Megyn Kelly, Queen of Narcissism, Gets a Pass

Robert Ringer is a motivational speaker with a national following, and has authored several best-selling self-help books – both ventures has allowed him to combine philosophy, reality, and critical thinking in a unique style that challenges those who dare to read or listen to what he shares.  It is the critical thinking and reality dimensions Mr. Ringer presents that attracts me most; both of which are quickly going out of style, no longer taught in schools, much less communities of higher learning like universities.

Mr. Ringer’s commentary below will not disappoint those who still value critical thinking as well as choose to live in reality; rather than obtain their thoughts through social media and associated venues, sipping their latté and regurgitating opinions from their peers spewing “original thought” from social media.  Constructive criticism should not be mean-spirited.  Constructive criticism might sting, but should always cause the recipients to confront themselves and take an inventory so improvement can be celebrated later.  I pray this is the case with Mr. Ringer’s comments.


Subject: Megyn Kelly, Queen of Narcissism, Gets a Pass

Megyn Kelly is razor sharp, impeccably prepared, relentless, tough, verbally skilled, and, to boot, a pretty good looker. She’s also an egomaniacal smart-aleck who seems intent on following Glenn Beck down the path to mediocre celebrity status.

When Kelly is on her game and acts like a broadcast professional, there’s no one better. She’s at her best when she’s going after radical–left liars like Baltimore prosecutor Marilyn Mosby, Planned Parenthood’s criminal elite, and just about everyone who perpetuated the “Hands up, don’t shoot” lie.

But she’s at her absolute worst when her cranial inflammatory condition — Beckitis — flares up and “I,” “me,” “my” come rolling off her tongue in nonstop fashion. Well … come to think of it … she’s at her very worst when she’s interviewing her “hunk” of a house-husband and artificially boosting one of his novels into a New York Times bestseller. I think George and Ira Gershwin had him in mind when they wrote “Nice work if you can get it.”

Borrowing from her ex-husband’s comments about his marriage to Kelly, her current spouse appears to be the wife she’s always wanted. As her ex (Dr. Dan Kendall) put it, “We both needed someone to cook and clean.”

But let’s not get personal here. I have no dog in this fight — I’ve never even met Donald Trump — but starting what is supposed to be a serious debate about serious issues by asking a flagrantly loaded question aimed at one participant — under the dishonest guise of its being for all the participants — is a perfect example of why people dislike the media almost as much as they do politicians.

But for me, Kelly’s loaded question was almost secondary. I was already annoyed by her giddy, self-absorbed blather long before the candidates came out of their bunkers to do battle.

I felt like I wanted one of her colleagues to grab her by the arm and tell her to calm down and act like she’s been in the end zone before. When she showed a video of what she was doing just before the debate (It sounded like a bunch of childish gibberish, so I didn’t really even understand what she was talking about.), it was clear that she was going to seize her moment in the spotlight to focus on her main love: Megyn Kelly.

It reminded me of her appearance on Jimmy Kimmel’s show some time ago when she made a complete ass of herself — giddy off the charts — talking about her experiences at the White House Christmas party and how awkward she felt meeting the Obamas. (No, I don’t watch Jimmy Kimmel, but — as you would guess — she actually played the video on her show. It’s fortunate for her ego that the universe is expanding.)

But back to the debate. After Trump told her, “You’re not doing a very good job,” Kelly looked like an embarrassed little girl who had been slapped on the wrist, immediately frowned and looked down, and remained stone silent for a few glorious moments. With all her smarts, I found myself wondering why she would think she could get away with taking a swipe at the toughest street fighter on the planet.

In any event, whatever else one might think of Donald Trump, he was right on when he told Kelly that she wasn’t doing a very good job — because she wasn’t. As to the blood comments, that whole brouhaha is so stupid that it’s not worth discussing.

Now, let me answer my own question as to why Kelly thought she could get away with taking a swipe at Donald Trump: It’s because she has the ultimate Teflon shield around her — Brit Hume and his wife, Bill O’Reilly, and, most important of all, Roger Ailes. Ailes quickly went on the record by saying that Kelly “is a brilliant journalist and I support her 100 percent.”

Big mistake, Roger. It’s like rewarding a spoiled, pampered child. So it was no surprise when Kelly began her Monday broadcast by saying, “You may have heard there was a dustup involving yours truly and presidential contender Donald Trump.”

Read more.

robert ringerABOUT ROBERT RINGER

Robert Ringer is an American icon whose unique insights into life have helped millions of readers worldwide. He is also the author of two New York Times #1 bestselling books, both of which have been listed by The New York Times among the 15 best-selling motivational books of all time

Podcast: Is the Left Intentionally Tanking the Economy?

During my campaign for Congress, I was often asked the question, “Why are they doing this?” The “this” the people asking the questions were referring to was typically some new tax, regulation, or government scheme designed to empower the political-class, and the bureaucrats, and disempower Americans. While watching the GOP debate last week, it became apparent that the conservative movement needs to do a better job of exposing the agendas of many of the thought leaders on the far-left.

While the modern Democratic Party cloaks the agenda of many of its thought leaders in populist rhetoric and “hope and change”-type slogans, the real agenda of many of their intellectual oligarchs is frightening. Stanley Kurtz of National Review has written extensively on this topic and has done a wonderful job of exposing the true agenda of anti-growth advocates such as Bill McKibben who have attracted large followings.

In writing this, my hope is to make the case that Kurtz, and others who have committed their time and energy to exposing the dangerous agenda of many on the far-left, are absolutely right and we, as conservatives and libertarians, must carry the torch and help sound the alarm about what is really motivating the wizard behind the curtain. We cannot continue to allow the Left to throw out the quickie “pay your fair share,” and “it’s all about the environment” soundbites without warning America about what this really means to them.

The far-left’s sabotaging of our economy has taken many legislative and ideological forms but their goal is the same: to ensure that we revert back to a “simpler” time where the use of affordable fossil fuel energy is rare, and the allocation of scarce resources is tightly controlled by “visionary” bureaucrats. I wonder if the acolytes of anti-growth advocates like McKibben, fossil fuel “divestment,” and the anti-economic growth movement in general, are aware of this. Are they aware of the fact that in a fossil fuel scarce economy that the cost to fuel up their gas tanks is going to be dramatically higher? Are they aware that their iPhones, tablets, and all of the social media and applications that make use of the power on these devices, are not powered by wood stoves?

Look no further than the European example for a real-world model of what happens to your wallet and quality of life when anti-growth advocates force unrealistic renewable energy mandates onto the backs of their country’s citizens who are struggling to pay the bills.

Another front in the far-left’s war on economic growth and prosperity is their attack on private property rights. Again, they disguise this as an initiative designed to protect and preserve the environment but its real goal is to ensure that private property rights are diminished and bureaucratic, and backdoor control over your property is increased, destroying economic growth potential in the process. Whether at the federal level through suffocating regulations such as the EPA’s new “Clean Water” rule which, oddly enough, expands the definition of a navigable waterway to streams in your backyard that are barely “navigable” by a Polly Pocket-sized toy boat. Or, through oppressive state regulations such as the infamous “Plan Maryland” legislation, which destroyed the value of large swaths of privately held land by restricting who the land owner could sell it to by enacting numerous development restrictions, the far-left is waging a well-disguised effort against prosperity and must be called on it.

Isn’t it interesting how the mainstream media is constantly calling on conservatives to apologize for the comments and actions of anyone claiming to be a conservative whenever some real or imagined verbal faux pas occurs but, they rarely ask political figures on the Left to apologize for the actions of the Bill McKibbens and Bill Ayers of the world? You can’t have it both ways. Either political parties are responsible for the words and actions of the thought leaders behind their party curtain, or individuals running under political party banners are individuals with different ideas for legislative and leadership paths forward and should be treated as such.

It’s time we publicly call on the Democratic candidates for president to answer questions about where they stand on the anti-growth movement.  If these candidates have any guts they will condemn this nihilistic movement and ensure that this movement is positioned strictly on the fringe where they belong. Or, if they refuse, we should shout from the rafters that the “war on the economy” has begun, and the Democrats are using it as their battle cry.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Conservative Review. The featured image of Democrat presidential primary candidate Bernie Sander is by Ringo H.W. Chiu | AP Photo.

Politics in One Page: Elections Are Great Illusions by Jeffrey A. Tucker

In every election season, a new generation comes of age and experiences the political theater for the first time. The experience is formative. It challenges you to decide what you think about the world. Which candidate best represents my values and shares my sense of how things ought to be? More fundamentally, how should things be in politics?

As time goes on and you experience successive presidential election cycles, illusions begin to fall away. You start to see the whole thing for what it is.

So this article is for those who do not yet see. It is a quick tutorial in political reality, and a way to avoid the pain and suffering that comes with gradually discovering that reality on your own.

Lesson 1: Your Vote Cannot Change the Election Outcome

It’s not that your vote doesn’t matter at all. It might matter, but the odds are incredibly thin. If you live in a swing state, you might have a 1 in 10 million chance of swinging the election. But on average, “a voter in America had a 1 in 60 million chance of being decisive in the presidential election,” concludes one statistical analysis in Economic Inquiry. As the authors indicate, you are more likely to die in an car crash on the way to the polls.

Why do so many people vote anyway? Are they deluded? Maybe, but many people treat voting as a consumption good, which is to say they enjoy it. It makes them feel patriotic. There’s nothing wrong with that, but if you are still voting in an attempt to affect the outcome — and are still spooked that your failure to vote might ruin everything — here is a solution. Find someone who will vote differently, and you can both decide to grab a drink together instead.

Lesson 2: You Are Voting for People, Not Policies

There are elections in this country in which people really do decide on issues. In state and local elections, there are referenda on bond issues, taxes, pot decriminalization, and so on. Exciting stuff! But at the federal level, no way. You are voting only on personnel. Sure, the candidates can promise this or that, but how they behave after the election is something over which you have no control — and there is no recourse if something goes wrong.

Wouldn’t it be grand if there were real national elections on issues? Let’s say that the ballots had lists of spending priorities, policy ideas, and methods of government management. How many people would vote for their smartphones to be surveilled? For ever-less choice in health care? For higher gas taxes? I don’t know the answer here, but it would be interesting, for once, to see. Direct democracy on issues is technologically feasible today. It is even possible to give people the government they actually want through subscription services. We don’t do it because the ruling class likes the system the way it is.

Lesson 3: These People Are Not Actually the Government

Last year, I calculated the number of government employees who are actually running the state and compared it to the number of people we elect. Depending on how you calculate this, we are permitted to elect between 0.02 percent and 0.0004 percent of those who are in charge of our lives. The unelected constitute the deep state that no one wants to talk about. You could ship the whole class of elected rulers to Zimbabwe for four years and it would make no difference.

But wait: Aren’t the elected rulers in charge of the rest? Not really. Most of the permanent bureaucracy can’t be fired, no matter what. In any case, delegation to professionals is what elected rulers specialize in. The first act of the president is to fill 3,000 positions with political appointees. Congressional offices are managed by DC hacks. Politicians are specialists in what they are doing now: trying to get elected. The day they take office is the day the next election begins.

Lesson 4: These Are Not the Only Options

The beginning of political wisdom comes with the realization that the mainstream candidates do not exhaust the ideological options. Candidate A says that health care policy should be this way, and candidate B says it should be that way. What neither candidate ever says is that perhaps health care should not be the responsibility of government at all. And this goes for every other issue in national life: communications, labor, energy, environment, foreign policy, and so on.

The whole conventional political debate is premised on the idea that government should be running things. What’s left out here is the greatest single idea ever discovered in the history of the social sciences: society runs itself better than any authority can run it.

This is true in economics but also in culture, security services, religion, and family life. Liberty just works better. The discovery of this truth built civilization. But that idea is absent from the options we are given. No matter: you can discover it on your own if you are brave enough to step outside the partisan paradigm.

Lesson 5: Social Change Happens Outside of Government

Every candidate will speak about his or her vision for America. They talk as if they want to be, can be, will be, in charge of pushing history forward. But look around: the progress you experience in your daily life has nothing to do with the political class. Think about the mobile applications you use to stay in touch with family, find directions in a new city, monitor your health, communicate with your network. These services were not granted by the political class. They came to us via entrepreneurs and enterprise, working themselves out in the course of social evolution.

In “Is Politics Obsolete?” Max Borders and I chronicled all the ways the world has changed over the last four years. It’s remarkable what’s happening today. It’s revolutionary. None of this was anticipated by the last election. And none of it is inspired by politicians. The change is coming from within the fabric of the social order. And that change is continuing by the day. If you want to be part of it, to make a difference in the world, the realm of enterprise and individual action is the sector for you. In many ways, the political theater is a distraction — a learning opportunity, yes, but ultimately not decisive for the kind of life we want to build.

The tendency to treat elections as personal moments in our lives might be a product of democracy. We are encouraged to believe that we are running the system. So we flatter ourselves that our opinions matter. After all, it is we the voters who are in charge of building the regime under which we live. But look deeper and you discover a truth that is both terrifying and glorious: the building of the great society can’t be outsourced. It is up to you and me.


Jeffrey A. Tucker

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

The Left Loves Lying Labels by Alec Rooney

Using the phrase “anti-immigration” when you mean “anti-illegal-immigration” is just as dishonest as portraying those who don’t embrace homosexuality as having a “phobia.”

The phrase “anti-immigrant” is loose in media land, being used to describe politicians and everyday Americans alike.

How can anyone be “anti-immigrant?” Immigrants are hard workers! We are a nation of immigrants! The phrase is used recklessly by the  New York Times, U.S. News and of course MSNBC, as well as many others.

Never mind that there is a huge difference between immigration and illegal immigration. That’s a difference as profound as renters versus squatters, or even customers versus burglars.

To be anti-illegal-immigration is NOT the same as to be anti-immigration. Yet the phrases are being used interchangeably in the press, and will continue to be used as if there is no difference. Why?

For a precedent, look at the word homophobia.

It was coined in the 1960s, according to Wikipedia, to describe the fear of heterosexual men that others will think they are gay. Since then, however, the meaning has strangely evolved. Now it describes any unfriendliness toward homosexuality – any opinion that runs counter to loving acceptance of gays and gayness.

The word is now accepted, providing a way for homosexual activists to “win” any debate before it even begins, by instantly smearing the opponent. How?

Because a phobia is a fear, of course – a special kind of fear. Acrophobia. Agoraphobia. Arachnophobia. Dendrophobia. Gynophobia. Hemophobia. These describe, respectively, the fear of heights, open spaces, spiders, trees, women, blood.

What makes a phobia a phobia, though, is that the thing being feared is usually something that isn’t all that scary to reasonable people. Some might disagree about spiders and blood, but on the whole, the construction -phobia suggests an irrational fear or obsession – a defect or weakness in the person doing the fearing.

This makes homophobia a handy word to label and mischaracterize your opponents at the same time. It implies that any disapproval of homosexuality must be the result of fear, mental instability or cowardice.

Except that distaste for homosexuality does not equal fear, any more than opposing illegal immigration means opposing legal, law-respecting immigrants. 

Just because you don’t want to open the month-old bag of take-out food in the refrigerator and stick your nose into it, doesn’t mean that you’re afraid of it. You d on’t hate it; you don’t fear it. You just don’t want it around. It’s based on food, but has evolved into a form where it is no longer food, and no longer a good thing.

That doesn’t make you phobic about it. That’s an important difference.

There is a lot of mischief in these word games – in changing or ignoring the meanings of words just to deceive, or to try and win an argument you might not win otherwise.

Another word for it is, simply, lying.

And it always seems to be the same kind of people who are playing these games.

ABOUT ALEC ROONEY

Alec Rooney serves as communications director for the Christian Action Network. He is a longtime journalist, with experience as a writer and editor at five daily newspapers over 25 years. An award-winning print copy editor and copy desk chief, he also works as a freelance academic book editor. He is a 1986 graduate of the University of the South in Sewanee, Tenn., and holds an M.A. in English from the University of Kentucky.

CPAC 2014: Trump was Out-in-Front [virtually alone] on Immigration Issue

Yesterday Ann Coulter tweeted this little walk down memory lane about the premiere (supposedly) conservative conclave held in Washington, D.C. each year known as CPAC.

For the record, we have written often on CPAC, but will not attend primarily because CPAC ‘leaders’ including Grover Norquist have worked hard for many years to keep discussions on immigration to a minimum and have outright banned those who want to discuss the Islamist threat to America.

Go here for our archive of posts on Grover Norquist.  BTW, while pushing his amnesty agenda, Norquist worked very closely with the office of Senator Marco Rubio in helping craft that now discredited ‘Gang of Eight’ amnesty bill, but I’m digressing.

Here is a piece (3/7/14) written by Jon Feere at the Center for Immigration Studies (tweeted by Ann Coulter yesterday) which chronicles how Trump was alone among a list of Republican leaders and Presidential wannabes in addressing immigration.

Trump was talking about our borders, our sovereignty and the future of the Republican Party long before he decided to jump into the Presidential race, and he must have been very unpopular (with the ‘leaders’ at CPAC) with this message! 

From Feere at CIS (emphasis below is mine):

Nearly every speaker at the first day of the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) avoided any discussion of immigration or amnesty, a sign that Republican politicians are starting to understand that conservative voters have very little interest in doubling legal immigration and amnestying illegal aliens.

Of all speakers, which included Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), and governors Chris Christie and Bobby Jindal, only one speaker spent any time on immigration policy: Donald Trump. He came out strong on sovereignty and garnered strong applause for noting “we’re either a country, or we’re not; we either have borders or we don’t.”Trump also noted that amnesty is a benefit for the Democratic Party, while calling out Rubio:

When you let the 11 million — which will grow to 30 million people — in, I don’t care who stands up, whether it’s Marco Rubio, and talks about letting everybody in, you won’t get one vote. Every one of those votes goes to the Democrats. You have to do what’s right; it’s not about the votes necessarily. But of those 11 million potential voters which will go to 30 million in a not too long future, you will not get any of those votes no matter what you do, no matter how nice you are, no matter how soft you are, no matter how many times you say ‘rip down the fence and let everybody in’ you’re not going to get the votes. So with immigration, you better be smart and you better be tough, and they’re taking your jobs, and you better be careful. You better be careful.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Minnesota: Attorneys for Somali refugees arrested on terrorism charges say ISIS not a terror group

China Rattles Markets With Yuan Devaluation – Bloomberg August 2015

Somali ‘refugees’ want Swedish citizenship so as to travel back and forth to Somalia!

Bloomberg’s Comprehensive Guide On Presidential Candidates’ Positions On Energy And Environmental Issues

Energy and Environment Guide cover (1)ARLINGTON, Va. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Bloomberg BNA today announced the publication of “Race for the White House: An Energy and Environment Guide,” a one-of-a-kind set of in-depth profiles of the key positions of over 20 declared presidential candidates from both parties on the most timely energy and environmental issues.  The special 30-page report is available to subscribers of Bloomberg BNA’s Daily Environment Report, a trusted daily environmental news resource which covers evolving issues in the United States and across the globe.

A complimentary copy of the report is available here

Bloomberg BNA reporters Anthony Adragna and Rachel Leven spoke with more than two dozen individuals close to the election in preparing the guide, including presidential candidates, campaigns, strategists, lobbyists, environmental activists, academics, industry representatives, former members of Congress and former congressional aides.  The special report covers candidates’ positions on climate change, the Keystone XL pipeline, renewable energy, ethanol mandates, and EPA regulations, including the recently-announced Clean Power Plan, among others.

“As evidenced by President Obama’s announcement of the Clean Power Plan, the current administration has placed an unprecedented focus on energy and environmental issues,” said Darren McKewen, President of Bloomberg BNA’s Tax and Specialty Division.  “These issues could play an important role in the upcoming election.  This special report serves as a great example of the detailed and comprehensive reporting and analysis that our subscribers have relied on for decades.”

Visit here for a complimentary copy of the report.

ABOUT BLOOMBERG BNA

Bloomberg BNA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Bloomberg, is a leading source of legal, regulatory, and business information for professionals. Its network of more than 2,500 reporters, correspondents, and leading practitioners delivers expert analysis, news, practice tools, and guidance — the information that matters most to professionals. Bloomberg BNA’s authoritative coverage spans a full range of legal practice areas, including tax & accounting, labor & employment, intellectual property, banking & securities, employee benefits, health care, privacy & data security, human resources, and environment, health & safety.

Before You Get Too Excited about Presidential Candidate Ms. Carly

Sorry, if I will offend some of you, but I am pretty much a one issue voter.  The future of America is not going to hang on what happens to Obamacare or any other social program.

The future of America and indeed the future of Western Civilization hangs on one thing only—what we do about immigration and specifically what happens with the migration (the Hijra) of Islamic supremacists the world over.

Carly Fiorina, former chairman and chief executive officer of Hewlett-Packard Co. and chairman of Good360, listens at the Bloomberg Link Economic Summit in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Tuesday, April 30, 2013. The Bloomberg Washington Summit gathers key administration officials, CEOs, governors, lawmakers, and economists to assess the economy and debate the path beyond the fiscal cliff. Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Carly Fiorina, former chairman and chief executive officer of Hewlett-Packard Co.

Fox News seems to be making sure that Carly Fiorina moves up in the polls.  Yes, I agree, she spoke well in the debate last week.  But, I won’t let you forget what she said right after 9/11.  It’s not her facts (or her lack of facts) that is a problem, it is her judgement in uttering the words she spoke.

Here, Gates of Vienna, reposts an article that was written in June.  It begins:

“There was once a civilization that was the greatest in the world.”

And so began a mythical, deceptive tale by Carly Fiorina, when she spoke in praise of Islam within a mere two weeks of their bombing of the World Trade Center. The concern is not that she was attempting to deceive others, but that she, a person who aspires to the presidency of the United States, was herself deceived regarding the true nature of Islam, and that she has never retracted her statements.

Continue reading……

We will be waiting for Ms. Fiorina to tell us how wrong she was!

By the way, she has a C- score on immigration at NumbersUSA.

RELATED ARTICLE: Des Moines, Iowa: State scrambling to figure out how to pay for refugee influx as fed money dries up!

RELATED VIDEO:

The Koch Challenge

Last week, to my amazement, I read an article about Charles Koch in The Washington Post newspaper.  The amazing part was that it was a positive article about Koch.

For those who don’t live in D.C., The Washington Post is one of the most liberal newspapers in the country and rarely has anything positive to say about Republicans, especially those who are conservative or libertarian.

The Koch brothers get a bad rap in the media, especially when it comes to the Black community.  I tend to agree with them on many of the issues they are tackling:  shrinking the size of the government, reducing the federal deficit, criminal justice reform, school choice, lower taxes, etc.

When it comes to their interactions with the Black community, like most conservatives, they are trying to do the right thing; but are doing it the wrong way.

During their annual donor’s conference last week in Dana Point, California, Koch explained why his focus is now on the “disenfranchised” and “lower class.”  According to The Washington Post, Koch invoked the names of civil rights icons like Frederick Douglas and Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Koch stated, “Look at the American revolution, the anti-slavery movement, the women’s suffrage movement, the civil rights movement.  All of these struck a moral chord with the American people.  They all sought to overcome an injustice.  And we, too, are seeking to right injustices that are holding our country back.”

The article reports that helping the lower class was echoed throughout the donor’s conference and they have plans to spend upwards of $ 800 million by the end of 2016 on issue advocacy, higher-education grants and political activity.

This is all well and good, but if they want to see positive results; they first must do a “forensic assessment” of their targeted audience—in this case the Black community.

It doesn’t appear to me that they have any relevant Blacks around them on the political side of the house who can help them properly navigate within the Black community.

For example, when you say “conservative” to a Black audience, we hear Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms.  When you say “libertarian” we think of someone who supports Jim Crow and segregation.  Former U.S. senator and linguist S.I. Hayakawa said, “Meanings are in people, not in words.”

Because of the liberal media, the Koch brothers, conservatism, and libertarianism all have a bad name in the Black community; and before you can begin to discuss the merits of their issues, the brand must be repaired.

As a student at Oral Roberts University, I had the fortune of working for Oral; and one of the things he would always say was, “Go into every man’s world and meet them at the point of their need.”

Too often, conservatives go into the Black community and tell us what they think is important to us, as opposed to asking us to tell them what is important to us.

A case in point is criminal justice reform.  Conservatives have the crazy notion that this issue is the gateway into the Black community.  In reality this is nowhere near the top of the priority list within the Black community.

The top three issues within the Black community are:  small business/entrepreneurship, education/school choice, and values/morals.  The logic is very simple.

Small business is the economic engine of our country; always has been and always will be.  Fortune 500 companies are steadily laying off workers, whereas entrepreneurs are creating all of the new jobs and doing all of the new hiring.

These small businesses need a labor pool that has basic skill sets like reading, writing, and arithmetic to fill various job openings.

Promoting “traditional values” within the Black community is part of our historical heritage going all the way back to Africa.  Liberalism is anathema to the Black community; but liberals have been effective in disguising it to the detriment of the Black community.

I totally agree with what Koch said in the article, “[we need] to be much more effective in articulating their [Koch] message.”  The first thing they must change is their verbiage.

If the Koch brothers are serious about engaging with the Black community, they must have a media strategy to push back on the liberal lies that are being constantly pushed within the Black community.  Conservatives cede too much to liberals in this regard.

The Koch brothers also need to have a strategic media plan for them (Charles and his brother David) to engage directly with the Black media to “demystify” who they are and their agenda.  Again, the liberal media has portrayed them as racist boogeymen to the Black community and they must begin to push back on this narrative.

A lie repeated enough becomes the truth.

Conservatives tend to surround themselves with Blacks they are “comfortable” with versus Blacks who can deliver results.  This is the major reason you don’t have more Blacks in the movement and I am not optimistic that this will change anytime soon.

If the Koch brothers are truly serious about engagement with the Black community, they must redirect their spending to the priorities that are important to Blacks, not the ones that are important to them; and they must begin to think and look outside of the box.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Charles Koch.

Hillary: 99% Of Charitable Contributions Went To Clinton Family Foundation

TaxProf Blog reports:

Hillary Clinton late Friday afternoon released her 2007-2014 tax returns, showing that she and Bill reported $139.1 million in adjusted gross income, paid $43.9 million in taxes (a 31.6% tax rate), and made $15 million (10.8% of their AGI) of charitable contributions, $14.9 million of which went to the Clinton Family Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative.

I previously blogged the Clintons’ tax returns for prior years:

2000-2006:

Clinton 2

1992-1999:

Clinton 1

VIDEO: Carly Fiorina Uncensored

Steven Crowder interviews the Conservative Honey Badger, Carly Fiorina and she takes NO prisoners. She talks about #SJW Feminism and weak leaders, among other things.

EDITORS NOTE: More at http://LouderWithCrowder.com! Follow Crowder on Twitter: http://twitter.com/scrowder and like him on Facebook: http://facebook.com/stevencrowder. The featured image of Carly Fiorina is courtesy of the Blaze.

Trump’s Megyn Kelly ‘Blood’ Comment : A CNN Reporter Gets Bloodied!

Trump on Megyn Kelly comment. Watch how a CNN reporter get schooled by a female Trump Supporter from New Hampshire.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Fox News Couldn’t Kill Trump’s Momentum and May Have Only Made It Stronger [+video]

Google’s Search Algorithm Could Steal the Presidency

Huckabee, Trump, and Rubio Take Strong Pro-Life Stance in First GOP Debate [+video]

Watch: One Surprising Candidate Stood out in Fox News’ Focus Group in a BIG Way

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of Megyn Kelly is by AP/Richard Drew/Salon.

Dear Millennials, the Dems are Screwing You

At what point does the millennial generation wake up and realize that their love affair with the Democratic Party has been one-sided? While the Democrats have benefitted enormously from millennials’ overwhelming support of their brand in national, state and local elections, the affection has gone unrequited. Granted, the Democrats talk a big game about the youth of America, but it’s what they’re actually doing to younger Americans that matters. In nearly every significant policy arena the modern, far-Left Democratic Party is pushing policies that will undoubtedly jeopardize the futures of young Americans working hard to make a better tomorrow.

Conservative activist, former Reagan administration official, and nationally-syndicated radio host Mark Levin’s new book Plunder and Deceit is a thorough examination of the ideological and legislative assault on young Americans. The book uses extensive data points and a second-to-none analysis to make the case that the modern Democratic Party’s allegiance to liberal ideology on the social front, and to tax-and-spend economics on the fiscal front, is selling out young Americans. It is a must-read for young Americans who are looking to escape the Democratic Party’s deceptive, focus group tested talking points and looking to find the truth.  Additionally, the book is a must-read for Americans of all ages who want to understand, and be able to explain to open-minded young Americans, the danger we are in if we fail to correct our course.

What is perhaps most disturbing about this disconnect between what the modern Democratic Party says to young Americans, and what it does to them, is that it’s not simply that the Democrats are failing to help the youth in our society, but that they are deliberately harming them. After reading Levin’s book and being reminded of the grave economic future being created by the Obama administration, their congressional allies, and weak-knee’d Republicans too cowardly to fight back, I wonder where young Americans think the money to pay off the growing national debt, which is equal to the value of everything the country produces, is going to come from? There is no significant difference between annual deficits, accumulated government debt, and taxes coming out of your pocket, absent the time preference. And the modern Democratic Party prefers to burden young Americans with the debt and spending they are accumulating right now, rather than to govern responsibly, due to their continued quest for the consolidation of government economic power. This allegiance to the broken economics of unsustainable government debt, is not just failing to provide young Americans with the promised “hope and change,” but it is unquestionably doing significant damage to the potential prosperity of young Americans hoping for a bright economic future.

Facts matter and the facts are not on the side of the modern Democratic Party. The laws of both arithmetic and economics dictate that all debts both public and private must be paid. Those debts are either paid by the debtor, who fulfills his obligation to pay back the debt, or the creditor, who unwillingly pays the debt himself when he fails to receive the money he loaned back from the debtor. There is no third way, these are the only options. With these hard facts in mind, it’s clear there are only a couple of options for young Americans going forward if we do not begin to control the federal government’s profligate spending. The first option for young Americans is a future of confiscatory tax rates so high that they will choke off any chance that they can live economically prosperous lives in an increasingly shrinking private sector future. Our unsustainable and growing national debt, with its entitlement promises and grim discretionary spending outlook, will strangle private sector opportunity in favor of public sector thievery.

The second option is just as disturbing for young Americans. The federal government can simply ignore its accumulated debt obligations and fail to repay its creditors, both foreign and domestic. This disastrous scenario would destroy the economic credibility of the world’s greatest supporter and dramatically increase the cost of debt in the future. Young Americans need to understand that this means that their car loans, their home loans, their credit card interest rates, and any other attempt to finance their lifestyles, or their futures, with debt will be dramatically more expensive than it was for their parents. You can thank the big spenders in elected positions in our government for this disparity between what your parent’s lifestyle was, and what yours is going to be.

Yes young America, you are being screwed, big time. It’s easy to make the faux “tough choices” to pile on government debt today, when cowardly politicians, and their silent opposition, anchor the costs of those “tough choices” to my children and yours, who will pay for them for decades.

For the sake of the country and its future, I am hoping that Levin’s book becomes the centerpiece of a long overdue national discussion about what our real “priorities” are as a nation. I refuse to accept that the greatest country in the history of mankind, when confronted with the hard facts in Levin’s book, will choose the route of a profligate present, and a bankrupt future for their children, rather than a responsible present and a prosperous future.

RELATED ARTICLE: Nearly Half of Millennials Say the American Dream Is Dead. Here’s Why.

RELATED VIDEO: Why the GOP Sucks at Courting Millennials: ‘The Selfie Vote’ Author Kristen Soltis Anderson

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

Leftists Use Black Lives Matter to Exploit Blacks, Again

animals versus human babyRecently, my black brother shared an unfortunate incident. Years ago, police in two unmarked cars blocked his car. They jumped out pointing guns, demanding that he exit his car. My brother immediately raised his hands, but did not exit his car because he was frozen with fear. An officer pulled him out of his car onto the ground. My brother said, “Calm down! I am not resisting!”

After checking him out, the officers realized he was not their suspect. Rather than sending my brother on his way with an apology, the police framed him. My brother had an unopened six pack of beer on the floor. An officer opened one of the beers and said, “You’re under arrest for drunk driving.” The bogus charge did not stick and my brother was released hours later, angry, with a bitter taste in his mouth.

Ironically, my brother’s reason for telling me about the incident was to defend the police in the recent shooting and arrests covered 24/7 on CNN. He said the cops who framed him were a few bad apples which are everywhere in every profession. Amen to that. Jesus had 12 disciples and one was a bad apple. My brother made the point that he was not harmed because he submitted to the police’s authority. He noted that the blacks in the videos shown on TV did not submit to the police.

My brother’s point is correct. In each incident caught on video in which people are second-guessing officer’s behavior, bad outcomes could have been avoided had the persons simply respected authority and complied.

A friend of mine is a veteran Baltimore black cop. He told me upon arriving at a scene, a cop must immediately take control of the situation. If not, the cop could end up dead – stabbed in the back by a weepy girlfriend or mom. The most hazardous part of a police officer’s job is the routine traffic stop; 62 officers killed 2002- 2011.

Democrats, CNN and other liberal bias media have an insidiously evil agenda to convince black America that Republicans, conservatives and police are out to get them. These Leftists would love to feature my brother’s bad boy cops story 24/7; claiming the cops were unequivocally motivated by white racism.

Meanwhile, the Left avoids experiences like mine with police like the plague. In the 80’s, an interracial couple robbed a bank, their description matching my wife, me and our car. Police surrounded our car with guns drawn and ordered us out of our car. We complied. They checked us out, apologized and went on their way. We were stopped on another occasion years later. Again, the officers were respectful and professional.

black lives matter bill boardAs a young adult, my cousins wife called me in a panic to their home in the hood. My black cousin had a nervous breakdown. He held their two toddler sons hostage in the basement, threatening to kill himself and their boys. First on the scene were two white cops – one young and fit, the other much older and morbidly obese. Masterfully, the old obese cop gained my cousin’s trust and talked him out of the basement. “C’mon son, I know life gets tough, but you don’t want to do this.” My cousin was arrested, given the mental health assistance he needed and was later released. My cousin is alive, well and a great dad.

Folks, cops kill whites at almost double the rate of blacks. As a matter of fact, blacks are killed by blacks 93% of the time. The Left does not want you to know the biggest threat to black lives is other blacks. Despite the Left’s Black Lives Matter (blame and hate white America) movement, incidents of blacks killing blacks are on the rise.

The Left is ignoring the stunning numbers of blacks murdered in Chicago by blacks.

In July, Baltimore homicides reached its highest in 43 years, up 60%. 

The mainstream media deliberately creating the false impression that cops are the biggest threat to blacks is reprehensible. Proving they do not give a rat’s derriere about blacks, the Left refuses to address real issues plaguing black America; multi-generational government dependency; increasing numbers of fatherless households; unprecedented high unemployment under Obama; epidemic school dropouts; black on black homicides and Leftist encouraged moral and cultural decline

White guys in white hoods, the Aryan nation nor cops are infiltrating black neighborhoods, victimizing residents and murdering blacks. The Left has been fooling blacks with its blame-everything-on-whitey tactic for decades; keeping blacks voting for their supposed Democrat saviors.

As young as 9 or 10, I realized the blame-everything-on-whitey excuse was a lie. My family lived on the sixth floor of a Baltimore project high-rise building. The elevators were often not working due to vandalism. The stairwells were pitch black due to broken light bulbs and smelled of urine. The crunch sound under foot echoing off the concrete walls was due to broken liquor bottles. I knew whites were not sneaking in at night, peeing in our stairwells.

Not to indict everyone who lived in the projects, some neighbors kept their apartments immaculate. Even as a child, I concluded that poverty (and ghetto) was a mindset rather than simply an absence of money.

The Black Lives Matter movement, “white privilege” and so on are founded on lies. They are despicable tools to exploit blacks’ emotions. These Leftist scams have resulted in what can be described as black terror cells. Police are assassinated, outbreaks of black flash mob attacks and innocent whites assaulted, raped and murdered.

Outrageously, Black Lives Matter thugs threaten to “shut down” the Republican National Convention. Notice the stupid, hateful and racist assumption that white Republicans are a threat to black lives? Imagine if the Tea Party announced a plan to shut down the Democrat National Convention. After recovering from multiple convulsions of pleasure from being given such an opportunity to demonize the Tea Party, Leftist media would bombard the public with 24/7 news coverage; branding the Tea Party racist, sexist and homophobic.

Rest assured, you will not hear any meaningful criticism from the MSM, Democrats or Obama regarding Black Lives Matter thugs arrogantly assaulting free speech. Quite the opposite. Leftists are behind the scene cheering on the Black Lives Matter thugs.

Wake up black America. The Left is playin’ y’all, again.

The Trump Offensive

Finally someone is shaking up the corrupt politics of Washington, D.C.

Ben Carson Scores Big Win at the First GOP Debate followed by Marco Rubio

WASHINGTON, D.C. /PRNewswire/ — One America News Network, “OAN”, a credible source for 24/7 national and international news, released this evening its Post GOP Debate Poll results conducted by Gravis Marketing.  Two primary questions asked to Republican polled participants were “Who do you think won the debate?” and “Who do you think lost the debate?”  GOP Presidential Candidates Ben Carson and Marco Rubio scored well in both categories.  Donald Trump came in second on the question of “who won the debate?” but he also scored second on “who lost the debate?” showing a heavily polarized Republican base when it comes to their post-debate opinions of the New York Businessman.  Rand Paul and Chris Christie did not have a good evening, with both scoring at the bottom of “who won?” and Paul taking the lead of “who lost?” with Christie coming in a distant third, behind Trump.

Who Won the Debate?

%

Who Lost the Debate?

%

Ben Carson

22%

Rand Paul

34%

Donald Trump

19%

Donald Trump

30%

Marco Rubio

13%

Chris Christie

9%

Jeb Bush

10%

Jeb Bush

7%

Mike Huckabee

9%

John Kasich

4%

John Kasich

8%

Ben Carson

4%

Ted Cruz

7%

Mike Huckabee

4%

Scott Walker

7%

Ted Cruz

4%

Rand Paul

3%

Scott Walker

2%

Chris Christie

2%

Marco Rubio

2%

Polled registered Republican voters were also asked, “Do you have a more favorable or less favorable opinion of (each candidate) after the debate?”  Poll results clearly show that Ben Carson won the first GOP debate in the minds of Republican voters with Marco Rubio coming in second place.  Rand Paul had a rough evening, uncharacteristic of his general performance in state and national polls.

GOP Candidate

More Favorable?

Less Favorable?

Unchanged?

Ben Carson

80%

9%

11%

Marco Rubio

68%

13%

19%

Mike Huckabee

60%

18%

22%

Scott Walker

58%

17%

25%

Ted Cruz

57%

19%

23%

John Kasich

54%

18%

28%

Jeb Bush

48%

27%

25%

Chris Christie

41%

33%

26%

Donald Trump

36%

45%

19%

Rand Paul

14%

67%

19%

According to Robert Herring, Sr., CEO of One America News Network, “Dr. Ben Carson had a wonderful evening.  He was articulate and, at times, funny.  Carson stayed out of the verbal jabbing that cost Christie and Paul some points this evening.”

Gravis Marketing, a nonpartisan research firm, conducted a random survey of 904 registered Republican voters across the U.S.  Questions included in the poll were focused only on the top ten GOP candidates that participated in the 9 PM ET debate. The poll has an overall margin of error of +/- 3%.  The polls were conducted on August 6, immediately following the GOP debate using interactive voice response, IVR, technology.  The poll was conducted exclusively for One America News Network.

One America News Network has been providing extensive coverage of the 2016 Presidential campaign, including numerous exclusive one-on-one interviews with the leading candidates.  One America News Network will be releasing on-going 2016 Presidential polling results.  Complete poll results of this recent poll, along with past polls, are available on One America News Network’s website at:http://www.oann.com/pollresults/

About One America News Network (“OAN”)

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

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