Tag Archive for: Democrat

Bernie’s Bolsheviks vs. Donald’s Trumpites

/in , , , /by

Bolshevik: Russian for “One of the Majority.” There appear to be two movements in the 2016 presidential primary race. One is led by Bernie Sanders and his Bolsheviks. The other is lead by Donald Trump and those who “Want to Make America Great, Again”, known at Trumpites. One movement promotes collectivism, the other individualism. Ayn Rand defines the principles underlying these movements as follows:

  • Individualism – Each man exists by his own right and for his own sake, not for the sake of the group.
  • Collectivism – Each man exists only by the permission of the group and for the sake of the group (i.e. One of the Majority).

Question: Which movement will win on November 8th, 2016?

Chris Stirewalt from Fox News reports:

Hillary Clinton’s campaign network is riot with talk about socialism, seeping in under the door or perhaps in the fluoridated water. You never know where the “conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids” will turn up.

Among those warning of socialist creep is prominent Clinton booster, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon, who got double coupons for warning of a threat to the very heartland of the nation. “Here in the heartland, we like our politicians in the mainstream, and he is not — he’s a socialist,” Nixon told the NYT.

The sinister socialist to whom Nixon is referring is 74-year-old Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who has been in Congress since 1991 and for all of his adamancy about being an independent and a, yes, socialist has almost always been a perfectly pliant supporter of the Democratic party. Read more.

Megan Kelly Tweeted: A stunning new poll out of  with the below graphic:

poll out of New Hampshire

I recently wrote a column titled “The Trump Insurgency.” In that column I noted:

The definition of an insurgency is a “rebellion against an existing government by a group not recognized as a belligerent.”

Is it Trump who created an insurgency or is Trump following the lead of a growing insurgency that was already taking place? I have written that Trump leads his followers by following their lead. The movement began during the Presidency of Bill Clinton and continues today. It is a struggle between the individualist and the collectivist.

The choice for America is between a collectivist form of government or one that returns power to the people.

In a column titled “Government Caused the ‘Great Stagnation‘” Peter J. Boettke, Professor of Economics and Philosophy at George Mason University, discusses how government has outgrown America’s ability to pay for it. Boettke writes, “Government is too big, too bloated. Washington faces a spending problem, not a revenue problem. But too many within the economy depend on the government transfers to live and to work. Yet the economy is not growing at a rate that can afford the illusion. Where are we to go from here?”

Boettke labels totalitarian government as “Stupidity.” Boettke notes that, “[W]e fought off (in the West, at least) totalitarian government (Stupidity).”

However, that has changed. Today stupidity reigns supreme with more and more citizens receiving government subsidies and largess.

If either Hillary or Sanders wins the Democratic Party nomination for president, we could see the party at the last minute recruit Uncle Joe Biden to run.

This would be a last ditch effort to end the stupidity, or maybe not?

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Trump: Biden would run if Clinton indicted

World faces wave of epic debt defaults, fears central bank veteran

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of Senator Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump is courtesy of AP/Jacquelyn Martin/Seth Wenig/Photo montage by Salon.

The Trump Insurgency

/in , , , , /by

trump at rally with supportersIf you Google the words “Trump” and “insurgency” you will get over 650,000 links to articles and commentary. I recently said to a friend that Donald Trump has gone from being a candidate for the Republican Party nomination for President to the leader of a movement.

Can this movement now be called an insurgency?

The definition of an insurgency is a “rebellion against an existing government by a group not recognized as a belligerent.”

Is it Trump who created an insurgency or is Trump following the lead of a growing insurgency that was already taking place? I have written that Trump leads his followers by following their lead. The movement began during the Presidency of Bill Clinton and continues today. It is a struggle between the individualist and the collectivist.

Ayn Rand wrote a short nineteen page paper asking: What is the basic issue facing the world today? Rand, in her paper makes the case that, “The basic issue in the world today is between two principles: Individualism and Collectivism.” Rand defines these two principles as follows:

  • Individualism – Each man exists by his own right and for his own sake, not for the sake of the group.
  • Collectivism – Each man exists only by the permission of the group and for the sake of the group.
trump supporters young

Trump supporters. Photo: Facebook.

Donald Trump has tapped into the “Individualism Movement.” Trump’s life is the embodiment of the individualist. Trump has been rich, then poor and then rich again. He has done this not with government handouts, but rather despite the government.

Members of the Individualism Movement go by many names: Silent Majority, TEA Party Patriots, Constitutionalists, Blue Dog Democrats, Anti-Establishment Republicans and the working class. They embody the insurgency.

Joseph P. William in his U.S. News & World Report column “New Insurgents, Old Problems“, wrote:

[Ronald Reagan in] His famous televised 1964 “A Time for Choosing” speech for GOP presidential nominee Barry Goldwater, tapped into deep-seated anxiety about communism and runaway government spending. Decades before the Reagan Revolution, The Gipper laid out a then-radical vision for vastly smaller government, shaking up the party’s blue-blood ruling class and setting his course toward political immortality.

[ … ]

“We’ve certainly seen this before,” says Norm Ornstein, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute think tank and a veteran political scholar. In uncertain economic times, he says, “we get populism.” In Sanders’ case, that means disdain for bankers and Wall Street; the brand Trump’s selling sweeps in nativism, trade protectionism and mistrust of the GOP establishment.

Is Trump the new populist or the old individualist?

Here are just some of the reasons Trump’s campaign is different than any other of the candidates, Democrat or Republican, running for President:

  1. Not a career politician.
  2. Not politically correct.
  3. Isn’t influenced by money or big donors.
  4. When he sees something he says something.
  5. Turns his negatives into positives.
  6. Attacks against him consistently backfire.
  7. Fearless and is therefore feared.
  8. Has broad appeal due to his forthright comments.

Each of these are indicators of individualism on steroids.

Donald Trump is saying what people have wanted to say but have been afraid to do so. When Trump speaks he is not speaking to the media or the elite, he is speaking to John and Jane six-pack. He is speaking to each an every American.

Trump has shown that there is nothing to fear but fear itself. He is the new Individualist and the people love him for it.

It truly is a time for choosing.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Notes on a Phenomenon by Mark Steyn

Dems Defect — 20% Would Vote Trump!

GOP strategist: Trump mainstreams ‘white is ok’ attitude

Still don’t think Donald Trump can win? This chart should convince you – Washington Post

RELATED VIDEOS:

Video created by a Trump Supporter – “The Real Donald Trump Story”

“A Time for Choosing” by Ronald Reagan

Republicans mentally rape Dem voters with Hillary scandals

/in , /by

With more of Hillary’s emails being exposed to the nation’s mindset, certain previously suppressed memories begin to emerge out of the subconscious, causing us to doubt her ability to control our reality.

We were not supposed to know or care about Hillary’s ties to Sid Blumenthal. It was for our own good that we didn’t remember who this man was. We were all better off thinking and feeling only what Hillary wanted us to think and feel. Now that the Republicans have ruined this blissful relationship, we begin to feel disturbed by unsolicited facts and unauthorized memories that lead us to question our trusted Democratic leaders.

In what can only be described as mental breaking and entering, the Republicans brutally drag us outside of our safe spaces and repeatedly penetrate us with facts, inseminating us with unwanted ideas, and causing us to perform painful intellectual abortions. This effectively makes us victims of non-consensual mental rape.

The harm becomes obvious already as we begin to wonder, how come Hillary couldn’t protect us from these traumatic facts? Has she lost touch and is no longer all-powerful, allowing the Republicans to send an information tsunami into our previously safe seas of controlled tranquility?

Our sanity depends on knowing that all the faults, lies, and malevolence can only be found among the Republicans. All we want from our news sources is information about how the Republicans made our planet too hot by melting the glaciers out of capitalist greed and racist anger at minorities who live in extreme climates. Any attempts by the Republicans to disprove these beliefs automatically qualify them as climate deniers and mental rapists, thus reinforcing our emotional well-being.

We know that the Republicans have made the world unsafe by exposing what really happened in Benghazi, instead of believing, like the rest of us, in the story about the offensive YouTube video. What difference does it make what really happened? If we could forget, we could live in peace. If the Republicans didn’t prevent us from suppressing the memory of 9/11 and subsequent attacks on America, we would have continued to live in peace with the Muslim world. But the Republicans don’t want peace, they want wars.

We could have had peace with Iran if the Republicans didn’t expose the discrepancies of the Iranian treaty. We could be free of fear of terrorist attacks if the Republicans didn’t mention them all the time, exposing the religion of those who commit workplace violence.

If the Republicans didn’t expose the secrets about Bill Clinton’s affairs, Hillary would not have been forced to cover them up and to attack the female victims. This, in turn, would not have weakened her position on women’s issues and would not have immunized Donald Trump against her accusations of him being a sexist male chauvinist pig.

If the Republicans didn’t say the words “Radical Islam,” there would be no al-Qaeda, Taliban, Boko Haram, Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, or ISIS. Syria would be a peaceful nation, Iran would not have developed the bomb, and Saudi Arabia would not have killed the Sheikh.

We need a leader who will keep us safe in our comfort zones by controlling our reality and protecting us from traumatic memories. We need to continue to believe and question nothing. Is that so much to ask?

Thank you for reading this non-pro-Hillary article.


EDITORS NOTE: This political satire column originally appeared in The Peoples Cube.

Michael Moore starts #WeAreAllMuslim campaign in front of Trump Towers

/in , , , , /by

“And now, here we are in 2015 and, like many other angry white guys, you are frightened by a bogeyman who is out to get you. That bogeyman, in your mind, are all Muslims. Not just the ones who have killed, but ALL MUSLIMS.” “Angry white guys”? Jihad terror is not a race. Does Michael Moore think Donald Trump is just fine with white jihad terrorists such as John Walker Lindh, Adam Gadahn, Terry Loewen, etc.?

“That bogeyman, in your mind, are all Muslims. Not just the ones who have killed, but ALL MUSLIMS.” Trump, for all his obvious faults (his opposition to the freedom of speech being chief among them), did not actually say that. In fact, he said just the opposite. He said that Muslim immigration should be stopped until some method could be devised to distinguish jihadis from peaceful Muslims. If he believed that all Muslims were the problem, he would not have made such a distinction.

There is tremendous confusion on this issue, even among conservatives. In the wake of Trump’s remarks, two counter-jihad analysts who should have known better wrote articles saying that Trump was wrong, and that only “Islamists,” not Muslims, should be banned. The question of how to distinguish “Islamists” from the general population of Muslims was left unanswered. Yet that was what Trump was saying: Muslim immigration should be halted temporarily because of the impossibility of determining who the “Islamists” were among the Muslims.

michael more we are all muslims

Michael More.

“Director Michael Moore starts #WeAreAllMuslim campaign in front of Trump Towers,” The Source, December 17, 2015 (thanks to Bulldog):

If all of the controversy stirred up by Trump’s anti-Muslim rhetoric wasn’t enough, 9/11 director Michael Moore pens a letter to the presidential candidate after posting up in front of Trump Towers with a #WeAreAllMuslim sign before he was arrested by the police. Below is copy of the open letter to Trump:

Dear Donald Trump:

You may remember (you do, after all, have a “perfect memory!”), that we met back in November of 1998 in the green room of a talk show where we were both scheduled to appear one afternoon. But just before going on, I was pulled aside by a producer from the show who said that you were “nervous” about being on the set with me. She said you didn’t want to be “ripped apart” and you wanted to be reassured I wouldn’t “go after you.”

“Does he think I’m going to tackle him and put him in a choke hold?” I asked, bewildered.

“No,” the producer replied, “he just seems all jittery about you.”

“Huh. I’ve never met the guy. There’s no reason for him to be scared,” I said. “I really don’t know much about him other than he seems to like his name on stuff. I’ll talk to him if you want me to.”

And so, as you may remember, I did. I went up and introduced myself to you. “The producer says you’re worried I might say or do something to you during the show. Hey, no offense, but I barely know who you are. I’m from Michigan. Please don’t worry — we’re gonna get along just fine!”

You seemed relieved, then leaned in and said to me, “I just didn’t want any trouble out there and I just wanted to make sure that, you know, you and I got along. That you weren’t going to pick on me for something ridiculous.”

“Pick on” you? I thought, where are we, in 3rd grade? I was struck by how you, a self-described tough guy from Queens, seemed like such a fraidey-cat.

You and I went on to do the show. Nothing untoward happened between us. I didn’t pull on your hair, didn’t put gum on your seat. “What a wuss,” was all I remember thinking as I left the set.

And now, here we are in 2015 and, like many other angry white guys, you are frightened by a bogeyman who is out to get you. That bogeyman, in your mind, are all Muslims. Not just the ones who have killed, but ALL MUSLIMS.

Fortunately, Donald, you and your supporters no longer look like what America actually is today. We are not a country of angry white guys. Here’s a statistic that is going to make your hair spin: Eighty-one percent of the electorate who will pick the president next year are either female, people of color, or young people between the ages of 18 and 35. In other words, not you. And not the people who want you leading their country.

So, in desperation and insanity, you call for a ban on all Muslims entering this country. I was raised to believe that we are all each other’s brother and sister, regardless of race, creed or color. That means if you want to ban Muslims, you are first going to have to ban me. And everyone else.

We are all Muslim.

Just as we are all Mexican, we are all Catholic and Jewish and white and black and every shade in between. We are all children of God (or nature or whatever you believe in), part of the human family, and nothing you say or do can change that fact one iota. If you don’t like living by these American rules, then you need to go to the time-out room in any one of your Towers, sit there, and think about what you’ve said.

And then leave the rest of us alone so we can elect a real president who is both compassionate and strong — at least strong enough not to be all whiny and scared of some guy in a ballcap from Michigan sitting next to him on a talk show couch. You’re not so tough, Donny, and I’m glad I got to see the real you up close and personal all those years ago.

We are all Muslim. Deal with it.

All my best,
Michael Moore

I’m asking everyone to go here (http://buff.ly/1QOSbYL) and sign the following statement: “WE ARE ALL MUSLIM” — and then post a photo of yourself holding a homemade sign saying “WE ARE ALL MUSLIM” on Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram using the hashtag ‪#‎WeAreAllMuslim‬. I will post all the photos on my site and send them to you, Mr. Trump. Feel free to join us.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Bernie Sanders accuses Trump of Nazism at Mosque with past Nazi ties

Robert Spencer in FrontPage: The LA Schools’ “Not Credible” Threat

Minnesota: Parents question public high school’s choice to sing “Allahu akbar” at holiday concert

U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) not sure if ‘enemy is connected to Islam’

/in , , , , /by

Not only do the politically correct and willfully ignorant such as Senator Brown do all they can to avoid acknowledging that there is any connection between jihad terrorism and Islam, but they also enforce that willful ignorance upon the rest of us: unless you confess with his lips and believe in your heart that the Islamic State is not Islamic, you will be subjected to a chorus of opprobrium, along with ostracism and ongoing vilification.

“Dem Senator Unsure If ‘Enemy Is Connected to Islam,’” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, December 11, 2015:

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D., Ohio) struggled to explain whether he believes there is a connection between Islam and terrorist forces aiming to launch strikes at the United States when questioned by another leading lawmaker Thursday evening on the Senate floor, according to video of the exchange.

Asked by Sen. Ben Sasse (R., Neb.) during an exchange on the Senate floor if he believes “there is any connection between our enemy and Islam,” Brown appeared confused and struggled to respond.

“I’m sorry, excuse me?” Brown said in response to Sasse’s question.

When asked again if he believes there is any connection between the radicals waging terrorist attack on the West and Islam, Brown said he is not sure.

“I guess, I don’t know, I’m not here to debate this,” he said. “I don’t know exactly what that means, ‘A connection between our enemy and Islam.’”

“I know that semantics matter and the criticism of our president in this body is kind of front of center” as a result of the recent terror attacks in San Bernardino, Calif., Brown continued….

The White House made clear this week it has a “strong belief” to not “treat the [Islamic State] terrorists as leaders of some religious movement.”

Sasse described this response as “lunacy.”

“This is lunacy,” he said. “First, while the White House is insisting that no one use the word ‘Islamic’ or note any connection between the war that we’re facing and some subset of Islam—even as the White House insists that no one use the word—their own preferred adjective—ISIL or ISIS—begins with an ‘I,’” Sasse said….

RELATED ARTICLES:

SB jihad accomplice: “There’s so many sleeper cells…it’s going to be big”

Glenn Greenwald falsely claims story of US Muslim arrested in Turkey was false

When will President Obama tell Muslims to stop clinging to their religion and guns?

/in , , , , , , /by

President Obama has scheduled a broadcast to the nation to address the recent attacks in Paris, Mali, San Bernardino and today in London. His administration has made it a point to never blame Muslims for their individual actions, nor to blame Islam for its hate of non-Muslims and Muslims alike.

Perhaps it is now time for President Obama to face the reality that Muslims cling to their religion and guns. The difference is they use their guns to further their religion. Christians and Jews do not.

Paul R. Hollrah reports:

On Thursday, Dec. 5, 2015, Attorney General Loretta Lynch threw down the gauntlet in a speech before the Muslim Advocate’s 10th Anniversary dinner in Arlington, Virginia.  Speaking just one day after Muslim terrorists, Sayed Rizwan Farook and his Saudi wife, Tashfeen Malik, murdered fourteen innocent people in an unprovoked terror attack on the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, California, Lynch said, “On behalf of our nation’s Justice Department, I am grateful to count you as partners in our work to promote tolerance, to ensure public safety, and to protect civil rights (emphasis added)…”

This is the official narrative of the Obama administration.

As I pointed out in my column “The neo-Democrat Party: Devout followers of Marx, Mao and Mohammed“:

I believe what President Obama has truly done is fundamentally transformed the Democratic Party of JFK to the Democrat Party of BHO. I use the word Democrat because the Party of Obama is not Democratic, as envisioned by Thomas Jefferson. The membership of the neo-Democrat Party are made up primarily of the devout followers of Marx, Mao and Mohammed.

Those who oppose Obama and the neo-Democrat Party, including JFK Democrats, are subject to ridicule, rejection and bullying.

Extremism in the name of the collective is the over riding strategy of the neo-Democrat. Radicalism is the tactic. The more extreme the ideal, the more it is embraced. This leads to what some have labeled a form of political insanity. I call it political suicide. History teaches us that tyrants and tyranny ultimately lose the support of the masses. Why? Because the policies implemented harm the masses.

[ … ]

The ideal of collectivism is alive and well in the neo-Democrat Party. Collectivism is what drives the followers of Marx, Mao and Mohammed, those who make up the core of the neo-Democrat Party.

[ … ]

The Democratic Party of JFK has morphed into the neo-Democrat Party by dint of constant pressure from the radicals and the constant retreat of the Jeffersonian Democrats.

Today the Democrat Party has fundamentally transformed into the party of Marx, Mao and Mohammed.

It is a struggle between the civilized man and the uncivilized man (savage).

dietrich bonhoffer quoteI expect President Obama to defend Muslims and Islam in the name of tolerance and civil rights. But whose tolerance and who’s civil rights? Not those of Christians and Jews.

Ayn Rand wrote:

“The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other – until one day when they are suddenly declared to be the country’s official ideology.”

I expect President Obama will express more absurdities, which have become his administration’s and the Democrat Party’s official ideology.

Democrat Congressman: “Not one” Muslim refugee engaged in terror

/in , , , , , /by

Representative Keith Ellison, who accepted money from the Muslim American Society, a Muslim Brotherhood organization, to finance his pilgrimage to Mecca, is banking here upon the ignorance of the American public and the eagerness of the mainstream media to maintain them in that status.

“Muslim-American Congressman Claims ‘Not One’ Refugee Engaged in Terrorism — Let’s Check the Record,” by Frank Camp, Independent Journal Review, November 27, 2015:

Appearing Wednesday on “Democracy Now!” Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first Muslim member of the House, called the “American Security Against Foreign Enemies Act,” which would tighten the refugee vetting process, “irrational.”

Host Amy Goodman got the ball rolling:

“Last week, the House passed legislation that was introduced by Republican lawmakers to, at the moment, stop Iraqi and Syrian refugees from resettling here in the United States. Respond.”

Ellison’s reply contained a rather severe factual error (emphasis ours):

“Well, there was a piece of legislation motivated by fear, motivated by xenophobia, motivated by irrationality. Look, we’ve had 750,000 refugees come into this country since the year 2001. None of them–not one–has been engaged in terrorism. At all…Why then, are we going to revamp our whole refugee resettlement program, which is incredibly rigorous in terms of the vetting process…”

There have been multiple refugees admitted to the United States since 2001 who have been arrested and indicted on terror-related charges.

According to ABC News, Waad Ramadan Alwan and Mohanad Shareef Hammadi, two refugees from Iraq, were arrested and indicted in 2011 for “allegedly providing assistance to Al Qaeda in Iraq and attempting to send weapons overseas.”

More from ABC:

“Alwan has been charged with conspiracy to kill U.S. nationals, distributing information about explosives, conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction, attempting to provide material support to terrorists and conspiracy to transfer and possess weapons.

Hammadi is charged with attempting to provide material support to terrorists and conspiracy to transfer and possess weapons.”

Additionally, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) recently released a list of 12 refugees who were arrested and indicted on terror-related charges. Among these cases:

  • As pointed out by Breitbart.com, Somalian refugee Ibrahim was sentenced to 15 years in prison for “conspiring to provide material support to Al-Shabaab.”
  • Abdurahman Yasin Daud, a Kenyan refugee, was charged in 2015 with attempting to provide material support to ISIS.
  • Fazliddin Kurbanov, a refugee from Uzbekistan, was charged with attempting to provide material support to foreign terrorists.

According to U.S. Assistant Attorney General John Carlin, Kurbanov:

“…conspired to provide material support to the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan and procured bomb-making materials in the interest of perpetrating a terrorist attack on American soil.”

Fox News notes that Kurbanvov allegedly “gathered explosive materials in his Boise apartment.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Islamic State Will Thrive Only as Long as the U.S. Lets It

West Germany’s Former Chancellor Predicted Europe Would Have an Assimilation Problem

Sweden: Community torn apart as arrival of migrants prompts running battles in streets

India: Muslim cleric says gender equality “un-Islamic,” women “fit only to deliver children”

Florida Senator Geraldine Thompson (D-Dist. 12) is a Term Limits Hero

/in , , /by

On Nov. 17, the Senate Ethics and Elections Committee took up the Term Limits Convention bill (SM630). This is the bill that calls for a national amendment convention under Article V of the U.S. Constitution in order to enact Congressional term limits.

It started out fine but quickly went awry as the vice chair of the committee, Republican John Legg, suggested that the term limits convention may be part of a conspiracy to overthrow the constitution. He was followed by Sen. Jeff Clemens, a South Florida Democrat who has never shown any love for the second amendment, who asked if perhaps our right to bear arms could be threatened by consideration of Congressional term limits. What?

How the hearing took this this sour and darkly comical turn is unclear, but what is certain was that some senators wanted to talk about anything else that afternoon except for term limits. Perhaps the bipartisan popularity of the successful political reform makes it impossible for would-be professional politicians to tackle it in a straightforward manner. They have to obfuscate, confuse, baffle and confound to somehow malign a very simple issue that voters both understand and have long and positive experience with.

Just to be clear: A “convention to propose amendments” under Article V has no power whatever to make or change laws. According to Article V, it “shall” be convened upon the official calls of 2/3 (or 34) of the states. At the convention, delegates chosen and sent by the states can craft and suggest an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That’s it. To become law, three quarters (38) of the states have to ratify the amendment.

Sen. Joe Negron was about to suggest a tabling of the issue for a saner day, when Sen, Geraldine Thompson announced she intended to support the bill and wanted a vote. She got it, and SM630 passed its first Senate committee 5-4.

That Sen. Thompson, a Democrat, would save the day should not be surprising. Polling (Gallup 2013) shows that some 75% of Americans support Congressional term limits, including 65% of Democrats and 79% of independents.

Most special interests are not ideological but instead purely self-interested, representing corporations, professional organizations and unions that seek special favors and benefits from lawmakers and are willing to pay for them one way or another. Protecting individual Americans from corporate exploitation is a central message of Democratic campaign rhetoric. Term limits regularly sever the cozy relationships between special interest lobbyists and decision-makers and greatly reduce their influence.

There is also a self-interested — and completely legitimate — component of Florida Democratic support for term limits that is, currently, unique to the party. Florida (like some other Southern states) was once solidly blue and started to turn Republican long before that change was reflected in the legislature, as the power of incumbency prevented rotation in office and blocked the changes in the voters views to be expressed. The enactment of term limits speeded up the transition because it improved representation of the people through open seats, competitive elections and the introduction of new people and ideas.

Now that the Republicans are in a solid majority in Tallahassee, nearly every session a GOP bill to lengthen and weaken term limits is introduced in order to thwart electoral competition and protect their position. But when and if the pendulum swings back to the blue among the electorate, it will be the fluidity that comes with term limits that will ensure the voters’ will is reflected in a timely manner — not a generation later.

With her timely vote for term limits, Sen. Thompson struck a blow for the voters, her country and her party.

RELATED ARTICLE: Libertarian Party of Florida urging passage of Term Limits Convention bills

VIDEO: The G. W. Bush, Grover Norquist connection to a domestic terrorist

/in , , , , /by

Watch the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) Executive Director Nihad Awad state his support of HAMAS.

According to Discover the Networks profile on Nihad Awad:

In September 1993, Awad attended a secret three-day summit in Philadelphia along with a number of people whom the FBI believed were Hamas members or supporters. Ten years later, during a deposition regarding that meeting, Awad claimed he could not recall whether he had been there.

Hamas is a U.S. State Department designated terrorist organization.

The same Nihad Awad standing behind and to the right of President George W. Bush, six days after 9-11-2001, as he proclaims “Islam is a religion of peace” in a mosque.

And how, you may ask, does that happen? At the behest of Grover Norquist, personal adviser to the Republican Party!

So it is not just a Hillary/Democrat thing, we are watching you Paul Ryan.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Islamic State: “Remaining and Expanding?”

ISIS renews its call on Canadian Muslims to kill disbelievers in Canada

The Death of Europe: Is Paris the New Normal?

Extinguishing Christianity from the Middle East

16 Governors want Syrian Muslim Resettlement Suspended

/in , , , , , /by

New Hampshire Gov. Maggie Hassan becomes the first Democrat to want an opt-out on Syrian refugee resettlement. Of course, we wonder if the U.S. State Department will be honoring their requests, but you can be sure we will be watching with great interest! The governors may be soon get an unwelcome message on states rights.

map syrian refugees in us

Those blue circles represent where Syrian refugees have been resettled so far (since 2012) and the states whose governors are now saying NO, are in yellow. Go to the original map because the cities are on it as well.

maggie-hassan-1

Democrat New Hampshire Gov. Maggie Hassan

From The Hill:

Fifteen Republican governors and one Democrat have announced plans to block Syrian refugees from resettling in their states in the wake of last week’s terrorist attacks in Paris.

Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder and Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley issued statements Sunday saying that they wanted to prioritize the safety of the residents in their states.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott; Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a GOP presidential candidate; Arkansas Gov. Gov. Asa Hutchinson; Indiana Gov. Mike Pence; Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant; Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner; Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker; Florida Gov. Rick Scott; North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory; Ohio Gov. John Kasich, a Republican presidential candidate; Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey; Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker; and Maine Gov. Paul LePage joined them on Monday.

New Hampshire Gov. Maggie Hassan, who is challenging Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R) for her Senate seat, became the first Democratic governor to call for halting the acceptance of refugees until the vetting process is reviewed.

More here.

states taking syrian migrants cnn

I don’t want to diminish this major breakthrough in garnering attention for this here-to-fore secretive refugee program, but tomorrow, when I get a minute I am going to have to remind readers about the thousands and thousands of Iraqi, Afghan, Burmese and Somali Muslims pouring into the US through the RAP (Refugee Admissions Program) every year as we fixate on the small number of Syrians so far.

I’m telling you they can’t screen most of those any better (especially those Somalis who have left Africa and traveled illegally to places like Malta in Europe where we scoop up their illegal aliens, call them refugees, and fly them to America—including to South Carolina as we learned earlier this year).

RELATED ARTICLES:

Tennessee GOP leader: Round up Syrian refugees, remove from state

NYT: Eight governors (so far) have said they don’t want Syrians resettled in their states

Minnesota Democrat Party candidate: ‘The Islamic State isn’t necessarily evil’

/in , , , , /by

Dan Kimmel has withdrawn from the race, and for that we can be grateful, but his statement, with all of its moral equivalence and toleration of evil, is a succinct expression of what hamstrings our ability to face the Islamic State and defeat it. This is why the Islamic State will be plaguing free people worldwide for years to come.

“Minnesota State Representative Candidate Withdraws From Race After Saying ‘ISIS is Not Evil,’” by Kaitlyn Schallhorn, Daily Caller, November 15, 2015:

A Democrat candidate for a state representative seat in Minnesota has withdrawn from the race after he drew ire from many — including those in his own party — with a controversial tweet following the Paris terrorist attacks.

“ISIS isn’t necessarily evil,” Dan Kimmel, a candidate for a Minnesota state representative seat tweeted Saturday. “It is made up of people doing what they think is best for their community. Violence is not the answer, though.”

The Islamic State has taken responsibility for the terrorist attacks in Paris Friday that claimed the lives of more than 120 people and injured hundreds of others. In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, French President Francois Hollande said he viewed the attack as an “act of war” and promised a “pitiless” response.

Kimmel, 63, asserted in a follow-up that he “deplores” the Islamic State’s actions and was not defended them. However, the candidate still drew the ire of many on social media, including the Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party leaders.

In a post on his campaign website, Kimmel said his tweet was “poorly worded” and thus announced the end of his candidacy.

“I am folding up my campaign tent,” Kimmel said, adding an apology for those who volunteered or donated to his campaign.

“I do think the attacks in Paris yesterday, along with other ISIS terrorist actions, are cowardly and despicable. My heart breaks for the people of France, of Paris, the families of those wounded or killed and the casualties themselves,” Kimmel said. “My thoughts are with them. I condemn the attacks, as I condemn all violence.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Two of the Paris jihad murderers came into Europe as refugees

In the wake of the Paris jihad attacks, France says it’s “essential” to combat…climate change

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Dan Kimmel. Kimmel is the one on the left..

Bernie Sanders denounces “Islamophobia,” Hamas-linked terror organization thrilled

/in , , , /by

A Muslim student, Remaz Abdelgader, said 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 replied: “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.”

What race is Islam again? I keep forgetting. What race is Sharia oppression of women, non-Muslims, gays again? I just can’t seem to recall. That is what this controversy is really about: Ben Carson raised a legitimate question about the compatibility of Sharia and the U.S. Constitution. Sharia denies the freedom of speech and the equality of rights of women and non-Muslims before the law, and contravenes the Constitution in other ways as well. In 1960, John Kennedy was subjected to baseless prejudice as a Roman Catholic, and today Sanders and others consigns concerns about a Muslim President to an analogous baseless prejudice. But Kennedy actually addressed concerns, and assured Americans that he would obey and enforce the Constitution and no other law. Nowadays, asking a hypothetical Muslim candidate if he would obey and enforce the Constitution and not Sharia is “racism.”

So what would happen if a Sharia-compliant Muslim candidate did become President, and began working against the freedoms that the Constitution allows but Sharia does not? Would all those who voted for him simply congratulate themselves on their resistance to “racism” as their freedoms were eroded away?

“CAIR Welcomes Bernie Sanders’s Pledge to End Islamophobia and Racism,” Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations, designated a terror organization by the United Arab Emirates, October 29, 2015:

CAIR logo(WASHINGTON, D.C., 10/29/15) – The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, today welcomed Democratic presidential candidate and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders’s pledge to end Islamophobia and all other forms of racism during a town hall hosted at George Mason University on Wednesday.

Yesterday, Sanders invited Muslim George Mason University student Remaz Abdelgader to join him on stage during a campaign stop and responded to her remarks about Republican presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson’s position that a Muslim should not be president.

Abdelgader expressed to Sanders the personal impact that Islamophobia in the presidential election was having on her. “Being an American is such a strong part of my identity, but I want to create a change in this society,” Abdelgader said. “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 responded: “If we stand for anything we have to stand together and end all forms of racism in this country,” Sanders said. “I will lead that effort as president.”

“What should have been an unremarkable statement against racism was made noteworthy because only a handful of presidential candidates have gone on the record to denounce Islamophobia,” said CAIR Government Affairs Manager Robert McCaw. “Bernie Sanders’s willingness to vow to stand together in eradicating Islamophobia and all forms of racism is inspirational.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Kerry: Middle East “home of populations that are energetic, youthful, forward-looking. It is in them that we place our faith.”

Islamic State on recruitment spree in Russia, “moderate” imams can’t counter the jihadis’ appeal

Bernie Sanders and the Fixed Pie Fallacy by Chelsea German

/in , , , , /by

“The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.” Senator Bernie Sanders first said those words in 1974 and has been repeating them ever since.

Senator Sanders is not alone in his belief. Three out of four Americans agree with the statement, “Today it’s really true that the rich just get richer while the poor get poorer.”

Senator Sanders is half right: the rich are getting richer. However, his assertion that the poor are becoming poorer is incorrect. The poor are becoming richer as well.

Economist Gary Burtless of the Brookings Institute showed that between 1979 and 2010, the real (inflation-adjusted) after-tax income of the top 1% of U.S. income-earners grew by an impressive 202%.

He also showed that the real after-tax income of the bottom fifth of income-earners grew by 49%. All groups made real income gains. While the rich are making gains at a faster pace, both the rich and the poor are in fact becoming richer.

label

In addition to these measurable real income gains, decreases in prices have given the poor increased purchasing power, helping to raise living standards for the worst off in society. As a result of falling prices such as for groceries and material goods, along with gains in real income, Americans have more income left after basic expenses.

Technology has also become cheaper, improving our lives in unexpected ways. For example, consider the spread of cell phones. There was a time when only the wealthiest Americans could afford one. Today, over 98% of Americans have a cellular subscription, and the rise of smart phones has made these devices more useful than ever.

Unfortunately, progress has been uneven. In those areas of the economy where competition is hobbled, such as education, housing, and healthcare, prices continue to increase.

Still, the percentage of the population classified as living in relative poverty has decreased over time. Why then do three quarters of Americans, including Senator Sanders, believe that the poor are “getting poorer?”

A simple logical error underlies Sanders’ belief. If we assume that wealth is a fixed pie, then the more slices the rich get, the fewer are left over for the poor. In other words, people can only better themselves at the expense of others. In the world of the fixed pie, if we observe the rich becoming richer, then it must be because other people are becoming poorer.

Fortunately, in the real world, the pie is not fixed. US GDP is growing, and it’s growing faster than the population.

Poverty remains a pressing issue, but Senator Sanders is incorrect when he says that the poor are becoming poorer. In the words of HumanProgress.org advisory board member Professor Deirdre McCloskey,

The rich got richer, true. But millions more have gas heating, cars, smallpox vaccinations, indoor plumbing, cheap travel, rights for women, lower child mortality, adequate nutrition, taller bodies, doubled life expectancy, schooling for their kids, newspapers, a vote, a shot at university, and respect.

This post first appeared at HumanProgress.org.

Chelsea German

Chelsea German

Chelsea German works at the Cato Institute as a Researcher and Managing Editor of HumanProgress.org.

Wake Up America: Democrats at War with We The People

/in , , , , , , /by

Please forgive me for sounding like a doting dad, but I was blessed to watch my adult daughter play softball in the world series. I beamed with pride as the out fielders backed up when she came to bat. However, what I am about to report will further entrench me as a traitor in the minds of other blacks in my family.

My wife Mary alerted me to the latest horrific incident of the Knockout Game that was ignored by the mainstream media. In New Jersey, a black thug knocked out an unsuspecting defenseless white woman. In Baltimore, 50 black teens almost beat a 61 year old white man to death which was again hidden from most Americans. My former employer WJZ-TV Baltimore refused to mention that the attackers were black in their coverage. And yet, race is the first thing out of reporters’ mouths in those rare incidences in which whites assault blacks. Stats show that blacks assault whites far more that vice versa.

I am the first to say everyone is solely responsible for their behavior. However, I see these black assaults on whites as the fist of the Democratic Party punching out innocent whites; the hand of the Democratic Party pulling the trigger assassinating police officers across America.

Democrats with MSM assistance have successfully convinced many black youths to believe white America is racist, murderers and responsible for all of black America’s woes. This Democrat insidious lie has caused black youths to feel morally justified in punishing their white Nemesis.

Few people realize the Democratic Party is at war with America. Yes, I am unequivocally saying everything the Democratic Party does is an attack on traditional morals and values. The Party leadership is repulsed by our God given freedom and rights written in the Constitution. Due to his radical education and perverted view of morality Obama believes the world has too little because America has too much. He is using his presidency to dethrone America as the world power.

From the Oval Office to numerous corrupted liberalism-infected government agencies, Democrats arrogantly bully and govern with an iron fist against the will of a majority of Americans. In essence, the Obama regime gives the American people the finger, daily.

From their perch of superiority, Democrats and liberal celebrity elitists believe only they should be permitted to bear arms, rather than us hayseed commoners. These elitists live in massive mansions, drive gas guzzlers and use massive amounts of fuel flying their private planes. Meanwhile, they lobby to force us peons to drive tiny tin cans, use public transportation and “lower our carbon footprint” to “save the planet”.

Here are just a few examples of the Dems hidden war against Americans.

The nationwide epidemic of blacks attacking innocent whites is due to a clarion call to attack by Democrat inspired and supported Black Lives Matter. What is so frustrating and crazy is the BLM movement was founded on the lie that white cops and white civilians routinely murder blacks. Furthering this hate-generating lie, legitimizing and empowering the vile hate group, the Democrat National Committee has given BLM its blessing to host a presidential town hall – to discuss “racial justice.” http://wapo.st/1M97ZFX Give me a break. Why not invite the KKK as well?

Then there is Kate’s Law which was voted down in the Senate by 44 Democrats. 

Thirty-two year old Kate Steinle while enjoying a leisurely stroll with her dad on a San Francisco pier was shot by an illegal who was convicted and deported numerous times. And yet, he kept coming back to the US.

Kate’s Law is a mandatory five years in jail for felony illegals who keep coming back. To protect our families, a majority of Americans want Kate’s Law. Democrats said screw you America. We want to continue rolling out the welcome mat to illegals because we are working on giving them the right to vote. With all the government handouts we offer, we are pretty confident the illegals will become loyal Democrat voters. So, screw Kate, her family and you America!

Another reason why Obama and the Democrats ignore federal law encouraging the invasion of illegals is they believe America has been too white for too long. I have to endure a rant from my wife every time she has to “press one for English”.

Despite national protest rallies and massive intense opposition from the American people Obama officially signed his insane Iran Nuke deal giving the world’s largest sponsors of terrorism $150 billion. Iranians boldly chant, “Death to America”. Obama lied claiming there are ballistic missile restrictions in his Iran Nuke deal. There are not. And where will those missiles be pointed? The answer is America. Ponder that folks.

By the way, a majority of American voters still oppose Obamacare. Obamacare is another example of the Democrats saying screw you, we’re taking over your health care, deciding who lives or dies whether you like it or not.

Average American Joe knows very little regarding what happened at our U.S. consulate in Benghazi Libya. In a nutshell, Ambassador Stevens begged Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for more security, saying they were sitting ducks for Al Qaeda terrorists. Stevens’ request was denied. Nothing, including Stevens and his staff’s lives, would be allowed to contradict the Obama Administration’s lie that Al Qaeda was no longer a threat. Ambassador Stevens and other Americans were killed in a terrorist attack on our consulate. Stevens’ body was abused and dragged through the street.

To protect the Administration’s terrorism-is-not-a-problem lie, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and Obama appeared on numerous TV shows insisting that the attack was a spontaneous protest sparked by an anti-Muslim video. Emails revealed that Hillary knew the attack had nothing to do with a video and was a planned Al Qaeda terrorist attack. 

Displaying the self-serving callousness of a sociopath, Hillary looked Pat Smith, mother of Benghazi victim Sean Smith, in the eye and promised to punish the producer of the video that caused the death of her son. 

It is extremely chilling that a major political party places its liberal agenda above the lives and best interest of Americans. This is how their party rolls folks; Democrats verses We The People.

In softball, my daughter is a “natural”. She hit a blast into the stadium lights, exploding them. Okay, I am exaggerating a bit. She did hit a ground ball single that drove in the winning run. That’s my girl!

Trustworthiness Issues? Politifact Calls Out Clinton Deception

/in , , , , /by

That there are apparently still people (though, increasingly few) that find Hillary Clinton at all trustworthy is becoming more and more incredible. Late last week, Politifact took Clinton to task over comments she made about the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). According to Politifact, at a campaign event in Iowa, Clinton remarked “[p]robably one of the most egregious, wrong, pieces of legislation that ever passed the Congress when it comes to this issue is to protect gun sellers and gun makers from liability… They are the only business in America that is wholly protected from any kind of liability.” Politifact properly branded the statement “False.” That Politifact has been known to skew their work in favor of gun control advocates, shows just how patently false Clinton’s characterization of the PLCAA was.

The PLCAA was enacted to protect the firearms industry from frivolous and politically motivated lawsuits. In the mid-1990s, gun control advocates, big city politicians, and trial attorneys teamed up in an attempt to use the courts to bilk the gun industry for untold millions and force them to agree to gun control measures that gun control supporters were unable to enact in Congress. The suits sought to hold members of the industry liable for the criminal behavior of those who misused their products.

These suits, though they were of little merit, posed a grave threat to the industry; and in turn, America’s gun owners. In 1998, Executive Director of the anti-gun U.S. Conference of Mayors was quoted by the New York Times as stating, “[t]he lawyers are seeing green on this issue… they think they can bring the gun industry to its knees.” One of those attorneys “seeing green,” John Coale, was quoted in a 2000 Washington Post article remarking, “[t]he legal fees alone are enough to bankrupt the industry.”

Passed by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2005, the PLCAA merely prohibits lawsuits against the gun industry for the criminal misuse of their products by a third party. Suits against the industry for knowingly unlawful sales, negligent entrustment, and those predicated on traditional products liability grounds are still permitted.

Further, the Politifact item makes clear that the gun industry isn’t the only industry for which Congress has limited tort liability. The piece cites similar protections given to vaccine makers, telecommunications companies, and aircraft manufacturers.

Clinton can’t seem to stop lying about guns and gun control. Earlier this month, we detailed how Clinton has hidden her true position on the Second Amendment; that it does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms. Moreover, on the same day that Politifact issued their “False” rating, the Washington Post gave Clinton three pinocchios for stating the thoroughly debunked myth that 40-percent of firearms sales occur without a background check.

With her trustworthiness rating going down the tubes, one would think that Clinton and her campaign flunkies would be working overtime to make sure she sticks to the facts. That’s of course assuming they would even know how.