Tag Archive for: Election 2016

Hillary Adjusts Her Gun Control Message and Volume for Different Audiences

/in , , , , /by

Hillary Clinton is not known for her sincerity and forthrightness.

In fact, a poll conducted last September by Suffolk University/USA Today demonstrated that more than one in five voters associate some term of deceitfulness with Clinton, including “liar,” “dishonest,” “untrustworthy,” and “fake.” This followed an earlier Quinnipiac University poll that found, “’Liar’ is the first word that comes to mind more than others in an open-ended question when voters think of Clinton.” And that one followed similar findings from CNN/ORC International. Et cetera.

Like Abraham Lincoln said, “you cannot fool all the people all the time.”

But you can’t fault Hillary Clinton for trying her level best to do just that.

Regular observers of Hillary Clinton know for a fact she is no fan of the Second Amendment. We know, for example, she thinks the Supreme Court was “wrong” to declare that it’s an individual right, that self-defense is its “core” purpose, and that it prohibits the government at all levels from banning handguns. We also know that she is open to the idea of a mandatory, nationwide surrender of firearms, along the lines of what Australia did.

So we can at least credit her for being honest about that.

Well, sort of, anyway.

Those statements are now part of the public record, and we’ll gladly remind the public of them every chance we get.

But not everybody follows politics closely … not even everybody who votes.

So Hillary Clinton is counting on Americans to have short memories and limited awareness during the general election this year.

For now, she is willing to pander to her base and try to position herself to the left of primary challenger Bernie Sanders by harping on gun control … at least some of the time. She believes that message will resonate with the much smaller and more ideologically-oriented segment of the population that chooses a candidate in the primary election. But will she be singing the same tune if (and likely when) she faces the general electorate in a bid for the White House?

Not if a recent Associated Press (AP) analysis of her primary political ads is any indication. As an article in the D.C. Caller put it, “The Hillary Clinton campaign wants to both highlight her staunch support of gun control laws, but also obscure those views in places where it may hurt her at the polls.”

According to the AP, 1 of every 4 of her televised political ads in New Hampshire touts her support for tougher gun control. Meanwhile, in Iowa, only in 1 in 17 ads mention Clinton’s support for stronger gun control and in a less strident way. As University of Iowa Professor Tim Hagle opined to the AP, “It may have to do with the polls and that the hunting tradition is stronger here in Iowa.”

In other words, Hillary is being what is commonly called – in the world of normal human interaction, where people don’t routinely misrepresent themselves to each other wherever it might offer a perceived advantage – “two-faced.”

Remember that when Hillary Clinton is talking to the nation as a whole (and not just her party’s most ideologically-motivated base) about what she supposedly believes and what she supposedly would do as president.

Even if certain primary voters support Hillary’s gun control agenda, America at large does not. That being so, you can count on Clinton to be more muted about her radical designs to disarm the populace when she’s trying to bamboozle her way back to Pennsylvania Avenue. Rest assured, we do not intend to let her pull the wool over America’s eyes on this point.

Bernie’s Bolsheviks vs. Donald’s Trumpites

/in , , , /by

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

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

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

Chris Stirewalt from Fox News reports:

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

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

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

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

poll out of New Hampshire

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Trump: Biden would run if Clinton indicted

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

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

Europeans Paying Close Attention to U.S. Election

/in , , , /by

SHELTON, Conn. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The United States presidential campaigns are having a bigger effect on world opinion than one might think, based on the results of a recent SSI QuickPoll™.  In fact, there’s great interest in Europe in the presidential election even at this early stage.  Two-thirds of Europeans are paying attention, with over a third saying they are paying “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of attention.

SSI QuickPoll Says Europeans Pay Close Attention to US Election (PRNewsFoto/SSI)

SSI QuickPoll Says Europeans Pay Close Attention to U.S. Election (PRNewsFoto/SSI)

According to SSI’s U.S. Presidential Pulse, the majority of respondents (56%) across France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom paid “quite a lot of attention” or “some attention” to the U.S. presidential election campaign.  Only 11% of respondents across the four countries indicated they have paid “a great deal of attention” to the election campaign.

The SSI Presidential Pulse QuickPoll was conducted amongst 3199 individuals aged 18 and older between Jan. 12-13, 2016.  To coincide with this year’s presidential election, SSI will conduct ongoing surveys under its SSI Presidential Pulse program to provide real-time checks on the opinions of the voting public on candidate favorability.

“When SSI reviewed the results on a country level respondents in the Netherlands (48%) were more likely to state they had not paid ‘very much attention’ or ‘no attention at all’ to the U.S. presidential election campaign than respondents in France (25%), Germany (28%), and the U.K. (31%),” said Jackie Lorch, vice president of knowledge management at SSI.

When asked which of the following candidates for U.S. president have they heard of, respondents were very aware of Hillary Clinton (90%) and Donald Trump (85%).  Almost half (48%) of respondents had heard of Jeb Bush.  No other candidate reaches 20% name recognition (SSI only asked about the top two Democrats and the top six Republicans).

Across all four countries, 69% of respondents who have heard of Hillary Clinton indicated they have a favorable opinion of her.  France (71%) and Germany (75%) were more likely to indicate they have a favorable opinion of Clinton than respondents in the Netherlands (66%) and the U.K. (64%).

Conversely, among respondents who have heard of Donald Trump, 71% indicated they had an unfavorable opinion of him.  Germany (76%) and U.K. (72%) respondents were more likely to state they had an unfavorable opinion of Trump than respondents in France (68%) and the Netherlands (67%).

In fact, yesterday, the British Parliament held a debate over a petition calling for Donald Trump to be banned from the country.  The debate did not produce any binding decisions.

“SSI asked our respondents, ‘Do you think Donald Trump should be banned from entering the U.K.?’  Overall, 38% of respondents did not think Donald Trump should be banned from entering the U.K.,” explained Lorch.  Respondents in the U.K. (46%), were more likely than respondents in France (34%), Germany (33%) and the Netherlands (39%) to state they did not think Trump should be banned from the UK.

“In spite of the unfavorable opinion, only a quarter to a third of Europeans polled think Trump should be banned from the U.K. or from their own countries,” concluded Lorch.  The majority of respondents in France (41%),Germany (41%), and the Netherlands (46%) stated they did not think Trump should be banned from their country.

SSI is the premier global provider of data solutions and technology for consumer and business-to-business survey research, reaching respondents in 100+ countries via Internet, telephone, mobile/wireless and mixed-access offerings. SSI staff operates from 30 offices in 21 countries, offering sample, data collection, CATI, questionnaire design consultation, programming and hosting, online custom reporting and data processing. SSI?s 3,600 employees serve more than 2,500 clients worldwide. Visit SSI at www.surveysampling.com. (PRNewsFoto/Survey Sampling International)

ABOUT SSI

SSI is the premier global provider of data solutions and technology for consumer and business-to-business survey research, reaching respondents in 100+ countries via Internet, telephone, mobile/wireless and mixed-access offerings.  SSI staff operates from 30 offices in 21 countries, offering sample, data collection, CATI, questionnaire design consultation, programming and hosting, online custom reporting and data processing.  SSI’s 3,600 employees serve more than 2,500 clients worldwide.  Visit SSI at www.surveysampling.com.

SSI QuickPoll is a trademark of Survey Sampling International LLC

Republicans mentally rape Dem voters with Hillary scandals

/in , /by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Harvard Poll: Trump, Carson Lead Republican Primary — Sanders Edging Clinton Among Democrats

/in , , , /by

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — A new national poll of America’s 18- to 29- year-olds by Harvard’s Institute of Politics (IOP), at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, finds Donald Trump (22%) and Ben Carson (20%) locked in a dead-heat as young Republicans’ first choice in their party’s presidential primary – and young Democrats giving the edge to Bernie Sanders (41%) over Hillary Clinton(35%) as the top selection in their presidential primary.  Overall, a majority (56%) of 18- to 29- year-olds prefer a Democrat win the 2016 campaign for president over a Republican, a net increase of five points since the IOP’s spring 2015 survey was released.

The IOP’s newest poll results also show – in the wake of the mid-November Paris terrorist attacks – a solid majority (60%) support the U.S. committing ground troops to defeat ISIS.  When asked how likely they would be to serve, 16% said they “have already,” “would definitely” or “would strongly consider” joining the U.S. military to combat ISIS if additional troops were needed.  A detailed report on the poll’s findings is available online: http://www.iop.harvard.edu/harvard-iop-fall-2015-poll.

“For 15 years, the IOP has polled Millennials, the largest generation in U.S. history,” said Harvard Institute of Politics Director Maggie Williams.  “Our fall poll shows they are deeply divided about who should lead America, focused on candidate integrity and split over whether the American Dream is alive or not.  We are hopeful that political leaders will inspire and include this generation in conversations about the future of their country.”

The IOP’s 28th major release since 2000, the GFK-KnowledgePanel® survey of 2,011 18- to 29- year-old U.S. citizens has a margin of error of +/– 2.8 percentage points (95% confidence level) and was conducted online with the Government and Academic Research team of GfK for the IOP between October 30 and November 9, 2015.  The poll finds:

Solid Majority of America’s 18- to 29- Year-Olds Support Sending Ground Troops to Combat ISIS.  Early fall 2015 IOP polling fielded before the Nov. 13 Paris terrorist attacks showed America’s youth split over whether to send U.S. ground troops to combat ISIS, with 48% saying they supported the action (48%: oppose) – a nine percentage-point drop in support over the past eight months (Mar. 2015: 57% support, 40% oppose).  However, IOP polling re-fielded the question following the Nov. 13 Paris terrorist attacks – finding a 12 percentage-point swing in support with a strong majority (60%) of young Americans supporting sending U.S. ground troops to combat ISIS (40%: oppose).

Entering 2016, 18- to 29- Year-Olds Prefer Democrats Maintain Control of White House.  As shown in spring 2015 IOP polling, young Americans prefer that a Democrat win the White House over a Republican in the 2016 race for president.  November IOP polling indicated a majority (56%) prefer a Democrat, with less than four-in-ten preferring a Republican (36%).

Donald Trump and Ben Carson locked in Dead-Heat, Ahead of Republican Presidential Candidate Field.  Among potential Republican primary voters (definite, probable or 50-50; n=472), fall 2015 IOP polling showed Donald Trump (22%) and Ben Carson (20%) in a statistical dead-heat – with a strong lead over the rest of the Republican candidate field.  Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz captured seven (7%) percent, closely followed byRand Paul and Jeb Bush (each with 6%), Carly Fiorina (3%), Mike Huckabee (3%), Rick Santorum (3%), John Kasich (2%), Lindsey Graham (1%), Bobby Jindal (1%), Chris Christie (1%), and George Pataki (<1%) – with 17% undecided.  Regardless of whom potential Republican primary voters plan to support, forty-three percent (43%) say they believe Ben Carson is “qualified to be president” (17%: “not qualified;” 41%: don’t know).  Slightly more than one-third (38%) said the same about Donald Trump (39%: “not qualified;” 22%: don’t know).  Seventeen percent (17%) said they were “very satisfied” with the Republican candidates for president this year (47%: “somewhat satisfied;” 25%: “not very satisfied;” 11%: “not at all satisfied”).

Starting at 1% in Spring 2015, Bernie Sanders Now Holds Lead (41%-35%) over Hillary Clinton; Most Don’t Believe “Democratic Socialist” Label Makes a Difference.  While Hillary Clinton maintains double-digit leads over Bernie Sanders in national polls of likely Democratic primary voters, November IOP polling showed 18- to 29- year-old potential Democratic primary voters (definite, probable or 50-50; n=751) as an outlier – with Sanders holding a slight edge and leading Clinton 41%-35% (22%: don’t know).  Less than one percent (<1%) said they supported Martin O’Malley.  A strong majority (66%) of 18- to 29- year-old potential Democratic primary voters said the fact that Bernie Sanders is a self-described Democratic Socialist made “no difference” in their likelihood to support his candidacy.  Slightly less than one-quarter (24%) said the label made them “more likely” to support Sanders, with only nine percent (9%) saying it made them “less likely.”  In addition, nineteen percent (19%) said they were “very satisfied” with the Democratic candidates for president this year (53%: “somewhat satisfied;” 21%: “not very satisfied;” 6%: “not at all satisfied”).

Nearly Half of Young Americans Believe the American Dream is Dead for Them. When November IOP polling asked 18- to 29- year-olds if the “American Dream is alive or dead” for them personally, respondents were nearly evenly split (49%: “alive;” 48%: “dead”).  While no significant difference was found based on race or ethnicity (whites – 49% said “alive;” African-Americans – 44% said “alive;” Hispanics – 52% said “alive”), respondents’ level of education did play a role.  Nearly six-in-ten (58%) college graduates said the American Dream was alive for them personally, compared to only 42% of those not in college/never enrolled in college saying the same.  Additionally, a significant majority of both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders supporters said they believed the American dream was “dead” (Trump voters – 61%: American Dream “dead,” 39%: “alive;” Sanders voters – 56%: American Dream “dead,” 44%: “alive”).

America’s 18- to 29- Year-Olds Say Integrity, Level-Headedness and Authenticity – Not Experience – Most Valued Attributes in Future President.  When the IOP’s fall poll asked 18-29 year olds what attributes they valued most in a presidential candidate, integrity (51%), level-headedness (33%) and authenticity (26%) topped the list – with political experience (18%) and business experience (11%) trailing behind.

70% of 18- to 29- Year-Old Republicans, 31% of Democrats Support Building a Wall on the Border of the U.S. and Mexico.  Forty-three percent (43%) of America’s youth said they supported building a wall on the border of the United States and Mexico, with a slim majority (53%) saying they oppose the idea.  Support differed among Republicans (70%: support; 28%: oppose), Democrats (31%: support; 68%: oppose) and Independents (42%: support; 56%: oppose).

Engagement Slipping Since 2011: 20% of America’s Youth Say They Are Politically Engaged; Less Than Half Say They Are Following 2016 Campaign.  Only two-in-ten (20%) of America’s young adults said they considered themselves “politically engaged and active,” a drop of five percentage points compared to IOP polling conducted during the same pre-election time period four years ago (fall 2011: 25%).  When fall 2015 IOP polling asked America’s young adults “how closely do you follow the 2016 presidential race?” – only 46% said they were following the campaign “very” or “somewhat” closely (52%: “not very” or “not at all”).

Methodology

The goal of the project was to collect 2,000 completed interviews with young Americans between 18- and 29- years old.  The main sample data collection took place from October 30 through November 9.  A small pretest was conducted prior to the main survey to examine the accuracy of the data and the length of the interview.

Four thousand four hundred and forty-one (4,441) KnowledgePanel members were assigned to the study.  The cooperation rate was 45.2 percent which resulted in 2,011 completed interviews included in this report (after data cleaning).  Eighty-three (83) interviews were conducted in Spanish with the remainder done in English.  The web-enabled KnowledgePanel® is a probability-based panel designed to be representative of the U.S. population.  Initially, participants are chosen scientifically by a random selection of telephone numbers and residential addresses. Persons in selected households are then invited by telephone or by mail to participate in the web-enabled KnowledgePanel®. For those who agree to participate, but do not already have Internet access, GfK provides a laptop and ISP connection at no cost. People who already have computers and Internet service are permitted to participate using their own equipment. Panelists then receive unique log-in information for accessing surveys online, and are sent e-mails throughout each month inviting them to participate in research. More technical information is available at http://www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp/reviewer-info.html and by request to the IOP.

Harvard University’s Institute of Politics (IOP), located at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, was established in 1966 as a memorial to President Kennedy.  The IOP’s mission is to create the future of politics and public service every day, inspiring undergraduates to lead lives of purpose by committing themselves to the practice of politics, governing, public service and the countless opportunities to make a difference in the world. More information is available online at www.iop.harvard.edu.   

GfK is one of the world’s largest research companies, with more than 12,000 experts working to discover new insights into the way people live, think and shop, in over 100 markets, every day. GfK is constantly innovating and using the latest technologies and the smartest methodologies to give its clients the clearest understanding of the most important people in the world: their customers. In 2012, GfK’s sales amounted to EUR 1.51 billion. To find out more, visit www.gfk.com or follow GfK on Twitter: www.twitter.com/gfk_group.

Social Tag: #HarvardIOPPoll

Poll: Trump Rising, Carson Declining

/in , , , /by

SAINT LEO, FL /PRNewswire/ — Businessman Donald Trump holds steady as the leading presidential candidate among likely Republican voters while former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton continues to outrun her lingering challengers in the party with the nation’s likely Democratic voters according to the Saint Leo University Polling Institute.

When Republican likely voters were asked to name the candidate they would support if the Republican primary were held today, 29.1 percent responded with Trump, up from 22.7 percent in October. Dr. Ben Carson now sits at 13.6 percent, down from 22.2 percent. U.S. Senator Marco Rubio sits largely unchanged at 11.4 percent compared to 11.1 percent. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush rose slightly to 10.5 percent from 8.4 percent.

U.S. Senator Ted Cruz also climbed to 9.1 percent from 4 percent in October, while former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina slid to 1.4 percent from 5.8 percent in October.

“Donald Trump continues to dominate the daily news cycles,” said Frank Orlando, instructor of political science at Saint Leo University. “He’s a master of creating and controlling content – his tweets become news. He’s a media personality who captures the attention of those who both support his beliefs and vehemently disagree with him.”

“Carson, however followed the conventional pattern of an outsider candidate. After his background was scrutinized, he fell out of favor, and now has started his decline,” said Orlando.

Democratic likely voters in the survey noted if the primary were held today supported Hillary Clinton at 58.9 percent up slightly from 54.8 in October, followed by U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders at 23.7 percent who climbed from 12 percent in October.

The jumps from the October poll question can be attributed to Vice President Joe Biden, who garnered 15.8 percent, but has since announced he won’t be running.

“Hillary Clinton has consolidated her support and continues to dominate her party,” said Orlando. DespiteBernie Sanders’ uptick he continues to significantly trail Clinton. “There is nothing in the numbers to indicate that Sanders will make a big charge.”

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

A Biblical Solution to the Omnibus-Muslim Problem

/in , , , , /by

The Omnibus Budget Bill to be voted Friday, Dec 11, will provide $1.2 Billion for “nearly 700,000 green cards – or lifetime residency cards – to migrants from Muslim nations over the next five years (as we did over the last five years),” said Senator Sessions of AL, re Friday’s vote. Readers should email congressman.

The Muslim problem is about militancy as taught in the Koran. Christ said, “Blessed are the peace-makers.” The Bible covenant with Abraham provided the Middle East for his descendants. That includes Arabic Muslims from Ishmael. Islam’s push into Europe and America is foreseen in Daniel 8, but it ends badly for a militant Muslim ram.

First the Problem from a 2002 UN Report: “More books are translated into Spanish in a single year than have been translated into Arabic in the last thousand, suggesting at the very minimum an extraordinarily closed world.” Mark Steyn.

The PROBLEM is complex; leaders and media can’t seem to identify it. Maybe we could help them?

The Shoe Bomber. the Beltway Snipers, the Boston Marathon Bombers were Muslim. The Fort Hood Shooter was a Muslim. The Underwear Bomber, the U.S.S. Cole Bombers, the 9-11 Hijackers and now the San Bernardino Terrorists–ALL OF THESE (and many edited from this list) WERE MUSLIMS!

More innocent people died on 9-11 than died in Pearl Harbor. We declared war then, but not now; not on Muslims, but we need to declare war on militancy as taught by numerous quotes in the Koran such as, “Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood.” Koran 9:123.

For hundreds of years, it has been no problem for Hindus to live with Buddhists, Jews or Christians.

Atheists have lived with Buddhists, Jews or Confucians, Christians have lived with Jews, Hindus and Shintos—these religions don’t have a problem being neighbors.

But Muslims have a problem living with Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Atheists, and worst of all, MUSLIMS LIVING WITH MUSLIMS IS A BIG PROBLEM!

MUSLIMS don’t want to live in Muslim countries of Gaza, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Kenya or Sudan.

They want to be in Australia, England, Belgium, France, Italy, Germany, Sweden, Norway, India, Canada, USA—any country that is not Islamic; why is that if it’s a “religion of peace?

When trouble comes, who do they blame? Not their leader. Not themselves, they blame the country and want to change it to be like the countries they left!

Islam likes organizations: Islamic Jihad: an ISLAMIC terror organization, ISIS/ISIL an ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION; Al-Qaeda, Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah, Boko Haram, Muslim Brotherhood, Palestine Liberation Front. ALL of these and many more are ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATIONS.

Are we so stupid that we can’t figure out how to deal with the problem? At least President Obama and now Attorney General Lynch know it’s not the Muslims and to speak against them may soon be a CRIME! This isn’t “hate speech.” We shouldn’t hate anyone; Christ died for all. We should end our “Stupid problems” with Free Speech while we still have it.

Obama admitted being Muslim and he wants to flood US with Muslim “refugees” Now we come to the biblical solution:

God promised to give Abraham the land between Egypt and the Euphrates River for his descendants in the 15th chapter of Genesis. Five verses later, Abraham agrees with Sarah to have a son by Hagar. The Arab nations are descendants of Ishmael, and they should occupy the area in the covenant for Abraham’s “seed.”

Any other plan, like the pope’s encouragement for Germany to take a million refugees while the Vatican takes two families, [isn’t that interesting?] is against the provision that God made for Abraham’s descendants. When leaders become part of a stupid problem, we need to go back to basics. Dan88

The Bible shows the problem of Muslim militancy will soon be solved “at the time of the end.” A militant Muslim ram gets stomped by a GOAT [Global Organization Against Terror] that flies from the west in Daniel 8 (the book Christ recommended when asked about end-times.)

Leaders should consider the Bible solution, rather than “wait and see”–hoping for an answer in the election next November. Congress has proven they go along to get along with hidden forces and rewards while voting against the Constitution that made us great.

The answer for everyone reading this is to Google their congressman and send him an email SAYING “I WILL CAMPAIGN AGAINST YOU IF YOU DON’T SAY NO TO OMNIBUS DEC 11.” Leaving a message by phone doesn’t work–“mailbox is full.”

IF WE DON’T ACT, WE GET WHAT WE DESERVE, AS PRESIDENT OBAMA PROMISED ON HIS ELECTION NIGHT: “CHANGE HAS COME TO AMERICA!”

 

Multi-billionaire v. Multi-billionaire: Who will win?

/in , , , /by

Mike Fernandez is the multi billionaire founder of MBF Healthcare Partners, which is a private equity firm in Florida.

He lives in my home state and perhaps for good reason not just because he came here as a Cuban immigrant. It is a state on a track for an economic boom in housing and job growth.

Florida is flourishing and thriving and also recovering from the Obama – Charlie Crist era of brimstone and hail currently still being launched from the Mosque in Washington D.C., 5 times a day.

Thanks to Governor Rick Scott’s business sense and capitalist ideology businesses are flooding to the sunshine state with their capitalist cash flow. He, like Donald Trump are capitalists who surround themselves with very smart people who get things done and create jobs.

Mike Fernandez came to Florida after immigrating from Cuba in 1964 at the age of 12. He owns the 4,000 acre Little River Plantation and 25,000 acres of property in Alabama.

His charity work includes a family foundation that has given away tens of millions of dollars. He is a good man when it comes to philanthropy.

His political mindset on the other hand is way off in left field. Perhaps deep down inside he is a left-winger and stays in the closet.

He calls himself a conservative yet he backs Obama’s unconstitutional opening of diplomatic relations with Communist Cuba (Still not approved by the U.S. Congress) while his fellow Cubans still rot in jails for their beliefs not so much for their crimes.

Mr. Hernandez is so upset at the Republican majority who are behind Mr. Trump and not his man- cub Jeb Bush he is almost on his last wits end.

Remember Jeb is the guy trying to federalize our schools across the nation in step with Obama’s Common Core UN ideology.

Mr. Hernandez was also an early supporter of Mitt Romney. Mitt is the guy that laid the ground work for Obama care in Massachusetts. Follow the money. Mr. Hernandez is a health care magnate!

Mr. Hernandez is now running front page ads against Mr. Trump. Its a billionaire verses a billionaire. A match up in the political ring.

Mr. Trump just shrugs his shoulders and looks at his lead in the polls. He is not going to waste money paying for ads in newspapers to feed the Obama stenographers in the liberal media.

Who will win? I say Mr. Trump will win.

Mr. Hernandez compares Mr. Trump to Hitler and Mussolini and other nefarious characters in our history but excludes Fidel Castro from the line up. That my friends is unusual.

Castro is an enemy of freedom and perhaps Mr. Hernandez still has an affiliation with his cause. Just my opinion.

Why he even stated if given a choice we would vote for Hillary Clinton over Mr. Trump. Hillary.

Hillary got an ambassador, 2 Navy SEALs and an aid killed then his boy Jeb presented Hillary a Freedom Medal on the eve of that event. A slap in the face to freedom.

Perhaps Hilary was trying to cover up Obama’s gun running operation from Libya to his Islamic State army in Syria.

I am assuming Hillary can still operate as a president from a federal prison after she is jailed for using an insecure server to handle and transmit Top Secret information regarding the National Security of this nation.

Maybe she will just get away with a heavy fine and lose her security clearance. How does one perform one’s duties as the Commander-in-Chief without a security clearance?

If Mr. Hernandez is now behind Hillary because his boy is 30 points behind Mr. Trump perhaps he should send her some of his capital. Perhaps a pay pal transmission through her foundation. Mix it in with some of that Saudi money.

Mr. Fernandez may have the cash but Mr. Fernandez is too thin skinned for politics and should continue to stick to his philanthropic work which we salute. Great job.

He could not even handle a little jiving from some of Rick Scott’s superstars so he departed ways from Governor Scotts massive success bringing I am assuming his ball with him.

Mr. Trump cannot be bought, he cannot be influenced by corporate money, nobody owns him and he will be elected the next President of the United States. He will make America great again.

I wish Mr. Hernandez well and look forward to seeing his face when Mr. Trump gets sworn in on January 20th 2017.

A Practical Scenario for the GOP Nominee – Name Key Cabinet Officials!

/in , , , /by

The United States and the West are in a very precarious situation due to Islamic extremist inspired terrorism. Obama’s administration has proved disastrous in many ways, but especially in their acquiescence to Islamic terror and its state sponsors (e.g. Iran). To reduce the risk of another failed presidency, the Republican nominee should name key Cabinet officials some time ahead of the November 2016 election.

The 2016 election and post-Obama presidency will decide the direction of the country and the future of the West. The Middle East and North and Central Africa are in chaos. Islamic inspired terrorist organizations and their state sponsors are threatening to destabilize Europe and the United States through highly organized attacks and mass migration of so-called refugees. The Muslim Brotherhood is well-entrenched in the federal government and around the various states. This situation has led to practical lawlessness in the country.

In light of this unprecedented world threat, the Republican nominee for President should take the unusual step of announcing the names of key members of his (or her) inner cabinet in advance of the 2016 election – timing of such an announcement to be decided.

Four key positions in particular should be named prior to Election Day. They should include: the Vice President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and Attorney General.

Why? As the last seven years have demonstrated (and should serve as a lesson), electing a president whose vision for the country is not well understood, nor spelled out, can prove disastrous. Today’s situation is the unfortunate proof of that. Key cabinet officials make and/or execute decisions on behalf of the president each day, and their political dispositions and worldview should be vetted and understood by the voting public prior to selecting a president.

By naming the specific individual, or individuals, who would be considered for these positions, the Republican nominee would send voters a clear signal of his priorities. A strong pick for Vice President would solidify the conservative base, clarify the importance of national security, economic, and values voters.

The pick for Attorney General should have a very strong hands-on, law-and-order background, an understanding of the threat posed by domestic and external terrorist groups, and the resolve to resume and apply the Bush-era surveillance programs on radicalized mosques. They must also confront an illegal immigration problem, including the problem of so-called refugees, that has been ignored for too long.

The pick for Secretary of Defense should be committed to rebuilding the military, and especially have a clear understanding of the Middle East, Iran, and the worldwide threat of Islamic extremism.

The next Secretary of State should be prepared on day one to re-engage allies whose trust Obama has totally lost (e.g. Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Poland, etc.), and achieve a mutually beneficial understanding with Russia and China. He must be prepared to apply pressure – including military action – to any and all state sponsors of terror.

We have to realize that the U.S.A., internationally speaking, is increasingly isolated. Domestically, we are slowly becoming a nation with an economy that rewards sloth and punishes productivity, and whose Constitution is completely ignored.

To reverse this trend as quickly as only possible, it is imperative that the next president select the right cabinet. The GOP nominee should take the unusual step of naming these key positions so that the public rightly understands the choice ahead in November 2016.

We have to fully realize that this approach could provide additional ammunition to the opposition – i.e. more digging up dirt on the suggested cabinet picks. But, on the other hand, smart picks may attract additional voters who may not have been convinced to vote for the candidate alone.

There is Nothing New Under the Sun

/in , , , , , /by

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.

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

/in , , /by

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.

Florida Federation of Republican Women Elect New Statewide Leaders

/in , , /by

ORLANDO, FL — The Florida Federation of Republican Women elected their 2016-2017 officers and statewide leaders at the FFRW 65th Anniversary and Biennial Convention in Orlando on October 10, 2015.

The common trait among the new statewide leaders is proven GOP activism.

GOP award-winning leader Dena DeCamp of Polk County was elected FFRW President. She is well known and recognized at the state and national level for her campaign leadership. DeCamp has served in FFRW leadership since 2009 as an award-winning local club president, District Manager, and as the Vice Chair of the Polk County Republican Party.

“Women are the majority of the vote here in Florida and nationwide. Fresh off of our 2014 sweeping victories, our Florida women are determined to once again lead the charge for the GOP in the 4th largest state in America. The FFRW is largest statewide political organization for women the members have elected a stellar team to lead our battleground team,” said Dena DeCamp.

Deborah Tamargo, REC Chairman of Hillsboro County, was elected as First VP; Jean Wingo of Walton County was elected as Second VP; Kim Carroll of Seminole County was elected as 3rd VP; Meg Merritt of Pasco County will serve as Secretary; and Suzie Loving of Duval County as Treasurer.

Elected Members at Large are Doris Cortese of Lee County, Patti Febro of Brevard County, and Kate Boland of Martin County. Rounding our the leadership team as FFRW District Executive is Beth Young of Brevard County.

District Representatives include Libby Hill, Okaloosa County; Dotty McPherson, Leon County; Laureen Pagel, Nassau County; Barbara Qualls, Sumter County; Mary Jane Anderson, Volusia County; Jennifer Wagner, Seminole County; Emma Runion, Hillsborough County; Carmen Salomee, Lee County; and Celeste Eliche, Broward County.

ABOUT THE FLORIDA FEDERATION OF REPUBLICAN WOMEN

The Florida Federation of Republican Women is celebrating 65 years of activism and is the largest women’s political organization in the state. Visit their website at: www.ffrw.net

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

/in , , /by

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.

Donald Trump Reflects the Rise in National Sentiment

/in , , , , /by

It is often said that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged. The turn to the Right in America started with a backlash against the disastrous ideas, both social and economic, that came out of the 1960s and reached fruition with the “stagflation” and anarchy of President Jimmy Carter. A new generation has suffered through the painfully slow half-recovery under President Barack Obama. Thus, both the libertarian and democratic-socialist models have failed. This leaves only a genuine conservative model to save the day, if it can find a champion.  – William R. Hawkins, former economics professor and Congressional staffer.

William R. Hawkins in his column Trump’s Campaign Slogan – ‘Make America Great Again’ – Reflects Rise in National Sentiment writes:

Whatever one thinks of Donald Trump’s campaign style, he has provoked critics to reveal more about themselves than they had intended – or wanted people to realize.

Consider a U.S. News & World Report article written by Dalibor Rohac of the American Enterprise Institute and Jan Zinsky of the Peterson Institute for International Economics (September 24). Entitled “Beware Populist Snake Oil,” it attacks Trump for being part of “a revolt against the modern, globalized world.” The authors deplore a rise in “nationalist sentiments” and oppose those who promise a “return to greatness” for their countries. These are inherently conservative feelings, of course, so Rohac and Zinsky try to link Trump to far-left socialists like Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras and UK Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn to counter his appeal to the Right.

Yet, it is clear that Trump is not a socialist, and Tsipras is only a nationalist because he wants relief from EU pressure to pay back the debts socialism ran up. Corbyn favors government ownership of major industries, confiscatory tax rates and unilateral disarmament. His focus is class conflict, not national unity.

Rohac and Zinsky cite a study by sociologist Alina Polyakova which “found that the countries that were hit worst by the financial crisis of 2008 experienced a surge in nationalist sentiments. She argues that economically insecure citizens looked to their national governments for protection. Curiously, however, this instinct has not translated into stronger support for mainstream left-wing parties.”

Read more.

Trump has tapped into the neo-nationalism lost since the 1960s. The American people want America to be great again because that is the true American spirit. It is what gave rise to the neo-conservative grassroots movement known as the TEA Party.

Trump did not create this grassroots movement but his campaign slogan, and policies, reflect a national desire to return to greatness. Winning is better than losing. America has been losing (economically, socially, militarily) for far to long.

Grassroots America is nationalists but not socialist.

The mantra of ‘Take America Back’ has been replaced with ‘Make America Great Again.’ Trump is on to something and that something may put him in the White House.

Donald Trump Gets Support from Kickstarter Campaign

/in , , /by

EAST MEADOW, N.Y. /PRNewswire/ — Calling themselves “the silent majority,” this group of entrepreneurs, friends and family members came together to fund raise through a Kickstarter campaign selling official, limited edition #TrumpYourVote Tees.  Proceeds will be used to fund a commercial and national advertising campaign supporting Trump for President.

Michael Sherman, founder of 25K Startups and organizer of the campaign, stated that he personally will be matching some of the contributions and putting out-of-pocket dollars into airing the final commercial regardless of their fundraising goals being met.  Depending on the level of traction, he said, “I’d like to rent trucks, wrap them in our brand, and bring our #TrumpYourVote T-shirts and message to key states across America.”

Sherman added, “The final video for this campaign will be a compilation of videos that are submitted by the individual supporters and they will aim to air on YouTube, Fox News, CNN and local stations in Iowa, Florida,New Hampshire, etc.”

TO LEARN MORE VISIT:

Web: www.trumpyourvote.com
Kickstarter: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/750813514/trump-your-vote
Twitter: https://twitter.com/trumpyourvote

RELATED ARTICLE: Trump’s Campaign Slogan – “Make America Great Again” – Reflects Rise in National Sentiment