Tag Archive for: Democrats

Poll: Trump leads Republican field and Clinton in West Virginia

/in , , , /by

CHARLESTON, W.Va. /PRNewswire/ — If the 2016 General Election were held today, 26 percent of West Virginians would vote for Democrat Hillary Clinton, while 58 percent would vote for an unspecified Republican candidate, according to a survey conducted by Orion Strategies, a strategic communications firm with offices in Charleston and Buckhannon.

Donald Trump holds a commanding lead among Republican presidential candidates, according to the Orion Strategies poll. Twenty-nine percent of respondents said they would vote for Trump, compared to eight percent for his closest challenger, Marco Rubio – who is statistically tied with Jeb Bush, Mike Huckabee, Ben Carsonand Ted Cruz.  Still, a plurality of Republican and Independents are undecided.

Orion Strategies today released the first results of a new, wide-ranging statewide poll that measured voter attitudes toward next year’s election and significant national issues – including questions about Obamacare, Planned Parenthood, the use of body cameras by police and the treaty with Iran.

“Every year or two, Orion Strategies compiles a list of all the questions we ourselves want to ask,” said Curtis Wilkerson, president and CEO of Orion Strategies.  “We poll often, but almost all of the polling we do on a regular basis remains proprietary. So this is always a fun and enlightening project.”

Orion Strategies also asked a number of questions regarding West Virginia-based state issues. The results of the state-oriented poll questions will be released tomorrow.

The live-interview telephone survey was conducted among historic, likely voters in West Virginia.   A total of 406 respondents completed the entire survey – giving the poll a 4.9 +/- margin of error with a 95 percent confidence rate.  The sample was proportionate to each of the three congressional districts in the state. All 55 counties were called, and results were collected from 54 of those counties.  Partisan registration among respondents was 52 percent Democratic, 34 percent Republican and 14 percent Independent.

Orion Strategies conducts polling and research surveys on behalf of various clients, including trade associations, law firms, universities, media outlets and political campaigns.  The firm also conducts surveys for change of venue requests on prominent court cases. Curtis Wilkerson, Principal of Orion Strategies, is a member of the American Association of Public Opinion Research.  Learn more about Orion Strategies at www.orion-strategies.com

Key Findings of the Survey

In the 2016 General Election for President, would you likely vote for a Democratic or Republican Candidate?

28%

Democratic

52%

Republican

If in the 2016 General Election for President, your choices were Hillary Clinton and a Republican candidate, for whom would you vote?

26%

Clinton

58%

Republican Candidate

If the 2016 Republican Presidential Primary in West Virginia were held today, for which candidate would you vote? (Republicans and Independents only)

29%

Trump

8%

Rubio

7%

Bush

7%

Huckabee

7%

Carson

5%

Cruz

2%

Walker

2%

Fiorina

1%

Kasich

1%

Paul

32%

Other/Undecided

If the 2016 Democratic Presidential Primary in West Virginia were held today, for which candidate would you vote? (Democrats and Independents only)

23%

Clinton

12%

Sanders

16%

Biden

49%

Other/Undecided

If in the 2016 General Election for President, your choices were Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, for whom would you vote?

30%

Clinton

53%

Trump

17%

Undecided

Other key findings:

  • 61% believe that things in West Virginia are not headed in the right direction
  • 36% believe that Planned Parenthood should receive state and federal funding, while 54% do not
  • 77% oppose paying college athletes salaries in addition to athletic scholarships, with 17% in support
  • 91% of respondents support the use of body cameras by all law enforcement officers
  • 63% believe that the death penalty should be reinstated while 23% are opposed and 13% undecided
  • 19% believe Congress should ratify the current proposed treaty with Iran, with 62% against and 18% undecided
  • 29% of respondents agree with the recent Supreme Court ruling upholding the ability for same sex couples to marry, while 66% were opposed

Respondents were asked two similar questions with altered names at very different points in the poll:

–Do you believe that Obamacare is effective in providing more healthcare to residents in West Virginia?

35%

Yes

50%

No

–Do you believe that the Affordable Care Act is effective in providing more healthcare to residents of West Virginia

40%

Yes

46%

No

In regards to United States President Barack Obama, how would you rate his job performance?

8%

Excellent

16%

Good

13%

Fair

64%

Poor

SOURCE Orion Strategies

Obama Defends Iran Deal by Attacking Opponents

/in , , /by

Instead of the issues, there is a shrill war of words against good faith opponents.

In a recent speech at American University, President Obama attempted to sell his Iran nuclear agreement to a skeptical American public, which according to all reliable polls opposes the deal overwhelmingly.  By making his pitch in a speech instead of a press conference, he avoided having to answer questions, clarify past inconsistent statements, and discuss the distortions that have been used to justify the deal.  Rather than allay concerns that are causing worry even among Congressional Democrats, he instead heaped scorn on Republicans, attacked his critics, derided Binyamin Netanyahu, and minimized the threat to Israel.  His speech was as self-congratulatory as it was detached from geopolitical reality.

And for once, liberal Jewish organizations disagreed with him publicly.

Mr. Obama attempted to woo Jewish groups into supporting the deal before his speech, but instead met with stiff resistance.  Although known more for lobbying than open confrontation, AIPAC strongly opposed the deal and urged Congress to reject it.  The Anti-Defamation League likewise objected, announcing in a public statement that:  “We are deeply disappointed by the terms of the final deal with Iran … which seem to fall far short of the President’s objective of preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear weapon state.”  Underlying these statements is the realization that the deal will facilitate Iran’s nuclear program and encourage a regional arms race.

The concerns of the liberal Jewish establishment were perhaps best summed up in an August 5th op-ed by David Harris of the American Jewish Committee, which stated among many other things the following:

By abandoning the earlier negotiating posture of dismantling sanctions in exchange for Iranian dismantlement of its nuclear infrastructure, and instead replacing it with what is essentially a temporary freeze on its program, the P5+1 has indeed validated Iran’s future status as a nuclear threshold state, a point that President Obama himself acknowledged in a media interview.

Given the nature of the Iranian regime and its defining ideology, AJC cannot accept this prospect. It is too ominous, too precedent-setting, and too likely to trigger a response from Iran’s understandably anxious neighbors who may seek nuclear-weapons capacity themselves, as well as, more immediately and still more certainly, advanced conventional arms, adding an entirely new level of menace to the most volatile and arms-laden region in the world. Surely, this cannot be in America’s long-term security interests.

After fully articulating his organization’s fears and concerns in the piece, Harris wrote that “AJC opposes the deal and calls on Members of Congress to do the same.”

Irrespective of his past assurances that no deal would be preferable to a bad deal, he is attempting to force a very bad deal on the US and its allies.

Though the ADL and AJC were deferential in acknowledging the efforts of President Obama, John Kerry and their European partners in negotiating with Iran, they nevertheless concluded that the deal is bad for the United States and Israel.  This view echoes a growing concern that it accomplishes none of the goals used to justify negotiations in the first place, and the nagging realization that Iran will fulfill its nuclear ambitions even if it does comply.

Based on its history, Iran is unlikely to comply in the absence of effective monitoring procedures; and without truly verifiable compliance, it will likely continue enriching uranium clandestinely and may well have enough reserves to produce weapons before the deal expires.  Some intelligence experts believe that Iran already possesses a sufficient stockpile.

It is significant that Jewish criticism of the deal is not coming solely from conservative groups like the Zionist Organization of (ZOA), Americans for a Safe Israel and the Republican Jewish Coalition.  Liberal establishment organizations finally seem to grasp that Obama’s Mideast policies have promoted the growth of Islamic extremism and have threatened Israel’s safety and security.  They also understand that the deal will lead to nuclear proliferation in the region.  Accordingly, American Jews who had always supported the President and downplayed his hostility for Israel are now calling on Congress to reject the deal.

Senator Chuck Schumer, whom many predicted would support the deal to preserve his chance of being named the next Democratic Senate leader, announced that he would vote against it.  Though early reports predicted that Schumer would vote for the deal, he may have been swayed by the thousands of letters sent by alarmed constituents urging him to vote no.  As a consequence, he is being pilloried by the political left and the White House and has been the target of anti-Semitic slurs.

The President’s allies are responding to criticism by attacking those who oppose the deal, casting aspersions on their motivations, invoking classical anti-Semitic canards of undue Jewish influence and dual loyalty, characterizing Jewish dissent as unpatriotic, and accusing Israel of orchestrating the opposition.

Liberal criticism of the deal is usually couched in expressions of thanks to Obama and Kerry for their efforts – despite their clear animus for Netanyahu and mocking dismissal of Israel’s existential concerns.  Still, it cannot be disputed that many liberals now recognize that Obama’s stated goal of preventing Iran from going nuclear is inconsistent with the final agreement, which legitimizes and enables its nuclear program.  Irrespective of his past assurances that no deal would be preferable to a bad deal, he is attempting to force a very bad deal on the US and its allies.

Many Americans are concerned that the deal does not require Iran to destroy its nuclear infrastructure, submit to “anytime, anywhere” inspections, fully disclose all of its nuclear activities or cease subsidizing terrorism – former red-lines that American negotiators ultimately conceded.  They are also bothered that Obama agreed to lift ballistic and conventional weapons bans – against the advice of military advisers – and that Iran can beat monitoring efforts by evasion, misdirection or simply failing to disclose its covert nuclear facilities.  This is especially problematic in light of the existence of secret side agreements (which neither Kerry nor Obama disclosed to Congress) affecting the ability to monitor compliance by, among other things, allowing Iran to provide its own soil samples to inspectors.

A growing number of Jewish Democrats are also troubled that the deal places trust in an Islamist regime that remains unrepentantly anti-American and antisemitic, brazenly states that it will not honor agreements with infidel nations, and repeatedly threatens to destroy Israel and exterminate her people.  Contrary to the naïve claims of its supporters, the deal will only destabilize an already volatile region, provide Iran with funds to continue financing terrorism and regional unrest, and motivate the Sunni states to acquire their own nuclear arsenals.

Rather than assuage any of these concerns, Obama used his speech to belittle and disparage all who question the deal and to compare his Republican critics in Congress to Iranian hardliners.  Though he’s elevated combative, divisive politics to a high art since his first days in office, this comment troubled many Democrats for its insulting tone and moral vacuity.

The ease with which Obama compares good faith opponents to fanatical religious extremists is all the more disturbing in light of his seemingly compulsive aversion to offending Islamist sensibilities and his failure to condemn the pernicious doctrines used to justify terrorism.

The President’s war of words will probably grow shriller as the Congressional vote in September draws closer, especially if more Democrats reject the deal in advance.  He will continue to attack those who disagree with him, malign Netanyahu for speaking truth to power, and bully Israel by threatening her with isolation.  He will not be moved even if most liberal Jews end up opposing the deal.  They have acted as his apologists for more than six years; and if they no longer support him, he may simply lump them together with those assertive Jews who have always been critical of his policies and question their loyalty.

On the surface, President Obama remains unmoved by the domestic and international consequences of his ill-conceived foreign policy.  But if, as many believe, his real intent is to reduce American global influence, legitimize Islamist regimes, and treat Iran as the dominant power in the Mideast, he may be following a knowing strategy that accepts, and perhaps welcomes, the regional and global risks.

Mr. Obama’s agreement with Iran has been compared to Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Nazi Germany.  The comparison may be inapt, however, because Chamberlain hoped that ceding territory would satisfy Hitler and prevent war.  The deal with Iran, in contrast, will give the mullahs a nuclear muscle that they have repeatedly vowed to flex.  Whereas Hitler lied in Munich about the prospect of peace in exchange for land, Iran has affirmatively promised terrorism, war and genocide when it gets what it wants.

Though Congress may not be able to trust the President’s hollow assurances, history suggests that it can certainly take the Iranians at their word.

Capitalists Have a Better Plan: Why Decentralized Planning Is Superior to Bureaucracy and Socialism by Robert P. Murphy

/in , , /by

To early 20th-century intellectuals, capitalism looked like anarchy. Why, they wondered, would we trust deliberative, conscious guidance when building a house but not when building an economy?

It was fashionable among these socialist intellectuals to espouse “planning” as a much more rational way to organize economic activity. (F.A. Hayek wrote a famous essay on the phenomenon.) But this emphasis on central planning was utterly confused both conceptually and empirically.

Ludwig von Mises made the most obvious rejoinder, pointing out that there is “planning” in the market economy, too. The difference is that the planning isdecentralized in a market, spread out among millions of entrepreneurs and resource owners, including workers. Thus, in the debate between socialism and capitalism, the question isn’t, “Should there be economic planning?” Rather, the question is, “Should we restrict the plan design to a few supposed experts put in place through the political process, or should we throw open the floodgates and receive input from millions of people who may know something vital?”

This second question came to be known as the “knowledge problem.” Hayek pointed out that in the real world, information is dispersed among myriad individuals. For example, a factory manager in Boise might know very particular facts about the machines on his assembly line, which socialist planners in DC could not possibly take into account when directing the nation’s productive resources. Hayek argued that the price system in a market economy could be viewed as a giant “system of telecommunications,” rapidly transmitting just the essential bits of knowledge from one localized node to the others. Such a “web” arrangement (my term) avoided a bureaucratic hierarchy in which every bit of information had to flow up through the chain of command, be processed by the expert leaders, and then flow back down to the subordinates.

Complementary to Hayek’s now-better-known problem of dispersed knowledge, Mises stressed the calculation problem of socialist planning. Even if we conceded for the sake of argument that the socialist planners had access to all of the latest technical information regarding the resources and engineering know-how at their disposal, they still couldn’t rationally “plan” their society’s economic activities. They would be “groping in the dark.”

By definition, under socialism, one group (the people running the state, if we are talking about a political manifestation) owns all of the important productive resources — the factories, forests, farmland, oil deposits, cargo ships, railroads, warehouses, utilities, and so on. Thus, there can be no truly competitive markets in the “means of production” (to use Karl Marx’s term), meaning that there are no genuine prices for these items.

Because of these unavoidable facts, Mises argued, no socialist ruler could evaluate the efficiency of his economic plan, even after the fact. He would have a list of the inputs into a certain process — so many tons of steel, rubber, wood, and man-hours of various types of labor. He could contrast the inputs with the outputs they produced — so many houses or cars or bottles of soda. But how would the socialist planner know if this transformation made sense? How would the socialist planner know if he should continue with this operation in the future, rather than expanding it or shrinking it? Would a different use of those same resources produce a better result? The simple answer is that he would have no idea. Without market prices, there is no nonarbitrary way of comparing the resources used up in a particular process with the goods or services produced.

In contrast, the profit-and-loss test provides critical feedback in the market economy. The entrepreneur can ask accountants to attach money prices to the resources used up, and the goods and services produced, by a particular process. Although not perfect, such a method at least provides guidance. Loosely speaking, a profitable enterprise is one that directs scarce resources into the channel that the consumers value the most, as demonstrated through their spending decisions.

In contrast, what does it mean if a particular business operation isunprofitable? It means that its customers are not willing to spend enough money on the output to recoup the monetary expenses (including interest) necessary to buy the inputs. But the reason those inputs had certain market prices attached to them is that other operations were bidding on them, too. Thus, in Mises’s interpretation, an unprofitable business enterprise is siphoning away resources from channels where consumers would prefer (indirectly and implicitly) that the resources be deployed.

We must never forget that the economic problem is not to ask, “Will devoting these scarce resources to project X make at least some people better off, compared to doing nothing with these resources?” Rather, the true economic problem is to ask, “Will devoting these scarce resources to project X make people better off compared to using the resources in some other project Y?”

To answer this question, we need a way of reducing heterogeneous inputs and outputs into a common denominator: money prices. This is why Mises stressed the primacy of private property and the use of sound money as pillars of rational resource allocation.

Robert P. Murphy
Robert P. Murphy

Robert P. Murphy has a PhD in economics from NYU. He is the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism and The Politically Incorrect Guide to The Great Depression and the New Deal.

How About a little Compassion for We the People

/in , , , , /by

Nothing ignited my late mom’s Baltimore living-in-the-hood anger more than someone “messing” with one of her “nine months” (her kids). I have a similar protective reaction to attacks on the Tea Party/We the People.

Not only have We the People had to endure mainstream media, Democrat and GOP establishment attacks, some on our side are attacking us for not being “smart enough” to reject Donald Trump. I say, have a little compassion for us. We are witnessing our beloved once great nation becoming a banana republic (dishonest and lawless government) right before our eyes. As patriots, we have faithfully done all the right things. And yet, the wrong things keep happening.

On Fox News Brit Hume called us (the Tea Party) the far right. Senator John McCain called patriots who attended an anti-illegal immigration rally “crazies.” House Majority leader John Boehner called us the far right. Will somebody please tell me what is “crazy” and “far right” about expecting government to function according to our laws and the Constitution?

And then, these arrogant (language I will not use as a Christian) have the audacity to call us stupid for rallying behind Donald Trump.

Where is the compassion for We the people? Yes, my heart goes out for the people. Political Action Committees and GOP candidates raised funds, promising to git-r-done only to leave patriots suffering a string of broken promises. Adding insult to injury, betrayers in the GOP which we gave the House and the Senate call us names; even launching a war on conservatives and the Tea Party. For crying out loud, how much more are We the People expected to take?

To date, my favorite presidential contender is Ted Cruz. Cruz gets it. He sympathizes with all We the People have gone through and vows to fight to make things right, when given the chance.

In essence, both parties said, screw you to We the People. Our Washington cartel is going to further its agenda and there “ain’t” nothing you Tea Party yahoos can do about it. The GOP took us (We the People) out to sea and threw us overboard. Trump threw us a lifeline. Do not attack us for accepting it.

Imagine a fire is raging out-of-control consuming my home. A gang of Hells Angels bikers approaches from over the horizon. They jump off their bikes and begin helping me extinguish the fire. Do I throw up my hands yelling, “Stop! I don’t approve of your lifestyle”? Or, do I simply say thank you?

Please do not conclude I am comparing Trump to the Hells Angels. I am simply saying while you may not agree or even like everything about Trump, the man has unquestionably positively impacted the political landscape. For one thing, illegal immigration would not be on the table if Trump had not made it an issue; standing firm, while bombarded by both parties and the MSM.

Also, the way Trump has dealt with the liberal bias mainstream media has influenced others not to be so easily pushed around by these bullies. With the Left obsessed with forcing conservatives/Republicans to apologize, Trump refuses to go there. It drives the Left crazy. I love it!

The Left regard apologies as blood in the water to totally destroy, devour and end the campaign of a conservative/Republican.

The Fox News strategy to “get Trump” during the GOP debate was extremely unfortunate. I agree with Mark Levin who said Fox blew a major opportunity. Twenty-four million Americans tuned in to the debate greeted with soap opera questions rather than exposing the horrors Obama has released upon our country and how the GOP contenders plan to fix it.

For example: Seventy percent of the population is unaware of the butchery and black marketing of baby body parts happening behind the walls of Planned Parenthood which is still praised by the Democrats. Why on earth was the debate moderators focused on a feud between Trump and Rosie O’Donnell? Truly unfortunate.

By the way, Bill Clinton was surrounded by affairs and scandals including allegations of rape; none of which came up during past debates.

Ted Cruz understands Trump’s popularity and thinks it is unwise for the GOP to “smack Donald Trump with a stick.” Rather than joining the chorus of those calling patriots idiots for liking Trump, Cruz understands and sympathizes with We the People. Cruz’s message is make me your president and I vow to champion your cause.

Cruz was short-changed during the GOP debate receiving very little time on camera. Still, Cruz’s closing comments caused him to soar in the polls; direct, strong and sincere. I am confident Cruz’s numbers will continue to grow.

I will not judge or be upset with my brother and sister patriots who are high on Trump. Any of our 17 contenders are far superior to a Democrat who will surely continue Obama’s evil transformation of America. My gut tells me Ted Cruz will break the tape finishing first.

VIDEO: Liberals and Teaching Children Gun Safety

/in , , , /by

We have turned our children over to idiots! Time for some sanity and gun safety education.

The Importance of Right Thinking

/in , , /by

For fifty years liberals, progressives, socialists, those of the left or whatever they call themselves have been chipping away at every vestige of morality, right thinking, correct actions they could target.  So it is pretty darn pathetic and humorous when one of the opponents of personal responsibility suddenly decry destructive behavior.

Unless you have been in a coma, are deaf, blind or just dead, odds are you are acutely aware of the Ferguson disaster.  You are also familiar with how legions of thugs went to nutsville and tried to burn Baltimore to a crisp after their fallen thug brother Michael Brown assumed atmospheric temperature because he forgot that it is not nice to try and grab a police officer’s gun, after whacking him a few times.

I will probably never forget how Baltimore Mayor, Rawlings-Blake was at first OK with allowing the criminal rioters to wreak havoc, to let off a little steam.  Since that gruesome time of riotous woe followed by Baltimore government policies which have enormously inhibited the ability of Baltimore’s finest to effectively fight crime, things have gone more awry than usual.

So it was almost humorous to read in a CNS News report that Baltimore Mayor Rawlings-Blake stated that “the level of violence in Baltimore is unacceptable.”  Here we are a little over a year after the lunacy in Ferguson and Baltimore.  In recent months, Baltimore and other cities like Chicago have experienced record numbers of black on black murders.  One of the major reasons, amongst others is a refusal to teach individuals about right and wrong as well as personal responsibility.

Even the Mayor herself was obviously not taught about personal responsibility and property rights.  Remember her famous “they need to give the protesters room to destroy statement?  That verbiage alone opened the floodgates of destruction upon that historic city.  Unfortunately, Baltimore and increasingly throughout America society is reaping the intellectual garbage that has been sewn for decades.  When hate and blacks are victims are both taught and endorsed through the racism of low expectations what we have witnessed in Baltimore has become the fashion of the day in certain circles.

The racism of low expectations and victimization has not only damaged those who have been brainwashed by such hoopla, but the republic as a whole is negatively affected.  The burdensome cost of mad-uncivilized and enraged so-called victims is costing billions of dollars in property damage and medical costs.  More importantly, the needless loss of life at the hands of dummied downed so-called victims is costing fa

milies throughout the republic, the needless heartache of losing family members who became the real victims of so-called victims.

The black lives matter crowd is often a collection of either criminals or losers who should be considered criminals when conducting criminal acts.  If they die in the process of being criminals, then sovereign citizens should be smart enough to recognize it.  You cannot raise generations of American hating “victims” and then expect them to behave like rational human beings. It’s just not going to happen. Sorry!

If black lives matter activists and anyone else for that matter want a better life for people, they must first be willing to learn what entails a better life.

One cannot build a business, get a job or properly educate themselves if they are not first correctly instructed on the reality and importance of striving to be morally good.  Without the concept of common decency, Americans will continue to degenerate into vicious balkanized society of disunited countrymen out to hurt their fellow citizens and their property, just because they believe they can get away with it, like they did in Baltimore and Ferguson.

The time has come or some real concrete decisions to be made.  One of them is not to allow the continuation of the racist low expectation directives to poison the minds of young black Americans.  In addition, the evil choice of countless liberal educators and others to convince black Americans that they are nothing more than victims must be stopped NOW!

America was and can be great again, if “We the People” first choose to be great, victorious and through God’s grace, morally good.

How would President John F. Kennedy deal with the threats facing America today?

/in , , , /by

Given the threat of a nuclear armed Iran, the bloody onslaught of the Islamic State, Russian saber rattling in Ukraine and China’s cyber warfare against U.S. interests perhaps we should remember what President John F. Kennedy said when confronted with such evil:

“We in this country . . . are—by destiny rather than choice—the watchmen on the walls of world freedom. We ask, therefore, that we may be worthy of our power and responsibility . . . and that we may achieve in our time and for all time the ancient vision of peace on earth, goodwill toward men. That must always be our goal, and the righteousness of our cause must always underlie our strength. For as was written long ago, ‘Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain’.”

America has historically been the watchman on the wall! That has all changed under President Obama.

Peace through Strength

President Kennedy once said, “It is an unfortunate fact that we can secure peace only by preparing for war.”  Today, JFK would be called a “warmonger” by Democrats for his words.  This idea provided the foundation of Reagan’s policy of “Peace through Strength.”  JFK believed in preserving America’s military might as a force for good, not in destroying it by dismantling its most effective weapon programs.  (Read about Obama’s elimination of programs.)

On Israel

Kennedy said this about America’s Jewish allies:

“Israel was not created in order to disappear—Israel will endure and flourish.  It is the child of hope and the home of the brave.  It can neither be broken by adversity nor demoralized by success.  It carries the shield of democracy and it honors the sword of freedom.”  (Read more here.)

Contrast this with the rhetoric of Jimmy Carter and Hillary Clinton about the Jewish State, calling it an “occupying force in Palestine.”

JFK and the Second Amendment

In an age when the Islamic State is conducting attacks within the U.S., JFK’s statement, of April 1960, is more prescient now than ever:

“By calling attention to ‘a well regulated militia’, the ‘security’ of the nation, and the right of each citizen ‘to keep and bear arms’, our Founding Fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy.  Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country.  For that reason, I believe the Second Amendment will always be important.”

On March 20, 1961, JFK accepted a Life Membership in the National Rifle Association.

JFK and the Role of the Media

In an address given before the American Society of Newspaper Editors, on April 20, 1961, Kennedy said,

“The President of a great democracy such as ours, and the editors of great newspapers such as yours, owe a common obligation to the people: an obligation to present the facts, to present them with candor, and to present them in perspective.”

President Kennedy would be horrified by today’s corrupt journalism that omits stories about the high crimes and misdemeanors of impeachable politicians.  JFK would have been horrified by any president who actively orchestrates the destruction of American dissident opposition and its rights of free speech and press.

It was JFK who inspired me the become a U.S. Army officer. I was a JFK Democrat until the Democrat Party left me and JFK behind.

The Koch Challenge

/in , , /by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A lie repeated enough becomes the truth.

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

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

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Charles Koch.

Dear Millennials, the Dems are Screwing You

/in , , , , /by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leftists Use Black Lives Matter to Exploit Blacks, Again

/in , , , , /by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Trump Offensive

/in , , , /by

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

Flipboard Launches 2016 Election Central: All the News and Perspectives on the Campaigns in One Place

/in , , /by

flipboard election 2016 appPALO ALTO, CA /PRNewswire/ — Today, in time for the first presidential debate, Flipboard launched 2016 Election Central, a destination where anyone can get all of the news and perspectives — left, right and center— around the 2016 U.S. presidential election on a mobile device. Flipboard, along with leading publishers CNN and The Washington Post, created custom political packages for Flipboard’s 2016 Election Central that help voters go deep on the people, issues and politics of this campaign season.

In addition to working with top media sources, the Flipboard editorial team has selected Flipboard Magazines, created by enthusiasts and political organizations, that reflect the diverse points of views among the millions of people on Flipboard.

A Single Destination for Mobile Readers
Nearly 70 percent of Americans use their mobile devices to follow news events, according the Pew Research Center*. But, with an increasing field of candidates and the debates kicking off this week, keeping up with the presidential election is more challenging than ever. For those who want to stay connected to the issues and candidates, Flipboard’s 2016 Election Central is a single place for smartphone owners to get all the best election coverage.

“Mobile devices are how millions of people keep up with the news every day. But information is still spread across websites and social networks, and it’s hard to get the full picture or different points of view,” saidGabriella Schwarz, News Editor at Flipboard. “We built Election Central to bring insightful political coverage and the best campaign moments together, but more importantly we also want it to be a very personal place, where the reader can go deep on just what interests them.”

Flipboard’s Election Central organizes all the coverage into five core areas of interest: The Issues, The Candidates, The Politics, Top Stories, and Flipboard’s Political Rundown, the top 10 stories of the week. For mobile or desktop, Flipboard users can find 2016 Election Central in the “Explore tab.”

Leading Publishers Powering Politics
In the Candidates section, the Washington Post is curating Flipboard Magazines on each of the leading candidates, covering White House hopefuls in their “Contenders Revealed” series. In addition to the Washington Post’s custom candidate packages, readers can browse all the latest stories on a candidate by tapping on his or her “topic tag” (a news feed specifically dedicated to a particular candidate).

For the Politics section, CNN is covering the polling and debates of this election cycle in its Flipboard Magazine, “CNN Politics: 2016 on Tap.” Flipboard will interview a member of the CNN Politics team after each debate for a “2016 on Tap: CNN Politics Debate Recap” blog post. This unique content will only be available to Flipboard Election Central readers.

In addition, the Politics section will tell the story of the political maneuvering and advertising surrounding the race to the White House with coverage from leading news sources and Flipboard Magazines from NBC’s “Meet the Press,” CNN’s Inside Politics and the Des Moines Register.

2016 Election Central is the first destination site Flipboard has launched. It will be available until December 2016.

ABOUT FLIPBOARD
Flipboard gives people a single place to keep up on the topics, news, and events they care about. People use Flipboard to follow their favorite sources from around the world and then collect stories, images, and videos into their own Flipboard magazines—sharing items that reflect their interests, express their perspectives, or are simply things they want to read later. Download Flipboard in any app store or visit www.flipboard.com.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Here Are 21 Policy Highlights From the First 2016 Republican Debate

Highlights of the Happy Hour Debate

Analysis of President Obama’s Partisan American University Speech

/in , , , /by

Yesterday, President Obama used the venue of American University’s new Center of International Service in our nation’s capital to present a 55 minute partisan speech directed at wavering Democrat Senators and Representatives in Congress. He suggested that the nuclear pact with Iran was better than the alternative, war. He chose the campus located in northwest Washington, because it was there on June 10, 1963, that President Kennedy gave a Commencement address announcing an important Cold War initiative; a joint effort with Chairman Khrushchev of the Soviet Union and Britain’s Harold Macmillan seeking a comprehensive nuclear weapons test ban treaty and unilaterally ending atmospheric testing.

This was the first substantive developments among these antagonists following the October 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, when the world teetered on the brink of a possible nuclear exchange. In his speech, Kennedy asked the graduates to re-examine their attitudes towards peace, the Soviet Union, and the Cold War, famously remarking, “If we cannot end now our differences, at least we can make the world safe for diversity.” Kennedy unlike Obama gave a masterful and succinct presentation in less than 27 minutes to get his points across. Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu took 24 minutes to outline his opposition to the Iran nuclear deal, inclusive of his response to questions from  a large U.S. and Canadian audience via webcast.

Watch President Kennedy’s 1963 American University Commencement address:

The Wall Street Journal noted the hortatory and accusatory rhetoric of the President Obama’s remarks:

Congressional rejection of this deal leaves any U.S. administration that is absolutely committed to preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon with one option: another war in the Middle East.  So let’s not mince words. The choice we face is ultimately between diplomacy or some form of war.

Following the President’s speech, Senate Foreign Relations Chairman, Bob Corker (R-TN) told reporters:

 The president is trying to turn this into a partisan issue, but there is bipartisan concern.

He went out of his way lambasting the opposing Republican majorities in Congress as the party of war mongers. He tied them to the legacy of the Bush II Wars in Iraq suggesting the outcome was the morphing of Al Qaeda in Iraq into the Islamic State or ISIL. He said the cost was thousands killed, tens of thousands injured at a price of a trillion dollars. To divided American Jews, he told them that he had improved the Jewish nation’s Qualitative Military Edge with commitment of billions in conventional military aid. He implied that support would enable Israel to overcome the Islamic Regime’s existential threats of “Death to America, Death to Israel, Death to Jews,” notwithstanding Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei’s holocaust denial and Antisemitism. Obama criticized Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s opposition to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) for Iran’s nuclear program. He suggested that Netanyahu’s alternative of simply “squeezing” Iran’s theocratic leadership was not a better solution, and might lead to war. Netanyahu argues that the current Iran nuclear deal actually provides multiple pathways for Iran to achieve nuclear breakout leading to possible war.

In a post speech dialogue with Washington pundits, the President deepened his partisan criticism of Republican opponents to the Iran nuclear deal. Gerald Seib, who writes a dailyCapitol Column for The Wall Street Journal reported the President saying:

There is a particular mindset that was on display in the run-up to the Iraq war that continues to this day. Some of the folks that were involved in that decision either don’t remember what they said or are entirely unapologetic about the results. This mindset views the Middle East as a place where force and intimidation will deliver on the security interests that we have, and that it is not possible for us to at least test the possibility of diplomacy. Those views are prominent now in the Republican Party.

Both Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) found that criticism “galling,” as Mr. Obama “presided over the collapse of our hard-won gains in Iraq.”

Watch  the Washington Post video of President Obama’s 2015 American University speech:

While Obama’s speech was being delivered at American University there was a hearing before the Senate Banking Committee, chaired by Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) focused on sanctions relief under the terms of the Iran nuclear deal. Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman appeared saying “that I didn’t see the final documents. I saw the provisional documents, as did my experts.” Thus, suggesting that the IAEA side deals were not going to unearth prior military developments at Parchin and other known locations.

An appearance by Director General of the UN IAEA, Ukiya Amano in a separate Capitol Hill briefing Wednesday lent the distinct impression that the UN nuclear watchdog agency was not going to disclose the so-called side agreements with Iran, nor would it have the suggested “robust” verification regime that the President has touted. That gave rise to skepticism by Senate opponents, that no base line would be established for prior military developments at Parchin, an alleged center for nuclear warhead development. The Wall Street Journal reported Mr. Amano saying that IAEA inspectors had been denied access to key scientists and military officials for interviews.   Following his closed door briefing to a bi-partisan group of Senators, Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Corker commented, “I would say most members left with greater concerns about the inspection regime than we came in with.”  Senator John Barroso (R-WY) concluded, “My impression listening to him was the promises the President made were not verifiable.” Democrat supporters of the Iran deal like Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) followed the White House line that “it didn’t matter as we already knew what Iran had developed.”

At yesterday’s Senate Banking, Housing and Community Affairs  hearing, a panel of experts spoke about the lifting of sanctions and if there was a better deal. The panel included former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Crimes, Juan C.  Zarate, Mark Dubowitz executive director of the Washington, DC based Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and former State Department official Nicholas Burns of Harvard’s Kennedy School. Dubowitz in his testimony suggested that the deal should be amended, eliminating the sunset provisions and the so-called snap back sanctions. As precedent for possible amendment of the JCPOA, he noted more than “250 bi-lateral and multi-lateral agreements and treaties from the Cold War Era.”

Watch this C-span video excerpt of FDD’s Dubowitz’s testimony:

Last night, the PBS News Hour host Gwen Ifill had a segment with Burns and Ray Takeyh a former Obama adviser on Iran during his first term now a Senior Fellow with the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR), Is Obama’s Iran deal rhetoric working?  Burns, who is an adviser to Secretary Kerry, said:

I think, as Americans, we ought to have the self-confidence to try diplomacy first, rather than war. I will say this, Gwen, in answer to your specific question. I think the President ought to have a big tent policy here. To say that if the deal is turned down, if Congress defeats the President and overrides his veto in December, then that leads to war, I think, is a little stark.

Takeyh commented:

Jack Kennedy’s speech was lofty, idealistic. I think, if I quote it right, he said we shouldn’t wave the finger of accusation or issue indictments.

I think the President was unyielding. He was passionate, but his tone was at times truculent. And he didn’t make a successful pitch to his critics. This is a technologically flawed agreement, and the President should have attempted to broaden the parameters of the conversation about this agreement. I think, in that sense, the president missed his mark, and I think it was unwise.

Takeyh, who is also an adviser to FFD’s Iran Project, buttressed Dubowitz’s Senate testimony saying:

The history of arms controls suggest, when there’s Congressional objections, as was the case in SALT-I and SALT-II, and the President mentioned those, there is an attempt to go back and renegotiate aspects of this. And I think that’s what the President should have done when he met the criticism, as opposed to just dismiss it.

There are aspects of this agreement that are very problematic, such as the sunset clause, where, after essentially 10 years, Iran gets to embark on an industrial-sized nuclear program. And when you have an industrial-sized nuclear program, there is no inspection modality that can detect a sneak-out to a weapon option.

The President essentially, even now, after the rejection of the deal, should there be one, has a chance to go back, renegotiate some aspect of the deal, and therefore strengthen it. And as he strengthens that deal, I think he can broaden the bipartisan support for it.

I would be very concerned if I was a supporter of this deal that this deal is based on such a narrow margin of public support on the Hill. I think the longevity of this deal is seriously questioned by its absence of bipartisan support.

When questioned by Burns about reopening negotiations, Takeyh drew attention to other issues in the Iran nuclear pact that could be rectified through amendment:

I think it will be very difficult, but not impossible, because some of these provisions are so glaringly flawed that I think other countries would welcome negotiations.

I mentioned the sunset clause. Iran’s development of IR-8 centrifuges, which essentially produce uranium 17 times faster, and that gives Iran enrichment capacity that is quite substantial — the verification on this deal is extraordinarily imperfect.

The president keeps talking about that this is the most intrusive verification system, and the only other verification system that was more intrusive resulted from the Iraq War and the armistice. That’s just not true.

South Africa, under Nelson Mandela, agreed to anytime/anywhere inspection, which, in practice, you had access to military facilities within one day. So we can go back and renegotiate four, five, six aspects of this agreement. The history of arms controls is replete with such exercises.

And I think if you do that, this agreement would be strengthened. It will be based on a bipartisan anchor; it would ensure its longevity.  It would ensure that proliferation cascade in the Middle East will not take place, and it will ensure that Iran will not sneak out to a bomb.

Watch the PBS News Hour segment with Burns and Takeyh:

Takeyh’s colleague and long term President of the CFR, Dr. Richard N. Haass in testimony on August 4th before the Senate Armed Services Committee suggested:

That any vote by Congress to approve the pact should be linked to legislation or a White House statement that makes clear what the United States would do if there were Iranian non-compliance, what would be intolerable in the way of Iran’s long-term nuclear growth, and what the US was prepared to do to counter Iranian threats to US interests and friends in the region.

With each Senate and House Hearing on the Iran nuclear pact, more is revealed about why this is a bad deal. However, as witnessed by the Congressional testimony of experts like Dubowitz of the FDD, Takeyh and Haass of the CFR, it appears that Obama and Kerry didn’t follow the experience garnered from Cold War era arms control negotiations. Congress should be the veritable “bad cop” to fend off and reign in the concession demands of the Islamic regime’s negotiators in Lausanne and Vienna. We understand that several Republican Senators and House Members are drafting resolutions for rejection of the Iran nuclear pact. Perhaps they might include recommendations for amendment of the JCPOA endeavoring to make it a better deal. However, the President has chosen a partisan path that does not welcome bi-partisan deliberation. Perhaps the option is for the resolutions to reject the pact and schedule a vote as a treaty, assuming the President may have the votes to override a veto. As we have discussed there is also possible litigation that might achieve the same end.

It is going to be a long hot summer recess for Members of Congress in their states and districts holding town hall hearings to gauge the pulse of constituents on the President’s nuclear deal with Iran.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.

Judge blocks release of PP videos, grants DNC request

/in , /by

fetus with price tags on body partsA federal judge in San Francisco blocked the release of recordings made at meetings between Planned Parenthood and the Center for Medical Progress, an anti-abortion group that previously revealed secretly recorded videos which have sparked a heated national debate on the ethics and legality of destroying the chances of future Democratic candidates to make abortion a winning election issue as they have in previous presidential races.

Obama-appointed judge in, William H. Orrick III, issued the temporary restraining order on Friday, granting a motion filed by the Democratic National Committee just hours before.

In a three-page document, Judge Orrick wrote that, absent a temporary restraining order, the Democratic Party would likely suffer irreparable political injury “in the form of media exposure, injury to reputation, loss of generous donations, and political defeat at the polls.” According to the judge, any future videos released so close to the elections could rally voters against the single winning issue the Democrats have left, and that could jeopardize the integrity of the democratic process, which is characterized by an unobstructed ability of voters to elect Democratic candidates.

The Democratic National Committee sued in federal court, alleging that the Center for Medical Progress infiltrated meetings of its core constituents and recorded confidential information that wasn’t meant for the American voters to find out. The DNC claims release of any audio or video would put Democrat politicians in danger of losing elections and would permanently impair their ability to raise funds for future political campaigns.

“The DNC has made it clear how important it is that everything about the harvesting and selling of baby organs for profit remain strictly on a need-to-know basis,” Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Chair of the Democratic National Committee, said in a statement.

“Our top priority is the safety and security of our seats in Congress and all levels and branches of government,” Debbie Wasserman Schultz said. “That security has been compromised by the illegal activities of a group with ties to those who believe it is justifiable to oppose the progressive agenda, or even to elect a Republican into the White House.”

Orrick on Friday also blocked the Center for Medical Progress from releasing the names and Democratic Party affiliation of Planned Parenthood members, as well as the dates and addresses of any future Democratic fundraisers, speeches, townhall meetings, and elections to local and federal government offices.

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

Clinton in Jeopardy of Losing New Hampshire to Sanders

/in , , /by

WASHINGTON /PRNewswire/ — One America News Network, “OAN”, a credible source for 24/7 national and international news, released today its most recent 2016 Republican and Democratic Presidential New Hampshire Poll results conducted by Gravis Marketing. The poll results show that Democratic Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders has increased his support to 39%, with Hillary Clinton only 4 percentage points ahead at 43%.  The results represent a major surge in the polls for Sanders, landing him within the margin of error away from Clinton.  Undeclared Elizabeth Warren received 8% with Joe Biden achieving 6%.  Martin O’Malley and Jim Webb both received 2% with Lincoln Chafee not registering a reportable percentage.

GOP Presidential candidate Donald Trump continues his large lead with 32%, followed by John Kasich at 15% with Chris Christie coming in third at 9%.  Rounding out the top five are Ben Carson and Scott Walker, both achieving 8%.  Jeb Bush just missed the top five with 7% of the vote from polled Republican participants.

According to Robert Herring, Sr., CEO of One America News Network, “Bernie Sanders is surging in New Hampshire and threatening to win this early State.  With 14% of the participants voting for two undeclared candidates, we may see a Sanders victory in New Hampshire.  Kasich is also gaining in the polls and will be the challenger to watch.”

Gravis Marketing, a nonpartisan research firm, conducted a random survey of 1179 registered voters across the U.S. regarding the presidential election.  The sample includes 599 Republicans and 475 Democrats.  The poll has an overall margin of error of +/- 2.9%, 4.0% for the Republican results and 4.5% for the Democrat results.  The total may not equal exactly 100% due to rounding.  The polls were conducted on July 31st throughAugust 3rd using interactive voice response, IVR, technology and weighted separately for each population in the question presented.  The poll was conducted exclusively for One America News Network.

One America News Network has been providing extensive coverage of the 2016 Presidential campaign, including numerous exclusive one-on-one interviews with the leading candidates.  One America News Network will be releasing on-going 2016 Presidential polling results, including national Presidential polling results at the end of July.  Complete poll results will be posted tomorrow at http://www.oann.com/pollNH

ABOUT ONE AMERICA NEWS NETWORK

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

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

RELATED ARTICLE: O’Malley Blasts Democrats for Limiting Debates