Tag Archive for: Election 2016

Damn It Feels Good to be a Liberal

/in , , , /by

liberal logic 101It’s usually pretty easy to be a liberal these days. Most of their policy prescriptions and legislative proposals require nothing more than a quick talking point, with no further analysis or questions answered regarding the long-term effects of such proposals. If a liberal policymaker wants to take more money from hard working Americans via higher taxes, he or she simply throws out the “pay your fair share” talking point and doesn’t ever worry about explaining to hard-working Americans what their “fair share” is. If a liberal policymaker wants to steal away control of your health care decisions, he or she simply throws out the “health care is a right” talking point without ever explaining how declaring things as “rights” confers numerous obligations on others, all enforceable using the force of government.

Bumper sticker talking points, such as the infamous “war on women,” are clever scams drawn up by liberals to ensure that they are easily remembered, but rarely thought through.

Liberals live and die by the talking point because their ideology must fit on a bumper sticker. Bumper sticker talking points, such as the infamous “war on women,” are clever scams drawn up by liberals to ensure that they are easily remembered, but rarely thought through. It’s pretty easy to be a liberal when you can declare your intentions to be noble and positive, print an easy-to-remember bumper sticker, get massive pieces of damaging legislation passed, and then run away from the negative fallout from your terrible ideas once the consequences become evident.

This strategy has worked for liberals for decades, but this week it hit a massive speed bump with a tsunami of bad news hitting Americans. The horrific murder of Kate Steinle by an illegal immigrant, who was deported an astounding five times, harbored in a sanctuary city, is really a tough one for the liberal intelligentsia to explain away.

It’s tough to be a liberal policymaker this week when being one involves explaining to your constituents how their hard earned money should support the income, healthcare, education, and housing requirements for a group of people who simply do not care about our immigration laws or procedures. When some, albeit a small, but not insignificant number, of those same people murder innocent American citizens, it’s tough to whip out the quickie talking point or hand out that bumper sticker to bail you out of the trouble your ideology has caused.

It’s tough to be a liberal this week and to have to look Americans in the face and explain away the revolting, explosive, and potentially illegal, human organ trafficking activities of Planned Parenthood caught on videotape.

Second, the disastrous nuclear deal with Iran is beginning to look like the biggest foreign policy calamity in recent American history. Good luck being a liberal policymaker this week trying to tell Americans “don’t worry, the Iranians are only a decade or so away from deploying a nuclear weapon.” Try fitting that one on a bumper sticker as the hegemonic mullahs immediately jump in front of the cameras to declare “death to America.” Also, it’s tough to stick to the ridiculously oversimplified, and frequently utilized, “world peace” mantra or the “Bush did it” talking point, as liberal policymakers try to explain to Americans how the Iranian deal provides no clear, unobstructed path to inspections of Iranian military facilities. Only those willingly, or wishfully, ignorant believe that an Iranian military facility is an unlikely place for illicit nuclear activity with a regime noted for deception and international agitation.

Finally, it’s tough to be a liberal this week and to have to look Americans in the face and explain away the revolting, explosive, and potentially illegal, human organ trafficking activities of Planned Parenthood caught on videotape. That handy old “it’s all about choice” bumper sticker talking point is tough to explain away when your support of “choice” also involves innocent American taxpayers being forced to finance the operations of a deranged outfit which traffics in the body parts of aborted babies and discusses it over a hearty Caesar salad. It’s time to immediately defund this abomination of an organization without delay and investigate those responsible for this atrocity.

It’s easy to be liberal; conservatives have been lamenting this for years. We have had to be the adults in the room and explain the marginal tax rate ramifications on productivity and growth while the liberals get to scream, “pay your fair share.” This has led to a messaging battlefield asymmetry, which is hard to overcome.

I hate it that these tragedies occurred, and that many will continue to suffer due to these liberal policies but, if we want to prevent further derelictions of duty, it’s up to us to demand answers now and make liberal policymakers leave their protected messaging comfort zones and answer to the American people for their mistakes.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Conservative Review. The featured image is by Charles Krupa | AP Photo.

Could Hillary Really “Restore” the Middle Class? by Donald J. Boudreaux

/in , , , /by

Eduardo Porter opens his column today by asking “Could President Hillary Clinton restore the American middle class?” (“Sizing Up Hillary Clinton’s Plans to Help the Middle Class”).

Mr. Porter illegitimately presents as an established fact a proposition that is anything but. It’s true that between 1967 and 2009 the percent of American families with annual incomes between $25,000 and $75,000 (in 2009 dollars) fell from 62 to 39 – a fact that, standing alone, might be interpreted as evidence that the middle class is disappearing.

Yet this fact does not stand alone, for it’s also true that the percent of families with annual incomes lower than $25,000 also fell (from 22 to 18) while the percent of families with annual incomes of $75,000 and higher rose significantly – from 16 to 43.*

So given these Census Bureau data – which are strong evidence that America’s middle class, if disappearing, is doing so by moving into the upper classes – to ask if President Hillary Clinton could restore the American middle class is to ask if she will make the bulk of today’s prosperous families poorer rather than richer.

This post first appeared at CafeHayek.

Donald Boudreaux

Donald Boudreaux is a professor of economics at George Mason University, a former FEE president, and the author of Hypocrites and Half-Wits.

Bernie Sanders Thinks the Middle Class Is Deteriorating: He’s Wrong! by Corey Iacono

/in , , , /by

Sen. Bernie Sanders is a democratic socialist running for President of the United States, and his passionate populist message has won him many admirers on the left. His willingness to push for radical progressive policies (such as top income tax rates of 90 percent), which mainstream Democrats are too moderate to embrace, is steadily eroding Hillary Clinton’s dominance of the Democratic primary field.

There are several “facts” upon which Sanders has built his campaign. Probably the most important is the claim that the American middle class has been declining for quite some time. According to Sanders’s website:

The long-term deterioration of the middle class, accelerated by the Wall Street crash of 2008, has not been pretty…

Since 1999, the median middle-class family has seen its income go down by almost $5,000 after adjusting for inflation, now earning less than it did 25 years ago.

The situation is clearly dire, and the right man for the momentous job of saving the middle class is Sen. Sanders. Well, at least that’s [the] message his campaign seeks to convey.

But what if the middle class isn’t becoming worse off over time? What if the American middle class is actually doing as well as ever? Would Sanders’s supporters be as likely to endorse his more radical ideas if they weren’t convinced that the middle was becoming poorer over time — and that only progressive policies could reverse this trend?

It’s worth taking the time to examine Sanders’s claim that the middle class is worse off now than in the past. He doesn’t cite a source for his statistic, but it seems to rely on looking at the median household income over time and adjusting for inflation using the Consumer Price Index (CPI).

This is a problematic methodology because it does not control for the well-known fact that the median household has itself grown smaller over time. Even if median income stayed the same over time, a decline in the number of people in the median household over time would lead to an increase in income per household member.

Additionally, Sanders’s statistic looks at income before taxes and transfers. Transfer payments and tax credits (like the Earned Income Tax Credit) make up a significant portion of income for many lower-income families. Not controlling for these factors understates their true economic well-being.

The figures cited by Sanders also fail to take into account the fact that a larger proportion of worker compensation comes in the form of non-cash benefits (such as health insurance) now than in the past.

According to research published by the National Tax Journal, “Broadening the income definition to post-tax, post-transfer, size-adjusted household cash income, middle class Americans are found to have made substantial gains,” amounting to a 37 percent increase in income over the 1979-2007 period.

Similarly, in 2014, the Congressional Budget Office found that adjusting for changing household size and looking at income after taxes and transfers, households in all income quintiles are much better off than they were a few decades ago.

The incomes of households in the three middle income quintiles grew 40 percent between 1979 and 2011. Somewhat surprisingly, given the histrionics about the state of America’s poor, income in households in the lowest quintile was 48 percent higher in 2011 than it was in 1979.

Research from the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis comes to even more optimistic conclusions.

The Consumer Price Index is widely understood to overstate inflation — among other reasons, by failing to accurately account for improvements in quality and consumer substitutions for newer or cheaper goods — which is why the Federal Open Market Committee uses an alternative measurement for inflation, the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) price index, which includes more comprehensive coverage of goods and services than the CPI.

If the CPI does, in fact, overstate the extent to which prices rise over time, then it also consequently understates the growth in real, inflation-adjusted incomes over time.

Indexing median household income (post taxes and transfers) to inflation using the PCE, rather than the CPI, and adjusting for the long-run decline in household size shows that median incomes have “increased by roughly 44 percent to 62 percent from 1976 to 2006.”

Moreover, the focus on statistical categories ignores what is happening at the level of individuals and households, which may move up or down the income ladder, through different income quintiles. And studies have consistently shown that this income mobility has not changed in decades.

While the rate of growth for some income categories in recent years has been sluggish, the claim that middle incomes are declining precipitously is false. Based on these findings, it seems appropriate to conclude that Sanders’ claim that there exists a “long-term deterioration of the middle class” is patently untrue.

Learn more about wage “stagnation” from former FEE president Don Boudreaux:

Corey Iacono

Corey Iacono is a student at the University of Rhode Island majoring in pharmaceutical science and minoring in economics.

Republicans Missing the Point Behind Donald Trump’s Ascendancy

/in , , , /by

Donald Trump’s political ascendancy has less to do with him and more to do with the Republican electorate’s total disillusionment with the lack of leadership coming from our congressional leadership.

All of a sudden, along comes Donald Trump speaking a language the Republican base understands—English!

In my view, Trump, Carly Fiorina, and Chris Christie are the only Republicans that are speaking to the American people in a manner that they can understand. The rest of the field speaks in “politicaleeze.”

The American people want someone like a Christie who will look them straight in the eye and give a direct answer to their question.

Far too many candidates, both Democrats and Republicans, spend too much time poll testing and focus grouping everything and every issue.

This brings me back to Trump. Whatever you think about him, he spoke the truth about the state of illegal immigration; and yes his language was extremely hyperbolic and way over the top. Yes, he could have made the same point without the incendiary language; but nonetheless, he has caused a tectonic shift in the debate over sanctuary cities.

Trump has managed to tap into voter angst and their economic insecurity. So, Republicans should stop fretting so much about how Trump hurt the feelings of Hispanics and deal with the issue he has brought to the forefront of the political landscape.

If our congressional leaders would spend more time promoting the conservative agenda that they ran on last year versus giving Obama victories in trade and amnesty, then a person like Trump would have absolutely no political traction whatsoever.

In many ways, Donald Trump is the Frankenstein that our congressional leadership has created by their lack of any bold legislative action that they promised Republican voters during the 2014 elections.

They told the voters last year that if you give them control of the House and Senate, they would block Obama’s amnesty—they caved; they would reign in federal spending—they caved; they would pass a strong boarder enforcement bill—they got amnesia.

Republican leadership thought these issues would just magically disappear or that the Supreme Court would save them from having to do their jobs; they were very wrong on both counts.

The next U.S. president will be the candidate who can speak directly to the American people in very simplistic language about their vision for the country on issues like immigration, ISIS, the domestic and foreign economy, values, how to manage the growing diversity of our country, etc.

So, as opposed to criticizing Trump, shut him up by addressing the issues he is talking about. Granted, his answers/solutions are extremely sophomoric; but at least he is addressing issues the American people care about in a language they understand.

The same thing can be said about Vermont senator, Bernie Sanders. You write him off at your own peril. He is tapping into the same frustration and disillusionment on the Democratic side that Donald Trump is tapping into on the Republican side.

It was sad watching Hillary Clinton’s interview with CNN last week. She is quite good at talking without saying anything.

But I am getting this same eerie feeling that I got in 2007—2008 when Hillary acted as though winning the Democratic primary was a foregone conclusion. The amount of arrogance she and her campaign are showing is astonishing.

Sanders will continue to provide a vigorous challenge to Hillary from the left and then I expect Vice President Joe Biden to enter the race because of the disillusionment from their party’s base.

So the takeaway from Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders is quite simple. People want to be talked to in a language that they can understand. They want specific answers to the problems facing Americans, no more broad, vague, undecipherable talk.

The American electorate is afraid about their future and needs and wants a presidential candidate who is going to reassure them that their future will be alright under their leadership.

Sometimes candidates need to get rid of their pollsters and just talk to the American people from their hearts about the values and the vision they have for the country.

So, Donald Trump is not the problem with the Republican Party; it is the seeming inability of Republicans to connect with the American people about how they are going to solve the many problems facing America.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Obama Writes Personal Letter to Nearly 50 Felons, But Continues to Ignore Family of Murder Victim Kathryn Steinle [+video]

You’ve Heard of Sanctuary Cities. But Do You Know What They Are?

Mexican Drug Lord ‘El Chapo’ Threatens Trump

RELATED VIDEO: Donald Trump on Hillary Clinton: She has a lot to hide

UPDATE: U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Transnational Crime, Civilian Security, Democracy, Human Rights & Global Women’s Issues, issued the following statement regarding the conspiracy surrounding Mexican drug lord Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman’s recent escape from a Mexican prison:

“Joaquin ‘El Chapo’ Guzman’s escape has dealt a serious blow to all those working in good faith within the Mexican government, law enforcement and judiciary to give that nation a better future. That’s a harder future to achieve as long as drug cartels run amok trafficking drugs, terrorizing the public, and poisoning the rule of law and democratic order that many generations of Mexicans have worked to achieve. The U.S. played a key role in assisting our Mexican partners in finding and arresting Guzman, and we should stand ready to help them find him again and bring to justice all those involved in this conspiracy.

“When Guzman is arrested again, the U.S. should pursue his extradition in accordance with our treaty with Mexico governing such cases. It is not clear to me why the Obama Administration did not formally request his extradition after his previous arrest in 2014. This is the second time Guzman has escaped from prison, and not only is he wanted for major crimes in the U.S., but we have the capabilities to bring him to justice.”

The Clintons’ Achilles Heel?

/in , , , /by

For most of the 20th century, until 1989, the major public accounting firms in the U.S. and the U.K. were known as the Big Eight.  Listed alphabetically, they were Arthur Anderson, Arthur Young & Company, Coopers & Lybrand, Ernst & Whinney, Deloitte Haskins & Sells, Peat Marwick Mitchell, Price Waterhouse, and Touche Ross.

However, in 1987, Peat Marwick Mitchell merged with Klynveld Main Goerdeler, a mid-sized European firm, to become KPMG.  Then, in 1989, Ernst & Whinney merged with Arthur Young to form Ernst & Young, and Deloitte Haskins & Sells merged with Touche Ross to become Deloitte & Touche.  Finally, in 1998, Price Waterhouse merged with Coopers & Lybrand to become Pricewaterhouse Coopers.  Along with Arthur Anderson, they made up the Big Five.

Arthur Anderson was founded in 1913.  Its namesake founder, Arthur Anderson, was a man who held closely to the highest standards of the accounting profession, insisting that the accountant’s first responsibility was to his client’s investors, not to his client’s management.  However, by the 1980s, because of intense competition between the top accounting firms for non-accounting consulting services, that standard was beginning to show signs of erosion.  Within each firm, the commitment to audit independence was slowly eroded as they strove to win more-lucrative non-accounting consultancy contracts with their major clients.

One of Arthur Anderson’s principal clients was the Houston-based energy company, Enron.  And as the firm’s revenues from their non-accounting consultancy at Enron far exceeded their audit and accounting revenues, those involved in the audit and accounting end of their business were increasingly pressured to do what was necessary to keep Enron’s top management happy.  In other words, Arthur Anderson experienced an ongoing internal struggle, attempting to balance the need to maintain the highest of accounting standards, while contributing to the client’s desire to produce the most attractive quarterly and annual earnings reports.

Finally, in 2001, it was learned that Enron had maintained its position as an attractive investment opportunity in large part through systematic accounting fraud… none of which could have been accomplished without the active complicity of their accounting firm, Arthur Anderson.

When accounting irregularities involving some $100 billion were alleged, the members of Enron’s board of directors appointed a committee, the Powers Committee, to look into the matter.  The committee’s final report stated that, “The evidence available to us suggests that Andersen did not fulfill its professional responsibilities in connection with its audits of Enron’s financial statements, or its obligation to bring to the attention of Enron’s Board (or the Audit and Compliance Committee) concerns about Enron’s internal contracts over the related-party transactions.”

On December 2, 2001, Enron filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and six months later, on June 15, 2002, Arthur Andersen was convicted of obstruction of justice, having been found guilty of shredding documents related to its auditing of Enron.  And while the conviction was later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, the negative publicity resulting from the high profile scandal, combined with the findings of criminal complicity, ultimately destroyed the firm.  On August 31, 2002, Arthur Anderson agreed to surrender its CPA license and its right to practice before the SEC… and then there were four.

Of the remaining top four accounting firms, Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PwC) has been seen, until now, as the “cream of the crop.”  In fact, among the Big Four, PwC has been ranked by Vault Accounting as the best accounting employer for two consecutive years, 2014 and 2015.  But now, because of their association with the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, PwC is about to learn, first hand, the meaning of the old adage, “Lie down with dogs; get up with fleas.”

In a June 17, 2015, posting on WorldNetDaily (WND), bestselling author Dr. Jerome Corsi, reports that, according to respected Wall Street analyst Charles Ortel, “The Big Four accounting firm, Pricewaterhouse Coopers, failed to detect and report the Clinton Foundation’s ‘apparent massive diversions of funds’ from a global charity that fights HIV/AIDS.”

Although the methodology is a bit difficult for non-accountants to grasp, Ortel charges that the Clintons siphoned off tens of millions of dollars annually from pass-through funds received by the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) from UNITAID, a Geneva-based global health organization which negotiates low prices for drugs and diagnostic equipment and supplies, working through groups such as CHAI to deliver drugs and health services where needed.

The pool of funds used to finance UNITAID’s activities is derived from a US$1 surcharge on coach-class airline tickets (up to US$40 on business and first class tickets) in nine countries: Cameroon, Chile, Congo, France, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritius, Niger and the Republic of Korea.  According to records of the French Civil Aviation Authority, the tax imposed on airline tickets by the French government alone has produced more than $1 billion in a six year period.

According to the WND article,

Ortel contends that PwC “allowed the Clintons to continue diverting millions of dollars donated for charitable purposes to the personal enrichment and benefit of themselves and their close associates, perpetrating a crime called inurement.  (The “inurement” prohibition of the Internal Revenue Code prohibits the use of the income or the assets of a tax-exempt organization, such as the Clinton Foundation, to directly or indirectly benefit any person with a close relationship with the organization, or one who is in a position to exercise significant control over the organization.)

In order to reach that conclusion, Ortel used financial information drawn directly from UNITAID sources, comparing it to financial reports of the Clinton Foundation contained in their PwC audit for 2013.  Ortel contends that “PwC failed to conduct the basic due diligence required of auditors, neglecting to discover and report the diversion of funds.”  He found that, as has been reported in recent stories of Hillary Clinton’s tenure as U.S. Secretary of State, the Clintons purportedly used their international prestige and political power to “leverage” international manufacturers of prescription quality drugs and various health care products and sell them to Third-World countries at a discount to combat AIDS/HIV.

WND quotes Ortel as saying that, if any of the 50 state attorneys general should present the available evidence to a federal judge, he believes “an injunction would be ordered, shutting down the Clinton Foundation and placing the organization in receivership.”

He is quoted as saying, “Ironically, the Clinton Family holds itself out for praise when Clinton Foundation financial statements are inaccurate and riddled with material, uncorrected errors.”  He concludes. “Those who take requisite time to study public financial filings should see what I see – that the Clintons are playing ‘Robin Hood,’ but in reverse, now with a major accounting firm of PwC’s magnitude participating in the cover-up.”  In other words, what Ortel suggests is that the Clintons, instead of taking from the rich and giving to the poor, are profiting from the poor to give to the rich… i.e. the Clintons and their toadies.

What is surprising… perhaps not so surprising where the Clintons are concerned… is the fact that neither PwC, nor any other Clinton Foundation auditor since 2006, has bothered to reconcile Clinton Foundation receipts from UNITAID, as reported on their IRS Form 990, with audited annual financial statements published by UNITAID.  In other words, in examining the financial dealings of the most corrupt political family in America, none of the most highly paid accounting professionals in the country thought to look for corruption in any of the most logical places.

So where did the Clintons get off on the wrong track?  Upon leaving the White House in disgrace in January 2001, Bill Clinton, a disbarred lawyer who narrowly avoided criminal prosecution for perjuring himself before a federal judge, was desperate to find some way to salvage a positive legacy for the history books.

Like modern era Republican presidents… Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Bush (41) and Bush (43)… he could have retired gracefully into relative obscurity.  He could have retired to a posh hilltop mansion near Hot Springs where he could spend all of his free time patronizing the spas and nudie bars of that famed Arkansas gambling mecca.  But that’s not what he chose to do.  Like his Democrat predecessor, Jimmy Carter, Clinton could not find happiness and contentment outside the political spotlight.  Instead, he decided to establish a path to respectability by creating a foundation dedicated to helping the poor and downtrodden of the Third World.  That was the genesis of the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative.  And while the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative may have washed a bit of the seediness off the Clinton image, it is the excesses of the Clinton Foundation that may ultimately destroy Hillary Clinton’s dream of ever becoming the first female president of the United States.

But more than that, the Clintons’ unbridled greed and their unquenchable thirst for power could easily reduce the Big Four of the accounting profession to the Big Three… taking thousands of accounting executives and their families down with them.  If Ortel’s findings are ultimately confirmed, the Clinton era of American politics may finally be at an end.  More than Benghazi, the missing emails, the private email server, the outlandish speaking fees, and the suspected  pay-to-play quid pro quo’s of Hillary’s state department tenure, the alleged fraudulent accounting provided by PwC, the country’s top accounting firm, may yet be the Clintons’ Achilles heel.

Now all we have to do is to get one of our fine conservative state attorneys general to get off their backsides and take the available evidence before a federal judge.  Bill and Hillary will soon learn that attempting to hoodwink the IRS and the SEC is almost certain to meet with disaster.

One America News Network Releases National Presidential Polling Results

/in , , /by

SAN DIEGO /PRNewswire/ — One America News Network, “OAN”, a credible source for 24/7 national and international news, released today its most recent 2016 Republican and Democratic Presidential Polling Results.   The results show that GOP Presidential candidate Jeb Bush leads the Republicans with 22 percent, a 7 percent margin over Donald Trump, and Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton leads with 55 percent, a 41 percent lead over Joe Biden’s 14 percent, with Bernie Sanders closely trailing Biden at 13 percent.

Assuming you had to vote today, which 2016 GOP Candidate would you vote for? (PRNewsFoto/One America News Network)

Assuming you had to vote today, which 2016 GOP Candidate would you vote for? (PRNewsFoto/One America News Network)

The recently conducted One America News national polling also shows a heavily divided country when it comes to the job approval performance of President Obama.   Eighty-nine percent of Republican voters disapprove of the President’s performance whereas 74 percent of Democrats approve of the President’s performance.

Assuming you had to vote today, which 2016 Democrat Candidate would you vote for? (PRNewsFoto/One America News Network)

Assuming you had to vote today, which 2016 Democrat Candidate would you vote for? (PRNewsFoto/One America News Network)

Do you approve or disapprove of President Obama's Job Performance? (PRNewsFoto/One America News Network)

Do you approve or disapprove of President Obama’s Job Performance? (PRNewsFoto/One America News Network)

According to Robert Herring, Sr., CEO of One America News Network, “It’s still very early in the campaign process and there’s strong support for a number of candidates on both sides.   We clearly have a divided country that is very engaged in the upcoming election.  One America News Network, utilizing Gravis Marketing, will perform and release national polling results for both parties as we get closer to the first GOP debate.”

The national polling, which took place on July 1st and 2nd, was performed exclusively for One America News by third party research firm Gravis Marketing.  Gravis Marketing, a nonpartisan research firm, conducted a random survey of 519 Democratic voters and 473 registered Republican voters across the United States using interactive voice response, IVR, technology.  Republican voters polled were able to choose from 15 GOP candidates while Democratic registered voters were able to choose from 5 Democratic potential candidates. Undecided was not an available option, thus results sum to 100 percent and may show higher percentages than polls allowing for “undecided” vote counts.  The margin of error is 4.3% for the Democratic polling and 4.5% for the Republican polling results.  For full national presidential polling results, visit www.oann.com/poll

One America News Network has been providing extensive coverage of the 2016 Presidential campaign, including numerous exclusive one-on-one interviews with the leading candidates.

About One America News Network (“OAN”)

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

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

Bernie Sanders U.S. Presidential Democratic Hopeful is Rapidly Gaining Popularity

/in , , /by

I just read on The Hill an article entitled, “Team Clinton ‘Worried’ about Bernie Sanders Campaign.” Sanders is quickly becoming serious competition for Clinton in the Democratic nomination:

Hillary Clinton’s campaign is “worried” about Bernie Sanders, whom a top Clinton aide described as a “serious force” in the 2016 battle.

“We are worried about him, sure. He will be a serious force for the campaign, and I don’t think that will diminish,” Clinton Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri said Monday in an interview with MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

“It’s to be expected that Sanders would do well in a Democratic primary, and he’s going to do well in Iowa in the Democratic caucus.”

Sanders, an independent senator from Vermont, has emerged as Clinton’s main foil in the Democratic primary.

While he’s still more than 40 percentage points behind Clinton in virtually all national polls, he’s greatly improved his stock in the early primary states. 

A new Quinnipiac University poll released last week found he doubled his share of Democratic supporters in Iowa in just seven weeks. Some polls in New Hampshire show Sanders less than 10 points behind Clinton.

Indeed, in the last several hours, Huffington Post columnist H.A. Goodman posted a piece entitled, “‘Bernie Sanders Can Become President’ Has Replaced ‘I Like Him, But He Can’t Win’”:

How many time have you heard the phrase, “I like Bernie Sanders, but he can’t win,” uttered by people who identify themselves as progressives? The facts, however, illustrate that “Bernie Sanders can win” and nobody in politics foreshadowed the Vermont Senator’s latest surge in both Iowa and New Hampshire. He recently raised $15 million in just two months, and his campaign reports that “Nearly 87 percent of the total amount raised during the quarter came from the donors who contributed $250 or less.” While Clinton’s team isn’t worried, they should be, primarily because Hillary Clinton already lost a presidential race (spending $229.4 million in the losing effort) and finished behind both Obama and John Edwards in the 2008 Iowa Caucus.

While Clinton is expected to amass $2.5 billion, Bernie Sanders has cut the former Secretary of State’s lead in New Hampshire from 38 percentage points down to just 8.

Goodman continues by noting that Sanders “snagged a key ally” in New Hampshire: Democratic activist Dudley Dudley. Why the rise in Sanders’ popularity? Well, a key reason seems to rest in the fact that the public can get a clear answer from him– on some issues. As Goodman notes:

…Sanders didn’t need billions of dollars to earn the trust of voters in New Hampshire, or cut Hillary’s lead to only 8 points. Since he voted against the Iraq War and has spent a lifetime championing progressive issues while others waivered (Hillary was against gay marriage until 2013, voted for the Iraq War, pushed for the TPP on 45 separate occasions, and supported Keystone XL), Bernie Sanders doesn’t need to prove he’s a progressive. Voters know what they’re getting with Vermont’s Senator. In contrast, Hillary Clinton rarely offers a direct answer on why she failed to champion certain causes when they weren’t popular.

Clinton might avoid the direct answer, but when it comes to hot-button education issues, such as Common Core, Sanders has not spoken publicly. (More to come on Sanders and education.)

Still, Sanders appears to have what money cannot fabricate– grassroots support:

What polls can’t measure, however, is the numbers Sanders is drawing in overflowing crowds. A Washington Post article titled Sanders draws more than 2,500 to Iowa stop — tops for this presidential cycle so far, explains how an energized base of voters is making what was once improbable a very real possibility. …

Money can’t buy enthusiasm or “eye popping crowds,” and while Clinton has the financial backing (she’s been referred to by POLITICO as Wall Street Republicans Dark secret), Bernie has the hearts and minds of Democrats. The Washington Post writes that he’s gaining larger crowds than anyone in the 2016 presidential race, so while Clinton has the top Democratic strategists on her team, Bernie Sanders owns the grass roots support among voters. …

While Sanders “drew both traditional Democrats and conservatives” in Iowa, it would be unthinkable to see conservatives in any state supporting Hillary Clinton. The ability of Sanders to address issues that both right and left find important (even Ted Cruz is talking about wealth inequality) is one of the many advantages Sanders has over any Democratic rival. This advantage could also catapult him to victory over any GOP challenger. …

Bernie Sanders is drawing record crowds and surging in the polls because his value system is worth infinitely more than his opponent’s ability to generate billions of dollars.

As concerns his views on education, an April 2015 Forbes article notes that Sanders wants to “end the practice of the government making billions in profits from student loans taken out by low and moderate income families.” Also, according to Forbes, Sanders posted the following on Facebook regarding teacher pay:

The great moral, economic and political issue of our time is the grotesque level of income and wealth inequality we are experiencing. Something is very wrong when, last year, the top 25 hedge fund managers earned more than the combined income of 425,000 public school teachers. We have got to get our priorities right.

Sanders is a member of the Senate Ed committee that produced the Every Child Achieves Act of 2015, which will go before the Senate on July 7, 2015. (I have written extensively on the Senate ESEA draft and approved amendments.) Yet is seems that Sanders views this revision of what was originally the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 and commonly called by the name of its last revision, No Child Left Behind (NCLB), as a piece of legislation that needs to go. As noted in the June 2015 US News and World Report:

Sanders is the only candidate so far to focus on problems with No Child Left Behind in his remarks to the unions, according to excerpts provided by the NEA and AFT.

Sanders, who serves on the Senate education committee, said there are few others as opposed as he is to the sweeping education law – which Congress is attempting to update – and to “this absurd effort to force teachers to spend half of their lives teaching kids how to take tests.”

“If I have anything to say in the coming months, we would end [No Child Left Behind],” Sanders told Eskelsen Garcia.

However, Sanders has yet to publicly take a position on issues of Common Core, teacher tenure/evaluation, and school choice. The Senate ESEA draft defers to states on teacher evaluation issues and prohibits the US Secretary of Education from exercising decision making power over state standards and assessments, prohibiting the federal promotion of Common Core by name. But the Senate ESEA draft also preserves annual testing and is incredibly generous to establishing and expanding America’s under-regulated and over-scandaled charter schools.

Sam Pimm to Head Ben Carson for President Super PAC

/in , , /by

MERRIFIELD, Va., /PRNewswire/ — The 2016 Committee, a political action committee raising awareness and support for Dr. Ben Carson’s candidacy for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, today announced that Sam Pimm, an experienced campaign manager and expert political consultant, will serve as the Committee’s executive director.

“Sam brings over 30 years of high level campaign and political experience to our committee,” said John Philip Sousa IV, national chairman for The 2016 Committee. “He understands that in order to succeed you need a plan, a strategy, tactics and objectives. In coordination with National Director Vernon Robinson and our regional directors, Sam will immediately begin developing a tight business plan around our existing strategies to help ensure success.”

As executive director for the Committee, Pimm will report directly to the board and oversee all field activities in support of the 2016 Committee’s efforts to send Dr. Carson to the White House. He will be responsible for grassroots organization and provide oversight and strategy for state and regional directors across the country, including in early primary states.

Pimm is the owner and founder of Consultant in a Can, a firm that leverages Pimm’s 36 years of campaign experience to provide consulting services on an affordable basis for state and local Republican candidates. His extensive campaign experience includes hundreds of state legislature campaigns, as well as congressional, senate, and presidential campaigns including Ronald Reagan, Fred Thompson, Phil Gramm and Newt Gingrich.

“I’m excited to join the 2016 Committee and be part of its important mission because I know Dr. Ben Carson is the best hope we have for healing America’s deep economic and social wounds,” Pimm said. “I’m looking forward to working with John Sousa, Vernon Robinson, Chuck Muth, the Committee’s staff and our thousands of amazing grassroots volunteers across the country to win Dr. Carson the keys to the White House.”

Dr. Carson has repeatedly polled at or near the top of a crowded field of Republican candidates in presidential polls around the country. A recent Monmouth University poll showed Dr. Carson leading all other GOP candidates among Republican and Republican-leaning voters.

About the 2016 Committee

The 2016 Committee is a political action committee formed to draft Dr. Ben Carson into the race for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. It was founded in August 2013 by John Philip Sousa IV and Vernon Robinson as the National Draft Ben Carson for President Committee, and works to raise awareness of Dr. Carson’s qualifications and to engage grassroots conservative activists in clamoring for Dr. Carson to run for president. For more information, visit www.2016committee.org or connect on Twitter @DraftRunBenRun or Facebook/RunBenRun.org.

The Trump Card

/in , , /by

A sure-fire way of assessing the threat that leftists feel toward any challenge to their nonsensical narratives and preposterous policies is to measure the long knives and “important” people they drag out to slam the competition.

Whether it’s the leftwing JournoList cabal of 400 so-called journalists and academics who in 2007 colluded to launch relentless character assassinations against every person who challenged Barack Obama about anything, or the obsessive sexist attacks and slander leveled in 2008 against Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin, or, more dramatically, the strange death of Obama critic Andrew Breitbart, the bleeding-heart left has zero tolerance for opposing opinions and those who express them.

But as we’ve seen in the past few days, Republican establishment heavyweights have their own long knives and “important” spokesmen, which they trotted out in force when billionaire real-estate magnate, philanthropist, and TV personality Donald Trump announced his run for the presidency of the United States of America on June 16, 2015.

On the Fox News 6 p.m. show hosted by Bret Baier, two Republican poobahs weighed in and didn’t even try to camouflage their snobbish condescension. George Will, none too elegantly, called Trump a “bloviating ignoramus,” and told Mediaite that he hoped Trump gets “shellacked,” while Charles Krauthammer, a diehard Marco Rubio fan, asked about Trump, “Look…can you take him seriously?”

Legal scholar and political commentator Mark Levin reminds us that in 1976, the distinctly non-prescient and pompous Will advocated a “cleansing of the GOP of Ronald Reagan and his supporters,” calling those who voted for the 40th president, “kamikaze conservatives.” So much for Will, who Trump put away quite nicely!

And wasn’t it lifelong Democrat Krauthammer who was the chief speech writer for über-leftist Democrat Walter Mondale?

Attention you dinosaurs! While you reserve your positive commentaries for the kind of Republicans-In-Name-Only (RINOs) like weak sisters Boehner, McConnell, Romney, et al, who have failed We the People for decades, the multimillions who welcomed the Trump announcement are looking for jobs and a decisive leader with a proven track record in providing jobs.

What all of these snooty talking heads fail to see––or cannot bear to see––is that Trump has actually created thousands if not hundreds of thousands of jobs, and that his pledge to put America back to work is as credible as credible gets. When I think about Barack Obama’s endless and empty promises to “strengthen the middle class”––which all of his policies have done everything to destroy––and compare him to Trump, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know who is the ideological giant and who is the astoundingly ineffectual pipsqueak!

People are looking for a president to close our borders––including building a fence, as Trump as suggested!––to parasitic and disease-ridden illegal immigrants, and the hundreds of thousands of “refugees” whose ties to terrorism are unknown. According to World Net Daily writer Leo Hohmann, since January, over 100,000 Syrians have been sent to more than 70 American cities, in spite of concerns of the Department of Homeland Security and elected officials like Rep Michael McCaul (R-TX), who said that “they present a grave security risk because many Syrians have ties to the Sunni rebel groups ISIS and al-Nusra Front.”

Other sources say that the State Department, working through nine private contractors and 350 subcontractors, resettles U.N.-certified refugees into more than 190 cities and towns across America!

And that’s a drop in the bucket! White House correspondent Neil Munro describes in The Daily Caller a virtual invasion of hundreds of thousands of illegal border crossers,” despite the high unemployment rates among American Latino, African-American and white youths, and the strapped budgets of many cities and towns.” And this, too, is a drop in the bucket!

All the while, critics are ignored by Barack Obama, who clearly encourages this unrestrained and illegal infiltration, and they hear nothing but the tired “racist” mantra of radical groups like La Raza. The reason is simple: according to James Simpson, author of the newly-published ­­­­­The Red-Green Axis: Refugees, Immigration and the Agenda to Erase America, “Hatched by the U.N. and the American Left, the resettlement agenda is dedicated to erasing our culture, traditions and laws, and creating a compliant, welfare-dependent multicultural society with no understanding of America’s constitutional framework and no interest in assimilation. The ultimate target is a voting base large enough for the Left’s long-sought `permanent progressive majority.’”

Can you imagine a President Trump abiding this travesty for even five minutes? Me neither.

We the People are also looking for someone who supports our military instead of eviscerating it, and who will conquer – yes, defeat, slaughter, wipe out – our enemies! In his announcement, Mr. Trump expressed outrage at the shabby treatment veterans receive, and he gave full voice to his support for those who defend our country, too often at cost of their lives.

To quote just about everyone from Brooklyn: “You have a problem with that?”

Apparently the Wills and Krauthammers and their Democrat counterparts do have a problem with the kind of straight talk Donald Trump specializes in, they who parse and measure and mince every word to avoid stepping on the oh-so-sensitive toes of the hot-house-flower, career-victim class that has flourished under Barack Obama and the politically-correct world he and his cronies inhabit.

One of these sages sneeringly predicted that the Trump brouhaha would last but a 24-hour news cycle, which is another testimony to the general cluelessness of “The Celebrity Apprentice” host’s critics. According to Geoff Earle of the NY Post, Trump is crushing the social media scene, with Facebook reporting that within 24 hours after tossing his hat in the ring, “3.4 million people shared information about Trump 6.4 million times,” making him tops among all Republican contenders.” Trump was also “the most searched GOPer in every state the day of his announcement, and his `search interest’—percentage of national queries for the hour after he announced—was 87 percent.”

This is really no surprise. After seven years of hearing its “leader” badmouth America, watch unemployment numbers escalate from about five percent under President Bush to over 15 percent and 20 percent (of unemployed and under-employed), and witness race relations devolve precipitously, most citizens greeted  the latest Gallup poll––which reported that Americans have little confidence in most of their major institutions including Congress, the presidency, the Supreme Court, banks and organized religion––with rueful recognition. Only the military and small businesses inspired confidence.

No wonder Trump’s announcement was greeted with such enthusiasm. At last, America seemed to be saying, someone with optimism, with concrete ideas how to improve things, with contempt for those who tiptoe around saying what they think, and who truly embodies American exceptionalism!

Of course, generally unfunny “comedians” like Jon Stewart are relishing a Trump run because they think laughing at conservatives is good for business. The only problem is that their ratings don’t reflect that fantasy.

Trump is a candidate who has made billions by seeing things clearly, negotiating with clarity and power, and establishing a lengthy and formidable track record in getting things done. Here is a candidate whose beautiful, educated, productive, philanthropic, accomplished, contributory, compassionate and respectful large family –– including former wives –– gives testimony to the character of the man.

Meanwhile, Trump is saying everything Americans have been thinking and feeling for the past seven years. On foreign policy, my friend Cherie, an editor on the West Coast, is confident that when it comes to our enemies, Trump will “give ‘em hell, Harry” like Democrat President Harry Truman and General George Patton gave our enemies in World War II, i.e., defeating them decisively! Cherie also had advice for The Donald about his cabinet:

  • Business mogul Carly Fiorina for his VP running mate
  • Texas Senator Ted Cruz for Attorney General
  • Ben Carson for Surgeon General
  • Utah Congresswoman Mia Love for the Department of Homeland Security
  • Governor Scott Walker either for the Department of Commerce or to figure out which departments to cut altogether, like the IRS!

Then, Cherie suggests, President Trump should immediately announce that he is re-activating all of the many top brass that Barack Obama so foolishly (or malevolently) fired from our military, promoting each one of them and reorganizing our entire command structure, ditto for West Point, Annapolis, and our Air Force Academy!

And while he’s at it, he can right the vindictive wrong that was done to Dr. Terry Lakin, a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army, flight surgeon to the 4th Cavalry Regiment, recipient of the Bronze Star Medal, and patriot who had deployed six times prior to his court martial, dismissal from the service, jail time, and loss of his medical license.

I have thought for decades that the massive corporation known as America should be run by a businessman. That is why we also need a president who cherishes, as Trump does, the free-market system, the power of capitalism to “lift all boats,” the foundational values of a democratic republic, a leader who will embrace our allies instead of our genuflecting before our enemies, and who will restore our bedrock relationship with Israel, the only democratic nation in the Middle East.

While I personally believe that Mr. Trump was dead wrong on chastising the heroic Pamela Geller for sponsoring a respectful Draw Mohammed cartoon contest in Texas – for which she became the target of Islamic assassins ––I suspect that candidate Trump, himself a target of the anti-free-speech Nazis on the left, will reverse himself in defending not only his own right to speak his mind, but every American’s right to do the same, including Pamela Geller’s! Today, the alternative, as Geller spells out in detail in her books––here, here, and here–– is Sharia Law in America, complete with mandatory clitoridectomies, death to gays, and “honor” killings, among other lovely tenets of the “religion of peace.”

As for me, I have to admit I’m enjoying immensely the degree to which candidate Trump is driving both the impoverished left and the namby-pamby right clinically insane!

New Concerned American Voters Super PAC Launched to Support Rand Paul for President

/in , , /by

WASHINGTON, PRNewswire/ — Concerned American Voters, a political action committee supporting Sen. Rand Paul’s campaign for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, launched today with millions of dollars committed and 40 full-time field staff in the key primary state of Iowa, President Jeff Frazeeand Senior Advisor Matt Kibbe announced.

“Once in a while, you discover a presidential candidate who has the potential to change the political conversation, to elevate key issues in voters’ minds, and disrupt and transform a tired Republican brand,” said Kibbe. “Once in a lifetime, maybe, you will have an opportunity to support a transformative candidate who can do all of these things, and win. Rand Paul is that candidate.”

Kibbe is the former president and founder of FreedomWorks, a national community-building and grassroots advocacy organization of more than 6 million Americans who are passionate about promoting free markets and individual liberty. Frazee is executive director of Young Americans for Liberty and previously served as the national youth coordinator for Ron Paul’s 2008 presidential campaign committee.

Concerned American Voters launches with millions of dollars in funding pledged so far.

Concerned American Voters is building campaign infrastructure by organizing Rand Paul supporters nationwide and in key primary states, including Iowa, where it has 40 full-time field staffers and has already knocked on the doors of more than 60,000 voters. The latest Washington Post/ABC News poll shows Rand Paul tied for the lead among Republican voters nationwide. Polls consistently show he is the Republican most competitive against Hillary Clinton, with independents breaking 45 percent to 37 percent for Rand in a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.

“Our strategy to elect Rand Paul will maximize the potential of the new rules of politics, which are shifting power away from political insiders and establishment favorites, towards more authentic candidates willing to reach directly to voters,” said Frazee, Concerned American Voters campaign director. “By focusing on grassroots organization, e-marketing and proven Get Out The Vote tactics, Concerned American Voters will give Rand the edge he needs to win the Republican nomination and the general election.”

Frazee added, “The Internet cuts out middlemen, party bosses, lobbyists and bundlers looking for a quid pro quo. This is the dynamic that allowed then-Senate candidate Rand Paul to beat Mitch McConnell’s hand-picked successor in Kentucky in 2010. It’s why Senator Mike Lee was able to defeat 18-year incumbent Republican Senator Robert Bennett in Utah that same year. And it’s how Rand Paul will win the White House in 2016.”

Concerned American Voters has recruited a proven team of professionals who have successfully organized grassroots activists for both the ideas of, and the candidates for, liberty – on the ground and through sophisticated social media targeting online – for years. In addition to Frazee and Kibbe, Concerned American Voters’ leadership group includes Senior Development Advisor Terry Kibbe, who brings 18 years of experiences as a fundraiser for various nonprofit and political causes; Chief Operating Officer Edward King, the former national youth director for Ron Paul’s 2012 presidential campaign; Senior Tech Advisor Steve Oskoui, the founder of Austin-based Internet advertising network Smiley Media; Senior Data Architect Mike Topalovich, the founder of cloud-focused technical and business process expert collective Delivered Innovation; and Senior Tech Strategist Martin Avila, the co-founder of political technology firm Terra Eclipse.

For more information on Concerned American Voters, visit ConcernedAmericanVoters.com.

No Labels Leaders Descend on Capitol Hill to Tout National Strategic Agenda

/in , , /by

WASHINGTON, PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — No Labels leaders participated in a series of signature events on and around Capitol Hill, on Wednesday, to make the case for its National Strategic Agenda as a transformational idea that can help unite the country, shape the 2016 electoral debate and provide a proven framework for problem solving in the first 100 days of the next administration.

A day that began with former Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT), former Governor Jon Huntsman (R-UT) and other No Labels leaders testifying before the Senate Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee continued with a series of media briefings and training events for No Labels activists from across the country.

“We always hear political leaders talk about their desire to unite the country, but lately, there has been no plan for how to actually do it. The National Strategic Agenda is the how,” said No Labels National Co-Chairman Jon Huntsman. “As today’s events make clear, legions of people inside and outside Washington are recognizing that this simple and powerful concept can break the gridlock that has afflicted our government for far too long.”

“The National Strategic Agenda is based on a simple premise: To solve a problem – any problem – you need to set goals, get people to buy into those goals and put a process or plan in place to achieve them,” added No Labels National Co-Chairman Joe Lieberman. “This is the way any well-oiled organization runs. It’s the only way anything big in Washington has ever gotten done. And it is why the National Strategic Agenda is an idea whose time has come.”

At the Senate hearing, Lieberman, along with Huntsman, Co-Chair of the Loews Corporation Andrew Tisch and Merchants Metals CEO Andrea Hogan explained the urgency for a new National Strategic Agenda and painted an ambitious vision for how it could be implemented. This would include the next president, soon after inauguration, inviting leaders of both parties to Camp David to commence work on at least one of the four goals in No Labels’ National Strategic Agenda. These goals, which were chosen with input from the American people in a series of national polls No Labels conducted in 2014, are:

  • Create 25 million new jobs over the next 10 years;
  • Secure Medicare and Social Security for another 75 years;
  • Balance the federal budget by 2030; and
  • Make American energy secure by 2024.

A No Labels-backed resolution calling for a National Strategic Agenda based on these four goals (S. Res. 199) was introduced in the U.S. Senate on June 11th by Senators Bill Nelson (D-FL) and John Thune (R-SD). A companion resolution (H. Res.207) has been introduced in the House by U.S. Representatives Tom Reed (R-NY) and Ami Bera (D-CA), along with more than 50 co-sponsors from both parties.

Tisch and Hogan compared their experience in the private sector to the challenges facing the American government.

Said Tisch: “In business, as in government, the road to success is not so different. The first step is to identify a problem or an opportunity. The second step is to figure out how to solve that problem or seize that opportunity. Then, a goal is set that identifies the metrics and the timeline for success. And you hold your team accountable for meeting that goal. That’s how we succeed in our business. That’s how our government has succeeded in the past, whether it was winning a World War or sending a man to the moon.”

Hogan said she knew of “no business that can succeed long-term without a clear vision of what success looks like – a shared, goal-driven agenda of strategic imperatives – and a defined set of tactics aimed at achieving the organization’s goals.” She went on to marvel at the fact that in “the largest ‘enterprise’ in the world, the United States of America – all $17 trillion of it in economic output terms – operates precisely this way today.”

“We can’t allow this to be the case anymore,” Hogan concluded.

After the hearing, more than 100 No Labels citizen activists gathered for a No Labels luncheon that included media training while the No Labels’ leadership team hosted about 50 national political reporters at a luncheon nearby.

No Labels is running what it calls a “presidential campaign without a candidate” in New Hampshire and will convene the first-ever Problem Solver Convention in Manchester on October 12th, which is designed to attract independent voters and a number of leading presidential candidates from both parties.

“The next president will be a problem solver because the people will demand it,” said No Labels Executive Director Margaret Kimbrell. “Thanks to our extensive ground operation in New Hampshire, every presidential candidate will have to have a position on the National Strategic Agenda. And we’re confident that candidates will see that this idea is good for them and most important of all, good for our country.”

As further evidence that No Labels and the National Strategic Agenda is gaining currency among prominent political leaders in Washington and beyond, co-chairs Huntsman and Lieberman, as along with vice-chairs Al Cardenas and Mack McLarty, welcomed former U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), former U.S. House Majority Leader Representative Dick Gephardt (D-MO), former Governor John Engler (R-MI), former U.S. Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN), former U.S. Representative Tom Davis (R-VA), former U.S. Representative Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) and Retired U.S. Navy Admiral Dennis Blair to the No Labels Advisory Board.

ABOUT NO LABELS

No Labels is a national movement of Democrats, Republicans and Independents dedicated to a new politics of problem solving. With a network of hundreds of thousands of citizens and local leaders across America and more than 70 allies in the U.S. Congress, No Labels has proposed reform ideas that have been introduced with support across the aisle, passed by Congress, and signed into law, including No Budget, No Pay. Find out more at www.nolabels.org.

A Behind the Scenes Look at the Republican Candidates

/in , , /by

Join The United West team as they show an excellent analysis of the current crop of Republican Presidential candidates presented by Orlando attorney, John Stemberger.

Stemberger evaluates each Republican Presidential hopeful by examining their pros & cons and then reveals the rich benefactors behind each candidate and how that money may help or hurt them.

This is very interesting and necessary information to know in order to intelligently vote on November 8, 2016.

American Exceptionalism: The Defining Question for Presidential Candidates

/in , , /by

The most important question we can ask our presidential candidates in this rapidly approaching primary season is for their definition of American Exceptionalism. After six-plus years of an administration that has apologized for America, demoralized our American military, destroyed our status on the international stage, attacked America’s unparalleled entrepreneurial vigor, and assaulted our future path to prosperity, I’ve had enough. My daughters deserve better, your children deserve better, and the many men and women who sacrificed and died for the ideas our flag represents deserve better.

We are an exceptional nation, and Americans are an exceptional people, and we should never make any apologies for that. We are not only the economic breadbasket of the world, and the innovative idea factory of the world, but we are a beacon of freedom for other nations to follow. Yes, we’ve fallen short at times, but we’ve always gotten back up and emerged stronger.

We were born of a revolution where the odds of being victorious were incalculable. We conquered the scourge of slavery. We sent our fighting men and women to foreign shores to conquer fascism and communism. And we measure our national valor not by the conquered land we’ve acquired, but by the land we’ve returned to people we’ve set free from the shackles of tyranny in exchange for the blood of our sons and daughters. Our commitment to liberty and freedom as gifted by God, not man, is unique and has no equal on the world stage either now, or historically. Reagan recognized this, JFK recognized this, our military men and women recognize this and, most importantly, the overwhelming majority of Americans recognize this.

It’s time for an American renaissance. We’ve been through the economic travails and the international Barack Obama American apology tour and it’s time for an American president who will boldly stand, both at home and abroad, for a reinvigorated and vibrant American spirit, which shines brightly on the global stage. Our next president must passionately fight back against the idea that the United States of America can happily enter into an era of “managed decline.” I will be no part of any “managed decline” and our next President should reaffirm that an exceptional America will never decline, managed or otherwise, in this lifetime or in the lifetimes of the American sons and daughters to follow.

While I’ll be intensely focused on all of the candidate’s responses to questions on taxes, spending and the other important issues of our time, it’s their answers as to what makes America exceptional that will tell me if they can right America’s course. I ask you to join me in this mission to challenge our candidates for president, and everywhere else at the state and local levels, and to ask our future leaders what makes America exceptional. It’s not a gotcha question and I’m not looking for a candidate who can wax poetic in their response. I am looking for a candidate who can firmly, passionately and vigorously defend the axiom that this nation has been touched by the hand of God and has no equal, and that it’s not who we’ve been willing to fight with that has made us exceptional, but what we have been willing to fight for.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Conservative Review. The featured image of Rick Santorum is by Tom Williams | AP Photo.

New Poll of Registered Voters Age 65+ Reveals Surprising Views

/in , /by

WASHINGTON, June 11, 2015 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — A Bring The Vote Home survey of nearly 4,000 registered voters age 65 and older found that senior citizens are a politically aware group with strong feelings on a variety of policy and political issues.  The Bring The Vote Home survey is noteworthy in that it specifically seeks to determine the political viewpoints and concerns of American seniors who are registered voters.

The results revealed that senior voters lean towards the GOP especially when Hillary Clinton is the nominee. When asked about potential Presidential candidates, respondents favored Scott Walker (45%) over Hillary Clinton (36%), and Jeb Bush (44%) over Hillary Clinton (41%).  In addition, the survey found that 44 percent of senior voters would support a Republican candidate if the 2016 Congressional elections were held today, while only 35 percent of seniors would vote for a Democratic candidate.

The survey also asked seniors about a variety of policy areas and found that foreign affairs is a topline issue for senior voters.  When asked about the Islamic state known as ISIS, immigration reform, health care, federal deficit, jobs and unemployment, and climate change, thirty-one percent of senior voters chose ISIS as the most important issue facing the country right now, followed by jobs and unemployment (18%). Senior voters were least concerned with climate change, with only five percent of voters citing this as the most pressing issue in America.

Other key findings from the survey include:

  • A majority of seniors on both sides of the aisle (53% of Democrats, 67% of Independents, and 71% of Republicans) are in favor of Congress voting on any agreement that President Obama makes with Iranconcerning its nuclear program.
  • Thirty-six percent of women and one-in-four men chose ISIS as the most important issue facing the country.
  • Urban seniors are more likely to vote for a Democratic Congressional candidate (DEM: 50%, GOP: 46%), while suburban (DEM: 31%, GOP: 46%) and rural seniors (DEM: 28%, GOP: 52%) are more likely to vote Republican.

“This Bring The Vote Home survey provides an important measure of senior Americans’ views as we approach the upcoming election,” stated Eric Berger, CEO of the Partnership for Quality Home Healthcare. “Bring the Vote Home is also making important strides in empowering seniors across the country to register and, if needed, obtain absentee ballots so that their voices will be heard on Election Day.”

The survey questions were conducted as part of a Morning Consult Poll from April 27 to May 5 and June 5 to June 8, 2015. The poll surveyed 3,904 registered voters, age 65 and older, and has a margin error of two percentage points.

To view the National Seniors Poll Charts, click here.

To read the National Seniors Poll Results Memo, click here.

ABOUT BRING THE VOTE HOME

Bring The Vote Home was launched to help senior citizens, disabled Americans, their family members, and their home healthcare clinicians participate in the electoral process. Home healthcare beneficiaries make up a rapidly growing portion of the population, but the homebound status of many of them makes it difficult for them to travel to polling places. Through its voter and absentee ballot registration process, Bring The Vote Home is dedicated to helping all members of the home healthcare community participate fully in our nation’s democratic process. To learn more, visit http://bringthevotehome.org.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of Bloomberg Business photograph by Ralf-Finn Hestoft/Corbis.

Poll Finds No Clear GOP Front-runner Yet

/in , , , /by

PITTSBURGH, PRNewswire/ — Republican voters remain divided over which candidate they prefer in the 2016 presidential race, with three polling over 10 percent and four others close behind, according to a nationwide poll by the Robert Morris University Polling Institute Powered by Trib Total Media.

The poll showed former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (15.4 percent), Florida U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio (14.6 percent) and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (13.8 percent) contending to lead a crowded field. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (7.5 percent), former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (7.5 percent), Texas U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (7.1 percent) and Dr. Ben Carson (6.7 percent) — polled within 10 points of the leader.

“The big loser in this poll is Rand Paul, who only received 2.0 percent of the Republicans surveyed,” said RMU political scientist Philip Harold.

Among Democrats polled, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (55.8 percent) held what would seem to be an insurmountable lead over Vice President Joe Biden (8.0 percent), Vermont U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (4.8 percent) and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (2.9 percent). The poll was completed before former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley announced he would seek the Democratic nomination, but he nonetheless registered support at 0.6 percent.

METHODOLOGY: The poll sampled opinions of 1,003 adults approximately proportional to state population contribution nationwide. The survey was conducted May 8-16, 2015 using an online survey instrument. The poll has a +/- 3.0 percent margin of error at a 95 percent confidence level on a composite basis.

ABOUT ROBERT MORRIS UNIVERSITY: 

Through 60 undergraduate and 20 graduate degree programs across five academic schools, Robert Morris University (RMU) in Pittsburgh, Pa., works to change its students’ lives so that they can go out and change the lives of others for the better. More than 5,000 undergraduate and graduate, nontraditional and online students from 47 states and 39 nations are enrolled at RMU, just 20 minutes from downtown Pittsburgh. Learn more at rmu.edu.

ABOUT TRIB TOTAL MEDIA

Trib Total Media is a multimedia network of daily and weekly newspapers, weekly shoppers, and websites delivering news, information and advertising to over 1.2 million readers across Western Pennsylvania every week. Trib Total Media also provides targeted direct mail, commercial printing and promotional item services. Visit us online at tribtotalmedia.com.