Tag Archive for: Donald Trump

Senator Jeff Sessions leads the charge to cut funds for refugee resettlement

Go here for all the latest on the House side where blogger Richard Falknor is tracking it at Blue Ridge Forum.

Here is the news yesterday at World Net Daily from reporter Leo Hohmann with a catchy title:

New date that will live in infamy: December 11′

Despite all the tough talk by Speaker Paul Ryan and GOP leaders in Congress about Syrian refugees and the need for better screening, the true intent of those leaders will be laid bare on Dec. 11.

That’s the day that a catch-all “omnibus” budget bill is scheduled to be voted on in the House.

In that bill there is expected to be full funding of President Obama’s refugee resettlement program, which costs $1.2 billion annually to bring in 85,000 refugees from more than two dozen countries around the world. About half of them will come from countries with active jihadist movements including 10,000 from Syria, about 8,000 from Somalia, nearly 10,000 from Iraq, and several thousand more from Burma, Uzbekistan, Bosnia, Democratic Republic of Congo and Afghanistan.

The United Nations will choose which refugees from what countries get to come to America at the U.S. taxpayer’s expense. The nationalities of these refugees will be concealed in most cases until after they arrive in the more than 180 cities and towns across the U.S.

The House passed a bill, the America SAFE Act, by a lopsided vote two weeks ago that calls for a “pause” in the resettlements until the White House can provide certain assurances that the refugees have been properly vetted.

But that’s a smokescreen as the SAFE Act won’t stop a single refugee from arriving in any of those 180 cities, says Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., who is chairman of the Senate’s subcommittee on immigration and the national interest.

Continue reading here.

Go here for Sessions’ statement yesterday.

This is critically important!  The other side is organized and working hard (here, here and here) as this is the closest they have ever come to having their agenda to change America threatened!

Action Alert:  Call your members of the House and Senate at 202-224-3121 and ask them to vigorously oppose the Refugee Resettlement funding contained in the Omnibus Spending Bill that will be voted on by 12-11-15! Please call by this Friday, Dec. 4th.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump’s Pick for Attorney General Prosecuted These Civil Rights Cases

In wake of CA terror attack, our readers in Redlands obviously had reason for concern

‘Church’ refugee resettlement contractors bring in millions as debt collection agencies

 

Trump: “There’s something going on” with Islam

In light of the fact that Trump denounced our free speech event in Garland, Texas, last May, it is not at all clear that he understands the jihad imperative or the war against free speech, or is at all equipped to counter them. People like Trump, Bill O’Reilly and Laura Ingraham who took issue what we were doing in the wake of the jihad attack on our event in Garland don’t seem to grasp what the freedom of speech is all about.

What they’re missing is neatly encapsulated in what used to be an adage: “I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” In other words, I will stand with you against tyranny, because even if I disagree with your opinions, I understand that once opinions begin to be criminalized, or those who hold them bullied into silence, we are all the poorer, and all at risk.

Trump doesn’t get this. After Garland, he breezily and readily voiced his willingness to adhere to Sharia blasphemy laws and refrain from drawing Muhammad.

But in this instance, however, he is running afoul of the prevailing insanity of our public discourse. It is blazingly obvious that “there’s something going on” with Islam, and “a lot of hatred coming out of at least a big part of it,” and “something nasty coming out of there.” That these are even controversial statements, much less evidence of “demagoguery,” shows how stringently the mainstream media enforces politically correct fictions. Islam is a religion of peace, and if you express the slightest skepticism, even the diffident and tentative skepticism Trump voices here, then you’re a xenophobic demagogue. White male Christians are the real terror threat, don’t you know that? War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.

“Morning Plum: Yes, Donald Trump’s demagoguery just got even uglier,” by Greg Sargent, Washington Post, November 30, 2015:

…Now Trump’s demagoguery has taken a new turn that could focus the debate a bit more directly on this implied message.

On Morning Joe today, Bloomberg’s John Heilemann asked Trump directly whether he thinks Islam is an inherently violent or peaceful religion. Trump declined to answer, and instead suggested that there is a “lot of hatred” coming out of a “big part” of Islam:

HEILEMANN: “Do you think that Islam is an inherently peaceful religion that’s been perverted by some? Or do you think Islam is an inherently violent religion?”

TRUMP: “All I can say is there’s something going on. I don’t know that that question can be answered. It could be answered two ways. It could be answered both ways. But there’s something going on there. There’s a lot of hatred coming out of at least a big part of it. You see the hatred. We see it every day. You see it, whether it’s in Paris, or whether it’s the World Trade Center….

“There’s something nasty coming out of there. You could answer it any way you want. But at least we have to know the problem.”…

By declining to say whether Islam is a violent religion, and by suggesting that “hatred” is coming out of a “big part” of Islam, Trump has exposed the xenophobic subtext of his rhetoric about Muslims…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Muslims plotted murder of Pope: “this will be the last Pope”

Video: Obama in Paris on shootings: “This just doesn’t happen in other countries”

CNN Always Blames Conservatives for Terrorism

John Nolte tells the truth. But it isn’t just CNN: numerous people who are putatively on the right, including Donald Trump, Bill O’Reilly, Laura Ingraham and others who should know better but clearly don’t, lined up after our free speech event in Garland, Texas last May to blame us for the jihad terror attack on the event.

Planned Parenthood & Pamela Geller: CNN Always Blames Conservatives for Terrorism,” by John Nolte, Breitbart, November 30, 2015:

Chris Cuomo: “Now we get into why did it happen? The man charged with Friday’s murderous attack on a Colorado Planned Parenthood is probably a crazy extremist who did something sick and negative and wrong. But isn’t killing babies primarily for purposes of convenience provocative?

Alisyn Camerota: “What people are saying is that the business you are in, aborting innocent unborn children primarily for convenience purposes, is incendiary and provocative.”

Erin Burnett: “Is being caught on video talking so cavalierly about dismembering innocent babies and selling their parts stoking the flames? Do you think on some level, Planned Parenthood relished this attack?”

Carol Costello: “Is Planned Parenthood’s belligerent insistence on taxpayer funding a deliberate attempt to provoke and taunt?”

The questions above are fabricated. Not a single one of CNN’s left-wing anchors raised anything close to the idea that Planned Parenthood’s horrific abortion practices provoked last week’s violence.  Which is appropriate. What happened at a Colorado Planned Parenthood Friday afternoon was indefensible and evil. The only person responsible is the person who committed those three murders.

Throughout Monday, though, and on too many occasions to count, like the rest of the DC Media, CNN did attempt to blame conservative pro-lifers for provoking the Friday attack, this includes the Center for Medical Progress, a group that exposed Planned Parenthood’s ghoulish cottage industry involving the dismemberment of dead babies and the selling of those tiny body parts to the highest bidder.

And yet, if it means the left-wing network can blame conservatives, this very same CNN does see cartoons as a provocative taunt that makes the intended victim in some way responsible for the terrorism. (Donald Trump said the same thing, by the way).

Back in May, after Islamic terrorists tried to murder everyone at a Texas free speech event organized by Pamela Geller, CNN relentlessly attacked Geller for wearing a short free speech skirt. According to CNN, the bitch was begging for it.

Believe it or not, these quotes are real:

Chris Cuomo to Pam Geller: “Now, we get into, why did it happen? They’re crazy extremists. They bought into an ideology that is sick and negative and wrong, that’s fact. But what you did was calculated in a way that would be provocative.”

Alisyn Camerota to Pam Geller: “What people are saying is that there is that there is always this fine line of being intentionally incendiary and provocative.”

Erin Burnett to Pam Geller: “I mean, are you stoking the flames? Do you on some level relish being the target of these attacks?”

Carol Costello: “She can say whatever she wants but if this [cartoon] contest was set up to deliberately taunt or provoke, is that responsible?”

At CNN, no matter what happens, the political Right is always to blame.

Even for train crashes.

Today’s reminder of just how good Democrats got it … especially at CNN.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Obama’s Apology to the World for U.S. on Climate Is Ridiculous

The Most Surprising Thing About the Colorado Springs Shooting

UK: Muslim rape gang member says 13-year-old victim seduced him

Obama administration gun-running scheme armed the Islamic State

GOP Trumped by Conventional Wisdom

Conventional wisdom says don’t waste your time trying to get the Black vote.  Conventional wisdom says don’t hire Black staffers.  Conventional wisdom says don’t be impolitic and non-politically correct. Conventional wisdom says don’t tell the American people what you really believe on a myriad of issues; tell them what you think they want to hear.  Conventional wisdom says Donald Trump will self-destruct.

Whenever and wherever conventional wisdom triumphs, the American people usually lose.  Conventional wisdom says the American people want open borders and amnesty for those in the country illegally.  Conventional wisdom says we need more H-1B visas because America doesn’t have qualified tech workers.

I have said and will continue to tell the Republican establishment that Black are looking for a reason to vote republican; but up to this point no one is even seeking a dialogue with the Black community—until now.

While the Republican establishment continues to wait for Trump’s implosion, he continues to defy conventional wisdom by doing things no other Republican has the guts to do.

Trump has actually hired a high level Black staffer and actually put out a press release to inform the public.  WOW, what a novel idea.  No other Republican presidential campaign had done such.  I can guarantee you that most political insiders can’t name one Black person of any significance who is a staffer for any Republican campaign.

Continuing his defying of conventional wisdom, Trump is the only candidate to actively cultivate relationships with the Black community.  This afternoon Trump is expected to receive the endorsement of 100 Black preachers from across the country.

This is unheard of during a Republican primary.  Why other Republicans continue to ignore the Black vote is a mystery to me.  I can tell you this; far too many Republicans are listening to pollsters like Frank Luntz.

He is paid millions of dollars a year by Republicans to tell them that the Black vote is not worth pursuing.  Conventional wisdom like this will lead to yet another electoral defeat for Republicans come November 2016.

When will the Republican establishment stop wishing for Trump’s demise and begin to seek understanding of his phenomenal rise?

Trump’s campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski is one of the sharpest political minds on the scene today.  Regardless of what happens to Trump’s candidacy, Lewandowski will be a political force to reckon with for decades to come.

Regrettably, no other Republican campaign has such a forward thinking campaign manager like Lewandowski.

The Republican establishment has absolutely no appreciation for how major it is for Trump to have 100 Black ministers to endorse him.  This is unprecedented during a Republican primary.

Trump will get massive media from this event; but also will create a lot of chatter within Black newspapers.

My readers know I am a huge proponent of Black newspapers.  Republicans have continued to ignore the more than 200 Black newspapers we have in the U.S.  Black newspaper report news that is of unique interest to our community in a way that is relevant; unlike the mainstream newspapers.

Engaging with the Black community also sends a strong signal to White, suburban, middle-class female voters that it is ok to vote for a given candidate because they are not “intolerant.”  These are the voters that will determine who the next U.S. president will be.

None of the Republican campaigns have yet to do any media avails with any Black media.  This is extremely difficult for me to understand; especially when several of the Black newspapers are actually owned by Black Republicans.

Trump’s candidacy has upended everything we thought we knew about presidential campaigns and how to run them.  Trump is saying the Earth is round; while all conventional wisdom mandated that everyone believe that the Earth was flat.

You would be foolish to continue to argue that the Earth is flat when all objective evidence has proven the Earth to be round.

One need only watch the video [below] of the focus group my PAC, Black Americans for a Better Future, hosted two weeks ago.

Too many establishment Republicans still think the political Earth is still flat, despite what the Black electorate is saying.  Who are the Blacks these campaigns consult with? Or do they even have any Blacks advising them?

You have Republican campaigns that don’t even have a picture of a Black person anywhere on their website.  How is it that no one even notices granular details like this?

Oh, I forgot, Republicans are supposed to be colorblind!  Colorblindness is a serious condition that mandates medical attention.

Well, maybe, just maybe if Republicans could get their colorblindness corrected; they could actually see that the Earth is not flat; and that Blacks are open to supporting a Republican candidate, both in the primary and in the general.

But conventional wisdom is the blindness that will prevent them from seeing what is staring them right in the face.

RELATED VIDEOS:

Black Americans For A Better Future – Speaker Series: FOCUS GROUP – 11.18.15

Black Americans For A Better Future – Speaker Series: Lt. Governor Boyd K. Rutherford – 11.18.15

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Donald Trump speaking with members of the black clergy before a rally near Atlanta in October, 2015. The photo is courtesy of The Atlantic magazine.

There is Nothing New Under the Sun

King Solomon of Israel is known as the wisest man who ever lived.   So when one observes the struggle between good and evil, liberty and tyranny, communism and capitalism, unalienable rights and sharia law, one thing rings true.  That there is absolutely nothing new under the sun as King Solomon wisely stated.  The current state of affairs in our republic turned mob rule democracy is not unique to America.

The British Empire was once so vast that the sun was always shining on a land possession of that famous nation, whose territories once spanned all the way around the entire globe.  The Roman Empire, whose ancient roads were so well constructed that many of them are still used today influenced the entire known world at the time of her past glory.

The United States of America became the greatest nation in the history of the world.  Not just because great men sought religious freedom, but also because they realized that both freedom and liberty did not come from government, but rather from God, who’s son saves us from Satan’s vow of death and damnation, if we choose it.  One of the common traits of those who reside in great, prosperous and overall blessed nations is a never say die attitude.

For example, it did not matter what life presented to those historic figures who landed at Plymouth Rock and dedicated their new found home to God and regularly sought His wisdom and general guidance.  Those men and women who left the familiar confines of Great Britain refused to be inhibited by so-called limitations.  Against all odds and obstacles they persevered, overcoming the fear of the unknown, natural disasters and disease to plant the seeds of greatness that would later grow into the United States of America.

Another familiar trait of those who achieve greatness is not giving into situations or even naysayers who present themselves as harbingers of hopelessness in the midst of someone’s mission to secure a particular goal.  In prior generations, it did not matter what tragedy the men and women of destiny, there were no mountains too high to climb, oceans to wide to cross, or other impossible odds to overcome and eventually secure what they set out to achieve.

That onetime common trait of never say die or getting tough when the going gets rough has in recent years become less adhered to among the American population of today.  One of the primary reasons has been a multi-generational effort between big government and government schools to dissuade sovereign individuals from their God given unalienable rights and turn them into improperly focused wards of the politically correct state.  That is one of the major reasons why the United States of America has suffered the misfortune of falling like a rock from greatness over the past several years.

Far too many of our fellow countrymen and women have chosen to sit idly by while those who clamor for the power to dismantle the very bedrock of this country forge ahead in their dastardly mission.  One of their main goals is to drive out constitutional guidelines and even God himself from the fabric of society.

The good news is that in recent months, more and more Americans are refusing to be corralled by their real or imagined limitations.  Whether one is in favor of Donald Trump becoming president or not, he has in a sense rekindled a real spark of interest in the affairs of our republic among Americans, who for too long have been cornered by stupid limitations.  Whether the limitations are fear, apathy, indifference or just plain ignorance concerning the times we live in.

The Trump and to a lessening degree, Carson phenomenon is a great first step away from the limitations that have hampered far too many sovereign citizens for much too long.  Both Dr. Carson and Donald Trump are admirable contemporary examples of letting go of their limitations.  They did not allow any possible setbacks to become the standard or roadmap for their lives.

As we Americans refuse to allow our limitations to define us or the direction our republic takes in the coming months and years, we can begin to step out in faith to break off the negative limitations.  Of course, not only in our personal lives but throughout our great republic as well.

Among the premier limitation destroyers is first believing and knowing that you were created by a loving and patient God who endowed you with unalienable rights that government cannot obstruct or dare to take away.

“We the People” can no longer be a direct or indirect part of the problems besetting our republic.  Even by just sitting idly by and doing nothing is a form of approving of the destructive mission of those helping president Obama fundamentally change America.  It is now high time to shake up the status quo of progressivism inspired destruction that has been the decades long mission of far too many misguided victims of government school indoctrination, weak parental instruction and inept church teachings.

Let us put an end to the mind inhibiting practices of common core, agenda 21 etc. etc. not only of individuals, but the republic as a whole.  Just remember, that by the grace and blessings of God, you are limitless in your potential to be all that you can be and so is America, still the greatest nation ever.  Remember there is nothing new under the sun including you God given potential as a great American overcomer.  God Bless You, God Bless America and May America Bless God.

Hillary: Muslims “have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism”

How will President Hillary Clinton have the slightest chance of defeating the Islamic State when she is so divorced from reality as to say something like this?

“Hillary: Muslims ‘Have Nothing Whatsoever To Do With Terrorism,’” by Guy Benson, Townhall, November 20, 2015:

Behold, the woman who shall soon be crowned Queen of the endlessly self-righteous and self-congratulatory “Reality Based Community:”

Clinton Muslims Nothing To Do with Terrorism

This is pure claptrap. Everyone understands that the West is not at war with Islam broadly, and that an overwhelming percentage of Muslims reject violent extremism. It’s been beaten into our heads by politicians of all stripes since 9/11, and we’re generally bright enough to draw the relevant distinction: “These Muslims over here are just peaceful, faithful people living their lives, whereas those Muslims over there are radical and seek to impose a toxic strain of their faith via terror and violence. We have no quarrel with the former group, which thankfully represents the large majority; the latter group must be confronted and defeated.” This dynamic isn’t hard. It can be quickly and easily explained, yet we are constantly bombarded with dumb, sanitized denialism like Hillary’s second sentence above. Instead of treating us like adults, we’re infantilized. And to what end? Muslims are peaceful and tolerant, we’re instructed, and they have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism. This last bit is insultingly preposterous. Some Muslims have quite a lot to do with terrorism, actually. Like the ones who were led by their hardcore theology to kill 3,000 people on 9/11. Or blow up trains in Spain. Or target London’s public transit system with bombs. Or slaughter students at a Kenyan university. Or Devastate a nightclub in Indonesia. Or shoot up a shopping mall in Nairobi. Or lay siege to a hotel in Mumbai. Or terrorize Nigerian schoolgirls. Or, you know, take hostages in Mali. I could go on for some time. But those aren’t real Muslims, our Thought Leaders inform us. Islamists loudly beg to differ — and wouldn’t they know a lot more about their motives and religious teachings than Western purveyors of bumper sticker feel-goodery? Try this: Ask someone who’s convinced jihadists shouldn’t be considered Muslims whether or not Osama bin Laden’s corpse should have been discarded with no regard for Islamic traditions. Or whether the terrorists at Gitmo should be deprived of prayer mats, or Halal meals, or Korans. Maybe some enterprising reporter will ask Hillary these questions someday. In any case, the “nothing to do with terrorism” line is plainly nonsense. The more difficult part is the “peaceful and tolerant” phrase. It’s absolutely true that a huge preponderance of Muslims worldwide abhor and reject religious violence. But as I explored in a piece after the Charlie Hebdo massacre, there is a worrisomely sizable strain of abject illiberalism that runs through mainstream Islam. Data from Pew, a respected global pollster, gathered two years ago:

Pew death penalty for apostasy

Shall we count the 86 percent of Egyptian Muslims, or 62 percent of Malaysian Muslims, or the 17 percent of Turkish Muslims who believe leaving Islam is punishable by death among the “tolerant”? Do the millions of Muslims who express support for suicide bombings against civilians “in defense of Islam” qualify as “peaceful”? Or mustn’t we ask such questions when there’s a vapid slogan to be spouted, or a politically-correct tweet to be disseminated? The concern, of course, is that leaders who are unable or unwilling to comprehend and properly identify a threat will be ineffective in neutralizing it. Hillary’s defenders will say that President Bush also refrained from directly naming the enemy. True, but the current administration of which Mrs. Clinton was a part has taken euphemism-deployment to another level….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Utah homework: make propaganda poster for terror group

UK: Muslims attack convert from Islam to Christianity with pickaxe

What would I ask Republican Presidential candidates tonight?

Someone asked me to prepare a list of questions I might ask Republican candidates tonight in Milwaukee.  So I wrote up a quick list and thought I would share them with you.  Now mind you, there is no way that anyone would ever ask the candidates if they would scratch the whole darn Refugee Admissions Program, so that is not one of my questions.

  1. The Obama Administration has said recently that it will admit 10,000 Syrians in the fiscal year 2016 resettlement of 85,000 third world refugees to American towns and cities in 48 states, yet the Director of the FBI James Comey recently told Congress that the Syrians, coming from a failed state, could not be properly screened. In this battle between the U.S. State Department (that wants many more than 10,000), and the FBI (Homeland Security concerned with the possible infiltration of ISIS in the refugee population), how would you bring your cabinet together on this critical issue?
  2. The Center for Immigration Studies recently released a new study which finds that a Syrian family of four resettled in America will cost U.S. taxpayers over a quarter of a million dollars over five years. Would that factor figure into your decision on how many refugees America can afford because it is the President who has almost exclusive power for determining refugee numbers and makes that determination every September?
  3. Recently Senator Jeff Sessions office released data on welfare use of refugees in America and found that 90% of Middle Eastern refugees were using some form of social services—food stamps, cash assistance, Medicaid and so forth—and that rate was higher for that group than refugees from elsewhere in the world. There are also reports of widespread fraud in the welfare application process. What would you do to discourage fraud and limit welfare for all classes of immigrant?
  4. The United Nations is choosing most refugees admitted to the U.S. (over 20,000 Syrians have been referred by the UN) and 97% of the Syrians chosen thus far have been Muslims who are presently housed in UN camps. Would you go against the UN and seek out Christian and other religious minorities in need of resettlement as a first priority?
  5. In 2014, the U.S. admitted 67% of the refugees that were resettled anywhere, the next highest country was Canada with 9%. If you were President would you urge a more equitable distribution to first world countries?
  6. The world is watching in horror as Europe is being inundated with tens of thousands of migrants. Approximately 8,000 are arriving in Germany each day (originally welcomed by the government). Only about half are Syrians and the largest percentage are economic migrants, not legitimate refugees. If you, as President, had a private meeting with Chancellor Angela Merkel, what would you say to her?
  7. The refugees being housed presently in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan will be there temporarily, perhaps years, but they will not be given citizenship rights. Those resettled to the U.S. and other western countries are permanent residents on a track to citizenship. What alternative would you suggest for managing, especially the Syrian flow, short of making tens of thousands of them U.S. citizens?
  8. Our present system of resettling refugees is virtually controlled by the UN, the U.S. State Department and nine federal contractors which monopolize the resettlement of refugees and even choose the towns and cities where they will go. In a ______ Administration would you seek to reform this out-of-control resettlement program and give some authority to state and local elected officials which virtually have none right now? Would your administration propose or support existing reform legislation?
  9. Non-profit organizations affiliated with some religious denominatons are being paid millions of tax dollars each year to bring refugee families to cities of their choosing and in three to six months that family is expected to be on its own and the non-profit then brings in the next group incentivized by a federal payment that is calculated by the head (per refugee). Would you pledge to reform the program to put more responsibility back on to private charity as the original act of 1980 invisioned?
  10. There have been many reports recently of school systems overloaded with needy immigrant students who require extra help with learning English and to deal with mental traumas, would your administration seek a moratorium on resettlement until officials in overloaded cities and local and state taxpayers could catch their breath?

Don’t hold your breath!  I would be blown away if there is any question relating to refugees tonight in Milwaukee, even though, as I said in my previous post this morning—immigration is THE issue for 2016!

RELATED ARTICLES:

Note to Antonio Guterres! Terrorists do use refugees as cover to get into Europe

Another South Carolina County Council says no to refugee resettlement

Obama plan to use executive amnesty for a half a million illegal aliens, blocked in 5th Circuit Appeals Court decision

Ted Cruz: It’s In His Heart

A frustrated hopeless patriot wrote…

Unfortunately Mr. Marcus, it’s not only the left but also the right that is out to destroy America. Wicked people in high places, the elite if you will, control both parties. That is why no matter who is elected that nothing changes.”

This patriot brother’s discouragement explains why I want Ted Cruz in the driver’s seat as president. On numerous occasions, Ted Cruz has proven that he has no problem being odd-man-out in regards to Washington politics. Cruz desires the same for our country as We the People.

I have made the following point numerous times. Politicians promise the moon on the campaign trail. The 64,000 dollar question is who will have the cojones and core conservative instincts to follow through if elected? Atop my list is Ted Cruz.

A gospel classic is titled, “It’s in My Heart.” Folks, Ted Cruz has proven that conservatism is in his heart. Our only hope of liberating ourselves from the “Washington cartel” (both parties conspiring against the people) as Cruz perfectly described it is to select a presidential nominee with conservatism in his/her heart.

Cruz is well experienced in being hated by both political parties and the media. He acts like a duck, allowing their relentless venomous rebukes to roll off his back. Cruz stays laser focused on doing what is right for God, country and We the People. That’s what has me standing up and cheering for Ted Cruz.

I love Dr Ben Carson. However, early in his campaign, I wrote an article praising Dr Carson for standing firm on a non-PC comment he made. My publisher informed me he could not publish the article because Dr Carson apologized. As I stated, I highly respect and love the man, but that action scared me folks. Early in his campaign, political inexperience prompted Dr. Carson to imply that he may be open to controls on owning a semi-automatic weapon depending on where one lives. Dr Carson now stands strong for the Second Amendment.

Trump’s success at slapping PC in the face has emboldened other presidential contenders to do the same, including Dr Carson. Will Dr Carson stand strong for conservatism if elected president?

Donald Trump has been a huge blessing, voicing the frustrations, outrage and desires of millions who long to see America made great again. It is quite remarkable that because of racial guilt, we have allowed an anti-American regime to dethrone us as the world power and transform us culturally, morally and economically for the past seven years. But I digress.

Unquestionably, if elected, Trump will make positive changes regarding our economy and immigration. On social issues extremely critical to who we are as a people, I do not sense much passion, urgency or commitment from brother Donald.

Ted Cruz is the total package.

Here are just a few of Sen Cruz’s greatest hits standing up for America and conservatism. With facts and common sense, Cruz crushed can’t-we-all-just-get-along-with-the Left John Kasich in debating Obama’s insane Iran Nuke deal

Cruz fearlessly called out the CNBC debate moderators, exposing them as “left-wing operatives.” 

Cruz blasted Obama for supporting sanctuary cities that refuse to enforce immigration law; endangering the lives of Americans.

Democrats arrogantly refuse to obey laws they do not like such as immigration law. This same bunch of Democrats/Leftists jailed Christian clerk Kim Davis. Davis refused to betray her faith by issuing same sex marriage licenses. Some Republicans/conservatives faltered. Cruz sent out a clarion call to “constitutionalists and lovers of liberty” to stand with Kim Davis. 

Cruz promises his first day as president will be extremely busy. He will “rescind every illegal executive action taken by Barack Obama,” including his “executive amnesty.” Cruz will instruct the DOJ to investigate Planned Parenthood and prosecute any criminal conduct uncovered.

Obama has been using the DOJ and IRS as his personal hit-squads against anyone opposing his transformation of America. Cruz promises to instruct both agencies to “cease persecuting” individuals for standing up for their rights.

Remember the Catholic nuns that have been helping the poor and elderly since 1839 bullied by Obama for not signing on to birth control against their faith? Cruz said as president he will send the Little Sisters of the Poor a letter dismissing their case. Cruz would also invite them to the WH to tell the world their story.

Continuing his first day in the Oval Office cleaning house, Cruz will end Obama’s catastrophic Iran Nuke deal. Ending day one as president, Cruz will begin the process of moving the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. Cruz said moving our embassy to Israel’s “eternal capital” sends the world the message that we stand with our allies. 

Folks, any one of our GOP presidential contenders is far superior than soulless politician and sociopath Hillary Clinton. Hillary in the White House would be a continuation of the Barack Obama nightmare. The only difference is the MSM would characterize opposing Hillary’s far left radical policies as sexism rather than racism. You know the drill folks.

Therefore, I will wholeheartedly rally behind our GOP nominee; Dr Carson, Trump or any of the others.

But the candidate who checks all of my boxes for not giving a rat’s derriere about what the Washington cartel and media thinks of him; the candidate who places America and her people first; the candidate who is unapologetic regarding his Christian faith; passionately defends liberty and honors our Constitution is Sen Ted Cruz. Will Cruz remain the same person when elected? You betcha!

GOP Media Takedown: A Recipe for Victory

It’s long been known that a leader can gain power by rallying the people against a boogeyman.

And it helps when that boogeyman is real.

When CNBC’s GOP debate moderators couldn’t help but be sanctimonious, supercilious, and self-important Wednesday night, they did more than provoke a response from their intellectual superiors. They did more than further reveal the Establishment Media as a left-wing monolith, further discredit themselves, and further cement in minds that they’re comic-book versions of journalists.

They quite literally revealed a strategy for GOP electoral gains.

I said many years ago that if I were seeking the presidency (fanciful thought), one of the entities I’d run against is the media. Why? Along with lawyers and politicians, the media is a group for which Americans have a fairly intense dislike. This is largely because as with the first two groups, a big part of the modern media’s business is lying, and no one likes being lied to. Moreover, outsiders Donald Trump and Ben Carson are leading contenders for the GOP nomination because people have lost faith in our institutions and are fed up with the establishment. And the Establishment Media, by definition, are part of the establishment. Thus, they’re ripe to be demonized.

To reiterate, no Machiavellian maneuvering is necessary here because the media are demonic in their deception. Along with entertainment and academia, they constitute a tripartite axis of cultural evil. They are Americans’ conduit of information, and how can citizens choose the right policies and politicians if they’re being fed misinformation? It’s as with a computer: if the input is wrong, the output will be wrong — and our nation’s actions won’t compute.

And taking on this enemy of America — as is the case when tackling any enemy — makes you a hero. Think about it: every candidate that joined Senator Ted Cruz in the phalanx against the media Wednesday seemed like an anti-establishment outsider bravely fighting the powers-that-be. This was true even of Senator Marco Rubio and Governor Chris Christie, despite the only true visible outsiders in the race being Trump, Carson, and Cruz.

Another factor is that the media are going to propagandize against Republican candidates regardless; it’s a given. But it won’t work nearly as well once you make clear you’re a mortal enemy of the media, which will be attended by the (correct) assumption that they’re an enemy of yours. Then when they run negative information on you, people will be more likely to dismiss it with “Well, of course they’d say that. They hate his guts!” In other words, there’s long been an undeclared media war on conservatives, but up until now rightists having generally taken the abuse quietly. And if you have to take the flak anyway, why not make sure the war is declared, an open and visible fight?

In contrast, when you play along with the media’s ridiculous questions, which range from juvenile to malicious, you not only cast yourself as someone who plays the game (paging John “Can’t do” Kasich) but lend those questions credibility; this is significant because people are influenced by what’s “accepted,” and a large segment of the electorate won’t truly recognize, independently, the questions’ inanity. But standing up and passionately pointing it out will be a light-bulb moment, making some of them say, “Hey, yeah! That was a dumb and unfair question!” You’re announcing that the media have no clothes.

So while some lament the media’s descent into overt left-wing advocacy, there is a silver lining in that cloud. In the days of Peter Jennings and Dan Rather, the media already constituted a leftist propaganda mill but were decidedly better at feigning impartiality. Today the media are even more artless, impatient, and infantile and far more often wear their banners openly. This not only means they tend to let their mask slip, but gives a smart candidate the opportunity to rip it off completely and expose the distorted visage beneath.

Running against the hated media also has an obvious byproduct: discrediting via guilt by association all whom the establishment media support, such as establishment candidate Hillary Clinton. To intensify this process, it should be treated as a given — not only because it’s true but also because what’s assumed is learned best — that the media and Democrat Party are joined at the hip. I’ve often used the line that the media are the Democrats’ “public-relations team,” and Rubio related this idea well Wednesday when he called the media the liberals’ “ultimate super PAC.”

Of course, all this would have to be effected boldly but artfully; if overdone, it could start to seem like whining. It’s also possible the media could be cowed somewhat by humiliation and retreat into Peter Jennings mode. After all, leftists have big egos and can’t tolerate what their own Saul Alinsky prescribed: mockery. Should this return to relative subtlety occur, it would make the media’s propaganda more effective. There is some question as to whether today’s new media guard — more emotion-driven than ever and conditioned to expect immediate gratification — could exercise such discipline. Yet I wouldn’t be surprised to see them regroup, at least for a time, in an effort to not be the bull in the china shop of leftist shilling.

Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus has been excoriated for setting up the CNBC debate, but he perhaps stumbled into gold. No, taking down incompetent propagandists is no substitute for having a fair media in the first place. But, as G.K. Chesterton once wrote, “War is not the best way of settling differences; it is the only way of preventing their being settled for you.” The media have long been launching the salvos and settling matters. It’s time to fight back in the spirit of settling their hash.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

Donald Trump and Ben Carson Top the GOP field, Jeb Bush trails nationally and in Florida

SAINT LEO, FL /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Retired pediatric neurosurgeon Ben Carson has basically tied with billionaire businessman Donald Trump as the leading presidential candidate among likely Republican voters surveyed nationally by the Saint Leo University Polling Institute.

Meanwhile on the Democratic side, likely voters nationally again put Hillary Clinton in the lead.

Carson Makes Impressive Show in Crowded National Field
Among likely Republican voters nationwide, those polled said their favored candidate was: Donald Trump (22.7 percent); retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson (22.2 percent); U.S. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, (11.1 percent); former Florida Governor Jeb Bush (8.4 percent); former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina (5.8 percent); and U.S. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas (4.0 percent).

“We’re starting to see some ‘Trump fatigue’ setting in,” said Frank Orlando, instructor of political science atSaint Leo University. “Donald Trump thrives on the media attention. With the lull between debates and his upcoming ‘Saturday Night Live’ appearance (November 7), the soft-spoken, ‘anti-Trump’ candidate Ben Carson, has emerged as a viable candidate,” said Orlando.

Interestingly, Orlando noted, when support for Carson, Trump, and Fiorina are combined, 51 percent of the national likely Republicans voters support non-politicians. Orlando interpreted the collective sentiment as a signal that: “These voters would rather have people with no specific plans than people who they are afraid would let them down.”

Democratic Politics Continue to Favor Clinton
Among the likely Democratic voters nationwide, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton drew 54.8 percent of the respondents’ support. Since Vice President Joe Biden announced on October 21 that he will not run for president, the 15.8 percent of Democratic likely voters who favored him will likely become Clinton supporters, Orlando said. U.S. Senator from Vermont Bernie Sanders was selected by 12 percent of the likely Democratic voters.

“Hillary’s still the horse in the Democratic race, and I think that [Vice President] Biden’s support will now gravitate to her,” stated Saint Leo’s Orlando. “It (Biden’s support) won’t jump to Bernie Sanders as he’s more of an anti-establishment candidate. At the same time, Sanders needs to be more aggressive in his attack on Clinton and increase his rhetoric.”

Florida Results Surprising

Among Florida likely Republican voters, Donald Trump is first (25.8 percent). Trump was followed in Florida by Senator Rubio (21.5 percent); then former Governor Jeb Bush (15.3 percent); and then Carson (14.7 percent). The margin of error was 7 percentage points, based on a sample of 163 respondents.

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton has a substantial lead (50.9 percent). Senator Sanders pulled 13.3 percent. (Vice President Biden had 15.2 percent.) The margin of error for this question was plus or minus 7 percentage points, based on a sample of 165 likely Democratic voters in the state.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of the Associated Press.

Trump: If elected, I would shut down certain U.S. mosques

The Hamas-linked terror organization CAIR, which works assiduously to silence and marginalize everyone who speaks out against jihad terror, is now pretending to support the freedom of speech: “Donald Trump’s apparent willingness to close down American mosques that he deems ‘extreme’ is totally incompatible with the Constitution and our nation’s cherished principle of religious freedom,” said CAIR Government Affairs Department Manager Robert McCaw. “The government should not be in the business of deciding what is acceptable free speech or religious belief. Donald Trump’s off-the-cuff remarks are both un-American, and un-presidential.”

The freedom of speech and the freedom of religion do not give anyone a license to plot murder or sedition. It is completely reasonable to shut down mosques in which jihad terror is preached or plotted. Our American Freedom Defense Initiative called for that in 2013. This shouldn’t be controversial at all: churches in which murder is plotted or preached should also be shut down. No institution in which murder and sedition are preached or plotted should remain in operation.

Trump doesn’t understand the war against free speech or the implications of self-censorship in the face of violent intimidation, and that is a very serious flaw; but he is right on this one, and the sinister Islamic supremacists speaking out against him — Hamas-linked CAIR, Linda Sarsour — are testimony to that.

“Donald Trump: I would shut down certain mosques in U.S. if elected,” by Adam Edelman, New York Daily News, October 21, 2015 (thanks to David):

Donald Trump on Wednesday promised to close certain mosques in the U.S. if elected President.

Trump, discussing his strategy to fight ISIS during an interview on Fox Business Network, also said he would revoke the passports of U.S. citizens who have traveled abroad to fight for ISIS.

“I would do that,” Trump said during a telephone interview after FBN host Jim Varney asked him if he would favor revoking passports and closing mosques. “Absolutely. I think it’s great.”

“If you go out, you go fight for ISIS, you can’t come back. Why can’t you do it? You can do it here,” he added.

Varney, however, then pressed the 2016 Republican front-runner, asking again: “Can you close a mosque? I mean, we do have religious freedom.”

“Well, I don’t know,” Trump responded in an apparent backpedal. “It depends on if the mosque is, you know, loaded for bear, I don’t know. You’re going to have to certainly look at it.”

The comments drew immediate rebuke from leaders within the Muslim-American community.

“It is truly outrageous that the leading Republican presidential candidate would announce openly that he would violate the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by closing down religious institutions,” Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington-based advocacy and rights organization, told The News. “I hope this finally prompts people to speak out against this off-the-rails Islamophobia that we are seeing from the right wing of the American political sector. ”

Linda Sarsour, executive director of the Arab-American Association of New York, called the comments “dangerous” and warned that unless other politicians publicly chastised Trump, his remarks could put people within the community at risk.

“That the Republican front-runner for president is calling for the closing down of religious institutions in the land of religious freedom is outrageous,” Sarsour told The News. “This rhetoric, if it’s allowed to continue, has real consequences for the Muslim community in the U.S.”

“It creates suspicion and stigma against an entire community,” she added. “It’s unfair and unjust.”

Even Trump’s fellow Republicans took issue with the remark, with Rep. Peter King (R-Long Island) — who himself hasn’t exactly been an ally of the U.S. Muslim community — taking the candidate to task.

“Donald Trump is talking before he knows what he’s talking about. I have been critical of people in the Muslim community, but the fact is you can’t be going around shutting down mosques,” King said on Fox

The front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination also said he would revoke the passports of U.S. citizens who have traveled abroad to fight for ISIS.

“I think we should have surveillance of mosques. I think we should be trying to find out what is going on in a mosque, find out if there’s activity in that mosque, where there’s weapons or conspiracy going on,” he added. “Then yes you can take action. But to be casually, the way Donald Trump seems, to be talking about shutting down mosques? No.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Muslim hacker says he will release CIA top dog Brennan’s emails

Muslim from UK murders and wounds 80 in jihad suicide attack for Islamic State

Poll: Trump Strong in Massachusetts, Email Scandal Hurting Clinton with Independents

BOSTON /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — A new statewide poll suggests the state’s Republican primary race is Donald Trump’s to lose. With 48% of the vote, Trump is trouncing Dr. Ben Carson (14%) andMarco Rubio (12%). The 34-point gap between Trump and Carson dwarfs the 9-point margin between the two in Emerson’s recent national poll. Lagging behind the leaders, Jeb Bush has slid to 7%, only slightly ahead ofCarly Fiorina and Ted Cruz.

In the Democratic primary, Hillary Clinton leads Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders 59% to 25%, with all other Democrats under 5%. In a sign of trouble for Clinton, 47% of Independents said her use of a private email server while she was Secretary of State made them less likely to vote for her, compared to 24% of Democrats who said the same. A majority of Independents (56%) believe her doing so harmed U.S. foreign policy. Independents make up roughly half the state electorate.

Voters weighed in on a range of other issues. Seven in ten (71%) support the Boston Police Department’s pilot program to equip police with body cameras. Only 11% are opposed. Support is mixed for a 2016 state ballot question that would legalize the recreational use of marijuana by adults. Forty-one percent (41%) favor the initiative, and 48% oppose it. In 2012, Massachusetts approved the medical use of marijuana 63% to 37%.

Those polled strongly favor a proposed federal law that would restrict the sale of tobacco products to those under 21. Support was 59% or higher for both genders, all major political affiliations, and all age groups except those 18 to 34, who oppose the measure 51% to 37%.

As the undefeated New England Patriots continue their post-Deflategate “Revenge Tour,” 51% of respondents said they believe the Pats will win the Super Bowl this season. By a margin of 48% to 22%, Red Sox fans gave a “thumbs up” to manager John Farrell being rehired for the 2016 baseball season. Farrell missed part of this season while undergoing cancer treatment.

Despite a popular song that extols Boston and the Charles River, voters apparently don’t “love that dirty water,” at least not enough to drink it. When informed that Harpoon Brewery had used river water to create a special-edition pale ale to commemorate the cleanup of the Charles, only 29% said they would drink it if they were offered a glass.

ABOUT THE EMERSON COLLEGE POLL

The Emerson College Polling Society poll was conducted from Friday, October 16 through Sunday, October 18. The polling sample for the Democratic and GOP primaries consisted of 265 and 271 likely primary voters, respectively, with a margin of error of +/-6% and +/-5.9%, and 629 registered general election voters with a +/-3.9%, and a 95% confidence level. Data was collected using an Interactive Voice Response system. The full methodology and results can be found at www.theecps.com.

Trump Solidifies Support in GOP Field, Carson and Rubio Pull Away From Pack

BOSTON /PRNewswire/ — A new poll shows former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton extending her lead over Senator Bernie Sanders by a margin of 68% to 20%. This sizable boost may indicate she is winning over would-be supporters of Vice President Joe Biden, who was included in a prior poll in September, but not the most recent one. Support for Sanders has remained flat since September at 20%. Biden’s window of opportunity to join the race may be closing; when asked if he should run, 43% of respondents said no, compared to 32% who said he should.

Clinton’s bounce might also be attributed to last week’s Democratic debate. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of those surveyed watched the debate, with 36% saying Clinton won, 17% giving the nod to Sanders, and 40% saying they were undecided about the outcome.

On the Republican side of the race, Donald Trump and Dr. Ben Carson continue to lead the GOP pack. Trump’s 32% support reflected a 1-point drop from the September poll, while Carson edged up 3 points, from 20% to 23%. Marco Rubio improved from 8% to 14%, appearing to draw voters away from Jeb Bush, who fell to 8% from 12%. Ted Cruz and Carly Fiorina, with 6% each, trailed well behind the leaders.

The general election remains very tight. In head-to-head matchups, Clinton trails Trump (46% to 44%) and Carson (47% to 45%). She is tied with Rubio at 44%, and holds a slight margin over Bush (45% to 43%).

Of all the candidates, Carson is the one most favorably viewed by women and younger voters. His favorable/unfavorable ratio with women is 54/31 (+23) compared to Trump’s 42/50 (-8) and Bush’s 38/59 (-21). By a wide margin, women view Clinton unfavorably, 38/60 (-22). Sanders’ has the biggest gender disparity gap, -31 points among females. In the 18-34 age group, Carson’s net favorability is +14, compared to Trump (0), Clinton (-22) and Sanders (-10).

While religion has been a major element of discussion and coverage in past presidential campaigns, it appears Sanders being Jewish is at this time, not an issue.  The majority of voters are unsure of Sander’s religious views with 23% identifying him as Jewish, while 48% were not sure. If elected, Sanders would be the first Jewish president.

RELATED ARTICLE: Does Class Warfare win elections?

ABOUT THE EMERSON COLLEGE POLLING SOCIETY POLL

The Emerson College Polling Society poll was conducted from Friday, October 16 through Saturday, October 17. The polling sample for the Democratic and GOP primaries consisted of 390 and 403 likely primary voters, respectively, with a margin of error of +/-4.9% and +/-4.8%, margin of error and 783 registered general election voters with a +/-3.4%, and a 95% confidence level. Data was collected using an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system. The full methodology and results can be found at www.theecps.com.

Trump and the Chumps: What’s a Serious Candidate, Anyway?

Ever since Donald Trump rose to front-runner status in the 2016 GOP presidential field, we’ve heard dismissive talk about how he’s not a “serious” candidate. Pundits and political-party leaders have made this claim, in efforts ranging from seriously intended but unserious commentary to the tactic of hoping that if you act as if something is true it will be considered so. But whether or not Trump is a serious candidate, one thing is plain: these politics wonks have no idea what that is.

“Serious” in the sense it’s being used by the establishment types is not only a weasel word, but also akin to the tactic of calling an Internet commenter who utters uncomfortable truths a “troll”; the water-muddying message is, “Oh, you don’t have to pay attention to that; he’s not serious.”

But what is a “serious candidate,” anyway?

Does it reflect seriousness when a politician says, as Jeb Bush has, that violating our borders and invading our nation is an “act of love”? How about Carly Fiorina saying, two weeks after 9/11, that Muslim civilization was once “the greatest in the world” and “was driven more than anything, by invention”? What about when a brain-frozen Hillary Clinton blurted out, “Don’t let anybody…tell you that, ah, you know, it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs”? Or what about when, subject to normal oversight as any public official should be, she petulantly exclaimed about Benghazi, “What difference at this point does it make?!”

Then there’s the supposed savior of Democrat electoral fortunes, Joe Biden. When he said that Franklin Roosevelt got on TV to address the 1929 stock market crash, not realizing it predated the television age and Roosevelt’s presidency, was it suggestive of a serious candidate? And how about his boss, Barack? He thought “Austrian” was spoken in Austria, pronounced “corpsman” “corpse-man” three times in one speech and called the “transcontinental” railroad the “intercontinental” one (you know, the intercontinental ballistic railroad developed during the Cold War). Would a serious politician have such a poor knowledge base?

We could also mention Senator Marco Rubio, a.k.a. Aquaman, who promised conservatives he’d never support an immigration bill whose first priority wasn’t enforcement, but then told Spanish language station Univision (in Spanish) “First comes the legalization. Then come the measures to secure the border.” If such a shameless liar and panderer can be considered a serious candidate because he has a pretty face, we need to reevaluate our priorities.

Again, though, what is a “serious” candidate? Well, imagine a doctor refuses to render a correct diagnosis, but instead tells the patient what he wants to hear, because he thinks the truth will be unwelcome. Or imagine he’s a witch doctor who doesn’t know the truth in the first place. Would you consider him a serious physician? If “serious” has any meaningful significance in the context of politics at all — as opposed to just “serious about conning you” or “serious about attaining power by any means necessary” — integral to it is knowing the truth and being willing to speak it. Otherwise the person is as serious as Joe Isuzu.

Now, one quality characterizing almost all our candidates, to at least an extent, is political correctness (PC). But what is PC? It can accurately be defined as “the suppression of truth for the purposes of advancing a left-wing agenda.” Conclusion?

It can roughly be said that a candidate can only be serious insofar as his pronouncements are not politically correct.

And, question: who is the most politically incorrect candidate running this election cycle?

Answer: Donald Trump.

Thus, Trump in this sense is not just a serious candidate — he’s perhaps the most serious candidate in the race

Punctuating this point is that he has talked the most, and the most seriously, about one of the most serious issues of our time: the invasion of our nation euphemistically called “illegal immigration” (hint: illegal entry isn’t any kind of immigration).

This isn’t to say that any candidate, including Trump, is as “serious” as I might like (hey, I’m not running). Everyone has his deficits and his “filters.” For starters, none of the presidential aspirants seem to grasp — or are willing to say — that our legal immigration regime is a far, far bigger problem than illegal migration. Nonetheless, there are lessons in the Trump phenomenon that must be understood.

First, any one of the other GOP candidates could have tapped into what Trump has capitalized upon. But they either

  • lacked the wisdom and/or guts to do so.
  • are of the Karl Rove school and believe that such brash political incorrectness can’t win the general election (lamentably, given how morally degraded the country has become, this may be true).
  • have neocon instincts and actually subscribe to the PC nonsense.

But what exactly is Trump capitalizing upon? To begin with, there’s a certain truth that his rise illustrates:

Tens of millions of Americans fear being politically incorrect.

But relatively few Americans actually embrace political correctness.

In this our nation is a bit like the old Soviet Union: the man on the street didn’t believe in the state ideology, but everyone feared the ideological machinery of the state. Trump is saying (to an extent) what countless Americans want to but fear to; he is the champion striking a blow against an unpopular social code enforced by a minority via fear and intimidation.

This isn’t to say there aren’t millions of useful idiots who subscribe to PC. But what percentage of Americans supported the forced resignation of marriage advocate and former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich or the firing of the Miami school principal who merely voiced support for the McKinney, Texas, police officer? PC is largely a phenomenon of the pseudo-elite, not the street. And it has its sting — Trump himself has lost major business deals (and is the rare person who can afford to) because of his immigration stance — but the privacy of the voting booth is one place where Americans don’t yet have to fear being politically incorrect.

The second thing Trump has tapped into is related to the first, and it was brilliantly articulated by one Julius Krein in a September Weekly Standard article. He wrote of Trump:

[W]hat defines him as a candidate and forms the essence of his appeal, is that he seeks to speak for America. He speaks, that is, not for America as an abstraction but for real, living Americans and for their interests as distinct from those of people in other places. He does not apologize for having interests as an American, and he does not apologize for demanding that the American government vigorously prosecute those interests. … His slogan is “Make America Great Again,” and he is not ashamed of the fact that this means making it better than other places, perhaps even at their expense.

In other words, Trump is tapping into what is the historical norm and has only been dispensed with, quite recently, by the suicidal West: a “tangible…nationalism,” as Krein put it. The makes him stand out in a time when an European Union insider can self-righteously say “sovereignty is an absolute illusion that has to be put behind us,” home-owner association officials can fine residents for flying the American flag, and an establishment-choice presidential candidate can call an invasion an act of love — and not be tarred and feathered and “warned out of town.” Trump talks like a patriot in a bizarro world where treason has become the norm.

Of course, a lack of seriousness does bedevil us. But understanding that PC is the antithesis of seriousness puts this in perspective. The arenas claiming to be able to identify “serious candidates” — the media and academia — are themselves the most PC of all and thus wholly unserious. And since they, along with PC entertainment, drive the culture and help shape opinion, they are partially responsible for what is the root cause of our problems: unserious voters.

Whatever our candidates may or may not be, they just reflect us, an unserious civilization in serious and unstable condition.

RELATED ARTICLE: Twitter Debate Between Brit Hume and David Limbaugh Mirrors Battle Within the GOP

EDITORS NOTE: Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com.