Posts

A Video Message from Phyllis Schlafly

Phyllis Schlafly gives an update on the status and upcoming events of Eagle Forum. Among other things Schlafly speaks about the upcoming GOP convention, her new book and Republican “king makers.”

Schlafly quotes former Senator Everett Dirksen of Illinois, who at the 1953 Republican National Convention, took to the floor and accused the king makers of leading the Republicans “down the road to defeat.” Dirksen received mixed boos and cheers rang out from the delegates.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Don’t take us down the path to defeat again by Mitchell Hadley

The 2 Million Voters Who Will Elect the Next President

Reflecting on Our Efforts Campaigning for Cruz Thus Far

Mary and I flew into Orlando, Florida this evening after ten intense days of campaigning for Ted Cruz in Wisconsin. A shuttle took us to our car at the park-and-go near the airport. We made the hour long drive home to Deltona. The pet/house sitter vacated earlier. I was greeted by Sammy our greyhound upon entering our front door. I loved on him a bit, petting him while talking to him; his tail wagged like crazy. It is good to be home.

After settling in, I poured myself a diet soda, put on soft music, lit a candle, sat on the soda, propped my feet up on the coffee-table and reflected on the Cruz campaign and our efforts thus far to help him secure the GOP presidential nomination.

Our Conservative Campaign Committee team of which I am chairman have followed the Cruz campaign state-to-state, independently providing boots-on-the-ground, implementing various get-out-the-vote-for-Cruz initiatives. We endorsed Cruz early in the campaign season. We had a banner made which reads, “Ted Cruz: Conservative Hero.” We have displayed that banner at Cruz rallies and on busy street corners in numerous cities in practically every state primary and caucus.

For me to list all the spectacular moments on the campaign trail would make for a very long article. However, for some reason, a memory of Cruz’s wife Heidi sticks out in my brain. It kind of epitomizes the tone/vibe of the Cruz campaign that our CCC team has witnessed state-to-state.

Ted Cruz Heidi NC Rally (1)

Heidi Cruz at North Carolina rally.

It was a small event, about 150 people, in Fayetteville North Carolina. Ted was not there. Heidi was the keynote speaker. One of the points Heidi made is Ted is so relaxed and unstressed on the campaign trail. At the end of the event, our team met Heidi. She thanked us for our efforts and posed for a picture in front of our banner.

Our team was piled in the SUV leaving the event. I saw Heidi and her staffers casually walking to their cars. Heidi had a big smile on her face, chatting with people, seemingly without a care in the world. Her demeanor and body language spoke to me in a way I can not explain. Ted and Heidi are “for real” folks. What you see is what you get. I believe and trust them.

Another incident that is not particularly political stands out. It was the “Women for Cruz” event in Madison Wisconsin which featured a panel discussion with Carly Fiorina, Heidi, Ted and his mom Eleanor. Eleanor was extremely frail. It took a couple of security personnel to help her onto the stage. Frankly, Eleanor reminded me of my late mom and most moms of her generation. Eleanor said to keep Ted out of trouble as a child, she nurtured his interests. Ted loved and memorized the Constitution. Eleanor drove Ted to numerous group meetings where he recited the Constitution, impressing adults with his talent for public speaking.

Again, I felt a genuineness in the way Eleanor, Heidi and Ted expressed their love and admiration for each other; inspiring and quite moving. I whispered to a CCC team member, “If their responses are scripted, Ted, Heidi and Eleanor deserve Academy Awards.” The Cruz family are plain old-fashion good people folks.

Cruz winning Wisconsin was particularly thrilling. Our CCC team was boots-on-the-ground, but it took grassroots support from patriots across America to propel Cruz to victory. Thanks patriots. I love it when we work together to get-r-done!

Three weeks before the Wisconsin election, pundits and the mainstream media counted Cruz out, claiming Wisconsin was “a perfect state for Donald Trump.” Immediately on the heels of Cruz’s huge win in Wisconsin, 1.3 million patriots across America made $10, $25 and $50 donations to Cruz’s campaign; raising over $2 million in one day

Clearly, a shift towards Cruz is underway. In keeping with the old saying, the cream really does rise to the top. I long suspected that Cruz would emerge as the obvious best GOP presidential candidate once the field narrowed down to a two man race. Yes, I realize what’s his name, the third guy, is still in the race.

Recent polling confirms that Cruz can beat Hillary in the general. The swiftly growing Cruz-mania has given me new hope regarding the character and soul of my country. Mainstream media, Democrats and the Left have convinced the GOP establishment and many Americans that we are now a Leftist country. The Left’s bogus narrative is a majority of Americans are repulsed by Cruz’s brand of Conservatism rooted in traditional principles and values which have made America great and exceptional.

The truth is as more Americans have an opportunity to hear Cruz’s common sense, unfiltered, optimistic and unifying articulation of Conservatism, it connects with their inner spirit. They instinctively know Cruz’s Conservatism is best for all Americans. Americans are also beginning to realize that Ted Cruz is the only candidate they can trust to reverse Obama’s messes.

After a few days of r and r, Mary and I will rejoin our Conservative Campaign Committee team on the campaign trail for Cruz. Thanks again for all your hard work. God bless!

He has Risen!

Jesus Christ died. He died quivering on a cross, after receiving a horrific public thrashing that would have killed any other human. He died after carrying His own instrument of death, the top part of the cross, to Golgotha where He was brutally and efficiently nailed to the beam He carried. He died after hanging between heaven and earth for about six hours in unexplainable agony. To make certain of His death, the order was given to pierce His side with a spear which released the very last drops of His blood. The professional soldiers who carried out the crucifixion detail were seasoned veterans with many crucifixions on their resumes; these hardened men were so certain of Jesus Christ’s death they did not even take the time to break His legs, as it was quite plain to see He was dead, He was finished. Pilate, the Temple High Priest, and all of the religious leadership in Jerusalem were also certain of this fact, and rested in the knowledge that they had successfully killed an uprising, as well as this so-called King of the Jews, this Son of God. It is done! It is finished! As the afternoon sun faded and the late day shadows began to grow so did the shadows of hopelessness and utter dismay and gloom by Christ’s disciples. Such brooding sadness appeared that only dazed looks with puzzled grief that knew no words were exchanged among those who had been the closest followers, and may I say, “Believers.” Utterly crushed, beaten, and most likely Wanted Men…these men had just hours prior sat at table with the man they came to know as The Son of God; the long awaited Messiah! These men now scattered in an attempt to pick up any remaining pieces of their lives interrupted a little over three years before.

Jesus was confirmed dead, but Pilate was reminded that this strange, troublesome religious Dreamer (Nut) claimed He would rise on the third-day. So to make certain that no theatrics could be accomplished a Roman Guard was set at the tomb. The tomb was sealed with the Official Roman Seal to make certain no one would enter (or leave) the burial chamber thereby beginning a new round of zealotry. Even if an attempt was made to tamper with the seal, the soldiers standing post would prevent a successful conclusion, as well as bring instant death to anyone attempting such an act. There would be no more talk about His kingdom being established. There would be no more statements that He could summon twelve legions of angels to His assistance. There would be no more Messiah…He will trouble us no more!

Then came Sunday morning.

Sometime prior to dawn, in a borrowed burial tomb that belonged to Joseph of Arimathea, there was a stirring, a fluttering of unseen forces…the presence of angels, and the unexplainable breath of God moving through the garden and into the tomb. Immeasurable forces poured life back into the dead body that laid on the cold stone slab in that tomb; and the dead man rose and came out of the grave, and out of the grave clothes, and into life just prior to Mary’s arrival as she came to grieve and stand watch. But Mary stood in shock and awe in front of the tomb as the massive stone had been rolled away, and now the sepulchre was empty except for the two angels in white sitting, one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. As Mary cried-out asking, “What have you done with Him?” she heard her name spoken as only her dear, dear friend, Jesus could speak it, only this time all of heaven was in His tone. And she knew. She simply replied to Him, “Rabboni,” which is to say, “Master.” Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary, the mother of James, and a few other women then ran and got the disciples, but they ran with the news that “Christ has Risen…He has Risen indeed!” The disciples did not expect this to happen no matter how much they wanted it to be true. How about you? Would you have expected this, regardless of Jesus spending a little over three years sharing and revealing His purpose on earth, and the will of His Heavenly Father? How about today? Right now? Do you believe Jesus of Nazareth died for you, was buried for your sins and deeds, and then rose on the third-day? Do you believe? The disciples will understand your doubts, your hesitancy. So does the Lord who was actually in that tomb, but came out! He understands.

Eight days passed, and the disciples were together. Suddenly Jesus was with them. These men, who just a very short-time prior were in deep mourning and bewilderment were reported by thousands to be “lights to the world” with their faces and manner, joyous and rejoicing in the good news of Christ’s Resurrection. Ignorant men? Self-serving? An invention by a group of men hoping to cash in? And would you or anyone you know invent such a story so as to be crucified upside down, like Peter? How about stay with such a story causing your head to be chopped off, like Paul, or to be stoned to death like Steven? Each of the disciples, save John, met with a horrible death at the hands of church and government authorities who years later still could not afford to have the Resurrection Story of Jesus Christ shared, much less believed by the masses. Today the forces of darkness, division, confusion, and humanism do NOT want you to learn, much less accept the truth of Christ’s Resurrection from death. Maybe even more today than thousands of years ago, the powers aligned against God’s Word do NOT want you to come into the saving knowledge and grace of the Risen Christ, the Begotten Son of God who surrendered His Crown in Heaven for a Crown of Thorns on earth; His Seat at the right hand of the Heavenly Father for the rugged and splintered wooden cross that became His seat of death on earth.

Look again at the picture above my remarks. You are looking from inside an empty tomb across the land to an empty cross. The same cross and tomb Jesus Christ occupied for a short-time before ascending into Heaven for all time, for all eternity. Jesus is not dead! The tomb is empty! Jesus has risen from the dead…He has Risen indeed!

RELATED ARTICLE: Maclean’s Easter cover asks “Did Jesus Really Exist?”

RELATED VIDEO: Maclean’s “celebrates” Easter with “Did Jesus Really Exist?” cover story:

2016 — A ‘Perilous Year’ for the U.S. and the World

2016 will be a perilous year for the U.S. and the World primarily because no leadership will be forthcoming from the U.S. during the remainder to the term of President Obama.

Iran is currently building and testing new ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads in violation of U.N. resolutions. The Obama administration promised to deliver to Congress a list of sanctions against Iran. Even though the sanctions were rather mild Iran objected and Obama postponed the sanctions indefinitely. These sanctions may be characterized as a new ‘Obama Red Line’ which he has breached. It is notice to Iran–Iran is no longer constrained by the nuclear agreement which in effect is only binding on Obama and has no legal force against Iran. Further it is notice to Iran that it can continue as the leading state sponsor of terrorism without fear of any action by the U.S.

It is no coincidence that Saudi Arabia, Bahrain (home to the U.S. fleet), Sudan The United Arab Eremites and Kuwait have broken relations with Iran following Obama’s feckless withdrawal of sanctions against Iran. Undoubtedly this was the last straw for Saudi Arabia and other Sunnis. They realize Obama has become the defender and supporter of Iran against U.S.’s former allies.

In effect Obama is trying to create Iran (a Shiite Persian country) as the strong horse in the region against the Arab Sunnis. Obama has picked the wrong horse as there are about one and a half billion Muslims 87% of which are Sunni and 13% Shiites. Added to this mix they see Obama favors Iran over Israel America’s only reliable ally in the region.

It is no wonder that Obama’s favored treatment of Iran over Saudi Arabia and the other Sunni nations has prevented Obama from creating an Arab Sunni coalition to fight ISIS. An effective coalition of Arabs to defeat ISIS must be postponed until Obama is no longer in office and a president that does not follow in Obama’s footsteps is elected.

RELATED ARTICLES:

U.S. Sanctions Delay Could Open Door for Iranian Weapons Violations

Iran’s Ballistic Missiles Are Actually a Huge Problem

Obama’s struggle against Netanyahu

Poster of the Week: Can’t Be Bought Trump

I feel sure our friends at VDARE won’t mind if I post Maryland grassroots warrior Ed Hunter’s letter to VDARE about what happened on Friday evening when the indefatigable Hunter unfurled one of his highway overpass banners for French TV.

Here is Hunter’s banner for this week, but you can see others of his novel campaigns to circumvent the mainstream media and get his message directly to American citizens, at Blue Ridge Forum.

This is what happened on Friday evening as a French TV crew filmed him (from VDARE where you should go for links).  In Ed’s words, but emphasis is mine:

Last week the Washington desk of the French TV station “France 2” contacted us at the Maryland Tea Party and said they wanted to go up on the overpass and conduct an interview on the Donald Trump phenomenon***. About 2 PM we arrive at the bridge over I-95 Northbound, and we set up the banners and are waving to people on the interstate below.

Ed Hunter shows how to get his message directly to citizens and around the MSM.

The rush hours is beginning and the traffic is starting to slow down as it passed under us. The French TV crew arrives about an hour later around 3 PM. They get out their big expensive TV camera, and the French reporter Valerie begins asking questions.

Some of them were hard to answer such as “What does Donald Trump mean?” or “Is this a popular provocation?” (The usual French stuff. How can you answer those types of questions?) Anyway, they get around to the subject of immigration and I can sense I am up against the usual PC wall as they try to get “racist” stuff out of me. So she says “Okay just try to summarize Trump in a way that makes sense to people in France.” So I said “Donald Trump is an American version of Marine Le Pen.” Then she asked if I supported Le Pen and I said, “Absolutely”.

I told her that Muslim immigration will be the end of France and Europe.

Then I asked them (off camera) if they felt that way, and they replied “Oh no…it is all a stunt, we do not have a immigration problem in France. These Muslims are French. They came to France to help us rebuild France. I said. ”French built France. Why can’t you rebuild it yourself?”

They looked at me as the typical redneck American. So as we are talking the noise from the honking from the interstate is rising to a crescendo. The honking and cheers for the Trump banners are getting so loud we can’t continue the conversation. The French say goodbye and get into their car and leave. I am asking myself “What is going on? Why is everyone reacting to the banners, which read ‘CANT BE BOUGHT…VOTE TRUMP’?” The whole Interstate has erupted. Everyone below as far as I can see is going nuts and cheering and leaning on their horn and screaming out the windows “Donald! Donald!” And we are waving back and this is going on for about an hour. And we can’t figure it all out. So it’s 5:30 PM and getting dark and cold. We take down the banners and drive to Starbucks for coffee when someone calls with the news about the Paris attacks.

The very moment that the French media elites were repeating the PC leftist party line… “We do not have an immigration problem. We are multicultural” etc., the news of the Paris attacks is hitting the car radios of the people on the highway below and they are going nuts in support of Trump and his defiance of the political, media and academic elites.

I called Valerie the French reporter and she had just heard the news. All she could say is “I am so shocked…so shocked!!” I said ”Why? You had to know this was coming, you were told a million times—”. At which point she hung up. The next morning I read Ann Coulter in Mediaite: “Donald Trump Was Elected President Tonight.” And I believe he was.

I saw it happen. I watched an almost physical wave of noise and cheering and honking roll up I-95 from as far as I could see south towards DC, to where it disappeared over the horizon to the north, up towards Baltimore, New York and points beyond.

All of this only confirms again for me—for middle class Americans, immigration is THE issue of 2016.  And, I urge all of you to find your place in the battle to save us—to save America.  You might not have Ed’s guts to get up on a highway overpass, but find your talent and put it to work to save us from becoming Europe!

***One last thing….when we attended the Georgetown Law School pro-open borders gathering in DC a couple of weeks ago, attendees were in complete shock over what they described as the “Trump phenomenon” here.

This post is filed in a category we hope to use more often—-called creating a movement.’

Addendum! Angry about Paris?  READ THIS POST and do it!  Tell Congress to stop the funding for the Refugee Admissions Program NOW!

Hillary Clinton: For Richer or Richer

For an answer to this question, we need to check in with four experts. The first is ‘Rich Hillary Clinton.’ Rich Hillary Clinton, who has been paid more for an hour-long speech than the average median ANNUAL earnings of four American families combined, has stated about her massive wealth, “We pay ordinary income tax, unlike a lot of people who are truly well off, not to name names; and we’ve done it through a dint of hard work.”

Clearly, Rich Hillary Clinton understands that hard work can lead to a prosperous future for those willing to put in the sweat equity, despite the fact that the Clintons consider speaking engagements “hard work” (full disclosure, I have been paid to speak at events and do not consider it “hard work”). Rich Hillary Clinton also believes that she pays her “fair share” of taxes “unlike a lot of other people who are truly well off.”

Rich Hillary Clinton says this despite the fact that, according to Bloomberg News:

Bill and Hillary Clinton have long supported an estate tax to prevent the U.S. from being dominated by inherited wealth. That doesn’t mean they want to pay it. To reduce the tax pinch, the Clintons are using financial planning strategies befitting the top 1 percent of U.S. households in wealth. These moves, common among multimillionaires, will help shield some of their estate from the tax that now tops out at 40 percent of assets upon death.

Countering the assertion that Rich Hillary Clinton is in fact rich is another expert on this topic: Poor Hillary Clinton. Poor Hillary Clinton has stated this about her financial status:

We came out of the White House not only dead broke but in debt.” Poor Hillary Clinton also stated, “We had no money when we got there and we struggled to, you know, piece together the resources for mortgages for houses, for Chelsea’s education, you know, it was not easy.

America should cry for Poor Hillary Clinton. After all, how can we be expected to ignore the desperate pleas for help from a family worth a measly hundred million dollars? I’m wondering if conservatives should band together to create a foundation called the Clinton Foundation to donate to the plight of this struggling American family.

For those still confused about who is in fact considered wealthy and who is not after the Rich Hillary Clinton versus Poor Hillary Clinton debate, our second series of experts on American wealth should be consulted. Rich Alcee Hastings from Florida’s 20th Congressional District earns more in one year than the median income of three average American families combined. Rich Alcee Hastings is so confident about his wealth, and his congressional salary which places him near the top 10% of income earners in the United States, that he feels anyone earning this outrageous sum should pay even more than they do now. In an April 2014 press release, Rich Alcee Hastings stated:

We could end special tax breaks and close tax loopholes available only to the wealthiest Americans. This alone could get us $1 trillion over the next ten years. We could also stop the wealthiest among us from using overseas tax havens to avoid paying their fair share. Along these same lines, let us rid our tax code of ridiculous loopholes like deductions for yachts and the loophole for corporate jets.

Rich Alcee Hastings may not be aware that the top 10% of income earners already pay close to 70% of income taxes, but we’ll forgive him for that because rich people such as him rarely know how much money is missing from their bank accounts.
Tax Share Chart

Painting a starkly different picture is Poor Alcee Hastings. Poor Alcee Hastings was recently quoted complaining about how little money he makes as a hard-working U.S. congressman. Poor Alcee Hastings said Congress is not “being paid properly” and that “Members [of Congress] deserve to be paid, staff deserves to be paid, and the cost of living here is causing serious problems for people who are not wealthy to serve in this institution.” Poor Alcee Hastings has a point here, which Rich Alcee Hastings should consider when deciding who is wealthy and who is not: cost of living and business expenses matter to many Americans who appear wealthy on paper.

Conservatives fight for lower tax rates because, although we understand the importance of taxes to fund the constitutional role of government, we don’t want to pay any more than necessary.

Ok, enough with the satire.

I wrote this piece because sometimes humor is the only way to effectively combat the far Left and its stunning hypocrisy. The hard Left debates themselves with contradictory statements about important issues such as the value of work, fair-share tax rates, income inequality, wealth, the cost of living, and more – all while lecturing us like schoolchildren.

There’s no hypocrisy in basic conservative principles, and that’s why in a world occupied by fallible human beings the default position should be the one that doesn’t contradict itself. Conservatives fight for lower tax rates because, although we understand the importance of taxes to fund the constitutional role of government, we don’t want to pay any more than necessary. Conservatives fight for personal control of healthcare choices because that’s what we want for ourselves. And, we fight for educational choices because that’s what we want for our children. This upcoming presidential election is too important to forfeit because we’re afraid of a good fight. Now is the time to boldly defend conservative principles and shed light on the fact that the hard Left’s “principles” are really nothing more than talking points.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Conservative Review. The featured image is by Elise Amendola | AP Photo. Reprinted with permission.

Avoiding Hillary Misery

While we endure the daily lies of President Obama, do we really want to have another four to eight years more of Hillary Clinton’s? It’s not like we don’t have ample evidence of her indifference to the truth and that is not what America wants in a President, now or ever.

The office has already been degraded to a point where neither our allies nor our enemies trusts anything Obama says. Do we really want to continue a process that could utterly destroy our nation?

Hillary Clinton’s announcement that she intends to run for President is predicated not on any achievements in her life beyond having married Bill Clinton. Instead, her message is that America needs a woman as President. Having already elected an abject failure because he was black, one can only hope and pray that enough voters will conclude that America needs to avoid race or gender to be the determining factor.

In 1974 the 27-year old Hillary was fired from a committee related to the Watergate investigation. Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised her and when the investigation was over, he fired her and refused to give her a letter of recommendation. When asked why, he said, “Because she was a liar. She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee, and the rules of confidentiality.”

She has not changed. Writing about her emails, Ronald D. Rotunda, a professor at Chapman University’s Fowler School of Law, said her admitted destruction of more than 30,000 emails “sure looks like an obstruction of justice—a serious violation of the criminal law. The law says that no one has to us email, but it is a crime (18 U.S.C. section 1519) to destroy even one message to prevent it from being subpoenaed.” The law, said Rotunda, punishes this with up to 20 years imprisonment.

Instead, Hillary is asking voters to give her at least four years in the highest office in the land.

Even pundits like The New York TimesMaureen Dowd, writing in mid-March responded to Hillary saying “None of what you said made any sense. Keeping a single account mingling business and personal with your own server wasn’t about ‘convenience.’ It was about expedience. You became judge and jury on what’s relevant because you didn’t want to leave digital fingerprints for others to retrace.”

“You assume that if it’s good for the Clintons, it’s good for the world, you’re always tangling up government policy with your own needs, desires, deceptions, marital bargains, and gremlins.”

Around the same time as Dowd’s rebuke, I wrote that I thought that the revelations about the emails and the millions the Clinton foundation received from nations with whom she was dealing as Secretary of State would be sufficient for those in charge of the Democratic Party to convince her not to run. I was wrong. I was wrong because I profoundly underestimated Hillary’s deep well of ambition and indifference to the laws everyone else must obey. I was wrong because the Democratic Party is totally corrupt.

It is not as if anyone paying any attention would not know that she is politically to the far Left, a politician who does not believe that the powers of our government are derived from “the consent of the governed.” Throughout her life she has let us know that with quotes such as:

“We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”

“(We) can’t just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people.”

“I certainly think the free-market has failed.” These quotes are the personification of Communism.

In March, the political pundit, Peggy Noonan, writing in The Wall Street Journal, said “We are defining political deviancy down.” Referring to the email scandal, she asked “Is it too much to imagine that Mrs. Clinton wanted to conceal the record of her communications as America’s top diplomat…?” That was the reason she ignored the government’s rules regarding such communications. Rarely mentioned is the very strong likelihood that her email account had been hacked by our nation’s enemies and thus everything she was doing, officially and privately, was known to them.

“The story,” said Noonan “is that this is what she does and always has. The rules apply to others, not her.” That is, simply said, a criminal mentality. “Why doesn’t the legacy press swarm her on this?” asked Noonan. “Because she is political royalty.”

We fought a Revolution to free America from the British royalty. This was so ingrained in the thinking of the Founding Fathers that section 9 of Article One of the Constitution says “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States. And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of Congress, accept any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” That’s what the foundation did.

Noonan had earlier written a book about Hillary. “As I researched I remembered why, four years into the Clinton administration, the New York Times columnist William Safire called Hillary ‘a congenital liar…compelled to mislead, and to ensnare her subordinates and friends in a web of deceit.’”

“Do we have to go through all that again?” asked Noonan. “A generation or two ago, a person so encrusted in a reputation for scandal would not be considered a possible presidential contender. She would be ineligible. Now she is inevitable.”

Well, maybe not inevitable. We have a long time to go until the primaries arrive and then the election. We have enough time to ask ourselves if we live in a republic where merit, integrity, and honesty are still the standards by which we select our President.

© Alan Caruba, 2015

Republicans and Election Reform

Now that Republicans have working majorities in both houses of Congress, the American people can once again enjoy the benefits of the constitutional republic that the Founders designed for us.  Right?  Well, not so fast.  To expect the current crop of congressional Republicans to do what is necessary to restore constitutional government and repair the damage done by Barack Obama… let alone know what must be done… is entirely problematic.

As a case in point, the recent battle over construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline demonstrates the complete fecklessness of congressional Republicans.  From the instant the last ballot was counted in November, it was clear that one of the first bills to pass in the 114th Congress would be a bill to approve construction of the pipeline… a bill that Barack Obama promised to veto if and when it reached his desk.  Does Obama care about the environment or the leftists who politicize it?  Of course not.  What he does care about are the many millions of dollars that pour into Democrat Party coffers from a handful of radical environmentalists.

What congressional Republicans apparently failed to recognize was the immense political gains to be made if the issue was properly handled.  By developing best estimates of the number of engineers, contractors, welders, heavy equipment operators, truck drivers, and laborers required to complete the project, along with the generous salaries, wages, and benefits that those workers would command, Republicans could have armed themselves with the most potent political weapon they’d ever been blessed to have.  By seeing to it that every Republican in Congress had that information at his/her fingertips, with instructions to repeated it in every radio, TV, and print media interview, and in every public appearance, Republicans could have driven a very large wedge either between the Democrat Party and radical environmentalist, or between Democrats and organized labor.

By signing the pipeline bill Obama would reap the anger of the radical environmentalists and win the approval of organized labor.  Conversely, by vetoing the bill he would win high praise from environmentalists, but organized labor would be angered enough to split the Democrat vote in many national and state elections.  For Republicans, it was a win-win proposition.  However, instead of using that opportunity to their advantage, making a veto override a real possibility, congressional Republicans treated that opportunity as if it were a sexually-transmitted disease.

While Democrats can be counted upon to always play hardball, Republicans seem intent upon playing political softball.  So, if congressional Republicans aren’t smart enough to recognize a political advantage when one falls into their laps, how can we expect them to recognize the political damage to be done if Obama is successful in giving Social Security numbers, drivers licenses, and voter registration cards to millions of illegals, none of whom are eligible to vote?

Even though they are seriously victimized by fraud, violence, and intimidation in every election, congressional Republicans appear to be blithely unaware of the problem as Democrats continue to liberalize the electoral process.  In fact, it is unlikely that election reform is even on their wish list.  Although election law is generally a matter of state law, a comprehensive election reform law targeting federal elections would supersede state law.  A comprehensive election reform bill… one that would put Obama and congressional Democrats in a tight box… would contain the following elements of reform:

  • Voter registration must be done only in person.  Fraud-friendly motor-voter, postcard, Internet, and same-day registration schemes must be either repealed or superseded.

In same-day registration states, Democrats have recruited teams of college students to travel from precinct to precinct, registering to vote and voting numerous times in the same day.  In a heavily-Democratic county in Minnesota, an undercover investigator visited a county election board to ask whether or not it was necessary for new voters to register in person, saying that he had two friends, Tom Brady and Tim Tebow, who were unable to appear in person.  The investigator was given twenty registration forms and was told that he could register twenty voters with the forms.

  • Registrations must be done only by full-time registrars, employees of counties and/or township government, and only in the state, county, and/or township in which the registrant maintains his/her primary residence.  Third party registrars, paid and unpaid, must be prohibited.

In 2012, a voter registration study showed that, in North Carolina alone, some 35,570 voters shared the same first names, last names, and dates of birth with individuals registered to vote in other states.  Another 765 North Carolinians had the same first names, last names, birthdays, and final four digits of a Social Security number as those who voted in other states.  As a requisite for voter registration, each voter should be required to show proof of citizenship (birth certificate or passport) and proof of residence (drivers license, residential deed, apartment lease, utility bills, etc.).

  1. Before voting, each voter must show an official government-issued photo ID (drivers license, passport, etc.), or an official state-issued voter registration card complete with telephone number, home address, Social Security number, and precinct number.  As an alternative, and as a means of preventing voters from voting more than once in a single day, states may require voters to dip a finger into a vial of indelible ink after voting.
  2. Court administrators must be required to furnish local election boards with name, address, date of birth, and Social Security number of every individual convicted of a felony.  Election boards must be required to purge voter registrations rolls of all felons at least ten days prior to any election.  County Coroners must be required to furnish election boards with copies of all death certificates.  All deceased persons must be removed from the voter rolls no later than ten days prior to any election.
  3. Registered voters who move from one state to another, from one county or township to another, or from one precinct to another, must be required to obtain voter registration transfer documents from their local election board.  This document must be presented, in person, to voter registrars of the voter’s new place of residence.
  4. Absentee ballots must be received no later than ten days prior to an election.  Absentee ballots, other than those of overseas military personnel, must be tallied no later than the day and hour that polls close in any election.  Absentee ballots completed by residents of hospitals, nursing homes, elder care, and mental health facilities must be completed only in the presence of representatives of both major political parties.
  5. Other than absentee ballots, voting must be done in person, only on the day of the election, and only in the precinct in which the voter maintains his/her primary place of residence.  Electronic voting and vote-by-mail schemes must be repealed or superseded.  Provisional ballots must be limited only to the most serious instances of clerical error by election board officials.
  6. The Voting Rights Act must be amended to provide fines and mandatory jail sentences for any individual who would, in any election in which the name of a candidate for federal office appears on the ballot, do any of the following:
    • Vote in the name of another person.
    • Vote or attempt to vote more than once in any election.
    • Vote in the name of a deceased or fictitious person.
    • Vote in more than one state or political subdivision.
    • Vote without benefit of U.S. citizenship.
    • Intimidate, interfere with, or cause injury to the person or property of any other person peaceably engaged in the political process, or cause any other person to do any of the foregoing.

In an April 10, 2014, speech before Al Sharpton’s National Action Network, Barack Obama attempted to rally his base by charging, falsely, that Republicans were attempting to suppress the black vote in the 2014 elections.  Demonstrating once again that he is either totally dishonest or ignorant of the facts, he said, “The principle of one person-one vote is the single greatest tool we have to redress an unjust status quo.  You would think there would not be an argument about this anymore.  But the stark, simple truth is this:  The right to vote is threatened today in a way that it has not been since the Voting Rights Act became law nearly five decades ago.”

In truth, what Obama would like to see is a system in which only Democrats and illegal aliens get to vote twice.  If Republicans had any courage at all they would insist on tightening the noose around vote fraud and stop ignoring Democrat efforts to create more fraud-friendly processes.  They might use comprehensive voting reform as yet another issue that would require Democrats to identify themselves for who and what they are.

As Obama has said, one would think that there would no longer be a question about holding open and honest elections in the United States, but that’s not the way things are.  Decent, honest, men and women will endorse the reforms outlined above.  Democrats, on the other hand, are certain to oppose them.

American Voters Now The Greatest Threat To America?

Through illegal immigration and so-called refugee resettlement programs, both importing a new breed of American “citizen” and a new crop of voters, the U.S. elections are now heavily influenced by foreign anti-American interests. The voter demographics of our country are being intentionally and purposefully altered. But that may not be the greatest threat to American sovereignty, security and freedom.

Our nation’s Founders did their level best to create a system of self-governance of, by and for the legitimate citizens of the United States, establishing three co-equal branches of the Federal Government, each with their own set of limited duties and authorities necessary to execute those duties. In this extraordinary effort, they installed countless checks and balances to make possible the ongoing protection of all Natural Rights established for the people in our Charters of Freedom.

One of those measures was a set of few, but strict conditions for high political office, an effort to make certain that only True Americans with no foreign entanglements or allegiances would hold the reins of political power in America. A different set of requirements were created for each branch, two chambers of the legislature, the judiciary and the executive branch.

The most powerful political office in our land and maybe in the entire world is the Oval Office, the office of Commander-in-Chief of the entire United States military and national security apparatus. This office has a very specific eligibility requirement unique to this office alone, that of no other but a natural born Citizen.

In a recent online survey, the following question was asked on more than a dozen known “conservative” Facebook (FB) groups….

“Do YOU believe that 14th Amendment “anchor babies” and “undocumented citizens” are “natural born Citizens” eligible for the Oval Office?”

Over 166 members in those FB groups shared the post and approximately 100 members voted in the survey within hours of the post. 100% of the survey respondents answered the question correctly, NO… no one answered YES or I DON’T KNOW… They may not know what natural born Citizen is, but they seem to know what it is not.

This is good news… this means that these people all know that the March 2015 Harvard Law Review essay clearing both Barack Obama and Sen. Ted Cruz for the Oval Office, is total nonsense, based upon 14th Amendment naturalization codes qualifying anchor babies and undocumented citizens for high office on the basis of misused naturalization statutes and cases.

The FB survey did not mention any candidate names. When respondents were simply answering a non-partisan question pertaining to who is not a natural born Citizen, they were able to get the answer correct with 100% accuracy.

However, some of those same respondents are supporting either an “anchor baby” or an “undocumented citizen” for the 2016 GOP nomination, without connecting the dots between the survey they had just answered and the candidates they support.

An anchor baby is a child born in the United States to foreign parents. Misuses of our immigration and naturalization statutes allow that child to be a U.S. “citizen at birth” under the 14th Amendment –  then becoming an anchor under which the parents and other family members can take a shortcut to U.S. citizenship by attaching to the anchor baby. These are “naturalized citizens” and their citizenship is based solely upon 14th Amendment naturalization statutes….

This is the condition of 2016 GOP candidate Marco Rubio, who was born in Florida to two Cuban citizen parents who did not become naturalized citizens of the United States until years after Marco’s birth. Marco Rubio was born Cuban, an anchor baby citizen of the USA only under 14th Amendment naturalization codes. He is not a natural born Citizen of the United States.

Senator Ted Cruz was born in Canada and registered at that time as a native born citizen of Canada at birth. This fact is evidenced by the release of his Canadian birth record and his May 14, 2014 renouncing of his Canadian citizenship. These two very public events prove that Ted Cruz was a Canadian citizen at birth and remained a legal citizen of Canada until renouncing that citizenship on May 14, 2014.

The claim has been made that Ted Cruz is a natural born Citizen of the United States, eligible for the Oval Office, despite these known facts. These claims are again, being made on the basis of misused 14th Amendment naturalization statutes which may allow his mother to confer naturalized U.S. citizenship to Ted, under certain conditions for doing so.

The record shows that Ted’s mother did not register him as a “U.S. Citizen born abroad” in Calgary, but rather as only a native born citizen of Canada at birth. The record also shows that Ted Cruz remained a legal citizen of Canada until May 14, 2014, when he renounced that citizenship.

To date, no records of Ted Cruz ever being registered in the United States as a citizen of any kind have been released or found. A “citizen” without any authenticated documentation is by definition, an “undocumented citizen.” The legal term for undocumented citizen is “illegal alien” or “resident alien,” one who resides in the United States with no known authenticated documentation of their true citizenship status.

In fact, the term “undocumented citizen” is an oxymoron…. According to our immigration and naturalization laws, if one is not documented, they are not a citizen. They are a “resident alien.” In their efforts to collect taxes from anywhere they can, the I.R.S. created numerous new “classes of citizens” in order to collect taxes from people in our country illegally and without any other documentation.

As of this writing, Ted Cruz is a “resident alien” of the United States, not a natural born Citizen of the United States. That’s what our laws and Ted’s personal documentation prove.

When the FB survey asked “conservatives” if anchor babies or undocumented citizens are natural born Citizens eligible for the Oval Office, they answered NO with 100% accuracy. But when you point out that Marco Rubio is nothing more than an anchor baby or that Ted Cruz is anundocumented resident alien, their opinions begin to shift, sometimes violently.

Once the political agenda of the respondent enters the discussion, the simple truth they once knew is replaced by micro debate arguments that allow them to avoid reality by splitting hairs and relying on “legal expert opinions” that serve their agenda, regardless of fundamentally knowing it is all smoke and mirrors…

Despite knowing that a 14th Amendment citizen is a naturalized citizen ineligible for office, they still use 14th Amendment arguments to qualify their candidate of choice.

Americans are accustomed to people with unbridled political ambitions saying anything they have to in pursuit of that power. What’s new here is the willingness of American voters to go along with it.

Over the past couple of weeks, I have received numerous fund-raising emails that I thought came from the Ted Cruz 2016 campaign. In the last day or two, I have received the same fund-raising emails for Marco Rubio – also assuming those emails were sent by his campaign.

But in fact, both of those fund-raising efforts for Cruz and Rubio came from the same source, the National Tea Party. An operation originally established to fight for restoration of Constitutional Government now finds itself squarely in the middle of undermining the Rule of Constitutional Law, and millions of unsuspecting Americans are following their lead.

This is what makes Americans the greatest threat to America… it comes down to just two factors…

  1. The human tendency to follow that which we want to be true, despite knowing what is true.
  2. The tendency to ignore reality in favor of a political fantasy.

Neither Ted Cruz nor Marco Rubio is a natural born Citizen of the United States. A letter to Ted Cruz dated December 2013 literally begged Ted not to force his fraudulent condition into the daylight by running for President. He never answered that letter… His political ambitions proved to be much more powerful than his desire to simply do right.

Still, the real problem remains the average American voter… who despite knowing the truth, side with the lie believing the political end will justify the unconstitutional means.

If natural born Citizen no longer matters to the average voter, then nothing else in the Charters of Freedom matters, because you cannot protect the Constitutional Republic without preventing foreign entities from holding the most powerful office in our land.

Two of the people who should have stopped Obama from the U.S. Senate are instead, trying to ride his coattails of fraud to the Oval Office themselves…. Both are highly trained lawyers, so there is no claiming ignorance of the law. And these two have the backing of the National Tea Party…. Global governance only works in America once anyone from anywhere in the world can be Commander-in-Chief….

The same group will soon announce that Ben Carson is entering the race and they are raising money for all of these candidates…. Only a fool would give them a penny for any of them…. Only to wait to see how the Tea Party uses their money to drive the final nail in the coffin of the United States.

These groups are not just watching the end of the American presidency, they are participating in it… they are leading it.

Hillary Clinton: THE WORST OF THE WORST OPPORTUNIST

The United States of America has always been a land of opportunity. Unfortunately, that has meant both good and bad opportunity. We all know about the good opportunity because it is what the American Dream is based upon. The American Dream brings out the best in all of us. It leads us to success and it drives us through our families. It’s about being better today than we were yesterday. That is all a part of the good opportunity and right now, America has a huge opportunity and unfortunately it is the bad kind.

We are seeing the ramping up of the campaign season for the next election in 2016 and there is bad opportunity all around. We see candidate after candidate not living up to what we believe is still the American Dream. We see candidate after candidate from all levels of government telling us about their ideas to help the American people as a whole and individually. The reason this is a bad opportunity is because history has shown and taught us that big government can never help us on an individual level. I cannot even begin to fathom how someone, anyone, would argue that fact since we have overwhelming evidence which includes data and history that over shadows any small successes there might have been in this area.

What is worse is that bad opportunity always attracts bad characters. It attracts the worst our nation has to offer. These bad characters come to us in shiny cloths, shiny cars, they live in shiny homes, and work in shiny offices. But underneath it all, they are dirty, filthy, disgusting human beings. Shall I name a few? How about one? Clinton.

The facts and history are there and those facts and that history is not good. It’s not shiny. It’s not even dim. It is just filthy and disgusting. How can someone even think about running for public office and represent many, many people with a record as filthy as Hillary Clinton’s? It’s that bad opportunity calling. She cannot help herself. You see, bad opportunists are arrogant and self-important. They believe they are the best of the best when in fact they are the worst of the worst.

What difference does it make you ask? It makes all the difference in the world. If someone cannot be trusted with the little things, then how can they be trusted with the big things? Indeed, how could they ever be trusted with the HUGE things? Mrs. Clinton has a filthy history of lies, deceit, neglect, bad judgment, possible criminal activity and the list goes on and on and on. How is it that someone who is so filthy can get away with appearing so shiny? How is it that Americans allow themselves to be insulted to such a level by a bad opportunist?

Is it the promises that she and others make? These same promises they never seem to deliver upon Oh sure, they always have an excuse but then a bad opportunist always has an excuse. But that excuse never includes their own failures. Mrs. Clinton had a bad history while she was the First Lady of the State of Georgia. Then she graduated and delivered more bad history as First Lady of the United States of America and it did not stop there. She decided to shop for a senate seat and landed in a state she was known to have disparaged. It would be safe to say that Hillary Clinton hated New York State before she loved it. And she only loved it because she was able to get the citizens of that state to see only the shiny. Then she gets elected and proceeds to deliver even more bad history. Oh but she does not stop there. The one thing about a bad opportunist is that they are never satisfied with being stuck on a level that is below the level they believe in their own little minds they should be. She set her sights on the White House and being the first female President of the United States but she didn’t quite make it because an even greater bad opportunist beat her this time. But she landed on her feet as most bad opportunists often do.

The greater bad opportunist, President Obama, decided to make the lesser bad opportunist, Hillary Clinton, Senator from the Great State of New York, the Secretary of State for the United States of America and we all know what happened there. Yes more bad history was delivered. Very bad history. History so bad that even many of her supporters cannot successfully hide any of it. This history is so bad that it includes the death of four dedicated Americans under her watch and she didn’t even care.

Yet she claims she wants to be the “champion” for the American people. How can she be a champion when she has not even graduated from the Bantam leagues? Oh I know how. Because she is a bad opportunist. You and I can stop a bad opportunist. It’s really not too hard. We just have to vote for a good opportunist candidate. We have to make sure our neighbors, our family, and our co-workers fully understand how bad she is. And then make sure they see and understand there is a good opportunist who may actually deserve our vote. A good opportunist doesn’t try to make themselves all shiny. Instead, they understand they are but one light in a sea of lights that together makes a good and shiny light for all the world to see and admire.

The United States cannot be shiny if we have a dirty, filthy, bad opportunist leading. We have already seen what a dirty opportunist can do to a nation. Do we really want another dim, dirty, filthy darkness over shadowing the good light?

I sincerely hope not.

Anti-Semitism and Jewish Dissonance on the 2016 Campaign Trail

The left has to do some soul-searching and reflect why it describes anti-Semitism as political expression, but criticism of Muslims as hate speech. Liberal Jews have to do the same about Obama.

The 2016 presidential cycle is beginning to gear up, with Hillary Clinton assuming the mantle of presumptive Democratic nominee and Republican hopefuls preparing to compete with each other during the primary season.  And Jewish Democrats are already lining up to shill for Clinton and attack the Republicans.

If the litmus test for Jewish voter loyalty is Israel, however, Democrats long ago abdicated any authority to determine “who’s good for the Jews” by their continuing support for Barack Obama – despite his relationships with Israel-bashers, his appeasement of Islamist regimes, his disrespectful treatment of Binyamin Netanyahu, and his pursuit of a deal with Iran that rewards aggression, enables its nuclear ambitions and threatens the existence of the Jewish State.

Jewish Democrats attacked Republican Senator Marco Rubio for allegedly creating a political wedge issue when he spoke in support of Israel from the Senate floor in response to the White House’s personal attacks against Netanyahu before his address to Congress in March.  They criticized Rubio even as Obama refused to meet with Netanyahu and Democratic operatives were meddling in Israel’s election in an unsuccessful attempt to push a left-wing coalition to victory.  It seems that party hacks were more interested in belittling Rubio’s unwavering support for Israel than in condemning the negative message sent by the fifty-eight Congressional Democrats (some of them Jews) who boycotted Bibi’s speech, and by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s churlish conduct in turning her back to the Prime Minister as he spoke.

Similarly, the National Jewish Democratic Council was quick to criticize Kentucky Senator Rand Paul for his position on aid to Israel and to insinuate that he would be detrimental to the Jewish State.  This criticism is actually valid in light of Paul’s past statements about reducing aid to Israel and his isolationist rhetoric – as well as the dubious positions of his father, Rep. Ron Paul, regarding Israel.  But it is hypocritical for Jewish Democrats to sound the alarm regarding Paul’s candidacy considering how they portrayed Obama as a friend to Israel and champion of Jewish values while ignoring his associations with anti-Semites, his uncritical acceptance of the revisionist Palestinian narrative, and his hostility toward the Jewish State – particularly during last year’s war in Gaza.

There is clearly a strategy to push a distorted narrative that taints all conservatives with the presumption of anti-Semitism, though hatred of Jews is far more prevalent on the political left these days.  While there is a history of anti-Semitism on the right to be sure, there is just as long and pernicious a tradition of Jew-hatred on the left, where it has been a potent political force since the rise of socialism, communism and European liberalism.  It permeated the ideological fabric of these movements because it was part of the societies in which they grew.  Progressives today often project hostility for Jews and Israel onto conservatives while pretending that liberal and Muslim anti-Semitism does not exist.

Studies show that anti-Semitism today is much more pervasive on the left than the right.  As reported in the “Annual Report: Anti-Semitism in 2013, Trends and Events” by Israel’s Ministry for Jerusalem and Diaspora Affairs, for example, “[t]he anti-Zionism prevalent mainly on the left, which has already become an integral part of the permanent worldview of individuals and groups of the left, can today be defined as a cultural code replacing anti-Semitism and enabling its disseminators to deny all connection to anti-Semitism.”

And a 2014 German study analyzing anti-Semitic trends reflected by hate mail showed that most bigoted communications during the survey period came from the political mainstream, including university professors and the well-educated (i.e., segments of the population that tend to identify as liberal).  In contrast, only three percent of the offensive communications came from right-wing nationalists.  The study, conducted by Professor Monika Schwarz-Friesel, professor of linguistics at the Technical University of Berlin, and published in a book entitled, “The Language of Hostility toward Jews in the 21st Century,” indicated that hatred of Jews was often presented as criticism of Israel using traditional anti-Semitic canards and imagery.

Though progressive anti-Zionists glibly attempt to distinguish hatred of Israel from hatred of Jews, it is a distinction without a difference.  The left-wing movements in Europe traditionally considered religion and nationality societal evils and, accordingly, disparaged the Jews because they represented the most enduring elements of both.  The anti-Zionism espoused by so many progressives today makes use of the same stereotypes and conspiracy theories that have been ascribed to Jews for generations and, consequently, is no different from old-fashioned Jew-hatred.

The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (“BDS”) and Israel Apartheid Week (“IAW”) movements are purely creations of the progressive left in partnership with Islamist interests.  The left is obsessed with demonizing Israel and advancing anti-Jewish conspiracy theories, with progressive academics routinely defending campus anti-Semitism as political speech while simultaneously censoring any criticism of Muslims as “Islamophobic.”

Conversely, the European right today is generally more supportive of Israel, Jews and free speech.  American conservatives likewise exhibit greater affinity for Israel than do their liberal counterparts, and Congressional Republicans support pro-Israel legislation and resolutions far more frequently than do their Democratic colleagues.  These trends were reflected in a recent Gallup poll showing that 83% of Republicans sympathize with Israel compared to only 48% of Democrats.  Indeed, pejorative Congressional letters mischaracterizing Israeli policies as belligerent and reproaching Israel for defending herself are written almost exclusively by Democrats.

The left maintains a sympathetic attitude towards Islamist rejectionism as reflected by its support for BDS, IAW and the revisionist Palestinian narrative, and this cannot be obscured by the hurling of scandalous accusations of Jew-hatred against conservatives who, unlike liberals, have taken meaningful and effective steps to combat it.  Nearly a quarter century ago, the late William F. Buckley rid the National Review of those whose denunciations of Israel he believed were motivated by anti-Semitism.  He then wrote “In Search of Anti-Semitism,” which represented a watershed in political self-analysis and moral accountability.

The left has yet to engage in similar soul searching.  Instead, it excuses anti-Semitism as political expression, even as it stifles criticism of Muslims as hate-speech.  Unfortunately, warped views often attributed to the “hard left” have infected the liberal mainstream, as evidenced by the failure of its establishment to wholeheartedly condemn bigotry against Jews and Israel the way Buckley did in 1992, or to ostracize progressive extremists whose venom clearly sounds in classical anti-Semitism.

When it comes to party politics, Jewish Democrats have been deluding themselves since the days of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, when they substituted New Deal priorities for authentic Jewish values and regarded FDR as a savior.  Despite their blind devotion, FDR was accepting only of those who were assimilated and aligned with him politically.  He seemed indifferent to Jewish suffering in Europe, as reflected by the views of his special Mideast envoy, Harold Hoskins, who recommended censoring “Zionist propaganda” that consisted largely of publicizing the Nazi genocide and lobbying for rescue efforts.  Roosevelt’s Secretary of State, Cordell Hull, advised the maintenance of tight immigration restrictions that effectively condemned many to the death camps, and such recommendations guided FDR’s policy for much of the Second World War.

When reports of the genocide began to spread early in the war, the administration prevailed upon its progressive Jewish allies to downplay the news and discredit those reporting it.  Many Jewish New Dealers acquiesced in an effort to prevent distractions to the war effort and embarrassment to a president they idolized.  Some of FDR’s Jewish acolytes waged a shameful campaign to malign those who were publicizing the Holocaust, including Peter Bergson (Hillel Kook), going so far as to demand that Bergson and his compatriots be investigated for tax crimes and jailed or deported, though no improprieties were ever found.

Some Jewish Democrats even attempted to undermine the 1943 “Rabbis’ March on Washington” conceived by Bergson in conjunction with the Aggudat HaRabonim.  The event involved four-hundred Orthodox rabbinical scholars, including Rabbis Eliezer Silver, Avraham Kalmanowitz and Moshe Feinstein, many of whom were immigrants and none of whom looked or dressed like FDR’s secular political cronies. Encouraged by some of his Jewish confidantes, Roosevelt left the White House to avoid meeting the rabbis.

Many assimilated New Dealers sacrificed Jewish interests and pledged themselves to an administration that devoted military resources to saving works of European art, but which refused to bomb the concentration camps or the railway lines leading to them in order to stop the carnage.  When US policy finally changed to make saving Jewish lives a priority, it proved too little, too late.  Nevertheless, the lionization of Roosevelt provided the blueprint for a political cognitive dissonance that continues today.

The endorsement of President Obama is a case in point.  He sat in the pews of Jeremiah Wright’s church for more than twenty years and associated with radical academics and anti-Israel ideologues.  As a senator he had no record of support for Israel, and since becoming president he has conspicuously refused to acknowledge the Jews’ historical rights in their homeland.  He has treated Israel more like an enemy than an ally and has appeased Islamist regimes dedicated to destroying her and exterminating her people.  Nevertheless, he has been portrayed as philo-Semitic by the liberal Jewish elite.

The real story should be apparent from his words and actions, however, including his public spats with Netanyahu and lecturing to Israelis who reject his worldview – which to the attuned ear might sound similar in tone to common progressive excoriation of Israel.

It would be more honest for his Jewish supporters to admit they no longer regard Israel and traditional values as political priorities.  However, given their support for a man who has been deemed more hostile to the Jewish State than any other president, it is disingenuous for them to use faux concern for Israel as a pretext for discouraging other Jews from voting Republican.

Since the days of FDR, politically progressive Jews have sacrificed religious and ethnic loyalty for political acceptance.  That was why Roosevelt knew he could count on Jewish support in downplaying reports of the Holocaust when he so requested.  And this is why Obama recently met with American Jewish leaders in an attempt to silence criticism of an Iran policy that threatens the future of the Jewish homeland.

The partisan delusion continues with groups such as “Jewish Americans for Hillary,” whose website proclaims that “[t]hroughout her career, Hillary Clinton has fought for the issues that matter most to Jewish Americans.”  Given her complicity in Obama’s efforts to “put daylight” between the U.S. and Israel, one has to wonder what issues they believe are important to American Jews.  Her position during the Ramat Shlomo crisis in 2010 should indicate where she really stands.  When Obama referred to Ramat Shlomo – an established Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem – as a “settlement” and demanded that Israel cease all building activities there, Clinton chided Netanyahu publicly and characterized neighborhood construction as “an insult to the United States.”

During her tenure under Obama, Clinton did not disagree when he demanded that Israel pull back to the 1949 armistice lines and divide Jerusalem; and she devalued Israeli sovereignty by lambasting construction on ancestral Jewish land while ignoring illegal Arab building.  She promoted Mahmoud Abbas as moderate, whitewashed the PA’s support for terrorism, and presided over renewed American participation in the anti-Semitic UN Human Rights Council.

As Mrs. Clinton attempts to rewrite her history at the State Department and posture herself as a stalwart ally within the Obama administration, Jewish voters should instead consider the decline in American national prestige and the shameful treatment of Israel that characterized her tenure as America’s top diplomat.

If Jews who supported President Obama now truly care about Israel’s future, they should acknowledge how he has compromised her national integrity, empowered her enemies and exacerbated the existential threat to her survival.  They must also recognize that he has not acted alone, and that his ill-conceived policies have been enabled by fellow Democrats – including Hillary Clinton, whose actual record on Israel is spotty and opportunistic at best.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Israel National News.

Dr. Carson Meets the Press

Now that a new Fox News poll shows Dr. Ben Carson tied for first place with former Florida governor Jeb Bush among all potential 2016 Republican presidential nominees, it’s time that he prepared himself for a full scale assault by the mainstream media and by the same establishment Republicans who nominated George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, George W. Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney.

Dr. Carson’s interview with Chris Cuomo of CNN is a perfect example of the inquisition he will face, only because he is a black conservative.  In that interview he was asked, “Do you think being gay is a choice?”  In response, Dr. Carson used the prison experience to support his point of view.  He said, “… a lot of people who go into prison straight – and when they come out, they’re gay.  So, did something happen while they were in there?  Ask yourself that question.”

That response was not sufficient to satisfy the mainstream media or gay activists.  Instead, if he had been adequately prepped he might have said, “There is some clinical research which tends to show that most homosexuals are apparently born with that sexual orientation.  However, we must also recognize that many men and women enter the prison population as heterosexuals, but then adopt a homosexual lifestyle while incarcerated… suggesting that, at some point, they chose to engage in homosexual behavior.  What this tells us is that there is much we still don’t understand about the homosexual phenomenon.”

As a non-politician, Dr. Carson can expect to be probed even more intensely than his Republican counterparts, even though several competitors are first-term members of the U.S. Senate.  Allow me to suggest some of the questions that will likely be put to Dr. Carson, along with some recommended responses:

Interviewer:  “Dr. Carson, you are an internationally renowned neurosurgeon.  Until recently you served as Chief of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Medical Center.  Serving as president of the United States is another matter entirely.  With your background, what makes you think that you should be considered as a viable candidate for president of the United States?

Dr. Carson:  “Well, I’m told that there are those who say that, given the mess that Barack Obama has made of things, he has essentially ruined things for any future black man who might have presidential ambitions, and that the American people may not elect another black president for generations to come.  I would remind them that, after Jimmy Carter earned a reputation as the worst president in U.S. history, I don’t recall anyone suggesting that he’d ruined everything  for all future white candidates.  Instead, four years later, the people elected a conservative Republican, Ronald Reagan, who not only ended the Cold War but implemented tax policies that gave us a period of economic growth that actually produced revenue surpluses by the mid-90s.”

Interviewer:  “In an April NPR interview, President Obama suggested that one of your rivals, Governor Scott Walker, should ‘bone up on foreign policy.’  What do you say to those who suggest that you would have even less experience in foreign affairs than Governor Walker?”

Dr. Carson:  “I would suggest that Barack Obama is the last person who should be questioning someone else’s foreign policy credentials.  For example, he spent most of his formative years, up to age ten, as a citizen of Indonesia; he has admitted that he visited Pakistan as a 20-year-old student and that he visited relatives in Kenya when he was in his mid-to-late twenties.  Visiting relatives and seeing the sights in foreign lands as a child and as a young man has nothing to do with assessing political and economic conditions.  In fact, if he’d learned anything at all from his travels he would have a far more positive view of American exceptionalism than he has today.”

Interviewer:  “In the history of our country, only twelve of our forty-four presidents had no military service.  You would be the first Republican since Herbert Hoover with no military service.  That being the case, how would you propose to win the respect of those in the military services as their commander in chief?”

Dr. Carson:  “The men and women of our armed forces are the finest that America has to offer.  And I can assure you that, regardless of whatever military experience a president may or may not have, the people in our armed services are more than capable of understanding when their commander in chief has their back and whether or not he commands their respect.  If I am given the opportunity to serve as their commander in chief, they will know that I will move Heaven and Earth to give them all the tools they need and that I will not send them on fools errands.  They can also be assured that, when I do what is necessary to retrieve a man who has been charged with desertion, the release of five of the worst of the worst Islamic terrorists will not be among my bargaining chips.”

Interviewer:  “Two of the early entrants into the 2016 Republican presidential primary are first term senators.  As a physician, you have even less political experience than they.  Don’t you think that the country needs and deserves a leader with far more experience?”

Dr. Carson:  I would point out to you that Barack Obama was a first-term senator when he ran for president and his failures may cause some to think twice about electing another first-term senator, or a pediatric neurosurgeon.  However, it is important to realize that Obama’s failures are not a product of his inexperience.  He has failed because his ideas and his policies are wrong for this country.  In my thirty-six year career as a neurosurgeon at Johns Hopkins, I have been required to make more life-or-death decisions in a week or a month than a president might be called upon to make in two terms in the White House.  And,unlike Barack Obama, I have always been available when the really tough decisions had to be made.”

Interviewer:  “Dr. Carson, if you are the nominee of the Republican Party, your likely Democrat opponent will be former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.  How do you respond to charges that she is highly experienced in foreign affairs while you have little or no experience in that realm?”

Dr. Carson:  Let’s look at the facts.  Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama engaged in a very bitter campaign for the 2008 Democratic nomination, a campaign in which the Clintons charged that the Obama people played the “race card” on them in South Carolina.  In the interest of party unity, Obama agreed to appoint Mrs. Clinton as Secretary of State.  He gave her a large staff and the use of an airplane and told her to just travel… which she did… while foreign policy was made at the White House by Obama, Valerie Jarrett, and Susan Rice.  It’s impressive to hear Mrs. Clinton cite the number of miles she’s traveled and the number of countries she’s visited.  However, when asked to name one accomplishment she can point to as Secretary of State, Democrats are strangely silent.  As my colleague, Carly Fiorina, has correctly pointed out, Mrs. Clinton should understand that traveling is an ‘activity,’ not an ‘accomplishment.’ ”

Interviewer:  “It is quite clear to everyone by now that Barack Obama and the Democrats are doing everything in their power to wrap up Hispanics as yet another captive voting constituency.  In fact, they are talking about giving illegals Social Security cards, voter registration cards, free health care, free education, food stamps, and housing assistance.  Since Republicans can’t be expected to enter into a bidding war for the hearts and minds of Hispanics, if you are elected president, how would you propose to counter that effort by the Democrats?”

Dr. Carson:  Your question presupposes that Hispanics would vote as a bloc for no better reason than that their votes are being bought.  If I were a Hispanic I would be highly insulted by that suggestion.  I believe that the members of our Hispanic population are among the hardest working people in America and I refuse to believe that they come to our country looking for a handout, rather than a hand up.  As a case in point, I would refer you to the personal story of Senator Cruz’s father, Raphael, who came to this country from Cuba with only $100 sewed into his clothing.  He took a job as a dishwasher and worked his way through college.  Now he has a son who is a Harvard Law School graduate and a candidate for president of the United States.  That is the American Dream that Hispanics seek and I will never be convinced otherwise.”        

Interviewer:  “You have been quoted as saying that you would not go to war with Russia over Ukraine, but that military action should not be taken off the table.  Armed conflict with Russia could conceivably pose the threat of a nuclear exchange.  If you believe that to be true, under what circumstances would you consider going to war with Russia?”

Dr. Carson“Look.  I don’t know of a single person in possession of his faculties who believes that the United States would ever launch a preemptive nuclear attack against another country.  But every country with nuclear weapons must know that, if they were ever foolish enough to launch a preemptive strike against the United States, retribution would be swift and certain.  In the United States, nuclear weapons are seen as a deterrent, not as tactical weapons.” 

Now that Dr. Carson is officially a viable candidate for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination, he should always be aware that every response to reporters’ questions must contain three elements: 1) a brief clarification of the issue at hand, 2) a clear and concise statement of his position on the issue, and 3) a solid shot across the opposition’s bow.  If the mainstream media insist on using Barack Obama as the standard by which Dr. Carson is to be judged, then the bar has been set very low.  He should take full advantage of that weakness at every opportunity.

What Would the Country Look Like If the Far Left Won?

I read this piece by Dr. Tim Daughtry titled “Calling for a true conservative strategy” from Feb 4. 2013 today, and thought: What would our country look like if we simply capitulated to the far-left and let them win?

Daughtry has a line in the piece which is tragically accurate:

“The strategy (of the far-left) was one of immersion more than conversion. It was not necessary to convert students or consumers of news to leftist thinking; it was only necessary to surround them with liberalism as if there were no other respectable way of thinking. While conservatives were focused on winning the next election, the left focused on winning the next generation. And they are succeeding.”

Their “immersion” strategy has been a tremendous success. It has changed the debate landscape by altering the playing field from one where two different ideological belief systems competed against one another (individual liberty and limited government vs. heavy-handed rule by government elites), to one where heavy-handed government intervention in our lives is accepted as “the norm,” and arguing against big government makes you an “extremist” or something far worse in the eyes of the cultural “elites.”

Consider for a moment what the country would look like if we completely gave up and let the far-left win, here’s what you would be looking at:

Taxes

You would be living a country with no limit on your tax bills. The far-left consistently argues for higher taxes but, did you notice that that never give you a tax rate number and only talk loosely about your “fair share?” They will never give you that actual number because they do not want to limit their access to your wallet. If the far-left won, and conservatives stopped fighting, the assault on your wallet would only end when they claimed all of the money in your wallet and the wallet too.

Healthcare 

You would be living in a country where access to doctors and hospitals is tightly controlled by government bureaucrats. Never forget this; there are only two ways to allocate scarce resources in this world we have been given and a doctor’s time, and a hospital bed, are scarce resources. We can either ration those resources, and let the bureaucrats pick and choose who gets to see the doctor and who gets the hospital bed, or we can price them and let a free-people make decisions about which doctor they want to see and which hospital they want to use. If the far-left won, and Conservatives stopped fighting, your health would no longer belong to you. Your health would belong to a government bureaucrat and his permission slip.

Graduation Cap With Message

The legions of children in school choice programs who finally have a future to look forward to would be yanked out of these programs and their better tomorrow would be heartlessly stolen away.

Education 

You would be living a country where your children can only attend government schools and where the curriculum is tightly controlled by bureaucrats. The far-left fights against school choice, despite the fact that your tax dollars entirely fund the public education system because, when given the choice, parents choose schools that actually educate their kids and this severely limits the power of the bureaucracy/special interests. If the far-left won and conservatives stopped fighting, the legions of children in school choice programs who finally have a future to look forward to would be yanked out of these programs and their better tomorrow would be heartlessly stolen away.

Liberty

You would be living in a country where your speech and religious expression were tightly controlled by laws and regulations which bureaucrats deem “acceptable.” The far-left only believes in “free speech” when that speech strictly aligns with leftist thinking. Any other speech or religious expression which conflicts with leftist thinking is to be declared “non-inclusive” or “hate speech”, and the person speaking must immediately be labeled as an “extremist.” If the far-left won and conservatives stopped fighting, it would only be a matter of time before this “war on language” encompassed anyone and everyone who opposed the DC power players and the cultural elites.

It is precisely for this reason that we need a Republican nominee for President and a new generation of candidates who are not beholden to this failed strategy of yesterday. A failed strategy which apologizes for fighting for effective, conservative principles first, then meekly tries to lay out a “managed-decline” plan next. We cannot and will not be any part of any “managed-decline” of the most prosperous country on earth. We must support candidates who disavow this and proudly speak about liberty, free-market prosperity, limited-government and the boundless potential of tomorrow where the American people are unrestrained by government. A better tomorrow is right around the corner and it’s up to us to stop watching the boxing match, put on the gloves and get in the ring. The future of the country is not a spectator sport.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Conservative Review. The featured image is by OLIVIER DOULIERY | AP Photo.

Dr. Ben Carson Answers the Clamoring of Millions of Americans to Run for President

MERRIFIELD, Va./PRNewswire/ — Citing the critical need to heal a nation more bitterly divided politically than it has been at any time in the past 150 years, Dr. Ben Carson on May 4th in Detroit announced his candidacy for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.

“As a world-renowned neurosurgeon, Dr. Carson knows a thing or two about healing,” said John Philip Sousa IV, co-founder and chairman of The 2016 Committee, the political action committee originally formed to draft Carson into the presidential race. “I know I speak for millions of Americans in thanking Dr. Carson for entering this race and pledging to support his candidacy.”

“Dr. Carson’s candidacy represents the best and really the only opportunity we have to heal America and to bring Americans back together again under the banner of our Constitution,” Sousa added.

The Committee has been at the forefront of the movement urging Dr. Carson to run for president. Starting in August of 2013, it conducted  a petition campaign that ultimately collected more than 500,000 signatures from Americans urging Dr. Carson to enter the race. The Committee operates full time offices in Iowa and New Hampshire, and chairmen are in place in nearly every state coordinating more than 30,000 volunteers nationwide. The Committee has raised more than $16 million from more than 150,000 individual donors since 2013.

“For two years, Dr. Carson has said that if people clamored for him to run for president, he would have to answer their call,” said Vernon Robinson, The 2016 Committee’s campaign director. “Well, they indeed clamored, and he has answered them. But our work is far from over.  We will continue growing the massive grassroots network in pace to support Dr. Carson’s candidacy, and look ahead toward key Republican presidential straw polls and the September debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.”

“Dr. Carson’s candidacy will build on the massive grass-roots network that sprang up to encourage him to get into the race in the first place,” Robinson said. “He’s in it to win it, and we’re with him all the way.”

Dr. Carson is consistently among likely Republican voters’ top picks for the nomination. In one recent CNN survey, Dr. Carson placed second behind Mitt Romney but ahead of other likely contenders including formerFlorida Gov. Jeb Bush and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. Dr. Carson finished an impressive second place in the 2014 Bloomberg/Des Moines Register presidential poll of likely caucus-goers, and scored an overwhelming victory in the Polk County Republican Dinner in Des Moines in August. He also won the Linn County, Iowa, midterm caucus straw poll in January 2014.

The now-retired Dr. Carson chose Detroit for his announcement because that’s where he grew up and because he wanted to use the bankrupt city as a metaphor for President Obama’s failed economic policies. He says his campaign will speak out against Mr. Obama’s radical left-wing agenda, because he loves his country and wants to save it.

About The 2016 Committee

The 2016 Committee, formed expressly to draft Dr. Carson into the race for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, was founded in August 2013. Going forward, it will work to raise awareness of Dr. Carson’s qualifications, and will engage grass-roots conservative activists on behalf of his candidacy to provide the margin of victory for Ben Carson. For more information, visit www.2016committee.org or connect on Twitter@DraftRunBenRun or Facebook.com/RunBenRun.org.

Hillary Clinton for President? NO WAY!!

A few weeks ago, Hillary Clinton announced her desire to be the next President of the United States of America. This is both wrong and frightening at the same time. Mrs. Clinton does not quality nor does she deserve to be President of this great nation. Her qualifications have nothing to do with her being a female. In fact, I welcome a qualified female to be president when that qualified female decides to run for the nation’s highest and most powerful public office.

This statement will not stop those on the left from calling me a sexist. They will, indeed, call me a sexist and a host of other names. They will try to lambaste me, deride me, make fun of me, and name call all in an effort to either get me to shut up or to discredit what I have said about her.

The fact is, I do not lie. I am only interested in the truth. The Constitutional Truth. The historical truth. The truth is, Mrs. Clinton is not trustworthy to hold this high office. Mrs. Clinton is not qualified to hold this high office. Mrs. Clinton has proven she does not deserve to hold this high office.

Sure, I can run down the litany of reasons why she is not qualified. But I really do not need to do that as those reasons have been given, discussed, debated, and even argued over and over and over, ad nauseam. Instead, I will formally ask those who support her for this office, why do you support her? What has she done specifically, that would qualify her for this high office? What are her accomplishments that would suggest she would be a good representative of the people of the United States of America?

The problem with this question is that those who support her cannot answer them. They cannot delineate her accomplishments, her successes. On the other hand, we have a plethora of those on the left and the right that denigrate her, revile her, reveal her shortcomings, and excoriate her lack of class and proper demeanor. She is a woman proven to be ill tempered, vulgar, crude, a drunkard and a host of other adjectives.

This is not new with Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton. Indeed, those who have worked with her and for her when her Husband was President have been coming out of the woodwork to denigrate her. They talk about her legendary temper. Her lack of compassion. How she belittles and demeans those that work for her. In other words, they tell us she is not a nice person.

Of course the President of the United States is not out to win a world popularity contest. People do not have to like the President or the American People. But we do need a President the world respects and our enemies fear. Mrs Clinton does not command world leader respect nor do our enemies fear her. Her tour of duty as Secretary of State shows that she is not respected and not even thought of as being on the same level as the other world leaders. This will not change if she is elected President. Let’s face it, Barack Obama is our current President and most of the world does not respect him and our enemies do not fear him.

The very fact that she was a failure as Secretary of State should prove to even her ardent supporters that she is not qualified to be President. But let’s put that aside for a minute. All of her current and seemingly new and endless scandals should be the nail in the coffin of her candidacy. It seems there is a new scandal almost on a weekly basis. And, she still has not put previous scandals to rest. Can you imagine a President with such baggage? Who would she owe? Who would she have to pay off? Who would she have to keep quiet? Scandals have a way of haunting you when you least expect them to. So again, I ask all of those who support Mrs. Clinton to be the next President of the United States of America, why, and be specific, do you believe she is qualified?

I, on the other hand, have more than a host of reasons why this woman should not be the next President of the United States. And yes I can give factual and historical reasons why. Besides, this is not a test of reason why not, this is a test of reason of why so. The silence of the left on this question is, rather, deafening.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Real Elephant in Hillary’s Scandal-Plagued Room