, Switzerland, had advised wealthy Americans, including many of our most unwholesome characters, how to shelter funds from the IRS, as well as from prosecutors, creditors, business associates, family members, and each other.

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

It was the perfect instrument for funneling illegal campaign contributions into the coffers of an unscrupulous American politician.  Putting two and two together, I suggested that a very wealthy individual, a cartel, or an Islamic terrorist group, wishing to influence the outcome of a U.S. presidential election, could transfer unlimited sums of money through this device.  A U.S. recipient, such as the Obama campaign, could have received tens of thousands of illegal foreign contributions via Swiss credit card transfers, with names, addresses, etc. of bogus contributors… “borrowed” from the campaign’s list of $10 and $20 contributors… being entered by teams of staffers working in a “boiler room” setting.  The owners of the Swiss accounts would receive periodic statements indicating: a) debits of varying amounts, up to $2,300 each, and b) offsetting credits provided by the cartel, or by the wealthy, but unnamed, “international financier.”

For most of the super wealthy, especially those attempting to hide income and assets from U.S. authorities, an unexplained debit and credit of $2,300, or less, would not even raise an eyebrow.  They would assume that a bank employee had simply made a data entry mistake, followed by an immediate correction.  They would have no way of knowing that a sum of money had actually been withdrawn from their account and contributed to the Obama campaign, with a like amount deposited in the account by an illegal foreign source… the entire transaction facilitated by a high-ranking bank employee.  So who would ever know the source of such contributions?

In an October 20, 2008, article in Newsmax, writer Kenneth Timmerman provided details from Federal Election Commission records that gave substantial weight to my theory.  In studying Obama’s FEC filings, Newsmax found more than 2,000 donors who had given substantially more than their $4,600 limit ($2,300 in the primaries and $2,300 in the General Election).  The law requires that such excess contributions must be returned to the donor within 60 days.  However, many of the donors contacted by Newsmax said that they had not made those large contributions to Obama.  They had not been contacted by the Obama campaign, nor had they received refunds.

What Newsmax found in studying Obama’s FEC filings were some 66,383 highly suspicious contributions, from 37,265 donors, in which contributions were not rounded to even dollar amounts.  For example, Timmerman reported that an insurance agent from Burr Ridge, Illinois, gave a total of $8,724.26.  He gave in odd amounts such as $188.67, $1,542.06, $876.09, $388.67, $282.20, $195.66, $118.15, and one of $2,300.

A self-employed caregiver in Los Angeles made 36 separate contributions totaling $7,051.12.  Thirteen of her contributions were later refunded.  However, in an odd coincidence those 13 refunds, in amounts such as $233.88 and $201.44, came to an even $2,300, the maximum amount allowable in any one election.

One contributor interviewed by Newsmax, a retired schoolteacher from Rockledge, Florida, gave a reported $13,800… $9,200 over his limit.  However, the contributor did not remember giving that much money to Obama, nor has anyone from the campaign ever contacted him about a refund.

Of the 66,383 contributions in odd amounts, 44,410 were in unrounded amounts of less than $100, 15,269 contributions were in unrounded amounts of between $101 and $999, and 704 contributions were in odd amounts greater than $1,000.  Lest anyone suggest that those 37,265 donors either emptied their piggy banks or emptied their pockets and purses periodically and just sent it all to Obama, pennies and all, allow me to suggest something a bit more Machiavellian.  Those 66,383 contributions were the proceeds of foreign currency conversions, smuggled into the country in foreign credit card receipts, and converted to U.S. dollars.

According to Newsmax, the Obama campaign finance reports contained some 370,500 unique names… a far cry from the 2.5 million contributor base claimed by the campaign.  Of course, when your money is coming in large chunks from offshore accounts, such as hundreds of thousands of dollars at a time from the Middle East and from Third World African countries, then laundered though UBS accounts in Zurich, it takes a bit of creativity to put authentic-sounding names on all of it for the FEC records.

But now there is new evidence that UBS continues to be a Democrat Party playpen.  The Wall Street Journal reports that, in early 2009, shortly after being sworn in as U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton flew to Geneva where she met with the Swiss foreign minister.  The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the status of an IRS lawsuit against UBS in which the IRS was attempting to obtain the identities of Americans with secret Swiss bank accounts… under normal circumstances, a matter that would be negotiated by the U.S. Treasury Department.

The Swiss foreign minister insisted that, if the IRS case proceeded, Switzerland’s largest bank could face prosecution on both sides of the Atlantic, either facing criminal charges in U.S. courts, or in Swiss courts for violating Swiss bank secrecy laws.

According to the Journal report, a few months after the meeting, Clinton reported a tentative settlement.  As part of the deal, UBS agreed to give up information on 4,450 American account holders, out of a total of more than 52,000 accounts containing an estimated $18 billion in untaxed cash.  This amounted to roughly 8.6 percent of the total number of accounts sought by the IRS.  But what is so unusual about the Clinton-negotiated settlement is that:

  1. In the wake of the negotiations, total UBS contributions to the Clinton Foundation increased from less than $60,000 through 2008, to a cumulative total of $600,000 by the end of 2014;
  2. UBS joined the Clinton Foundation in creating a pilot entrepreneurship program in which the bank agreed to provide some $32 million in business loan guarantees;
  3. UBS agreed to underwrite a $100,000 charity golf tournament; and,
  4. UBS agreed to pay Bill Clinton a $1.5 million honorarium, the largest since he left the White House, “to participate in a series of question-and-answer sessions with UBS Wealth Management Chief Executive Bob McCann.”

As might be expected, the Journal reports that they could find “no evidence” of a direct link between Hillary Clinton’s involvement in the case and the bank’s donations to the Clinton Foundation, nor to its hiring of her husband for a $1.5 million series of informal chats with a bank executive.

Just as the Obama campaign was able to cover its tracks in 2008 when the UBS Bank appeared to be complicit in helping the campaign smuggle many millions of dollars in illegal contributions into the country, it appears as if the Clintons have been milking the same Swiss Bank in their unending quest for wealth, power, and fame.  And the beat goes on… and on, and on.

Florida: Double Amputee Special Forces Veteran Runs for U.S. Congressional District 18

brian mast with family

Brian Mast with family.

Brian Mast lost both legs to an IED while serving Joint Special Operations Command as an explosives expert in Afghanistan. Military service had been a huge part of Brian’s identity and the idea of losing his purpose was devastating. However, he remembers lying in the hospital telling his wife that the best thing he did for his country couldn’t be in his past.

“I told my wife that I was going to pursue public office when I was ready,” said Brian.

The distance between his injury in 2010 and his announcement to run in 2015 was a long journey. Brian spent time recovering and moved to Florida in 2012, deciding to slowly order his life before running for office. At the same time, he didn’t want to get too complacent while recovering.

“I knew that if I only went to work when I was 100 percent I would never go back,” said Brian.

He worked toward completing his undergraduate degree while recovering. Brian is now set to begin his last semester at Harvard University.

Brian attended a Friday night dinner at the American Majority New Leaders Summit in his community in July 2013. “The biggest thing I learned at the New Leaders Summit is that you need to go out there as a pillar of your community,” said Brian.

Inspired by the training, Brian made it his goal to be a pillar of leadership in Fort Lauderdale.

“I started doing little things in the area — at least one thing a week — and that was something that reaped absolutely amazing benefits,” said Brian.

Knowing that he was a double amputee veteran, people who attended the same events as Brian were curious to hear his story and would invite him to other events — increasing his network. The men and women he met wanted to hear his story and gave him extended opportunities outside his community.

“Telling my story allowed me to meet people as Brian Mast, rather than as someone seeking office,” said Brian.

Brian declared his candidacy for U.S. Congress representing Florida’s 18th district in June. His summer is filled with campaign work: knocking on doors, meeting as many people possible, making donor calls, connecting with politicians, and engaging with people of similar interests.

His philosophy of leadership comes from his time in the military. In the video on his website, Brian mentions that the military taught him to never ask soldiers to do something he was not willing to do himself.

“That’s something in D.C. I want to change,” said Brian. “It’s about service, not only leadership. Anyone serving in the military, and especially in combat, sees the direct life and death consequences of leadership decisions.”

Brian is aware of the real consequences that policy has on the individuals and families in his state. He is passionate about legislation regarding the treatment of veterans, and foreign policy decisions involving Iran and Israel.

Running for Congress is an extension of Brian’s passion for doing what’s best for America and serving his country. “It’s simply that I’ve lost 67 close friends,” Brian said. “Everyone lost on the battlefield died because they were doing what is best for America, not for themselves. Serving with no regard to self is the only way.”

EDITORS NOTE: Read more about Brian Mast at his website here. You can also reach out to Brian through Facebook here and Twitter here.

Soviet Fascism in the 21st Century: Inside A Gigantic Network of Falsehood

It is very true—history repeats itself. When I immigrated to the U.S. and my English improved, I became a Republican. And the first phrase introduced to me about the party was “GOP has never missed the opportunity to miss the opportunity.” Today, thirty four years later, I am a witness of that and it is painful to watch how instead of exposing the Democrats, who are destroying America the Beautiful, the GOP destructs itself from within. Instead of identifying the real enemy of our country and expose the Democrats, the Republicans are missing the opportunity to do so.

This is not the first time, I observed a similar situation in 2008 as well, when I was writing: What is Happening to America?

“When a medical doctor treats a patient, he or she fights the disease and its causes. As a rule, after finding the causes a doctor deals with the disease. That way the patient is cured, his body is healed. These physicians are knowledgeable professionals with experiences to make the right diagnosis. We could establish a parallel with our politicians who unlike the latter specialists, treat the symptoms of the diseases not the disease itself. In this case the patient will never be cured and the treatment will never bring healing. This is somehow similar to the politicians on the world stage today—the leaders of the Western civilization.”

Fox News moderators from left, Chris Wallace, Megyn Kelly and Bret Baier warm up the crowd before Republican presidential candidates New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., Ben Carson, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Donald Trump, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Ohio Gov. John Kasich take the stage for the first Republican presidential debate at the Quicken Loans Arena, Thursday, Aug. 6, 2015,  in Cleveland. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

Fox News moderators from left, Chris Wallace, Megyn Kelly and Bret Baier warm up the crowd before Republican presidential candidates New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., Ben Carson, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Donald Trump, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Ohio Gov. John Kasich take the stage for the first Republican presidential debate at the Quicken Loans Arena, Thursday, Aug. 6, 2015, in Cleveland. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

The Republican debates on August 6, 2015

I have no words to describe the pride I felt, watching the majestic seventeen conservatives, their energy, eloquence, and desire to save America at the two Republican debates in August 6, 2015. Yet, it ended up with an unpleasant smell of disunity. Of course, debates are debates and the different ideas are supposed to be presented and argued for one fundamental reason—to expose and defeat the Democrats in the upcoming election of 2016. It did not happened. Moreover, something typical had occurred—the Republicans had tried to defeat their own.

For your information, I like Megyn Kelly, she is definitely a beautiful woman, a very smart one, with eloquence and knowledge of the country’s law. As a lawyer myself, I saw something unusual in her behavior, she was nervous and very aggressive against Donald Trump. A journalist, who is extremely successfully on Fox News, she was not supposed to be nervous—an unethical assignment made her nervous. This is my conclusion on what I saw at the debates. And these the exact circumstances that forces me to return to my main topic—Soviet Fascism.

I do not know the exact reason behind Kelly’s behavior. Maybe the owners of the Fox know more than I do, or maybe it was an attempt to show the Democrats that Fox can do the job at a Democratic debate as well? At any rate, it was not a “good journalism.” Yet, listening to Trump, I got the impression that he knows more about my topic of Soviet Fascism than other politicians. His remarks about the issues of a dreadful condition in the world, gave me that impression. For me, the big picture of the debates presented the dark room with cockroaches in it; Trump enter the room and turned light ON…

The best example is a nuclear deal with Iran. All the components of the deal are under suspicions as the manufactured ones and not corresponded to the real situation of the world. Moreover, the five secret attachments are not known to the vast majority of Americans. Maybe history repeats itself. Those politicians who know the history of WWII, perhaps remember the Molotov/Ribbentrop agreement of the 1939 that preceded and facilitated the war. I am afraid that Obama creates a similar predicament in the world by helping Putin and his satellite Iran to wage a successful next war against Western civilization.

obamaismObama/Putin Joint Venture—Destruction of the American Republic

A famous Russian dissident Vladimir Bukowski once said: “when a Socialist comes to power, you can expect concentration camps.”  He was right—violence is the main feature of Socialism. The perspective for the future Socialist world Karl Marx expressed in his slogan Proletarian of the world unite, which meant a violent world war. One hundred years later Joseph Stalin developed the Socialist intent in a more politically pronounced manner by camouflaging violence: One world Government under the Kremlin auspices. We, the former citizens of the Socialist countries went through that development, called a Mature Socialism. It was a war by the government against its own citizens–a multi-facet war with different fronts, methods, shapes, and forms.

It was Mature Socialism that ended up with the collapse of the Soviet Union and therefore seemed the entire Socialist world. Yet, many Americans are still infected by a virus of Stalin’s Socialism. The question is how it was possible that a fraud, as I identified Stalin’s ideology of Socialism, could survive for almost a century and still seduced a lot of people in the world today? This is the question I have been researching and investigating for many years discussing multi-faceted methods and devices of the Stalin’s social model—its modus operandi.

Living in America for more than thirty years together with other Americans, we are constantly hearing on the radio, TV, and internet two words—Political Correctness, none of the issues of public domain can do without. Does anybody in America or the world knows the architect of PC, its concept or the fundamental agenda behind it? Does anybody know the nature and crucial role those two words played in their lives for decades? The answer to the question will unite us: the former citizens of the Socialist countries and all of the people in the 21st century, as we all together in different times have been manipulated and brainwashed by these two words—Political Correctness.

The predicament in the world requires me to remind you the architect of and the nature of those two words, which seems very neutral indeed. In fact, they are not peaceful, on the contrary they represent the psychological tools or methods to transform a political system by fraud, while simultaneously fighting the ideological opponents. In all my writings I have already introduced a vast majority of Stalin’s methods and devices, however, this concept is the crucial one. To my knowledge Stalin was the author of those two words that were published for the first time in the Soviet newspaper Izvestia in1933, the time when the major transformation was going on in the Soviet Union. He called Politically Incorrect the leaders of the opposition. The American educator confirms my information:

“In the early-to-mid 20th century, contemporary uses of the phrase “Politically Correct” were associated with the dogmatic application of Stalinist doctrine, debated between formal Communists (members of the Communist Party) and Socialists. The phrase was a colloquialism referring to the Communist party line, which provided for “correct” positions on many matters of politics. According to American educator Herbert Kohl writing about debates in New York in the late 1940s and early 1950s. “

Writing about Stalinism and watching its ubiquitous application in the 21st century, I was offering my vision of the matter in the preceding columns:

“… 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.”  It is an addition to many other pages written by me in my books and articles about Stalin’s incredible ability to mislead, lie, and defraud. I have to remind you again, Stalin was such a skillful political intriguer that vast majority of people in the Soviet Union not only believed him, but adored him as a Messiah. Nobody could compete with him in the art of intrigues. Political Correctness had no opponents and reigned in the country—we lived inside a gigantic network of falsehood…

Look at America today. Due to the constant efforts of Obama/Putin joint venture America is drastically transformed, like us, living in the Soviet Union, America lives today inside a gigantic network of falsehood created by Political Correctness. And this is not the end of the resemblances: our economy is going down the tube, our morals are in its lowest level ever. Where is our patriotism, when 55 percent of young people planned to leave the country? Perhaps this is the time to remind you also of a prediction made in the end of 1940s or in the beginning of 1950s. “America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within.” Joseph Stalin.

There are three major components acknowledged by Stalin; American Patriotism, our morality, and our spiritual life. If you analyze them and the following statement you will see a criminal intent in the author’s mind—the negative outcome is the desire to undermine all three. Don’t you see an obvious result of that in America today? If you don’t, you are blind and deaf. In my opinion, Trump was about to crash the fraudulent walls of a gigantic network of falsehood and the incompetent leadership of the GOP tried to prevent it. They do not know that secrecy and deception are the main strategy, two arms of Stalin’s Political Correctness.

I am for Trump, because he is frustrated like I am and millions of Americans, We all together with Trump want to prevent the destruction of America the Beautiful that is going on before our eyes every day under the treacherous leadership of Obama and his party called Democratic. The nuclear agreement with Iran is the epitome of Stalin’s Political Correctness. It illustrates quintessential lies in form and substance and criminal desire to undermine the security of America and Western civilization. It assists, promotes, and furtheres a final “crack-up of the world” as Trump claims.

Maureen Dowd is one of the victims of Political Correctness like many other Democrats. She is very wrong describing Obama as ”a charming new comer like Barack Obama, ascending like a political Pegasus…” Ms. Dowd is one of many blind and the deaf individuals characterizing Obama this way. Using her words, I would call him “a pig in the poke or a pig who pokes.”  I have to admit those are very soft words, my real opinion on Obama you will find in my books and articles.

To be continued at www.simonapipko1.com.