Posts

What is wrong with Democrats? It’s in their party’s name, stupid!

“Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide.” – John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814.

“The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.” – Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America.


The Democrats want America to become a democracy. The ideal of a Democracy is not only reflected in their name but it is in their political DNA.

Eliminate the Electoral College – The First Step Toward Suicide

The Democrats want to eliminate the Electoral College and choose the President of the United States by popular vote. They also want to give illegals and non-citizens voting rights. They want Americans, and non-citizens, to vote to commit suicide.

An email from the Progressive Caucus titled “It’s time to put an END to the Electoral College” states:

We can’t forget: in 2016, Trump LOST the popular vote to Hillary Clinton. But thanks to the Electoral College, he’s the President.

If we sit back and allow history to repeat itself, Trump could be re-elected next year!

So we’re taking action NOW and raising $15,000 to support Progressives who are working to abolish the Electoral College.

If you believe that the results of elections should reflect the will of the people, chip in now to help end the Electoral College:

[ … ]

Listen, the Electoral College consistently benefits Republicans at the expense of our democracy.

In fact, 2016 was not the first time a Republican won the presidency after losing the popular vote.

So it’s up to Progressives in Congress to put an end to this antiquated system and enact a National Popular Vote, once and for all.

It’s not going to be easy, but with the help of supporters like you, they can make it happen.

If you believe every vote should truly count in our elections, chip in now to help end the Electoral College:

Eliminating the Electoral College has become one of the major talking points of not only the Progressive Caucus but also for some of the Democrat candidates running for president.

America is a Republic

America is not a Democracy. The U.S. Constitution was set up by the Founding Fathers to prevent the United States from ever becoming a Democracy.

Article 4, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution reads:

Article 4 – The States
Section 4 – Republican Government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Republic

republic n 1 : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and is usually a president; also : a nation or other political unit having such a government 2 : a government in which supreme power is held by the citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives governing according to law; also : a nation or other political unit having such a form of government Source: NMW

In the context of the United States of America, both definitions apply.

Conclusion

It’s all about the name. The Republican Party supports the U.S. Constitution and the American republican form of government. Democrats want to change, or even abolish, the U.S. Constitution in order to establish a democracy.

What we are witnessing today is treason led by members of the Democrat Party against a duly elected President. A President who won via the Electoral College.

Treason
treason n the offense of attempting to overthrow the government of one’s country or of assisting its enemies in war

President Trump tweeted the following:

As I learn more and more each day, I am coming to the conclusion that what is taking place is not an impeachment, it is a COUP, intended to take away the Power of the….

….People, their VOTE, their Freedoms, their Second Amendment, Religion, Military, Border Wall, and their God-given rights as a Citizen of The United States of America!

In “The Nature of Government,” Ayn Rand observed, “We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.”

Is this a coup? Are we approaching an “ultimate inversion” by the deep state?

We report, you will vote your conscience on Tuesday, November 3rd, 2020!

RELATED ARTICLES:

Elites Against Western Civilization

What’s Wrong With New York’s $250K Fines for Saying ‘Illegal Alien’

RELATED VIDEOS:

CNN Reports: Whistleblower Is A Registered Democrat

Democrats don’t seem happy about impeachment

© All rights reserved.

190,000 sign petition to impeach Muslim Rep. Rashida Tlaib who called Trump “motherf**er”

This is unlikely to succeed, but it shows widespread dissatisfaction not just with Tlaib, but with the direction the Left is taking.

“This woman is an anti-Semite, a war mongering hate filled Palestinian who has vowed to try and destroy our constitutional rights, hates America, hates American citizens.”

Can those charges reasonably be disputed?

“150,000 Sign Petition to Impeach Michigan’s Rashida Tlaib,” by Anthony Gockowski, Tennessee Star, January 12, 2019 (thanks to the Geller Report):

A Change.org petition calling for the impeachment of Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI-13) already has close to 160,000 signatures.

“This woman is an anti-Semite, a war mongering hate filled Palestinian who has vowed to try and destroy our constitutional rights, hates America, hates American citizens,” the petition states. “She’s a danger to our sovereignty, a detriment to society, and to this country, and is unfit to serve in any capacity within our government.”

The petition also takes issue with Tlaib’s election, claiming that she “lied about living in Detroit” by “using her father’s house address.”

Tlaib made headlines earlier this week when she vowed to “impeach the motherf—” during a party in celebration of her being sworn in to Congress.

“I stand by impeaching the president of the United States. I ran on that,” she said in an interview discussing her comments. She called her promise to impeach President Donald Trump something she “very much” holds “dearly.”

“They love that I’m real, and that I am very much focused on getting the government back up and running, but also making sure we’ve held the president of the United States accountable,” she said.

Tlaib later apologized that her comments caused a “distraction,” but refused to apologize for the explicit remarks….

SIGN THE IMPEACH RASHIDA TLAIB PETITION

RELATED ARTICLE: Muslim Congresswoman Courts Pro-Terror Activist Who Compared Israel to Nazis and ISIS

RELATED VIDEO: Rashida Tlaib’s brother praises terrorists.

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column with images is republished with permission. The featured image is from Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib’s Facebook page.

Why are the loudest proponents of ‘tolerance’ and ‘peace’ so frequently ugly, hateful people?

Not physically ugly, but ugly deep in their souls. Georgetown University professor Christine Fair happened upon neo-Nazi Richard Spencer, who is not me, at a gym and began berating him. The gym then revoked Richard Spencer’s membership. I have no regard for Richard Spencer, as often as I am confused with him (even in the comments at National Review on this piece, some clown says that the article should have highlighted Richard Spencer’s remarks on white nationalism, not his criticism of Islam; in reality, he is the one who writes about white nationalism, and I am the one who writes about Islam, and we are two completely different people): he has more than once demanded that I reveal my “real” name, as he is convinced that I am secretly a Jew who has changed my name to fool good white folks like him.

So while I have nothing but disgust for Richard Spencer, I have even greater disgust for Christine Fair, who in this incident showed herself to be more of a Nazi than Richard Spencer could ever hope to be. Like the Nazis, she wants those whom she hates destroyed, full stop. Just destroyed. She doesn’t want them to be able to speak in public. She doesn’t want them to be able to hold memberships in gyms. She doesn’t want them to be allowed to live in the city she lives in. She doesn’t want them to breathe. This is quintessentially Nazi behavior, and is in direct contradiction to the principles that make a society free.

While Richard Spencer is indeed a Nazi, albeit in a different way from how Fair is one, and there is no excuse for that, as long as he is not breaking any laws he has as much right to be in that gym as Christine Fair has. But not as far as Christine Fair is concerned. She has apparently not reflected upon the precedent she is setting, or on the possibility, as remote as it is, that one day her views could be out of favor, and she could find herself getting poisoned, and forbidden to speak, and screamed at by campus fascists, and driven out of gyms, and the like, and that a healthier and freer society allows for the freedom of expression and doesn’t persecute or hound those whose ideas are unpopular or even unarguably obnoxious.

National Review writer Jeremy Carl brings me into this because I have been on the receiving end of Fair’s wrath before, and have found her to be a shockingly rude, unkind, angry, and remarkably unpleasant individual — all while she preens as an exponent of “tolerance” and “peace.” Carl is a bit hasty, in my view, to accept the claims of my critics without evaluating those claims or my work on their merits, but his anxiousness to distance himself from me is perhaps understandable in a piece that appears in the publication that Ann Coulter so famously observed years ago was run by “girly men.”

I would happily debate Jeremy Carl, or Christine Fair, or any serious analyst on the nature of Islam or any of the assertions I have made in my work, and I am confident that the claims about my work that Carl so readily embraces here would, in that event, be proven false. It’s certain, however, that neither Carl nor Fair will agree to debate me, and so that is that. Whatever the undeniable flaws of Carl’s piece, he is dead-on about the Left’s increasing authoritarianism and thuggery. Mark my words: I won’t be the last enemy of the Left that Leftists will try to kill.

Addendum: I just noticed that in her hate screed against Richard Spencer in the Washington Post, Christine Fair cites as factual the thoroughly discredited study claiming that “right-wing extremists” pose a greater threat than Islamic jihadists. This is what an academic is today: not a thinking individual, but a propagandist for the hard-Left.

Georgetown University professor Christine Fair

“Liberal Bullies Threaten Free Speech,” by Jeremy Carl, National Review, May 24, 2017:

…Let’s stipulate that Richard Spencer is a man who has embraced values that are anathema to America’s, and that his vision is quite obviously not one that conservatives or Republicans share. But Fair publicly claims that Spencer’s very presence in the gym, because of his political views, creates an oppressive environment, which is a much more dramatic and potentially dangerous claim. If you are still cheering on Professor Fair, consider the case of another Spencer — Robert Spencer (no relation to Richard), a persistent critic of political Islam and a favorite of Steve Bannon and other figures in the Trump administration.After he spoke to a large audience last week in Reykjavik, Iceland, a leftist approached him as he was dining with companions and managed to slip a combination of MDMA (“Ecstasy”) and Ritalin into his drink, causing him to become ill to the point that he was hospitalized. Fortunately, police seem to have identified the perpetrator. But despite Spencer’s relative prominence and the dramatic nature of the crime, this political poisoning attracted almost no attention from the mainstream media.

As Spencer put it ruefully, “The lesson I learned was that media demonization of those who dissent from the leftist line is a direct incitement to violence. By portraying me and others who raise legitimate questions about jihad terror and Sharia oppression as racist, bigoted ‘Islamophobes’ without allowing us a fair hearing, they paint a huge target on the backs of those who dare to dissent.”

Spencer, the author of two New York Times bestsellers on radical Islam, is certainly controversial — and has his fair share of critics even on the right. But one should be able to be controversial without being poisoned. In the wake of the bombings in Manchester, are critics of political Islam really the people who should be beyond the pale of civil discourse?

hat does all this have to do with Professor Fair? Well, it turns out that Robert Spencer too has had his share of run-ins with Professor Fair, who according to Spencer called him a “lunatic” and likened him to Charles Manson while “refusing (of course) to debate me on questions of substance.” Robert Spencer says he has never met Fair in person, which has not saved him from being a repeated target of Fair’s ire.

Very well, you may say, but Spencer’s harsh and cherry-picked criticism of Islam may have stirred up legitimate anger — there’s no reason to defend him.

Well, how about Asra Nomani, a liberal Muslim immigrant woman, former Wall Street Journal reporter, and Georgetown professor who committed the mortal sin (to Christine Fair) of voting for Donald Trump and then writing a piece in the Washington Post explaining her decision. In response, she was brutally harassed by Professor Fair on Twitter for the better part of a month. As Nomani subsequently wrote to Georgetown in a formal complaint against Fair: “Prof. Fair has directed hateful, vulgar and disrespectful messages to me, including the allegations that I am: a ‘fraud’; ‘fame-mongering clown show’; and a ‘bevkuf,’ or ‘idiot,’ in my native Urdu, who has ‘pimped herself out’ . . . this last allegation amounts to ‘slut-shaming.’”

But while a quick perusal of Fair’s public statements reveals her to be an extreme case, a virtual parody of liberal intolerance, she is hardly the only liberal behaving badly. In just the past year, many conservatives, libertarians, and other assorted right-wingers, from Ann Coulter to Charles Murray to Heather Mac Donald to Milo Yiannopoulos to Ben Shapiro, have been shouted down and prevented, often by violence, from sharing their views, most often on America’s campuses. And so far, almost without exception, those universities have declined to give any significant punishment to the perpetrators. It is all well and good for conservatives to point out that there is a yawning gap between the Richard Spencers of the world and the Charles Murrays and Heather Mac Donalds. But for the Christine Fairs of the world — and an increasing number of her ideological soulmates on the left — they are all the same. None should have the right to speak — and increasingly, they are not even free to lead private lives free of harassment and threats. All of the people named above have been called “Nazis,” “white supremacists,” and similar epithets. If the Right, through silence, decides it’s okay to harass or physically attack Richard Spencer because he is a “Nazi” (a video clip of an Antifa member sucker-punching Spencer has become a favorite Internet meme on the left), they should not expect that the punchers will stop at Richard Spencer — or Robert Spencer, or even Asra Nomani. If we won’t fight for the free speech of those who anger the Left, no matter how distasteful we find their views, because we are afraid that the Left will wrongly ascribe their views to us, then conservatives are little more than feeding red meat to the ravenous left-wing lion in vain hopes that they will be the last ones eaten. And the lion is getting stronger and hungrier.

In his comments on Fair, written long before his poisoning incident, Robert Spencer wondered, “Why are the loudest proponents of ‘tolerance’ and ‘peace’ so frequently ugly, hateful people?” It’s a question the Left doesn’t want to answer — and too many on the right, afraid of being labeled as bigots by the most intolerant voices on the left, are scared to even ask.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Federal appeals court upholds block on Trump’s temporary immigration ban

UK: Manchester mayor Andy Burnham says jihad mass murderer was “not a Muslim”

TwitRage: Black Lives Matter demands police not drink Pepsi — Coca-Cola reponds

A Pepsi Cola ad featuring Kendall Jenner, a fashion model known for appearing in the E! reality television show Keeping Up with the Kardashians, was withdrawn after Black Lives Matter (BLM), OurStates.org, Organizing for Action and various supporters of the neo-Democrat party took to Twitter to denounce this anti-social justice, racist, bigoted, misogynistic advertisement.

Here is the now banned, by BLM and the Democratic National Committee, Pepsi ad:

Judy Kurtz and Mark Hensch from The Hill report:

Pepsi is reportedly pulling the plug on a sharply criticized new ad featuring Kendall Jenner ending a street protest by handing a can of soda to a police officer.

[ … ]

Jenner then approaches a police officer standing guard at the protest and hands him a Pepsi. The crowd erupts in cheers as the officer smiles and takes a sip of the soft drink.

[ … ]
Top Black Lives Matter activist DeRay McKesson said before Pepsi’s reversal Wednesday that the spot demeans social justice activists.

“The video in so many ways is offensive to all the people who’ve stood in the street for the past two years against police brutality and fighting injustice that the state has caused,” he told TMZ.

Here are a few examples of the TwitRage:

deray mckessonBLM activist  tweeted, “., this ad is trash.”

 tweeted, “The Kendall Jenner Pepsi fiasco is a perfect example of what happens when there’s no black people in the room when decisions are being made.”

, “i couldn’t make it through the whole thing. poc [people of color] being used as props, a rich celebrity solving social justice issues with soda…Cringe.”

, “particularly a celeb from a family famous for cultural appropriation. It’s like the cherry on this shit pie”

Pepsi Cola released an apology following the TwitRage:

man with ak47After reviewing our ad we realized that we did not properly portray the prototypical social justice activist (SJA).

Our staff is working on a new add that has the SJAs dressed in black hoodies, wearing masks and hurling Molotov cocktails made from Pepsi bottles at the police.

We will have Kendall at the end of our new commercial shoot a police officer using a zip-gun made from a Pepsi Cola can. The officer will slowly die drowning in his own blood while the social justice protesters cheer, to show our commitment to the latest millennial revolution! Fifty shades of red.

Pepsist! Pepsist! Pepsist!

Coca-Cola in a press release noted:

It appears that Pepsi has fallen on its own soda container. They tried to identify with those who are burning cars, attacking the police and destroying Starbucks coffee shops. The result TwitRage!

Darren-Lago-Coca-Cola-GunCoca-Cola will be doing a series of ads that will draw in ‘fly-over’ Americans. We are interested in those who voted for law and order, equal justice under the law and respect for one another. We will be offering a special Coca-Cola Colt Peacemaker (pictured).

Our new commercials will be branded Make Coke Great Again-Cola or MCGA-Cola.  We will be featuring in our new series of commercials using law enforcement officers, Navy SEALs, U.S. Army Rangers and Green Berets protecting innocents from those who would do them harm, like those in the Pepsi ad.

Appearing on our MCGA-Cola cans will be photographs of the 37 Hollywood stars who support President Donald J. Trump.

MCGA-Cola will begin shipping next month to local stores. #MAGA with #MCGA-Cola!

Let the cola wars begin!

RELATED ARTICLES:

Ferguson, Missouri Elects White Mayor – NBC News

Pepsi pulls widely mocked Kendall Jenner ad | TheHill

Stanford Accepts Muslim Teenager Who Wrote ‘BlackLivesMatter’ 100 Times On Application

EDITORS NOTE: This political satire originally appeared in Soldier of Fortune magazine.

Keith Ellison: ‘Blacks don’t have an obligation’ to obey government

he Muslim Brotherhood-linked Keith Ellison, the first Muslim to be elected to Congress, also has past ties to the Nation of Islam — a black Islamic supremacist, anti-white, anti-gay, anti-Catholic and virulently anti-Semitic group. He conveniently denounced his involvement with the group when it suited him in 2006, after it became an issue during his first run for Congress.

It would seem that no matter how much hatred Ellison has spewed against the U.S. and Israel, his documented Islamic supremacist ties, and his facilitating of the crudest divisions in racial politics, he is still a trusted and influential Democratic leader, and likely soon to be the Chair of the DNC.

“Keith Ellison Once Said Black People Don’t Have ‘Obligation’ To Obey Government”, by Peter Hassan, The Daily Caller, February 23, 2017:

Democratic congressman and DNC chair front-runner Keith Ellison once said that “black people don’t live in a democracy” and “don’t have an obligation” to obey the government.

Ellison made the comments at a 1992 protest after white police officers were acquitted in the beating of Rodney King. At least 63 people died in the racially charged riots following the verdict.

Minnesota newspaper the Star Tribune quotes Ellison as telling a group of protesters in Minneapolis that “Black people do not live under a democracy.”

“You don’t have an obligation to obey a government that considers you to be less than human,” Ellison said.

Ellison, the nation’s first Muslim congressman, has come under fire for his history of making racially inflammatory comments, as well as his past association with notorious anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan, whom Ellison has since renounced. (RELATED: Democratic Donor: Keith Ellison ‘Clearly An Anti-Semite’)

Ellison once called for American blacks to have their own nation and called the U.S. Constitution “best evidence of a white racist conspiracy to subjugate other peoples.”

While speaking to an atheist group in 2007, Ellison compared the Sept. 11 attacks to the Reichstag fire, stopping just short of accusing then-President George W. Bush of having a hand in the attacks.

“It’s almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that,” Ellison said of 9/11, according to reports at the time. “After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it, and it put the leader [Hitler] of that country in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted.”

Ellison went on to say he wouldn’t suggest the U.S. had a hand in the attacks because “you know, that’s how they put you in the nut-ball box — dismiss you,” before later walking back his comments…

RELATED ARTICLES:

DNC Chair Frontrunner Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) Hides from his Radical Anti-gun Record

NYPD commissioner to officers: Defy Trump’s immigrant deportation order

UK: Man who renounced Islam forced to move after harassment from Muslims

Trump phones Trinidad PM to stem Islamic State recruitment

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Jihad Watch.

Karl Marx’s Flight from Reality by Richard M. Ebeling

Though it may seem strange, Karl Marx was not always a communist. As late as 1842, when Marx was in his mid-20s, he actually said he opposed any attempt to establish a communist system. In October 1842, he became editor of the Rheinische Zeitung [the Rhineland Times], and wrote in an editorial:

The Rheinische Zeitung … does not admit that communist ideas in their present form possess even theoretical reality, and therefore can still less desire their practical realization, or even consider it possible.

In 1843, Marx was forced to resign his editorship because of political pressure from the Prussian government and ended up moving to Paris. It was in Paris that he met his future lifelong collaborator, Friedrich Engels (who already was a socialist), and began his deeper study of socialism and communism, leading to his full “conversion” to the collectivist ideal.

Feuerbach and the Worship of Man Perfected

From his student days in Berlin, two German philosophers left their imprint upon Marx: George Hegel (1770-1831) and Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872). From Hegel, Marx learned the theory of “dialectics” and the idea of historical progress to universal improvement. From Feuerbach, Marx accepted the idea of man “perfected.” Feuerbach had argued that rather than worshiping a non-existing supernatural being – God – man should worship himself.

The “true” religion of the future should, therefore, be the Worship of Mankind, and that man “perfected” would be changed from a being focused on and guided by his own self-interest to one who was totally altruistic, that is, concerned only with the betterment of and service to Mankind as a whole, rather than only himself.

Marx took Feuerbach’s notion of man “perfected” and developed what he considered to be the essential characteristics of such a developed human nature. There were three elements to such a perfected human being, Marx argued:First, the Potential for “Autonomous Action.” This is action undertaken by a man only out of desire or enjoyment, not out of necessity. If a man works at a blacksmith’s forge out of a desire to creatively exercise his faculties in molding metal into some artistic form, this is free or “autonomous action.” If a man works at the forge because he will starve unless he makes a plow to plant a crop, he is acting under a “compulsion” or a “constraint.”

Second, the Potential for “Societal Orientation.” Only man, Marx argued, can reflect on and direct his conscious actions to the improvement the “community” of which he is a part, and which nourishes his own capacity for personal development. When man associates with others only out of self-interest, he denies his true “social” self. Thus, egoism is “unworthy” of a developed human being.

And, third, the Potential for “Aesthetic Appreciation.” This is when man values things only for themselves; for example, “nature for nature’s sake,” or “art for art’s sake.” To view things, Marx claimed, only from the perspective of how something might be used to improve an individual’s personal circumstance is a debasement of the “truly” aesthetic value in things.

Capitalism Keeps Man from Perfection

Feuerbach believed man was “alienated” from himself when he was not “other-oriented.” To change from self-interest to altruism was mostly a state of mind that man could change within himself, Feuerbach argued. Marx insisted that the problem of “alienation” was not due to a person’s “state of mind,” but was conditioned by the “objective” institutional circumstances under which men lived. That is, the political, social, and economic institutions made man what he is. Change the social order, and man would be changed. “Capitalism,” Marx declared, was the source of man’s alienation from his “true” self and his human potential.

How did this “alienation” manifest itself?

Capitalism, Marx declared, was the source of man’s alienation from his “true” self and his human potential.

First, there is the Stifling of Autonomous Action. In the marketplace, forces “outside” the control of the individual determine what is produced and how it is produced. The individual “reacts” to the market, he does not control it. Thus, market forces are external constraints on man. He responds to the market out of “necessity,” not out of free desire.Furthermore, to enhance production and productivity, man is “forced” to participate in a division of labor to earn a living that makes him an “appendage” to a machine, a “slave” to the machines owned by the “capitalists” for whom he is “compelled” to work.

Second, there is Diminished Other-Orientedness. In the market, the individual sees others only as a means to his material ends; he trades with others to get what he wants from others, merely in pursuit of his own self-interest. Work is not considered a communal “cooperative” process, but an antagonistic relationship between what the individual wants and what is wanted by the one with whom he trades.

Third, there is Limited Aesthetic Appreciation. In the market, people see nature, resources, and the creations of man not as things to be intrinsically valued in themselves, but as marketable objects – as means – to personal ends. Acquisition of things – possessiveness – becomes the primary goal of economic activity for making a living.

Communism’s Liberation of Constrained Man

Communism, through collective planning, would make work an “autonomous” act, rather than “constrained action.” When democratically regulated by the workers as a whole, Marx asserted, collective planning would emerge from the desires of all the members of society as their communal choice and consent. It would be consciously planned and directed through the participation of all the members of society, thus generating an “other-oriented” sense of a “common good” for which all worked.

No one would be forced and constrained to do what another made them do in the division of labor anymore. Indeed, communism would free men from the “tyranny” of specialization. In Marx’s words, from The German Ideology (1845),

In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow; to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind.

In this new communist world, no one will have to work at anything he did not like or want to do. In addition, under communal planning, production would rise to such a height of productivity that the work day would be shortened to the point that each person’s time would be free to do only the things he enjoyed doing.

Selfishness would be eliminated as a human trait, and altruism would become the dominant trait.

Communism would also enhance social consciousness and other-orientedness. All that was communally produced would be distributed on the basis of “need” or “want.” No longer would scarcity impose constraints on man’s desires. As a result, the urge for “possessiveness” and acquisition of “things” would diminish and finally disappear. Selfishness would be eliminated as a human trait.Others would no longer be viewed as “competitors” for scarce things, but as social collaborators for attaining “higher” ends of social importance. Altruism would become the dominant trait in man.

In addition, communism would result in the flowering of aesthetic appreciation.

Man would not create so he could earn a living, but for the pleasure of the activity itself. Work would not be a source of “alienation” but an activity reflecting the free – the “autonomous” – desires of man for the “beautiful.”

Communism would liberate man in all ways and all things, said Marx:

With a communist organization of society, there disappears the subordination … of the individual to some definite art, making him exclusively a painter, a sculptor, etc. … In a communist society, there are no longer painters, but only people who engage in painting among other activities.

With the end of capitalism and the arrival of communism, there would come a heaven on earth. There would be enough of everything for all. Man would be freed from working for survival, he would be unchained from the division of labor, he would be liberated to follow whatever gave his heart pleasure. With Communism, man becomes like God – free and powerful to do whatever he wants.

Marx’s Denial of Self-Oriented Human Nature

Let me suggest that what Marx was objecting to – revolting against – was human nature and the existence of scarcity. Man can never escape from or get outside of being an individual “ego.” We exist as individual human beings; we think, remember, imagine, choose, and act as distinct and unique individual men and women.

Our experiences are our experiences; our thoughts and beliefs are our reflections and ideas; our judgments and valuations are our estimates and rankings of things of importance to us. Even when we try to put ourselves in another person’s shoes, to try to sympathize, empathize, and understand the meanings, experiences, and actions of others, it is from our perspective and state of mind that we do so.It is the individuality of the person in these and other facets of our distinct nature and character as conscious, conceptualizing creatures that make for the unique differences and diversities of our minds as self-oriented human beings. This is the source of the creativity and plethora of possibilities that can and have emerged from seeing the world in the distinct and different ways of self-oriented and self-experiencing people when pursuing their own improvement. As they consider what is most advantageous for themselves and others they “selfishly” care about, they support and encourage an institutional setting of peaceful and voluntary market association.

Marx’s Denial of the Reality of Scarcity

Marx also objects to the reality of the necessity to have to produce in order to consume and to have to view one’s own labor as a means to various ends, rather than simply being somehow provided with all that we want and our labor being “free” to be used as a pleasurable end in itself.

Likewise, he revolts against men viewing each other as a means to their respective desired ends rather than as purely human relationships, a “club” in which all get together and freely associate for “good times” with no concern for how or who provides the things without which good times cannot occur.

Nor can he abide men looking upon nature and man-made objects as the means or tools of producing the necessities, amenities, and luxuries of life, with the assignment of a “money value” to a house, a work of art, a waterfall, or a sculpture being “dehumanizing” for Marx.

However, the only reason such things are given values by people in society is that they are wanted but also scarce and because the means to achieve them are scarce as well. As a consequence, we must decide what we consider to be more or less valuable and important to us since all that we would like to have cannot be simultaneously fulfilled at the same time.

Marx’s hatred for the division of labor is an outgrowth of this worldview. Man is seen as somehow less than whole by specializing in a task and selling both his labor and his fraction of the total output to achieve the ends and goals he considers more important than what he has to give up in return.

Marx’s Misconception of Action and Choice

The entire Marxian conception of man, society, and happiness can be conceived, therefore, as a flight from reality. It can be seen in Marx’s distinction between “autonomous action” and capitalist “choices.”

“Action” is, in fact, nothing more than choice manifested: we undertake courses of action only after we have decided what it is we wish to do. That is, we decide which among the alternatives available to us we shall try to bring about, and which shall be set aside for a day or forever because not everything we desire can be had, due to the constraints of nature and the existence of other human beings.

Marx talks of people fishing in the morning and hunting in the afternoon – does that not mean that the person’s time is scarce? Is he not “frustrated” that he cannot do both at the same time, or be in two places at once?

“Action” is, in fact, nothing more than choice manifested.

If every man is to be “autonomously free” to hunt and fish whenever and to whatever extent he desires, what happens when the various members of the community wish to kill the forest animals or catch the fish at such a rate that they are threatened with extinction? Or what if several people all want to fish from the same place along the river or lake bank at the same time, or from the same “cover” position while out hunting?Marx might say that a “societal orientation” on the part of everyone would result in some form of “comradely” compromise. But is that not just other language for “mutual agreements,” “trade-offs,” and “exchanges” concerning the use and disposal of scarce resources – the disposition of the communal property rights among the members of society?

There is no certainty that all of the members of such a society will always like the communally agreed-upon outcomes, with some of them considering themselves “exploited” for the benefit of others who have out-voted them. And, therefore, they may be “alienated” from their fellow men and from nature even in the communist paradise to come.

Nor can there simply be the idea of art for art’s sake or nature for nature’s sake.

Resources for art and gifts of nature (unless cultivated to expand them) are always limited. The use of forests for primitive contemplation versus industrial use versus residential housing would still have to be made in Marx’s magical communist society. And, certainly, not everyone in the bright, beautiful communist society may agree or like the decisions that a majority of others in the blissful societal commune make about such things.

The paint for the artist’s pallet is not in infinite supply, so some art would have to be forgone so other art might be pursued; similarly with the ingredients going into the manufacture of paints versus being used for other things. To assume that men would never conflict over how to dispose of these things is to escape into a complete fantasyland.

Also, it is a physical and psychological fact that men differ in their relative capacities and inclinations in terms of various tasks needing to be performed. It is a physical and psychological fact that men tend to be more productive when they specialize in a small range of tasks as opposed to trying to be a “jack-of-all-trades.”

The Reality of Communism Versus the Reality of Capitalism

As a result, the division of labor raises both the productivity and the total production of a community of men, standards of living rise, leisure time can be expanded, and more variety and quality of goods can be produced.

Indeed, it has been free market capitalism that has provided humanity over the last 200 years with that actual relative horn-of-plenty wherever a fairly free rein has existed for self-interested individual action in pursuit of profit in associative relationships of specialization based on the peaceful use of private property.

Capitalism has been the great liberator of ever more of mankind from poverty, want, and worry. It has freed people from the hardship and drudgery of often life-threatening forms of work. The free market has shortened the hours of work needed to generate levels of material and cultural comfort for a growing number of people and provided the longer, healthier lives and increased leisure time for people to enjoy the wealth that economic freedom has made possible.The “de-alienation” of man from his everyday existence, in the sense that Marx talked about it, has also, in fact, been brought about through the achievements of capitalism. It has relieved more and more of mankind from the concerns of mere survival and subsistence through the capital accumulation and profit-oriented production that has raised the productivity of all those who work and expanded the available supply of useful goods and services. The free market has enabled people to have the means to fulfill more of the enjoyments and meanings of life as ends in themselves.

Furthermore, as Austrian economist F. A. Hayek and others have pointed out, the advantage of the free market system is precisely that it does not require all of the members of the society to agree upon and share the same hierarchy of goals, ends, and values. Each individual, under competitive capitalism, is at liberty to select and follow their own purposes and pursue happiness in their own way. Using each other as the voluntary means to their respective ends in the arena of peaceful market exchange allows a much larger diversity of outcomes reflecting differences among people than if one central plan needs to imposed on all in the name of the interests of a collectivist community as a whole.

Marx’s flight from reality, on the other hand, was the wish to have everything capitalism, the division of labor, and competitive exchange can produce, but without the cost of work, discipline, specialization, and selecting among alternatives. It is like the cry of the child who refuses to accept the fact that he cannot have everything he wants, right there and then and, instead, expects someone or something to provide it to him and everyone else in a blissful fairyland of material plentitude.

Richard M. Ebeling

Richard M. Ebeling

Richard M. Ebeling is BB&T Distinguished Professor of Ethics and Free Enterprise Leadership at The Citadel in Charleston, South Carolina. He was president of the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) from 2003 to 2008.

Keith Ellison: Israel controls U.S. foreign policy

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), whose ties to the Muslim Brotherhood are well known, has managed to climb the ranks of the Democratic Party and now seeks to be its leader, which is itself proof of the widening gap between those who value human rights and democratic freedoms and those who are willing to hand such values over to Islamic supremacists without a fight.

Ellison has “unfriendly” intentions toward the state of Israel, threatening (and promising, in essence) to reduce American friendship with Israel and enhance ties with neighboring Islamic states. He revealed these intentions some time ago at a fundraiser that was hosted by Esam Omeish, a past president of the Muslim American Society who had to resign from a Virginia state immigration panel when the Investigative Project busted him with a videotape that showed him “praising Palestinians for choosing the jihad way … to liberate your land.” Now it’s Ellison’s turn:

Ellison lashed out at what he sees as Israel’s disproportionate influence in American foreign policy. That will change, he promised, as more Muslims gained political influence:

“The United States foreign policy in the Middle East is governed by what is good or bad through a country of 7 million people. A region of 350 million all turns on a country of 7 million. Does that make sense? Is that logic? Right? When the Americans who trace their roots back to those 350 million get involved, everything changes. Can I say that again?”

keith-ellison-end-the-occupation-podium“IPT Exclusive: In Private Fundraiser, Ellison Blasted Israeli Influence Over U.S. Policy”, Steven Emerson, IPT News, November 29, 2016:

U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison’s announcement earlier this month that he wants to be the Democratic National Committee’s next chairman drew quick support from several key lawmakers, including Jewish senators Chuck Schumer and Bernie Sanders.

Ellison backers also have defended him against claims he may hold anti-Semitic views in addition to being anti-Israel. A column in Israel’s liberal daily Haaretz quotes two rabbis praising Ellison, D-Minn., as “the best of our constitutional democracy and the best of America” and “an extraordinary leader. Anyone who would associate him with any kind of hatred hasn’t met him and certainly hasn’t worked with him.”

A 2010 audio of Ellison speaking at a private fundraiser obtained by the Investigative Project on Terrorism calls such praise into question. In a fairly intimate setting, Ellison lashed out at what he sees as Israel’s disproportionate influence in American foreign policy. That will change, he promised, as more Muslims gained political influence:

“The United States foreign policy in the Middle East is governed by what is good or bad through a country of 7 million people. A region of 350 million all turns on a country of 7 million. Does that make sense? Is that logic? Right? When the Americans who trace their roots back to those 350 million get involved, everything changes. Can I say that again?”

The fundraiser for Ellison’s re-election campaign was hosted by Esam Omeish, a past president of the Muslim American Society (MAS) who was forced to resign from a Virginia state immigration panel in 2007 after an exclusive IPT videotape showed him praising Palestinians for choosing the “the jihad way … to liberate your land.” Omeish was a candidate for Virginia’s general assembly the previous year, and Ellison spoke at a fundraiser for that losing effort.

In his 2010 remarks, he described Omeish as “my beloved brother and I love you and you are the best and your family is so beautiful and again, you know, you put it out there. You ran. And I hope you run again.”

Also present at the fundraiser was Nihad Awad, a co-founder and executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), and a member of a Muslim Brotherhood-created Hamas support network in America known as the Palestine Committee.

Ellison’s comments about Israeli political influence do not appear to be a poor choice of words. A year earlier, as conflict raged between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, Ellison told Al Jazeera that “the people who have a strong sympathy for the Israeli position dominate the conversation. It is really not politically safe to say there have been two sides to this.”

A month later, Ellison told the BBC that outreach to Hamas was not feasible for a member of Congress – not because it is a terrorist organization with an anti-Semitic charter demanding Israel’s destruction – but because it is too politically risky.

“What I can tell you now is that the constellation of political forces in the United States at this moment would make a member of Congress who has reached out directly to Hamas spend all their time defending that decision and would not be able to deal with other critical issues that need to be focused on. So for example if I were to make a move like that I wouldn’t be able to focus my attention on the humanitarian issue. I’d have to defend myself to my colleagues why I reached out to a terrorist organization. It would absorb all of my time. I would spend a lot of time fighting off personal attack and would not be able to achieve goals that I have.”

Just after the 2009 Gaza war, Ellison was among 22 House members to vote “present” rather than take a stand on a nonbinding House resolution “recognizing Israel’s right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza, reaffirming the United States’ strong support for Israel, and supporting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Ellison claimed he was “torn” on the issue because it “barely mentions the human suffering of the Palestinians in Gaza.”

Ellison long has demanded that Israel open its borders to Gaza, arguing that economic aid and development would help ease tensions and resulting violence. In 2010, he authored a letter signed by 53 House colleagues which called on President Obama to pressure Israel into opening the border.

Ellison described the blockade as “collective punishment” on Gaza residents.

He re-upped the argument in a 2014 Washington Post oped which was written during new conflict between Israel and Hamas. Hamas terrorists provoked the war by kidnapping and murdering three teenagers and by launching thousands of rockets at Israeli civilian areas.

But Ellison argued that peace would come with economic relief in Gaza and said an end to the blockade should be part of any ceasefire.

“The status quo for ordinary Gazans is a continuation of no jobs and no freedom,” he wrote. “This is not an attractive future. Gazans want and deserve the dignity of economic opportunity and freedom to move.”

The restrictions on imports to Gaza were aimed at curbing the flow of materials sent to Hamas to build rockets, bombs and other tools for terrorism. Israel allows humanitarian aid into the territory. But Hamas continues to divert millions of dollars in aid and supplies which could be used to improve daily life in order to dig more attack tunnels and restock its terrorist arsenal.

While he also said that “Hamas must give up its rockets and other weapons” to achieve peace, Ellison was one of only eight House members to vote against increasing funding for Israel to provide added funding for Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense program. Even though it successfully intercepted dozens of Hamas rockets, especially those aimed at population centers, Ellison said the proposal was no good because “the US government needs to be prioritizing a ceasefire between the two sides.”

These statements and countless others should concern DNC officials before choosing a leader early next year. Any chairperson’s job will include efforts to preserve and maintain the party’s support from American Jews. Exit polling indicates an estimated 71 percent of Jewish voters supported Hillary Clinton’s candidacy.

Jewish leaders either don’t know the extent of Ellison’s relationship with Islamist groups like CAIR, or of his consistent criticism of Israeli actions, especially in response to Hamas terror, or they do not care. Jonathan Greenblatt, the Anti-Defamation League’s chief executive, issued a statement last week saying Ellison “is a man of good character” and “an important ally in the fight against anti-Semitism and for civil rights.”

As we have shown, he’s also a man who believes Jewish interests disproportionately influence American foreign policy.

During last summer’s national convention, Ellison and other delegates supporting Sanders wanted the Democratic Party platform to delete a description of Jerusalem as Israel’s “undivided capital” and wanted to gut language opposing the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement targeting the Jewish state.

Those efforts were pushed back, but should have a far stronger position under an Ellison-run DNC.

In addition to seeing Israel as controlling government policy, Ellison has supported prominent Islamists targeted for their direct support for Palestinian terrorist organizations.

During a 2008 radio interview, Ellison praised Sami Al-Arian. Years earlier, evidence admitted into a federal court showed Al-Arian served on the Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s Shura council, in essence, its board of directors. Despite that fact, Ellison said he wished “that Dr. Al-Arian and his family have peace, have justice, and are able to secure a greater quality of justice for their case,” saying he found “some things about his case that I think raise legitimate questions.”

Similarly, Ellison expressed frustration at the 2007 terrorist financing trial of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development and five former officials. The charity, shut down by the U.S. Treasury Department in 2001, funneled millions of dollars to Hamas through a network of Palestinian charities the terrorist group controlled.

But after a trial ended with a hung jury on most counts, Ellison blasted the case as “persecution” during remarks at a CAIR fundraising banquet in Anaheim. CAIR was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the case, in part due to internal Palestine Committee documents showing CAIR was part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s U.S. network from the moment of its 1994 inception.

“And the worst of it was not that these people’s lives were disrupted, their reputations were tarnished,” Ellison said. “The worst of it was that [300] other organizations were tossed in to the mix of it all as they were listed as unindicted co-conspirators. No evidence to be found that they had done anything. So here is what we have today. 300 reputable civil rights organizations, including CAIR, put on a list they never should have been put on in a case where they had been thoroughly exonerated. It’s time to call an end to wasting taxpayer money in this manner. There have been other prosecutions for Muslim charities and we’ve come up with nothing at all when it comes to convictions in these cases. It’s time for us to call a stop to this selective prosecution. It’s time to say that our justice system and our prosecutors and our police officers are here to investigate crime for the sake of public safety, not to pursue a political agenda.”

The Holy Land defendants were retried in 2008, with jurors convicting the defendants on all counts. Ellison did not comment.

In 2009, Ellison made the pilgrimage to Mecca known as the Hajj. His travels were financed by the Muslim American Society (MAS), which insiders have acknowledged is the Muslim Brotherhood’s overt arm in the United States….

RELATED ARTICLES:

ANALYSIS: DNC frontrunner Keith Ellison has extensive ties with radical Muslim groups

European Commission top dog: “We must distinguish between Islam and terrorism”

UK: Muslim teacher condones Charlie Hebdo jihad massacre in classroom

Maybe Kaine Thinks You Are Not too Bright

Either progressive Vice Presidential candidate Tim Kaine is stupid or he believes the American people are.  Progressive Senator Tim Kaine D-Va. Has portrayed presidential candidate Donald Trump as a xenophobe.  According to Dictionary.com the word xenophobe is defined as a person who fears or hates foreigners, strange customs, etc.  Kaine went on to utter, “Look, this same speech has been given throughout our history, against the Irish, against the Italian-American immigrant (how one can be an Italian-American immigrant is beyond me) against Jews coming from Eastern Europe.  It is a deportation nation… That is not going to make our nation great.

“The continuous flow of new energy and new ideas has made our nation great, Kaine said Clinton, in the first 100 days of her administration, would announce an effort to reform immigration “in a comprehensive way.”  “And it’s going to have a couple of key pillars.  It’s going to have the pillar of trying to keep families together as a key value.  It’s going to have helping employers figure out the immigration status of people they hire.  “It is going to be providing a path, for people who are here if they pay their taxes and submit to criminal back ground record checks and follow the law, over a period of years, they can earn the right to citizenship, come out of a shadow economy where they’re being paid sub-minimum wages, hurting American workers and being treated more fairly.  “That will help American workers and help the economy.

“And finally, we’re going to do what we did in the Senate bill back in 2013, a significant investment in border security.  Your right, illegal immigration is a problem, and we have border security.  Kaine said, he thinks the American people will “send a mandate for comprehensive reform on November eighth.  When individuals such as Donald Trump runs for president, it would seem that one of the top requirements would be to place a high priority status to genuine border security.  That dear reader is what presidential candidate Donald Trump has been emphasizing almost since day one of his candidacy.  He has consistently spoken of the need to stop illegal immigration.

Trump has emphasized the need to protect our borders, not only from illegal immigration, but also from Islamic terrorists that many, including yours truly believe have been slipping into America among the throngs illegals sauntering into America.  I find Kaine’s accusation of xenophobe against Donald Trump to be both false and sinister in nature.  I have never heard or read about any authentic example of Donald Trump being full of hatred or fear against foreigners.

However, unlike many elected officials who are supposed to be in favor of protecting our nation against enemies, both foreign and domestic, but they are not.  Trump has consistently called for defending our borders.  There are two possible reasons that one can be foolish enough to equate protecting our borders and national sovereignty with xenophobic tendencies.

  1. Number one is quite common. There are now millions of high school and recent college graduates who were indoctrinated against American culture, American exceptionalism and American borders.
  2. Many political office holders who have vowed to uphold the United States Constitution actually govern in opposition to constitutional constraints upon government while seeking to make it easier for illegal immigrants to live unopposed in our republic.

Sanctuary cities are a perfect example where quite often American hating bigoted illegal immigrants have robbed, raped and murdered Americans.  Yet the globalist government officials look the other way or only seek to send the criminal illegal immigrants across the border.  Officials do nothing when the murderous illegals return into the United States to abuse our nation’s misguided generosity that American taxpayers are placed on the hook for.   In fact, there has been more expressed outrage from progressive democrats and globalist republicans over Donald Trump’s reaction to illegal immigrant atrocities than the actual criminal activities of the illegal immigrants.

It is a shame to have to mention this, but many black Americans and Latinos both legal and illegally in America equate protecting the U.S. border with racism.  What is scary is that there are many others as well who are actually dumb enough to believe that.  Also, many progressives use that mantra as part of a ploy to guilt America into not protecting her own border security and national sovereignty.  That is because, like many globalist republicans and most democrats they want the U.S. to be changed from powerful to pummeled so she will simply fold into a United Nations global union.

Tim Kaine weighed in about all the money spent on border security in 2013.  What a B.S. artist.  Yes, money was spent, but on what? Feeding and housing illegal immigrants in sanctuary cities.  He like many, talk about keeping families together.  I have a great idea.  When illegal immigrants decide to stroll into our republic, simply deport them with their entire family back to the country they came from.  We must also get rid of that awful anchor baby law.

If someone slips into the United States illegally has a baby and gets caught, Daddy, Mommy and little baby should not be rewarded with the American dream at taxpayer expense.  We should not be rewarding bad behavior with the American lifestyle. The incentive to get pregnant and come to America to have the baby must be eliminated.

The United States can do Mexico a huge favor by first getting our own economic house in order.  Then showing nations like Mexico how they can also be economically successful without the need to send their citizens into America for three hots and a cot, jobs, housing, education, etc.  This is the United States of America and we must govern ourselves accordingly and not allow globalists, and Islamic and illegal immigrant apologists like Kaine, Clinton, Kasich and others to change our republic into a United Nations outpost.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Clinton: It was wrong to call half of Trump supporters ‘deplorable’

A Cat and Mouse Game with State Over Clinton-Deleted Emails

Top Clinton Foundation Executive Sought Diplomatic Passport

EDITORS NOTE: Please join Ron every Friday as I Blow Away the Myths and Reveal the Truth on AM 1180 KCKQ in Reno, Nev. or americamatters.us at 2:00 PM PST, 5:00 PM EST.

Howard Dean: ‘I don’t consider Iran to be a Muslim country’

It isn’t that Howard Dean thinks Iran is full of Methodists. He just thinks that Islam is wonderful, and that the Islamic Republic of Iran is evil and oppressive, and so therefore it must not really be Islamic at all. How this misunderstanding of Islam has grown so strong as to be able to take over whole countries, he did not deign to explain.

Howard Dean

Howard Dean

“Howard Dean: ‘I Don’t Consider Iran to Be a Muslim Country,’” by Adelle Nazarian, Breitbart News, August 1, 2016 (thanks to Bob):

PARIS — Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean told Breitbart News that “Iran is the farthest thing from an Islamic Republic” and that Iran is not “a Muslim country.”

Instead, Dean said, Iran is “a republic that’s been hijacked by thugs and murderers.” He explained that he does not know Muslims whom he respects and who behave the way the regime does.

Dean was speaking exclusively to Breitbart News from Paris last month during a conference hosted by the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI). The PMOI (also referred to as MEK) is an opposition movement that played an active role in overthrowing Iran’s last Shah while President Jimmy Carter was in power, and which was de-listed as a terrorist organization under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

During the interview, Dean also pointed out his belief that the term “radical Islamic terrorism” is a manufactured phrase “for political, domestic consumption in America.”

The transcript of the interview follows (emphasis added):

Breitbart News: You don’t think [the Iran deal] was a good deal?
Howard Dean: Look, I respect the president and I certainly didn’t oppose the deal but I don’t think it was “a good deal.” That is, I think we did give away a lot more than we needed to. And I think the Iranians are the largest sponsor of state terrorism in the world. And they are making lives very difficult for a lot of our allies. So I didn’t oppose the deal. I think it had its pluses and minuses, and I think we’re not going to know, for a few years, whether the deal makes any sense or not. And interestingly, I think the president’s reputation — as a good or not-so-good president — will depend on what happens with that deal.

Breitbart News: So — Saudi Arabia. Do you really think they are our allies, if I may ask… ?

Howard Dean: Yeah, I do think we are allies. I have my problems with [the] Saudis. One of the reasons I got involved with the resistance here is because I feel very strongly about human rights and the Saudis don’t respect human rights. So I’ve never personally thought that the alliance with Saudi Arabia was anything more than an alliance of convenience. But they are a key partner and they’re certainly not our enemy. So I don’t feel as strongly as some of the panel did.

Breitbart News: One more question regarding rhetoric on an international scale, do you find issue with the fact that our commander-in-chief and people within the administration (like Josh Earnest, and so forth) don’t actually use the term “radical Islamic terrorism’”?

Howard Dean: Well, That is actually something that I agree with … I think that most Muslims are not terrorists. In fact, I teach a foreign policy course at Yale. I had three Muslims sit in from other countries. And they pointed out to the class that their families were at greater risk from Daesh [ISIS] than ours because they live with them every day, around the corner.

So I think it’s important for us not to crank up a religious war. That, of course, falls into the hands of Daesh. So I think to call it Islamic terrorism is really just more for political, domestic consumption in America rather than something that you’d want to do in the world. I think these people are thugs, and they’re murderers. I don’t give them a cause. I don’t believe — I think they’re crazy, I think they’re lunatics, pathetic lunatics.

Breitbart News: There’s definitely a psychological aspect to it.

Howard Dean: Yes. I think they are deeply, psychologically disturbed, including the people who send them out there. So I wouldn’t want to give them any legitimacy by saying they have something to do with an organized religion. There is no organized religion which is a legitimate religion which condones this kind of behavior.

Breitbart News: I understand exactly where you’re coming from. But on the reverse side of that, you have the Islamic Republic of Iran which does use religion as a means to execute its citizens.

Howard Dean: I agree. And that’s exactly why I don’t want to do it. I think Iran is the farthest thing from an Islamic Republic, with some of the highest rates of execution in the world, torturing political prisoners, one of the worst human rights records in the world, a destructive force in the world. There’s nothing good about the Islamic Republic of Iran. And it’s not an Islamic republic; it’s a republic that’s been hijacked by thugs and murderers. And I think the legitimacy and the real government of Iran would be a secular government, which treated women equally with men.

Breitbart News: And just a follow up on that, do you think there is a nation that is governed by Islamic principles, or that considers itself to be majority Muslim, and that is truly an embodiment of what a Muslim nation should be like?

Howard Dean:I think Indonesia is close. There are terrorists in Indonesia but they’re not being embraced or being played footsie with by the government. I think there are other countries: Tunisia is one; Morocco has a better human rights record than most; it’s not a complete democracy. But there are nations where the people are overwhelmingly Muslims that don’t behave the way Iran does. I don’t consider Iran to be a Muslim country, because I don’t know Muslims who behave like that who I respect. And I think the vast majority of the billion Muslims in the world have no desire to live in Iran whatsoever because of the way their regime behaves.

Breitbart News: Or Saudi Arabia.

Howard Dean: Or Saudi Arabia. Although, I would say that Iran is far worse than Saudi Arabia … Although Saudi Arabia — I’m deeply disturbed by the financing of authoritarianism by the Saudis in countries where we didn’t have a problem, when now we do, in a place like Kosovo and the Balkans. So I’m not a big fan of Saudi Arabia. I think that was a marriage of convenience and that the Saudis have to clean up their act. The Saudis are, in part, responsible for terrorism, under the name of Islamic terrorism. And again, I don’t consider that — I think if you’re financing it elsewhere and it comes back into your own home, you bear some responsibility for that….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Islamic State: Jesus is a “slave to Allah” who will wage jihad once he returns to earth

Detroit: Muslim built up arsenal, talked of jihad massacre

We Warned You In 2007 About Tim Kaine: Hillary’s VP Pick and the Muslim Brotherhood

The Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Watch (GMBDW) reported in October 2007 that current Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate Tim Kaine had a close relationship to the Muslim American Society (MAS), a part of the US Muslim Brotherhood closest to the Egyptian organization. According to a local media article cited in that post:

Democratic Gov. Timothy M. Kaine is far too close to a Muslim group that allegedly has ties to Islamic terrorism and espouses radical views, according to two local delegates. But a group leader says the charges are founded in racism.

Kaine should move to put some distance between his administration and the Falls Church-based Muslim American Society, said Dels. Todd Gilbert, R-Woodstock, and Clifford L. “Clay” Athey Jr., R-Front Royal.

It all started when Kaine appointed Dr. Esam Omeish, the president of the society, to the Virginia Commission on Immigration. Gilbert wrote to Kaine, asking him to reconsider the appointment after seeing online videos of Omeish accusing Israel of genocide against Palestinians and exhorting Muslims to “the jihad way.”

Omeish resigned less than a day later under pressure from Kaine.

But after some investigation, the delegates say the connections between Kaine and MAS appear to be deeper than just one appointment.

Kaine was the keynote speaker at the society’s Freedom Foundation “Standing for Justice Dinner.” He was photographed with leaders of the group, including Imam Mahdi Bray, the executive director of the foundation.

In an online video of a 2000 rally in Washington, Abdurahman al-Amoudi — who would later plead guilty to charges of funneling money from Libya to Saudi militants — took to the podium and declared his support for Hamas and Hezbollah.

Hamas, now the ruling party in the Gaza Strip, started a wave of suicide bombings against Israeli civilians in 1993, according to the nonpartisan Council on Foreign Relations. Hezbollah, which now holds a quasi-state in southern Lebanon, is thought to be behind the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 241 servicemen.

“I have been labeled by the media in New York to be a supporter of Hamas. Anybody support this Hamas here?” al-Amoudi says in the video, drawing cheers from the crowd and fist pumps from Bray.

“I wish the added that I am also a supporter of Hezbollah. Anybody supports Hezbollah here?” he asks, drawing more cheers and fist pumps.

Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

2016 Presidential Race, Hillary Clinton, Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Tim Kaine

Clinton VP Pick Tim Kaine’s Islamist Ties

The Wages of Kaine

Why Do We Believe These Pathological Liars? by B.K. Marcus

How do you feel when someone lies to you?

It probably depends on who is doing the lying. A stranger’s fabrications may not phase you, but dishonesty from a friend or lover can end the relationship. The more you feel the liar is supposed to be “on your side,” the more his or her deceptions feel like betrayal — unless, it turns out, the lies come from a politician you support.

When I shared a link on Facebook to Rick Shenkman’s article “Why Are Trump Voters Not Bothered by His Lies?” someone immediately replied by asking, “Why are Hillary voters not bothered by her lies?” Why, in other words, focus on only one mendacious candidate when lying to voters seems like a prerequisite for running for office?

Shenkman, who is the editor of HistoryNewsNetwork.org and the author ofPolitical Animals: How Our Stone-Age Brain Gets in the Way of Smart Politics, might respond with his claim that Trump “has told more lies than any other leading political figure probably ever has.” But his article is in fact about neither Trump’s astonishing number of fibs nor his supporters’ astonishing tolerance for them; it is about how widespread both such lying and such tolerance are across party lines and throughout the era of mass-media mass democracy.

Shenkman is writing for a left-leaning readership, thus his headline’s righteous indignation toward a right-wing candidate, but most of the examples he gives are of deliberately deceitful Democrats. He starts with candidate Kennedy’s campaign claim that the Soviets had more nuclear missiles than the United States:

He continued to insist that there was a missile gap to the Soviet’s advantage even after he was briefed by General Earl Wheeler that there wasn’t. After the election his secretary of defense, Robert McNamara, told the press on background that a study had found there was no missile gap, leading to blaring headlines the next morning.

JFK’s reaction? He ordered his press secretary, Pierre Salinger, to tell the media that there had been no study and that there was a gap. The truth was that JFK himself didn’t take his own rhetoric about the missile gap seriously. At cabinet meetings he cracked on numerous occasions, “Who ever believed in the missile gap” anyway?

Four years later, President Johnson “told the American people that the North Vietnamese were guilty of making repeated unprovoked attacks on [US] naval vessels in the Tonkin Gulf.” As with Kennedy, we know that Johnson was being dishonest, not mistaken. “Hell,” LBJ told an aide, “those dumb stupid sailors were just shooting at flying fish.”

Shenkman barely touches on Nixon’s perfidy in Watergate and never mentions Nixon aide John Ehrlichman’s 1994 interview, admitting that the war on drugs was not about crime or health but was rather a politically motivated attack on war protestors and American blacks. “Did we know we were lying about the drugs?” said the president’s former domestic affairs advisor. “Of course we did.”

And while he may have given Ms. Clinton a pass, Shenkman does mention the millions of supporters who refused to believe the allegations against her husband “until prosecutors revealed they possessed [Monica Lewinsky’s] infamous blue dress.”

No one should be shocked by the frequency of politicians’ duplicity, but it is frustrating when a candidate is caught in an undeniable falsehood and his or her supporters never waiver.  Our political culture expects politicians to perjure and prevaricate left and right, but that doesn’t make their deceptions defensible. So where is the outrage?

“Our brains are partisan,” Shenkman writes:

While we are quick to seize on the misstatements of other candidates, we give them a pass when it’s our own. When the social scientist Drew Westen put voters in an MRI machine he discovered that their brains quickly shut off the flow of information contrary to their beliefs about their favorite candidates. The neurons actively involved in the transmission of this information literally went inactive.

It’s not just the political candidates who are lying. So are the voters. “We lie,” Shenkman points out, “about our unwillingness to put up with lies.”

If politicians keep lying and voters keep shrugging it off, isn’t that an indictment of democracy? Aren’t voters supposed to act as a check on the people in power?

In theory, an election is supposed to be more than a popularity contest. Candidates are supposed to represent an approach to policy making, which is in turn supposed to reflect both facts and a theory of cause and effect. What we have instead is a formalized tribalism, us versus them, facts be damned.

Shenkman assures the reader that the liars don’t get away with it forever, but his evidence for that conclusion is questionable. Johnson and Nixon are remembered as liars by both Democrats and Republicans, but the reckoning for Gulf of Tonkin and Watergate are outliers in the steady stream of deception flowing out of DC and the state capitals. Meanwhile, Mssrs Kennedy and Clinton will be remembered more for deceiving their wives than the voters.

Westen’s research on cognitive dissonance and party politics is troubling, but well before there was any hard data on how voters process unwanted facts, the theory of rational ignorance told us why so many facts are so unwanted: to the individual voter, the cost of acquiring the relevant knowledge far outweighs the practical benefits of knowing the truth when casting a ballot.

In contrast, the benefits of supporting a candidate accrue, not from any actual effect on the electoral outcome, but largely from the signaling that it provides the voter: this is the sort of person I am, and these are the sorts of causes I support. Symbolic affiliation isn’t dependent on the truth of any particular facts, so why should we expect inconvenient falsehoods to change anyone’s political alignment?

As I wrote in “Too Dumb for Democracy?” (Freeman, spring 2015), “getting an issue like the minimum wage terribly wrong takes no work and has the immediate payoff of feeling like you’re on the side of the angels. It also solidifies your standing within your own ideological tribe. Bothering to understand supply and demand … offers no practical reward after you pull the lever in the election booth.”

The lies we care the least to uncover are precisely those for which the cost of caring outweighs the benefits of our vigilance. That describes almost anything we may ever be asked to vote on. But when knowing the truth directly matters to the decisions we make every day — the truth about our jobs, our homes, our families and loved ones — the relative benefits of knowing the truth are far greater, and we therefore penalize the liars in our lives. Cognitive dissonance may be a barrier to accepting hard truths, but even cognitive dissonance is price sensitive.

The more decisions we cede to the political process, the less we should expect anyone to protect our interests. Even we don’t bother to do it, because the rules of the game — majority rules — render our efforts ineffectual. Worse than that: we’re not even rewarded for knowing what policies really are or aren’t in our best interest.

The truth can win out, but it’s a lot less likely in an election.

B.K. MarcusB.K. Marcus

B.K. Marcus is editor of the Freeman.

Which Group Poses the Gravest National Security Threat to America?

For decades I have said America’s number one national security threat is the Islamic ideology. Now in April 2016 as I have became a bit wiser about the ‘Big Picture’ of our world and how an elite few liberals control much of the world events, I feel there is a need to update my national security threat analysis.

Of course the Islamic ideology is dangerous and a threat to the entire world, but the question we must ask ourselves is how is Islam allowed to thrive in America despite many intelligent people understanding it can and likely will destroy the world.

Liberals in America, currently being led by America’s worst U.S. President (Obama), and by far the President who hates America and what it has stood for since it’s birth are the leading forces behind why the violent ideology of Islam is allowed to grow, flourish, and be accepted into all areas of Americans lives.

There are several definitions of a liberal, but my definition is the one you will never hear our media or politicians use. “Liberals in America are everything but American. Liberals are traitors to this great country and are the cause behind America’s destruction from within. Although many U.S. liberals were born here, they do not uphold basic American values and for this reason they are America’s number one threat to our nation security, our country’s survival, and the future of our children”.

There are a dozen or so legitimate counter-terrorism professionals in America. There are hundreds of self appointed fake counter-terrorism professionals in America who have fooled the American public into believing they know Islamic based terrorism issues inside and out. A few of the fakes include all major media people who pose as journalists, such as O’Reilly and Hannity. More such fakes are senior law enforcement officials at all levels of our government. Finally the leading fakes are Christian and Jewish leaders who pose as religious heads close to God and who by the very nature of their ‘jobs’ feel they understand Islam and Islamic based terrorism better than all others. Thankfully we do have a handful of Christian and Jewish leaders who truly understand the threat of Islam, but they are out numbered by a ration of 1000 to 1!.

Counter-terrorism professionals have proven over and over and over that the Islamic ideology is dangerous, violent, a threat to the entire world, and it’s poison has entrenched all corners of the world and America. Then why has the Islamic ideology, Islamic terrorists, Islamic supporters, and Islamic Centers been allowed to thrive and multiply in America? The answer is that liberals (American traitors) allow it to thrive. Liberals believe that the Islamic scholars and Jihadists throughout the world will give them a break when it comes to enforcing Sharia law in America, such as beheadings, being set on fire, rape of women, and death for the most minute obscure failings of human beings.

Liberals are very wrong of course. When Islam dominates America, there will be no safe zones for liberals or for any person who does not give their 100% allegiance to Islam.

  • Liberals are the people who advocate allowing illegal (criminals) to enter America, allowing mosques to advocate and promote violence, and even child marriages in America.
  • Liberals are the ones who advocate refugees who have not been properly vetted to come into our country by the hundreds of thousands.
  • Liberals are the one’s who give Islamic terrorist organizations such as CAIR, ISNA, MANA, and all mosques in America tax free non profit status.
  • Liberals are the one’s who allow the school text books of our children to be drafted by Islamic terrorists from such countries as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
  • Liberals are the people who allow Islamic terrorists from GITMO to be freed and allowed once again to target and kill our troops worldwide.
  • Liberals are the people who support Islamic based terrorists before they will American service members who have fought for America.
  • Liberals are the people who fight major wars using minor league rules and tactics.
  • Liberals are the people who voted an American traitor into office as our President.
  • Liberals are the people who support anti-Americans such as H. Clinton and a Socialist/Communist B. Sanders as possibly our next President.
  • Liberals are the people who will NEVER acknowledge that Islam is anything other than a peaceful religion that has been hijacked by a few.

Abe Lincoln, one of America’s greatest Presidents (the 1st President from the Republican Party) said, “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves”.

Will Patriotic Americans defeat the liberals who are posing as Americans in America? Will true Americans save America before liberals destroy us forever? My answer is we could, but Americans have been so brainwashed by liberal thought for decades, that it is unlikely we can reverse the dangerous course of destruction we are on.

TIP OF THE DAY: “Black Lives Matter is a Propaganda tool of liberals and Islamic based terrorist groups”

Hillary vs. Jihad: A Nightmare Scenario

Over at PJ Media today I discuss how the potential Commander-in-Chief is dangerously divorced from reality.

It’s a nightmare that could all too easily come true: the Republican Party denies Donald Trump the nomination, he bolts, and Hillary Clinton, unindicted by a sympathetic Obama Justice Department, becomes president. If she does, it is virtually certain that the Obama administration’s lackadaisical and fantasy-based response to the jihad threat would continue.

Hillary made that clear Tuesday morning in her response to the latest jihad terror attacks in Brussels, in which at least 28 people were killed.

The mass murders were “deeply distressing,” she said, but the “dream of a whole, free Europe … should not be walked away from,” and “we’ve got to work this through consistent with our values.” Her implication was clear: any response to what is rapidly becoming a state of war in Europe must not reject the multiculturalist fantasies that created the state of war in the first place. The Muslim migrants, including any number of jihadis, must continue to stream into Europe, for to stop them would end the “dream of a whole, free Europe” and not be “consistent with our values.”

Her lockstep establishment response was no surprise. In November 2015, Hillary tweeted: “Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.” Did even she believe these words as she wrote them? She may indeed subscribe to the mainstream Leftist view that Muslims have nothing to do with terrorism, and that any Muslim who does get involved with terrorism ceases at that very moment to be a Muslim. But she has never bothered to explain how she proposes to deal with those troublesome people who identify themselves as Muslims and not only commit acts of terrorism, but justify those actions and find recruits among peaceful Muslims by pointing to Islamic teachings.

Hillary Clinton — and everyone else in the world — clearly knows that all too many Muslims do in fact have something to do with terrorism. And the fact that many millions do not tells us exactly nothing about the content of Islamic teaching, and whether or not the Qur’an and Sunnah contain material that makes many Muslims think that Islam is indeed our adversary. President Hillary Clinton will have no chance of defeating the Islamic terror threat when she is this divorced from reality.

She has been adhering to and enforcing this denial for years. In October 2009 when she was secretary of State, the Obama administration joined Egypt in supporting a resolution in the UN’s Human Rights Council to recognize exceptions to the freedom of speech for “any negative racial and religious stereotyping.” Approved by the U.N. Human Rights Council, the resolution called on states to condemn and criminalize “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.”

The effect of this criminalization would be to forbid all criticism of Islam, including analyses of the motives and goals of jihad terrorists. The jihad would then proceed unopposed, as to stand against it would be “incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence.”

“Incitement” and “hatred” are in the eye of the beholder — or more precisely, in the eye of those who make such determinations. The powerful can decide to silence the powerless by classifying their views as “hate speech.” The Founding Fathers knew that the freedom of speech was an essential safeguard against tyranny: the ability to dissent, freely and publicly and without fear of imprisonment or other reprisal, is a cornerstone of any genuine republic. If some ideas cannot be heard and are proscribed from above, the ones in control are tyrants, however benevolent they may be.

But with this resolution, no less distinguished a person than Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave her imprimatur to this tyranny.

She affirmed the Obama administration’s support for it on July 15, 2011, when she gave an address on the freedom of speech at an Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) conference on Combating Religious Intolerance. “Together, she said, “we have begun to overcome the false divide that pits religious sensitivities against freedom of expression and we are pursuing a new approach. These are fundamental freedoms that belong to all people in all places and they are certainly essential to democracy.”

But how could both religious sensitivities and freedom of expression be protected?

Clinton had a First Amendment to deal with, and so in place of legal restrictions on criminalization of Islam, she suggested “old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor.” She held a lengthy closed-door meeting with OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu in December 2011 to facilitate the adoption of measures that would advance the OIC’s anti-free speech campaign. But what agreements she and Ihsanoglu made, if any, have never been disclosed. Still, the specter of an American secretary of State conferring with a foreign official about how to restrict the freedom of speech in order to stifle communications deemed offensive to Muslims was, at the very least, chilling.

If Clinton is, against all likelihood, indicted or otherwise falters, Bernie Sanders is unlikely to stand any more strongly than she would for the freedom of speech and against the global jihad. Last October, Muslim student Remaz Abdelgader referred to Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson’s statements about not wanting a Muslim president, saying to Sanders: “Being an American is such a strong part of my identity, but I want to create a change in this society. I’m so tired of listening to this rhetoric saying I can’t be president one day, that I should not be in office. It makes me so angry and upset. This is my country.” Sanders’ response? “If we stand for anything we have to stand together and end all forms of racism in this country. I will lead that effort as president.”…

Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Turkey deported Brussels jihad mass murderer in 2015, Belgium ignored warning that he was a jihadi

UK man arrested for asking Muslim woman to “explain Brussels”

Why Bernie Sanders [and Donald Trump] Matter

why bernie sanders matters book coverWASHINGTON, D.C. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Bernie Sanders’ appeal to young, often first time voters, is not a mystery to Harry Jaffe, whose recent book “Why Bernie Sanders Matters” was the subject of a Focus Washington interview with Chuck Conconi. Jaffe said the youthful voters are “attracted to” the VermontSenator’s authenticity.

In that, Jaffe explained, Sanders has “a commonality with (Donald) Trump” in that neither are part of the establishment. The comparison between the two maverick candidates, however, Jaffe points out is that Sanders is a “Populist Socialist,” while Trump is “Populist Fascist.”

In a comparison with the campaign style of Hillary Clinton, with whom he is vying for the Democratic Party nomination to run for president, Jaffe said Sanders says what he thinks and if you don’t agree with it, don’t vote for him. Clinton, on the other hand, he continues, first factors what her handlers think, then what her husband, former President Bill Clinton, thinks and then what she thinks before making a statement. Jaffe said younger voters can detect that difference.

Jaffe also said that the black vote is not monolithic and that southern African Americans — largely rural, more religious and conservative — are quite different from their northern counterparts, who are urban and prioritize good jobs and making a living. The contention is that while Clinton runs exceptionally well with African Americans in the southern states, she might not do as well among northern blacks in the upcoming Ohio and Illinois primaries.

A Washington Magazine editor at large, Jaffe, who has worked on books by educator Michele Rhee and former congresswoman Gabby Gifford, said that pollsters and much of the media were surprised by Sanders upset victory in the Michigan primary. Jaffe said he wasn’t surprised and doesn’t think Sanders was surprised either. He contends that Sanders will also do well in the upcoming Ohio and Illinois primaries because Sanders, who consistently votes against international trade agreements, has always been a spokesman for the working class who see their jobs outsourced overseas, and that they are not getting paid as well as they once were. They like his opposition to trade agreements, a factor that political pundits said was a major part of his Michigan victory.

Harry Jaffe provides interesting insights on democratic voters, upcoming primaries and even some surprises about the candidate himself as a college student during the 1960s. Bernie Sanders champions voters who feel like they don’t matter in Washington; and because he lets them know that they do matter, Bernie Sanders’Presidential bid matters.

See the full interview: http://www.focuswashington.com/2016/03/11/why-bernie-sanders-matters/

To learn more about the author, see his website at: http://www.harryjaffe.com/

About MSLGROUP

MSLGROUP is Publicis Groupe’s strategic communications and engagement group, advisors in all aspects of communication strategy: from consumer PR to financial communications, from public affairs to reputation management and from crisis communications to experiential marketing and events. With more than 3,000 people across close to 100 offices worldwide, MSLGROUP is also the largest PR network in Europe, fast-growing China and India. The group offers strategic planning and counsel, insight-guided thinking and big, compelling ideas – followed by thorough execution.
www.mslgroup.com
| Twitter | Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube | Slideshare | Pinterest

About Publicis Groupe

Publicis Groupe [Euronext Paris FR0000130577, CAC 40] is a global leader in marketing, communication, and business transformation. In a world marked by increased convergence and consumer empowerment, Publicis Groupe offers a full range of services and skills: digital, technology & consulting with Publicis.Sapient (SapientNitro, Sapient Global Markets, Sapient Government Services, Razorfish Global, DigitasLBi, Rosetta) – the world’s largest most forward-thinking digitally centered platform focused exclusively on digital transformation in an always-on world – as well as creative networks such as BBH, Leo Burnett, Publicis Worldwide, Saatchi & Saatchi, public affairs, corporate communications and events with MSLGROUP, ad tech solutions with VivaKi, media strategy, planning and buying through Starcom MediaVest Group and ZenithOptimedia, healthcare communications, with Publicis Healthcare Communications Group (PHCG), and finally, brand asset production with Prodigious. Present in 108 countries, the Groupe employs more than 76,000 professionals.

Trump and Clinton Likely Winners in Florida Primary Races

SAINT LEO, Fla. /PRNewswire/ — In Florida, Donald Trump is maintaining his lead among GOP presidential candidates, getting the support of 41.4 percent of likely Republican primary voters surveyed this week by the Saint Leo University Polling Institute.

Florida’s own Marco Rubio trailed behind, attracting just 22.8 percent of the 500 Republicans surveyed in the online poll. As for other GOP candidates, 12.4 percent favored U.S. Senator Ted Cruz, and 10.8 percent will vote for former Ohio Governor John Kasich. Another 12.6 percent said they are undecided.

The poll also surveyed 500 likely Democratic Florida primary voters and found U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton strongly in the lead, with 59.4 percent selecting her over U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Sanders supporters amounted to 27 percent of those polled, meaning he was more than 32 points behind Clinton. The proportion of undecided Democrats was 13.6 percent.

Political science instructor Frank Orlando said that Marco Rubio is under intense pressure in his home state. “If he loses Tuesday, he’s effectively done,” said Orlando. “Even if he wins, the road is still very difficult, but one could see him gaining some momentum back and surviving the process. He needs to use Thursday night’s debate performance and all the ground game he can manage to change the tide in a hurry.”

Trump’s results showed broad appeal, but more so among men, particularly among white males. In the poll, 47.3 percent of males said they would vote for Trump compared to 34.2 percent of females. “If he does end up being the [Republican] nominee, we might witness the greatest gender gap in recorded history,” said Orlando.

On the Democratic side, Orlando sees Clinton’s poll results foreshadowing victory in the Florida primary. “Being down by 32 is quite a mountain to climb,” Orlando said. “Also, Florida has a higher minority population and a larger proportion of older voters. Both of these things help Clinton.”

ABOUT THE SAINT LEO UNIVERSITY POLLING INSTITUTE

The Saint Leo University Polling Institute survey results about Florida and national politics, public policy issues, Pope Francis’ popularity, and other topics, can be found here: http://polls.saintleo.edu. You can also follow the institute on Twitter @saintleopolls.

RELATED ARTICLES:

One of the groups organizing against Trump in Chicago was a “refugee rights” group

RNC Launches Website Dedicated to Clinton’s Email Scandal