Posts

Tell Me Who You Are and I Will Tell You What Is At Stake For You

“The more people chant about their freedom and how free they are, the more loudly I hear their chains rattling” – GEORGE ORWELL

ARE YOU A MAN?

If you are a man, your entire being, the appreciation of it, and the idea of your importance are at stake. Hillary takes any opportunity she can to eviscerate and emasculate men. I mean, we shouldn’t blame her, look who she married. Nonetheless, under a Hillary administration, affirmative action will be set up to target men. She will, without a doubt, come after you with a vengeance. Do not be surprised if men began to abandon their country in response to the persecution that she will unleash upon you for nothing else other than your gender. A globalist president would seek out to emasculate the country as a way to bring us down a notch, or two, or three in order to put us on an even playing field rather than the rest of the world, so why not begin with the men at home?

With Hillary, we will live in a nation that will have gone from “no means no” to even “yes means no” and every man guilty of having consensual sex with a woman will also potentially be guilty of rape as well for no other reason than that he is a man and men are rapists in Hillary’s America. Think I am being dramatic? Don’t risk it. This election has come down to self-defense and preservation of your rights and treatment as a man; do not let go of that just because society has been programmed to make you feel bad about it. Fight for yourselves. Take this country back. As a man, to cast a vote for her would be to vote to wage a war against yourself.

ARE YOU A WOMAN?

If you are a woman, you are a pawn to Hillary in her game of lies and deceit. She is using you. She is using you because you’re the easier target against her opponent. Although she wants you to think that you need her, she would be nothing without her ability to manipulate your support. She knows that Obama was the race president and she wants, very desperately, to be the gender president. Compare race relations and what is happening to the African-American population under Barack “The Race President Obama. Look at the beginning of Obama’s time in office to now, do you want to see the same thing happen to you as a woman just because Hillary wants to use you as a platform?

She wants to go down in history and a feminist trailblazer at any cost; even if that means women have to pay the price without even realizing it. She wants you to think that abortion is liberation, that the “wage gap” is strictly due to sexism, and that you’re a walking victim no matter where you go or what you do—which immediately puts you at a disadvantage at all times. How can you say you are empowering someone if you are always making that person the victim? Think about it.

ARE YOU AFRICAN-AMERICAN?

If you are an African-American, let me ask you, what do you have to lose? I mean that in the most respectful way possible but really, what has the current administration done or has Hillary promised to help heal the race relations in this country? Hillary Clinton has expressed her profound admiration for Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. Sanger was a leader in the eugenics movement in which she promoted the reduction of sexual reproduction and the sterilization of those individuals that she believed had “undesirable traits”. She fervently, yet discreetly, worked to place most of her clinics in primarily African-American neighborhoods. She undoubtedly believed in white supremacy and once wrote, “It is said that the aboriginal Australian, the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development, has so little sexual control that police authority alone prevents him from obtaining sexual satisfaction on the streets.” It is important to know the origins of the people and the things we are supporting before we do so. Planned Parenthood was born out of the idea of white supremacy; do you want to support the candidate who admires the woman responsible for that?

I know that the media has instilled the idea that a white male president couldn’t possibly unify the country, but look what one of color has done in just eight years. People are worried that Donald Trump is going to take us back to a 1960’s America but, racially, we are already there, or at least on our way there, aren’t we? Agitating this race war is getting African-American people killed in the streets on what seems to be a daily basis.

Donald Trump has not only promised to work to heal the unruly situation between cops and the African-American community, but all crime against blacks—including black on black crime, which is the number one killer of black people in the united states. If black lives matter then they have to matter all across the board, not just the black lives taken by different races, but the black lives taken. Period. We can all agree that race relations in this country need to be healed, but protests and violence are not the ways to do it.

You are being crippled by the welfare state, making it possible for fathers to be taken out of your homes, for providers to be essentially useless and replaced by the government so that you’re forced to depend upon them rather than yourselves—the opposite of empowerment. FDR once said, about welfare, “The lessons of history, confirmed by evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence on relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber.  To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit.  It is inimical to the dictates of sound policy.  It is a violation of the traditions of America.” Donald Trump wants to take you off the narcotic that is welfare and has said repeatedly that he will work tirelessly to bring jobs to the inner cities as well as give you and your children the option to go to the best schools in the area you live.

Vote to heal this country, vote for unity.

ARE YOU A LEGAL IMMIGRANT?

I may be preaching to the choir here because you know what it means to abide by the laws and to work for what you get, but voting for Hillary means voting for open borders. Voting to open the borders and flooding the country with immigrants just invalidates the work and dedication that it took you to become a proud citizen of this country. It also makes it extremely difficult for you and your fellow immigrants to assimilate into the America you have a right live in.

ARE YOU A HOMOSEXUAL, BISEXUAL, OR TRANSGENDER?

Let’s face it; the LGBT community has been told, for much too long, that they had to vote democrat for in order to vote for equality. Things are different for you in this election. You are now in a post-Marriage Equality era, which means you no longer need to feel pressed to vote for all of the other damaging policies that fall under the umbrella of the liberal “equality” train. There are so many more important issues facing you today and there is a lot at stake for you in what may come next. You fought so hard for you rights but you can’t have rights if you don’t have a life. Hillary wants to bring in 550% more unvetted Muslim refugees into this country. Many of who are practicing a 9th century form of Islam that believes homosexuality is a sin. However, this is different than the Christian belief that homosexuality is a sin. What you have to remember with the Islamic faith is that it is not only a set of beliefs and teaching, it is a legal system as well. What does that mean? It means that, under their legal system of Sharia Law, it goes from a sin to a crime.

Now, let me preface what I am about to say by saying, I do not think all Muslims engage in the type of Islamic practice I am about to describe. There is such a thing as a moderate Muslim, one who follows a civilized form of their faith. However, there are many Muslims who don’t follow a civilized form, but a radical one. This is why Donald Trump has called for extreme vetting of refugees in order to keep us safe as well as protect law abiding Muslims in this country. With that being said, as a homosexual, bisexual, or transgender you need to understand that those who believe in the most extreme teachings of their Islamic faith believe that you should be thrown from rooftops, stoned, or even have “a wall toppled upon you as an evil-doer” according to the teachings of Abu Bakr.

Remember, just because the LGBT community has primarily voted democrat doesn’t mean that you can’t be the change in this election. Do not be shackled by the past. Embrace the candidate whose first priority is national security in order to preserve your safety to preserve your rights—your future depends on it.

ARE YOU A POLICE OFFICER?

Just for fun, I decided to Google “Cops for Clinton” and “Cops for Trump” and not surprisingly, I found nothing for the former and plenty for the latter. Maybe I am, again, preaching to the choir but humor me for a moment. Voting for Hillary will continue the disarmament of you and your fellow brothers and sisters in blue. If you value your lives and your jobs, do not give the most powerful position this country has to offer to a woman who has repeatedly vilified you for nothing more than doing your job. Recently, in Chicago, a female officer responded to a call for a car crash when she was savagely and ferociously beaten by a man under the influence of drugs, yet refused to use her weapon for fear of public backlash. This is a direct result of the war that the Obama administration has waged against police officers in America—the same war Hillary Clinton has begun to fight and will continue to fight if she wins on November 8th. Vote to protect yourself and your brothers and sisters.

ARE YOU IN THE MILITARY?

If you are in the military, most likely you, more than anyone else, do not wish to go into World War III. You probably understand, better than anyone else, that over the last eight years, our military has been depleted and weakened. Putting the Benghazi situation aside, it is as simple as voting for war or voting for peace.

Hillary Clinton’s gross inaction as Secretary of State should be enough to disqualify her for the presidency altogether but since there can be no way you haven’t already thought of that, think of this: Do you want war? Or do you want peace? It’s as simple as that. Donald Trump, on Monday, said he would meet with Vladimir Putin as soon as November if he were to be elected. This shows leadership that would be unfathomable to the Clinton campaign. She relentlessly insults Putin and is salivating at the thought of sending you and your comrades off to war. We are not ready for a nuclear war with Russia, nor do we want that. You get to decide who will command you and who will fight for you rather than who will only ask you to fight for her. What will you choose?

ARE YOU A STUDENT?

Are you a college student working hard to educate yourself and acquire an education that will better your future? What if I told you that soon, there would be students who don’t have to work for what you are working to give yourself? What if I told you that the free tuition that Hillary Clinton is promising would nullify the degree you’re working towards? How would that make you feel?

Everything you have worked for or are working toward will be much nearly useless if it’s handed out like candy under another Clinton administration. Vote to preserve the work you’ve put in and the pride that comes with knowing that you created that opportunity for yourself out of hard work and dedication.

ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN?

Christian values are traditional values. Although Donald Trump has had a rocky past as far as marriage goes, the man he is now represents traditional values. He will fight for religious liberty rather than persecution of the values we’ve held tight to since the birth of the nation. Hillary Clinton has proven herself to be a lying, murderous thief who has no respect for the sanctity of life. She ridicules Trump for denying that global warming is a problem, citing that he must not understand science. How could a woman who denies that there is life inside the womb, according to science, claim superiority in the subject?

If you vote for nothing else but this one issue, you still have at least done your job as a Christian to fight for the unborn and the right, that every human shares, to life.

ARE YOU A LAW ABIDING CITIZEN?

If you are a law aiding citizen, you not only value the law but you respect it as well. If you elect the criminal that is Hillary Clinton, you are sending a message. You are sending a message that not only are you okay with her previous crimes but that no matter what she does as president, you condone. If she commits criminal acts as the commander-in-cheif, you will have no ground to stand on in opposing her. You’ll have known who she is and, even worse, you’ll have put the power in her hands to commit these crimes. She has been a criminal her entire life. Lying, cheating, stealing, and murder have been instrumental in getting her where she is today. Just this week, we found out that officials under her in the State Department attempted to bribe FBI agents to unlawfully change documents AFTER they had been subpoenaed and accumulated as evidence in a criminal investigation.

In the legal system, legal precedent is a legal case or incident that establishes a rule. That rule is later taken in other cases to determine the case at hand with similar issues or actions. If we let Hillary Clinton’s past crimes go unpunished, it will set the precedence of the Clinton administration if she is elected.

Hillary Clinton, herself, has been repeating the words, “America is great, because America is good.” Well folks, Hillary Clinton is not good. She doesn’t do good, she doesn’t represent goodness, nor have her actions shown any interest in the common good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.

Vote for goodness. Vote for greatness. Vote for America.

Reflecting on Our Efforts Campaigning for Cruz Thus Far

Mary and I flew into Orlando, Florida this evening after ten intense days of campaigning for Ted Cruz in Wisconsin. A shuttle took us to our car at the park-and-go near the airport. We made the hour long drive home to Deltona. The pet/house sitter vacated earlier. I was greeted by Sammy our greyhound upon entering our front door. I loved on him a bit, petting him while talking to him; his tail wagged like crazy. It is good to be home.

After settling in, I poured myself a diet soda, put on soft music, lit a candle, sat on the soda, propped my feet up on the coffee-table and reflected on the Cruz campaign and our efforts thus far to help him secure the GOP presidential nomination.

Our Conservative Campaign Committee team of which I am chairman have followed the Cruz campaign state-to-state, independently providing boots-on-the-ground, implementing various get-out-the-vote-for-Cruz initiatives. We endorsed Cruz early in the campaign season. We had a banner made which reads, “Ted Cruz: Conservative Hero.” We have displayed that banner at Cruz rallies and on busy street corners in numerous cities in practically every state primary and caucus.

For me to list all the spectacular moments on the campaign trail would make for a very long article. However, for some reason, a memory of Cruz’s wife Heidi sticks out in my brain. It kind of epitomizes the tone/vibe of the Cruz campaign that our CCC team has witnessed state-to-state.

Ted Cruz Heidi NC Rally (1)

Heidi Cruz at North Carolina rally.

It was a small event, about 150 people, in Fayetteville North Carolina. Ted was not there. Heidi was the keynote speaker. One of the points Heidi made is Ted is so relaxed and unstressed on the campaign trail. At the end of the event, our team met Heidi. She thanked us for our efforts and posed for a picture in front of our banner.

Our team was piled in the SUV leaving the event. I saw Heidi and her staffers casually walking to their cars. Heidi had a big smile on her face, chatting with people, seemingly without a care in the world. Her demeanor and body language spoke to me in a way I can not explain. Ted and Heidi are “for real” folks. What you see is what you get. I believe and trust them.

Another incident that is not particularly political stands out. It was the “Women for Cruz” event in Madison Wisconsin which featured a panel discussion with Carly Fiorina, Heidi, Ted and his mom Eleanor. Eleanor was extremely frail. It took a couple of security personnel to help her onto the stage. Frankly, Eleanor reminded me of my late mom and most moms of her generation. Eleanor said to keep Ted out of trouble as a child, she nurtured his interests. Ted loved and memorized the Constitution. Eleanor drove Ted to numerous group meetings where he recited the Constitution, impressing adults with his talent for public speaking.

Again, I felt a genuineness in the way Eleanor, Heidi and Ted expressed their love and admiration for each other; inspiring and quite moving. I whispered to a CCC team member, “If their responses are scripted, Ted, Heidi and Eleanor deserve Academy Awards.” The Cruz family are plain old-fashion good people folks.

Cruz winning Wisconsin was particularly thrilling. Our CCC team was boots-on-the-ground, but it took grassroots support from patriots across America to propel Cruz to victory. Thanks patriots. I love it when we work together to get-r-done!

Three weeks before the Wisconsin election, pundits and the mainstream media counted Cruz out, claiming Wisconsin was “a perfect state for Donald Trump.” Immediately on the heels of Cruz’s huge win in Wisconsin, 1.3 million patriots across America made $10, $25 and $50 donations to Cruz’s campaign; raising over $2 million in one day

Clearly, a shift towards Cruz is underway. In keeping with the old saying, the cream really does rise to the top. I long suspected that Cruz would emerge as the obvious best GOP presidential candidate once the field narrowed down to a two man race. Yes, I realize what’s his name, the third guy, is still in the race.

Recent polling confirms that Cruz can beat Hillary in the general. The swiftly growing Cruz-mania has given me new hope regarding the character and soul of my country. Mainstream media, Democrats and the Left have convinced the GOP establishment and many Americans that we are now a Leftist country. The Left’s bogus narrative is a majority of Americans are repulsed by Cruz’s brand of Conservatism rooted in traditional principles and values which have made America great and exceptional.

The truth is as more Americans have an opportunity to hear Cruz’s common sense, unfiltered, optimistic and unifying articulation of Conservatism, it connects with their inner spirit. They instinctively know Cruz’s Conservatism is best for all Americans. Americans are also beginning to realize that Ted Cruz is the only candidate they can trust to reverse Obama’s messes.

After a few days of r and r, Mary and I will rejoin our Conservative Campaign Committee team on the campaign trail for Cruz. Thanks again for all your hard work. God bless!

1 in 3 Americans Say Donald Trump Is the No. 1 Presidential Candidate for Their Money

LA86996LOGOLOS ANGELES, CA /PRNewswire/ — In anticipation of the upcoming presidential primaries for the 2016 presidential election, leading personal finance website GOBankingRates.com surveyed nearly 8,000 Americans to find out which candidate they think will be best for their money.  Although Donald Trump was the top pick overall from those surveyed, nearly 50 percent of millennials ages 18 to 24 said Bernie Sanders’policies would be best for them financially.

The survey posed the question, “Which presidential candidate would be best for you financially?” and is representative of the U.S. online population with a margin of error of 3 percent.

Respondents’ Answer Choices:

  • Donald Trump — 29%
  • Bernie Sanders — 26%
  • Hillary Clinton — 20%
  • Ted Cruz — 9%
  • Marco Rubio — 8%
  • Ben Carson — 8%

325674

Of those surveyed, 37 percent of the respondents answered “none of the above,” indicating that their favorite candidate was not listed or that they had not yet decided. The percentages listed above were taken from the remaining population of respondents.

See the full survey findings here.

“The economy is growing, but many Americans are still dissatisfied with slow-growing wages, high taxes or other fiscal policies that affect their bank accounts,” said Elyssa Kirkham, the GOBankingRates finance writer on the study.

“In the 2016 election, voters should be looking for a candidate who can help them build greater financial security as individuals, families and communities,” Kirkham said. “But opinions on the best way to do this are very divided, and this survey shows that many candidates are offering solutions that voters find favorable.”

Additional Findings:

  • 49 percent of millennial voters (ages 18 to 24) say that Sanders would be best for them financially, most likely because he supports free college and a $15 minimum wage.
  • Two-thirds of adults age 65 and older chose either Clinton or Trump as the candidate who would be best for them financially. Those two candidates have said they won’t cut Social Security.
  • For fiscal policy, women favor Democrats, whereas men favor Republicans.

To see which presidential candidate Americans in your state think is best for their money here.

Methodology: Through a Google Consumer Survey, GOBankingRates surveyed 7,728 respondents online from Dec. 10-16, 2015. The survey posed the question, “Which presidential candidate would be best for you financially if elected?” and offered the following six candidates as options, displayed randomly: (1) Ben Carson, (2) Hillary Clinton, (3) Ted Cruz, (4) Marco Rubio, (5) Bernie Sanders and (6) Donald Trump, along with the option to select “None of the above.” The survey has a margin of error of 3 percent, and answers are representative of the U.S. online population.

About GOBankingRates

GOBankingRates.com is a leading portal for personal finance and consumer banking information, offering visitors the latest on everything from finding a good interest rate to strategies for saving money, investing for retirement and getting a loan. Its editors are regularly featured on top-tier media outlets, including U.S. News & World Report, Forbes, Business Insider, Daily Finance, Huffington Post and more. It specializes in connecting consumers with the best financial institutions and banking products nationwide.

DHS: Quick to investigate Ohio High School Students … Radicalized Muslims not so much

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and four other government agencies, missed identifying the radicalized Muslim couple who were responsible for the slaughter in San Bernardino. That’s the bad news. The good news is that the DHS was quick on the case of a group of Ohio High School Students who created the Killery Clinton political action committee.

Hands off Muslims who migrate to America bent on slaughter, investigate Ohio high school students exercising their First Amendment rights. 

What’s wrong with this picture?

Victor Skinner from EGANews.org reports:

A group of Ohio students who started an anti-Hillary Clinton super PAC in their government class were forced to can their creation after a visit from federal officials.

“We all try to be good students and this is not reflecting positively on us, so I hope you understand,” one of the students wrote in response to Cleveland.com’s request for comment about the super PAC “Killary Clinton.”

killaryclintonThe Pataskala, Ohio junior and two classmates were inspired to launch the PAC after another student, 17-year-old Cory Steer, started his own super PAC called “Better America for Tomorrow” to support Republican presidential hopeful Marco Rubio.

“We thought it was cool so we just talked about it,” one of the students, who were not identified, told the news site.

The students filed their paperwork with the Federal Election Commission Nov. 17 for the PAC “Killary Clinton” because their focus was on criticizing the former Secretary of State.

“We just did it for the heck of it,” the student said.

The teens also set up a Twitter account to get their message out, and their efforts quickly gained attention.

“The Department of Homeland Security, which is the umbrella department over the Secret Service, came to Pataskala and asked questions,” Cleveland.com Washington Bureau Chief Stephen Koff wrote. “Its inquiry seems to have been along the lines of ‘just checking it out,’ although a spokeswoman said the department probably would not be able to answer more specific questions (and has not responded to those questions).”

Koff added that the students’ government teacher and principal both ignored requests to discuss the issue. He alleges the principal also spoke with students and “just wanted to make sure his school and students weren’t doing anything improper.”

Read more.

Immigration and the Presidential Debates — The burning question on voters’ minds

Every day brings America closer to the next presidential election. Every day also brings us closer to the debates in which candidates for America’s highest elected office will be questioned about their goals and visions for the future of our nation.

So many important questions that will need to be answered. Where will the moderators begin?

If the moderators are thoughtful and honest, they will begin by asking questions about that most important topic that plays a vital role in all of the other challenges and threats facing America and Americans today. That singular topic is immigration.

While it is rarely if ever discussed in the mainstream media, immigration is arguably the most impactful component of each and every one of the most important challenges and threats facing America and Americans today.

Those challenges include national security and the war on terror, public safety and crime, the economy, the survival of the middle class and unemployment. Those challenges also include public health and healthcare, education, the environment and the critical infrastructure of our towns and cities.

Immigration has been of extreme importance for a very long time but has been all but ignored until very recently. Had it not been for Donald Trump’s statements about immigration, the issue of criminal aliens and the lack of border security, it is quite likely that immigration would still be off limits in the discussions. Trump’s statements and the tragic and senseless death of Kate Steinle in San Francisco by a criminal alien who had been convicted of seven felonies and deported on 5 previous occasions, pushed immigration into the national consciousness and rattled the cages of the leaders of both political parties who had hoped that no one would raise the issue.

Additionally, the great majority of news organizations had been assiduously ignoring immigration, but has lately found it impossible to not provide coverage about immigration and the issues of “sanctuary cities” and the violence perpetrated by criminal aliens.

Trump’s emergence on the national stage — unfettered by the need to raise campaign contributions and making the decision to be his own man and speak his own mind — continues to resonate with many Americans even as politicians from both parties continue to rely on pollsters to tell them what to say and what not to say. They surround themselves with a small army of advisors and “handlers” and try to operate and speak within the confines of what my good friend and Congressional Representative Lou Barletta accurately refers to as “the box.” Not surprisingly, Trump is connecting with many Americans in a way that the other politicians are not because he operates outside the confines of that “box.” The impact this is having is clear.

Most politicians are expressing greater anger and frustration over Trump’s candor than they are over criminal aliens murdering innocent Americans. Many politicians are also more focused on Trump than they are on the administration that has created anarchy in the immigration system — a system that should serve as America’s first line and last line of defense against international terrorists and transnational criminals.

For decades politicians from both political parties have impugned hardworking Americans by claiming that “immigrants do the work Americans won’t do.” This has become the virtual mantra for both parties. Ask yourself if there are, in fact, any jobs that Americans won’t do?

Even as you read this article American workers are trudging off to work boarding commercial fishing vessels where they engage in the most dangerous job in America. They are trudging off to work in coal mines, heading for constructions sites to build towering office buildings, stores and houses. They are racing to put out dangerous fires threatening the lives and property of total strangers. Our American law enforcement officers on the local, state and federal level are chasing down dangerous armed felons, putting their lives on the line as a matter of routine.

Hardworking Americans who still embody the “can do” spirit that built our country are ready, willing and able to do dangerous, filthy and backbreaking work (and do it better and more productively than anyone else) are being insulted by politicians who were purportedly elected to represent them. What an outrageous betrayal.

Even as you read this, American soldiers, all of whom are volunteers, are engaging in violent combat in some of the most inhospitable hellish conditions imaginable. They see their fellow soldiers suffering grievous injuries or being killed before their very eyes, yet, as the appropriate term says, they continue to soldier on.

We are also being told that Americans lack the education and, apparently, the intelligence to take the high-tech STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) jobs even as Silicon Valley and many other employers fire thousands of American workers who have been working in these careers for many years — yet petition the federal government for more H-1B visas to bring in foreign workers to take these very same jobs.

My June 18, 2015 commentary for FrontPage Magazine, “Theft By Deception: The Immigration Con Game,” included this excerpt:

Today increasing numbers of “STEM” (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) professionals are being laid off and replaced by foreign workers from India and elsewhere. The only thing “exceptional” about these foreign workers is that they will work for exceptionally low wages under exceptionally adverse conditions.

Work helps to define us. Work provides dignity, a sense of purpose, opportunities and income. Virtually every college student who attends college does so with the hope/expectation of a brighter future through a career made possible by acquiring a higher level of education.

When young Americans opt to attend colleges they put off working for years. Upon graduation from those institutions of higher learning, where they invested years of their lives studying conscientiously, they find themselves encumbered by massive debts in the form of student loans. All too often they find that they cannot get jobs in their chosen fields of study, including those who took degrees in the STEM disciplines. For these victims of the crime, their share of the “American Dream” and indeed their futures, have been stolen, their time and money wasted.

Understandably, foreign workers send as much of their earnings back to their families in their home countries whether they are illegal alien day laborers or high-tech workers who were admitted into the United States with H-1B or other such visas which enable them to legally work in the United States. That money provides an important revenue stream to those foreign families and their countries. For Mexico, for example, remittances are believed to represent the second largest source of revenue.

Last year the United States lost well over 125 billion dollars in remittances — money electronically transferred out of the United States by such foreign workers. Money also moves in covert ways as well.

Last year India was the recipient of the greatest amount of remittances any country on this planet received, more than 70 billion dollars. This money was wired home by their workers who are employed in countries around the world- although it is the United States that each year loses the greatest amount of money.

A PhD in economics is not needed to understand that as more Americans are replaced by more foreign workers who will send ever increasing amounts of money out of our economy that the U.S. economy will suffer. When middle class families drop below the poverty line as American workers lose their jobs, they lose their disposable incomes. They stop being tax-payers and become increasingly dependent on costly economic safety net programs. This jacks up our national debt and also hurts the economies of cities and states across the United States. This is completely unsustainable.

Undoubtedly the nation’s struggling economy will be important to the debates because America’s economy is linked to national security as well as not only the well-being of America but for millions of Americans. The middle class is getting hammered as family wages stagnate or even decline. Record numbers of American families now live below the poverty line.

Any politician who claims to oppose Sanctuary Cities but supports in-state tuition for illegal aliens is lying. In-state tuition for illegal aliens creates a powerful and costly magnet that incentivizes and rewards illegal immigration.

Undoubtedly the politicians who are advocates for in-state tuition for illegal aliens will insist that once educated these illegal aliens should be granted Green Cards that will enable them to compete, on an equal standing, with desperate American workers and American students who need good jobs.

Read more.

Hillary Clinton: For Richer or Richer

For an answer to this question, we need to check in with four experts. The first is ‘Rich Hillary Clinton.’ Rich Hillary Clinton, who has been paid more for an hour-long speech than the average median ANNUAL earnings of four American families combined, has stated about her massive wealth, “We pay ordinary income tax, unlike a lot of people who are truly well off, not to name names; and we’ve done it through a dint of hard work.”

Clearly, Rich Hillary Clinton understands that hard work can lead to a prosperous future for those willing to put in the sweat equity, despite the fact that the Clintons consider speaking engagements “hard work” (full disclosure, I have been paid to speak at events and do not consider it “hard work”). Rich Hillary Clinton also believes that she pays her “fair share” of taxes “unlike a lot of other people who are truly well off.”

Rich Hillary Clinton says this despite the fact that, according to Bloomberg News:

Bill and Hillary Clinton have long supported an estate tax to prevent the U.S. from being dominated by inherited wealth. That doesn’t mean they want to pay it. To reduce the tax pinch, the Clintons are using financial planning strategies befitting the top 1 percent of U.S. households in wealth. These moves, common among multimillionaires, will help shield some of their estate from the tax that now tops out at 40 percent of assets upon death.

Countering the assertion that Rich Hillary Clinton is in fact rich is another expert on this topic: Poor Hillary Clinton. Poor Hillary Clinton has stated this about her financial status:

We came out of the White House not only dead broke but in debt.” Poor Hillary Clinton also stated, “We had no money when we got there and we struggled to, you know, piece together the resources for mortgages for houses, for Chelsea’s education, you know, it was not easy.

America should cry for Poor Hillary Clinton. After all, how can we be expected to ignore the desperate pleas for help from a family worth a measly hundred million dollars? I’m wondering if conservatives should band together to create a foundation called the Clinton Foundation to donate to the plight of this struggling American family.

For those still confused about who is in fact considered wealthy and who is not after the Rich Hillary Clinton versus Poor Hillary Clinton debate, our second series of experts on American wealth should be consulted. Rich Alcee Hastings from Florida’s 20th Congressional District earns more in one year than the median income of three average American families combined. Rich Alcee Hastings is so confident about his wealth, and his congressional salary which places him near the top 10% of income earners in the United States, that he feels anyone earning this outrageous sum should pay even more than they do now. In an April 2014 press release, Rich Alcee Hastings stated:

We could end special tax breaks and close tax loopholes available only to the wealthiest Americans. This alone could get us $1 trillion over the next ten years. We could also stop the wealthiest among us from using overseas tax havens to avoid paying their fair share. Along these same lines, let us rid our tax code of ridiculous loopholes like deductions for yachts and the loophole for corporate jets.

Rich Alcee Hastings may not be aware that the top 10% of income earners already pay close to 70% of income taxes, but we’ll forgive him for that because rich people such as him rarely know how much money is missing from their bank accounts.
Tax Share Chart

Painting a starkly different picture is Poor Alcee Hastings. Poor Alcee Hastings was recently quoted complaining about how little money he makes as a hard-working U.S. congressman. Poor Alcee Hastings said Congress is not “being paid properly” and that “Members [of Congress] deserve to be paid, staff deserves to be paid, and the cost of living here is causing serious problems for people who are not wealthy to serve in this institution.” Poor Alcee Hastings has a point here, which Rich Alcee Hastings should consider when deciding who is wealthy and who is not: cost of living and business expenses matter to many Americans who appear wealthy on paper.

Conservatives fight for lower tax rates because, although we understand the importance of taxes to fund the constitutional role of government, we don’t want to pay any more than necessary.

Ok, enough with the satire.

I wrote this piece because sometimes humor is the only way to effectively combat the far Left and its stunning hypocrisy. The hard Left debates themselves with contradictory statements about important issues such as the value of work, fair-share tax rates, income inequality, wealth, the cost of living, and more – all while lecturing us like schoolchildren.

There’s no hypocrisy in basic conservative principles, and that’s why in a world occupied by fallible human beings the default position should be the one that doesn’t contradict itself. Conservatives fight for lower tax rates because, although we understand the importance of taxes to fund the constitutional role of government, we don’t want to pay any more than necessary. Conservatives fight for personal control of healthcare choices because that’s what we want for ourselves. And, we fight for educational choices because that’s what we want for our children. This upcoming presidential election is too important to forfeit because we’re afraid of a good fight. Now is the time to boldly defend conservative principles and shed light on the fact that the hard Left’s “principles” are really nothing more than talking points.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Conservative Review. The featured image is by Elise Amendola | AP Photo. Reprinted with permission.

Republicans and Election Reform

Now that Republicans have working majorities in both houses of Congress, the American people can once again enjoy the benefits of the constitutional republic that the Founders designed for us.  Right?  Well, not so fast.  To expect the current crop of congressional Republicans to do what is necessary to restore constitutional government and repair the damage done by Barack Obama… let alone know what must be done… is entirely problematic.

As a case in point, the recent battle over construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline demonstrates the complete fecklessness of congressional Republicans.  From the instant the last ballot was counted in November, it was clear that one of the first bills to pass in the 114th Congress would be a bill to approve construction of the pipeline… a bill that Barack Obama promised to veto if and when it reached his desk.  Does Obama care about the environment or the leftists who politicize it?  Of course not.  What he does care about are the many millions of dollars that pour into Democrat Party coffers from a handful of radical environmentalists.

What congressional Republicans apparently failed to recognize was the immense political gains to be made if the issue was properly handled.  By developing best estimates of the number of engineers, contractors, welders, heavy equipment operators, truck drivers, and laborers required to complete the project, along with the generous salaries, wages, and benefits that those workers would command, Republicans could have armed themselves with the most potent political weapon they’d ever been blessed to have.  By seeing to it that every Republican in Congress had that information at his/her fingertips, with instructions to repeated it in every radio, TV, and print media interview, and in every public appearance, Republicans could have driven a very large wedge either between the Democrat Party and radical environmentalist, or between Democrats and organized labor.

By signing the pipeline bill Obama would reap the anger of the radical environmentalists and win the approval of organized labor.  Conversely, by vetoing the bill he would win high praise from environmentalists, but organized labor would be angered enough to split the Democrat vote in many national and state elections.  For Republicans, it was a win-win proposition.  However, instead of using that opportunity to their advantage, making a veto override a real possibility, congressional Republicans treated that opportunity as if it were a sexually-transmitted disease.

While Democrats can be counted upon to always play hardball, Republicans seem intent upon playing political softball.  So, if congressional Republicans aren’t smart enough to recognize a political advantage when one falls into their laps, how can we expect them to recognize the political damage to be done if Obama is successful in giving Social Security numbers, drivers licenses, and voter registration cards to millions of illegals, none of whom are eligible to vote?

Even though they are seriously victimized by fraud, violence, and intimidation in every election, congressional Republicans appear to be blithely unaware of the problem as Democrats continue to liberalize the electoral process.  In fact, it is unlikely that election reform is even on their wish list.  Although election law is generally a matter of state law, a comprehensive election reform law targeting federal elections would supersede state law.  A comprehensive election reform bill… one that would put Obama and congressional Democrats in a tight box… would contain the following elements of reform:

  • Voter registration must be done only in person.  Fraud-friendly motor-voter, postcard, Internet, and same-day registration schemes must be either repealed or superseded.

In same-day registration states, Democrats have recruited teams of college students to travel from precinct to precinct, registering to vote and voting numerous times in the same day.  In a heavily-Democratic county in Minnesota, an undercover investigator visited a county election board to ask whether or not it was necessary for new voters to register in person, saying that he had two friends, Tom Brady and Tim Tebow, who were unable to appear in person.  The investigator was given twenty registration forms and was told that he could register twenty voters with the forms.

  • Registrations must be done only by full-time registrars, employees of counties and/or township government, and only in the state, county, and/or township in which the registrant maintains his/her primary residence.  Third party registrars, paid and unpaid, must be prohibited.

In 2012, a voter registration study showed that, in North Carolina alone, some 35,570 voters shared the same first names, last names, and dates of birth with individuals registered to vote in other states.  Another 765 North Carolinians had the same first names, last names, birthdays, and final four digits of a Social Security number as those who voted in other states.  As a requisite for voter registration, each voter should be required to show proof of citizenship (birth certificate or passport) and proof of residence (drivers license, residential deed, apartment lease, utility bills, etc.).

  1. Before voting, each voter must show an official government-issued photo ID (drivers license, passport, etc.), or an official state-issued voter registration card complete with telephone number, home address, Social Security number, and precinct number.  As an alternative, and as a means of preventing voters from voting more than once in a single day, states may require voters to dip a finger into a vial of indelible ink after voting.
  2. Court administrators must be required to furnish local election boards with name, address, date of birth, and Social Security number of every individual convicted of a felony.  Election boards must be required to purge voter registrations rolls of all felons at least ten days prior to any election.  County Coroners must be required to furnish election boards with copies of all death certificates.  All deceased persons must be removed from the voter rolls no later than ten days prior to any election.
  3. Registered voters who move from one state to another, from one county or township to another, or from one precinct to another, must be required to obtain voter registration transfer documents from their local election board.  This document must be presented, in person, to voter registrars of the voter’s new place of residence.
  4. Absentee ballots must be received no later than ten days prior to an election.  Absentee ballots, other than those of overseas military personnel, must be tallied no later than the day and hour that polls close in any election.  Absentee ballots completed by residents of hospitals, nursing homes, elder care, and mental health facilities must be completed only in the presence of representatives of both major political parties.
  5. Other than absentee ballots, voting must be done in person, only on the day of the election, and only in the precinct in which the voter maintains his/her primary place of residence.  Electronic voting and vote-by-mail schemes must be repealed or superseded.  Provisional ballots must be limited only to the most serious instances of clerical error by election board officials.
  6. The Voting Rights Act must be amended to provide fines and mandatory jail sentences for any individual who would, in any election in which the name of a candidate for federal office appears on the ballot, do any of the following:
    • Vote in the name of another person.
    • Vote or attempt to vote more than once in any election.
    • Vote in the name of a deceased or fictitious person.
    • Vote in more than one state or political subdivision.
    • Vote without benefit of U.S. citizenship.
    • Intimidate, interfere with, or cause injury to the person or property of any other person peaceably engaged in the political process, or cause any other person to do any of the foregoing.

In an April 10, 2014, speech before Al Sharpton’s National Action Network, Barack Obama attempted to rally his base by charging, falsely, that Republicans were attempting to suppress the black vote in the 2014 elections.  Demonstrating once again that he is either totally dishonest or ignorant of the facts, he said, “The principle of one person-one vote is the single greatest tool we have to redress an unjust status quo.  You would think there would not be an argument about this anymore.  But the stark, simple truth is this:  The right to vote is threatened today in a way that it has not been since the Voting Rights Act became law nearly five decades ago.”

In truth, what Obama would like to see is a system in which only Democrats and illegal aliens get to vote twice.  If Republicans had any courage at all they would insist on tightening the noose around vote fraud and stop ignoring Democrat efforts to create more fraud-friendly processes.  They might use comprehensive voting reform as yet another issue that would require Democrats to identify themselves for who and what they are.

As Obama has said, one would think that there would no longer be a question about holding open and honest elections in the United States, but that’s not the way things are.  Decent, honest, men and women will endorse the reforms outlined above.  Democrats, on the other hand, are certain to oppose them.

Hillary Clinton: THE WORST OF THE WORST OPPORTUNIST

The United States of America has always been a land of opportunity. Unfortunately, that has meant both good and bad opportunity. We all know about the good opportunity because it is what the American Dream is based upon. The American Dream brings out the best in all of us. It leads us to success and it drives us through our families. It’s about being better today than we were yesterday. That is all a part of the good opportunity and right now, America has a huge opportunity and unfortunately it is the bad kind.

We are seeing the ramping up of the campaign season for the next election in 2016 and there is bad opportunity all around. We see candidate after candidate not living up to what we believe is still the American Dream. We see candidate after candidate from all levels of government telling us about their ideas to help the American people as a whole and individually. The reason this is a bad opportunity is because history has shown and taught us that big government can never help us on an individual level. I cannot even begin to fathom how someone, anyone, would argue that fact since we have overwhelming evidence which includes data and history that over shadows any small successes there might have been in this area.

What is worse is that bad opportunity always attracts bad characters. It attracts the worst our nation has to offer. These bad characters come to us in shiny cloths, shiny cars, they live in shiny homes, and work in shiny offices. But underneath it all, they are dirty, filthy, disgusting human beings. Shall I name a few? How about one? Clinton.

The facts and history are there and those facts and that history is not good. It’s not shiny. It’s not even dim. It is just filthy and disgusting. How can someone even think about running for public office and represent many, many people with a record as filthy as Hillary Clinton’s? It’s that bad opportunity calling. She cannot help herself. You see, bad opportunists are arrogant and self-important. They believe they are the best of the best when in fact they are the worst of the worst.

What difference does it make you ask? It makes all the difference in the world. If someone cannot be trusted with the little things, then how can they be trusted with the big things? Indeed, how could they ever be trusted with the HUGE things? Mrs. Clinton has a filthy history of lies, deceit, neglect, bad judgment, possible criminal activity and the list goes on and on and on. How is it that someone who is so filthy can get away with appearing so shiny? How is it that Americans allow themselves to be insulted to such a level by a bad opportunist?

Is it the promises that she and others make? These same promises they never seem to deliver upon Oh sure, they always have an excuse but then a bad opportunist always has an excuse. But that excuse never includes their own failures. Mrs. Clinton had a bad history while she was the First Lady of the State of Georgia. Then she graduated and delivered more bad history as First Lady of the United States of America and it did not stop there. She decided to shop for a senate seat and landed in a state she was known to have disparaged. It would be safe to say that Hillary Clinton hated New York State before she loved it. And she only loved it because she was able to get the citizens of that state to see only the shiny. Then she gets elected and proceeds to deliver even more bad history. Oh but she does not stop there. The one thing about a bad opportunist is that they are never satisfied with being stuck on a level that is below the level they believe in their own little minds they should be. She set her sights on the White House and being the first female President of the United States but she didn’t quite make it because an even greater bad opportunist beat her this time. But she landed on her feet as most bad opportunists often do.

The greater bad opportunist, President Obama, decided to make the lesser bad opportunist, Hillary Clinton, Senator from the Great State of New York, the Secretary of State for the United States of America and we all know what happened there. Yes more bad history was delivered. Very bad history. History so bad that even many of her supporters cannot successfully hide any of it. This history is so bad that it includes the death of four dedicated Americans under her watch and she didn’t even care.

Yet she claims she wants to be the “champion” for the American people. How can she be a champion when she has not even graduated from the Bantam leagues? Oh I know how. Because she is a bad opportunist. You and I can stop a bad opportunist. It’s really not too hard. We just have to vote for a good opportunist candidate. We have to make sure our neighbors, our family, and our co-workers fully understand how bad she is. And then make sure they see and understand there is a good opportunist who may actually deserve our vote. A good opportunist doesn’t try to make themselves all shiny. Instead, they understand they are but one light in a sea of lights that together makes a good and shiny light for all the world to see and admire.

The United States cannot be shiny if we have a dirty, filthy, bad opportunist leading. We have already seen what a dirty opportunist can do to a nation. Do we really want another dim, dirty, filthy darkness over shadowing the good light?

I sincerely hope not.

Anti-Semitism and Jewish Dissonance on the 2016 Campaign Trail

The left has to do some soul-searching and reflect why it describes anti-Semitism as political expression, but criticism of Muslims as hate speech. Liberal Jews have to do the same about Obama.

The 2016 presidential cycle is beginning to gear up, with Hillary Clinton assuming the mantle of presumptive Democratic nominee and Republican hopefuls preparing to compete with each other during the primary season.  And Jewish Democrats are already lining up to shill for Clinton and attack the Republicans.

If the litmus test for Jewish voter loyalty is Israel, however, Democrats long ago abdicated any authority to determine “who’s good for the Jews” by their continuing support for Barack Obama – despite his relationships with Israel-bashers, his appeasement of Islamist regimes, his disrespectful treatment of Binyamin Netanyahu, and his pursuit of a deal with Iran that rewards aggression, enables its nuclear ambitions and threatens the existence of the Jewish State.

Jewish Democrats attacked Republican Senator Marco Rubio for allegedly creating a political wedge issue when he spoke in support of Israel from the Senate floor in response to the White House’s personal attacks against Netanyahu before his address to Congress in March.  They criticized Rubio even as Obama refused to meet with Netanyahu and Democratic operatives were meddling in Israel’s election in an unsuccessful attempt to push a left-wing coalition to victory.  It seems that party hacks were more interested in belittling Rubio’s unwavering support for Israel than in condemning the negative message sent by the fifty-eight Congressional Democrats (some of them Jews) who boycotted Bibi’s speech, and by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s churlish conduct in turning her back to the Prime Minister as he spoke.

Similarly, the National Jewish Democratic Council was quick to criticize Kentucky Senator Rand Paul for his position on aid to Israel and to insinuate that he would be detrimental to the Jewish State.  This criticism is actually valid in light of Paul’s past statements about reducing aid to Israel and his isolationist rhetoric – as well as the dubious positions of his father, Rep. Ron Paul, regarding Israel.  But it is hypocritical for Jewish Democrats to sound the alarm regarding Paul’s candidacy considering how they portrayed Obama as a friend to Israel and champion of Jewish values while ignoring his associations with anti-Semites, his uncritical acceptance of the revisionist Palestinian narrative, and his hostility toward the Jewish State – particularly during last year’s war in Gaza.

There is clearly a strategy to push a distorted narrative that taints all conservatives with the presumption of anti-Semitism, though hatred of Jews is far more prevalent on the political left these days.  While there is a history of anti-Semitism on the right to be sure, there is just as long and pernicious a tradition of Jew-hatred on the left, where it has been a potent political force since the rise of socialism, communism and European liberalism.  It permeated the ideological fabric of these movements because it was part of the societies in which they grew.  Progressives today often project hostility for Jews and Israel onto conservatives while pretending that liberal and Muslim anti-Semitism does not exist.

Studies show that anti-Semitism today is much more pervasive on the left than the right.  As reported in the “Annual Report: Anti-Semitism in 2013, Trends and Events” by Israel’s Ministry for Jerusalem and Diaspora Affairs, for example, “[t]he anti-Zionism prevalent mainly on the left, which has already become an integral part of the permanent worldview of individuals and groups of the left, can today be defined as a cultural code replacing anti-Semitism and enabling its disseminators to deny all connection to anti-Semitism.”

And a 2014 German study analyzing anti-Semitic trends reflected by hate mail showed that most bigoted communications during the survey period came from the political mainstream, including university professors and the well-educated (i.e., segments of the population that tend to identify as liberal).  In contrast, only three percent of the offensive communications came from right-wing nationalists.  The study, conducted by Professor Monika Schwarz-Friesel, professor of linguistics at the Technical University of Berlin, and published in a book entitled, “The Language of Hostility toward Jews in the 21st Century,” indicated that hatred of Jews was often presented as criticism of Israel using traditional anti-Semitic canards and imagery.

Though progressive anti-Zionists glibly attempt to distinguish hatred of Israel from hatred of Jews, it is a distinction without a difference.  The left-wing movements in Europe traditionally considered religion and nationality societal evils and, accordingly, disparaged the Jews because they represented the most enduring elements of both.  The anti-Zionism espoused by so many progressives today makes use of the same stereotypes and conspiracy theories that have been ascribed to Jews for generations and, consequently, is no different from old-fashioned Jew-hatred.

The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (“BDS”) and Israel Apartheid Week (“IAW”) movements are purely creations of the progressive left in partnership with Islamist interests.  The left is obsessed with demonizing Israel and advancing anti-Jewish conspiracy theories, with progressive academics routinely defending campus anti-Semitism as political speech while simultaneously censoring any criticism of Muslims as “Islamophobic.”

Conversely, the European right today is generally more supportive of Israel, Jews and free speech.  American conservatives likewise exhibit greater affinity for Israel than do their liberal counterparts, and Congressional Republicans support pro-Israel legislation and resolutions far more frequently than do their Democratic colleagues.  These trends were reflected in a recent Gallup poll showing that 83% of Republicans sympathize with Israel compared to only 48% of Democrats.  Indeed, pejorative Congressional letters mischaracterizing Israeli policies as belligerent and reproaching Israel for defending herself are written almost exclusively by Democrats.

The left maintains a sympathetic attitude towards Islamist rejectionism as reflected by its support for BDS, IAW and the revisionist Palestinian narrative, and this cannot be obscured by the hurling of scandalous accusations of Jew-hatred against conservatives who, unlike liberals, have taken meaningful and effective steps to combat it.  Nearly a quarter century ago, the late William F. Buckley rid the National Review of those whose denunciations of Israel he believed were motivated by anti-Semitism.  He then wrote “In Search of Anti-Semitism,” which represented a watershed in political self-analysis and moral accountability.

The left has yet to engage in similar soul searching.  Instead, it excuses anti-Semitism as political expression, even as it stifles criticism of Muslims as hate-speech.  Unfortunately, warped views often attributed to the “hard left” have infected the liberal mainstream, as evidenced by the failure of its establishment to wholeheartedly condemn bigotry against Jews and Israel the way Buckley did in 1992, or to ostracize progressive extremists whose venom clearly sounds in classical anti-Semitism.

When it comes to party politics, Jewish Democrats have been deluding themselves since the days of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, when they substituted New Deal priorities for authentic Jewish values and regarded FDR as a savior.  Despite their blind devotion, FDR was accepting only of those who were assimilated and aligned with him politically.  He seemed indifferent to Jewish suffering in Europe, as reflected by the views of his special Mideast envoy, Harold Hoskins, who recommended censoring “Zionist propaganda” that consisted largely of publicizing the Nazi genocide and lobbying for rescue efforts.  Roosevelt’s Secretary of State, Cordell Hull, advised the maintenance of tight immigration restrictions that effectively condemned many to the death camps, and such recommendations guided FDR’s policy for much of the Second World War.

When reports of the genocide began to spread early in the war, the administration prevailed upon its progressive Jewish allies to downplay the news and discredit those reporting it.  Many Jewish New Dealers acquiesced in an effort to prevent distractions to the war effort and embarrassment to a president they idolized.  Some of FDR’s Jewish acolytes waged a shameful campaign to malign those who were publicizing the Holocaust, including Peter Bergson (Hillel Kook), going so far as to demand that Bergson and his compatriots be investigated for tax crimes and jailed or deported, though no improprieties were ever found.

Some Jewish Democrats even attempted to undermine the 1943 “Rabbis’ March on Washington” conceived by Bergson in conjunction with the Aggudat HaRabonim.  The event involved four-hundred Orthodox rabbinical scholars, including Rabbis Eliezer Silver, Avraham Kalmanowitz and Moshe Feinstein, many of whom were immigrants and none of whom looked or dressed like FDR’s secular political cronies. Encouraged by some of his Jewish confidantes, Roosevelt left the White House to avoid meeting the rabbis.

Many assimilated New Dealers sacrificed Jewish interests and pledged themselves to an administration that devoted military resources to saving works of European art, but which refused to bomb the concentration camps or the railway lines leading to them in order to stop the carnage.  When US policy finally changed to make saving Jewish lives a priority, it proved too little, too late.  Nevertheless, the lionization of Roosevelt provided the blueprint for a political cognitive dissonance that continues today.

The endorsement of President Obama is a case in point.  He sat in the pews of Jeremiah Wright’s church for more than twenty years and associated with radical academics and anti-Israel ideologues.  As a senator he had no record of support for Israel, and since becoming president he has conspicuously refused to acknowledge the Jews’ historical rights in their homeland.  He has treated Israel more like an enemy than an ally and has appeased Islamist regimes dedicated to destroying her and exterminating her people.  Nevertheless, he has been portrayed as philo-Semitic by the liberal Jewish elite.

The real story should be apparent from his words and actions, however, including his public spats with Netanyahu and lecturing to Israelis who reject his worldview – which to the attuned ear might sound similar in tone to common progressive excoriation of Israel.

It would be more honest for his Jewish supporters to admit they no longer regard Israel and traditional values as political priorities.  However, given their support for a man who has been deemed more hostile to the Jewish State than any other president, it is disingenuous for them to use faux concern for Israel as a pretext for discouraging other Jews from voting Republican.

Since the days of FDR, politically progressive Jews have sacrificed religious and ethnic loyalty for political acceptance.  That was why Roosevelt knew he could count on Jewish support in downplaying reports of the Holocaust when he so requested.  And this is why Obama recently met with American Jewish leaders in an attempt to silence criticism of an Iran policy that threatens the future of the Jewish homeland.

The partisan delusion continues with groups such as “Jewish Americans for Hillary,” whose website proclaims that “[t]hroughout her career, Hillary Clinton has fought for the issues that matter most to Jewish Americans.”  Given her complicity in Obama’s efforts to “put daylight” between the U.S. and Israel, one has to wonder what issues they believe are important to American Jews.  Her position during the Ramat Shlomo crisis in 2010 should indicate where she really stands.  When Obama referred to Ramat Shlomo – an established Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem – as a “settlement” and demanded that Israel cease all building activities there, Clinton chided Netanyahu publicly and characterized neighborhood construction as “an insult to the United States.”

During her tenure under Obama, Clinton did not disagree when he demanded that Israel pull back to the 1949 armistice lines and divide Jerusalem; and she devalued Israeli sovereignty by lambasting construction on ancestral Jewish land while ignoring illegal Arab building.  She promoted Mahmoud Abbas as moderate, whitewashed the PA’s support for terrorism, and presided over renewed American participation in the anti-Semitic UN Human Rights Council.

As Mrs. Clinton attempts to rewrite her history at the State Department and posture herself as a stalwart ally within the Obama administration, Jewish voters should instead consider the decline in American national prestige and the shameful treatment of Israel that characterized her tenure as America’s top diplomat.

If Jews who supported President Obama now truly care about Israel’s future, they should acknowledge how he has compromised her national integrity, empowered her enemies and exacerbated the existential threat to her survival.  They must also recognize that he has not acted alone, and that his ill-conceived policies have been enabled by fellow Democrats – including Hillary Clinton, whose actual record on Israel is spotty and opportunistic at best.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Israel National News.

Senator Rand Paul on Hillary Clinton’s Baggage: Benghazi, Emails and Cash

Senator Rand Paul, Republican primary candidate appeared on America’s News Room on the Fox News channel to clarify what he meant by his comment that Hillary Clinton will need two airplanes during her campaign “one for her entourage and one for her baggage.”

Senator Paul defines “her baggage” metaphor.

Hillary’s Big Book Of Lies Coloring Book Creators Look To Spread Truth

Hillary's Big Book of Lies CoverNEW YORK, /PRNewswire/ — Even in this digital age, children love coloring books, but a group of patriots from New YorkNew Jersey, and Pennsylvania hope that adults will enjoy them as well. They are looking to a new coloring book to spread the word on what they consider the top 15 reasons that Hillary should not be elected President in 2016.

A non-partisan group of patriots are looking to publish a coloring book called HILLARY’S BIG BOOK OF LIES to help people understand what they consider the top 15 reasons that Hillary should not be elected President. The group has turned to Kickstarter to raise funds.

One of the authors, John Charles of New York, says “Research tells us that one of the best ways to educate people is to make learning fun, and that is why we banded together to create Hillary’s Big Book Of Lies: A coloring and activity book to help expose truth. Contrary to what people may assume, we, the creators of the book, are not all Republicans, but we have put aside our differences to create this book to help explain, in the simplest way possible, why Hillary must not become President in 2016. We’re not anti-woman, we’re not anti-Democrat. We’re pro-American and simply put, Hillary is bad for America.”

Another of the authors, Michael Drake of New Jersey, adds, “We’ve turned to Kickstarter to crowdfund this book for several reasons; Conservatives are seen as being out of touch with technology, we’d like to show that ‘Conservative’ does not mean just an angry old man out of touch with anything that happened after WW2. There are many young conservatives and even older conservatives who fully embrace technology. It’s not just a ‘liberal thing.’ A group making a Hillary action figure raised over $26,000.00, shouldn’t a group of patriots looking to expose her lies and deceptions be able to raise at least $11,000.00? I worked in hardware for over 45 years and now the neighborhood hardware store is almost a thing of the past. America is like a hardware store and I don’t want to see it fade away. A lifelong Democrat, I voted for President Clinton, but now I have to say ‘Enough!’ and expose the lies and dangers of electing Hillary before this country has to hang up an Out Of Business sign like so many small town hardware stores.”

In addition to being able to buy a book for themselves, the HillarysBigBookOfLies.com crowd funding program offers patrons an option to send a copy of the book to the White House, to the Senate, and to Congress. It is assumed the politicians will supply their own crayons. The crowdfunding campaign can be accessed at HillarysBigBookOfLies.com or at https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/980081361/hillarys-big-book-of-lies-coloring-book and the authors urge supporters to make their purchases ASAP because of the time limit for funding.

Why Natural Born Citizen is Non-Negotiable

Not so long ago, Americans placed little faith and trust in ambulance chasers (a.k.a. lawyers) or politicians, and wisely so according to our Founders who had no faith or trust in any person seeking power and dominion over others. Now, too many Americans place all of their faith in people seeking power and dominion over others, and even worse, a class of people who have already proven most dangerous to the Constitutional Republic and Rule of Law… the lawyer law-makers…

Ever since Barack Obama stole the show at the Kerry Convention in 2004 and rocketed from total obscurity to the most powerful political office in our land four years later, the subject of Article II requirements for the Oval Office has been a subject of great debate, all over three simple words, natural born Citizen (NBC), aka “True Citizen.”

Where did it come from, what does it mean, why did our Founders limit access to only two political offices in our nation to no one other than a natural born Citizen, and what do we do now that we know Barack Obama is not a natural born Citizen of the United States? These questions have been the source of much political debate, confusion and anxiety, now threatening the GOP as a result of numerous potential 2016 GOP candidates also failing to meet the requirement.

Some of the most blatantly insane arguments have been floated…

“Well, the constitution does not provide a definition for the term”… which is of course true, since the U.S. Constitution provides no definition for any word found in the document.

“Our naturalization laws define natural born Citizen” (when in fact our naturalization laws only pertain to naturalized citizens, immigrants seeking basic citizen rights from congress).

“The courts will have to tell us what the term means”… despite knowing that it is the courts that created terms of art like “undocumented citizen” (a.k.a. illegal alien) and “Constitutional Rights for non-citizens and even enemy combatants” (while denying American citizen any constitutional protection of natural rights at all) and “social justice” (the opposite of real justice under Constitutional Law).

Others rely upon “legal scholars” also known as lawyers of the political class in line for political appointments and eager to please those in positions to help them ascend to those lofty positions in the judiciary, ignoring the reality that these scholars have powerful political motivations for the opinions they write, and that no opinion has the power to amend the U.S. Constitution except by amendment process.

The simple truth is that Article II of the U.S. Constitution has only been amended once in U.S. history, by Amendment XII extending the requirements for President to the Vice President as well. It has not been otherwise amended, despite at least eight failed attempts by Congress to eliminate the natural born requirement for high office. Further, no amendment has ever mentioned, changed or in any way altered the original meaning of natural born Citizen as intended by our Founders and ratified by all fifty states.

So, the term natural born Citizen means the same today as it did in 1787 when the Founders placed that requirement in Article II… unless you buy into the notion that naturalization statutes or amendments, or scholarly legal arguments carry with them the legal force to amend the constitution – in which case, the term has no meaning at all, and neither does anything else in our Founding documents.

Before Barack Obama arrived on the scene, the nobody from nowhere with a blank résumé and no verifiable past, not too many Americans ever thought about the term. Most Americans assumed that no one would ever be bold enough to attempt such a massive fraud by falsely claiming natural born eligibility, and they assumed that if anyone ever did make such an attempt, our strict election laws, free press and national security agency oversight would surely catch it, expose it and stop it from happening. These assumptions have proven to be wrong… in fact, such attempts are now becoming common place. Barack was the first, but now there are others…

Most Americans have entered the discussion from a purely political purpose, attempting to either qualify their political messiah of choice, or disqualify another. But the natural born Citizen concept is actually far more important to our society than merely who can and cannot hold the office of Commander-in-Chief.

I was recently asked a question I have been asked literally thousands of times since I started writing on the subject, how do I know for sure what the Founders meant by natural born Citizen?

How do we know what any word or phrase means? Most people reach to their book shelf and grab a dictionary when they want to know the true definition of a word of phrase. Most people have never come upon a word or phrase that they needed a lawyer, or a court, or anything more than a dictionary to properly interpret… I find this to be the case here as well.

People don’t have any trouble understanding the word “born” (the moment of birth) or the word “citizen” (a legal member of a society). The word people seem to struggle with is “natural.”

At this moment, a collective effort is underway to claim that the following three words are synonymous… natural – native – naturalized…. Which would make anyone eligible for the Oval Office, including the courts new citizen class the “undocumented citizen.”

People trying to disqualify John McCain in 2008 decided that natural and native are synonymous terms and people now trying to qualify Obama, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are claiming that natural, native and naturalized are all synonymous terms of art. Before they can eliminate the NBC requirement from Article II, they must first make the term ambiguous, potentially having more than one meaning… of course…

Any dictionary will disagree with these claims…

Naturalized – “to admit (a foreigner) to the citizenship of a country.”

Native – “being the place or environment in which a person was born.”

Natural – “existing in or formed by nature.”

Clearly, these three words have three very different definitions and meanings, only one of which is related to the Constitutional requirement for the Oval Office… “Natural.”

As a simple dictionary review confirms, these three words are in no way synonymous. It is not possible for the following three terms to be synonymous, natural born, native born and naturalized. Yet, many will continue to make the false claim that they are… because they believe these claims to suit their political agenda of the moment.

Many know exactly what natural born Citizen means, and still, for political expediency, they refuse to stand on this truth. Just this morning another “political commentator” wrote me this…

“NATIVE BORN CITIZENS ARE DIFFERENT… .. I see the reference to the father’s citizenship alone as determinING the birthright of the child… BUT YOU KNOW AS WELL AS I DO THAT AINT GONNA FLY today NO MORE THAN DENYING WOMEN THE RIGHT TO VOTE. YOU WILL ALIENATE HALF THE COUNTRY WITH SUCH NONSENSE” – Scott Rohter (exactly as sent to me, yelling caps and all)

As you can see, Mr. Rohter first confirms that he is aware of the truth, before shifting to all CAPS to scream his refusal to stick to the truth, referring to that truth as “nonsense” because that truth will offend some who do not like this truth. It is this practice which has made the NBC term appear “ambiguous,” opening the door for the lawyer law-making political class to enter the discussion with new invented definitions of the term.

As Mr. Rohter confirmed in our exchange, we agree on 99% of the issues… unfortunately, the 1% we disagree on is the most important – of critical importance, especially at this moment in history, when every American must deal only in truth. Mr. Rohter is not alone in his position. Numerous others have made the same false claims for exactly the same reasons.

The Harvard Lawyers are intentionally lying to the people when claiming NBC is synonymous with naturalized citizen at birth. But people like Rohter are also intentionally lying to the people for their set of political reasons. Both are responsible for allowing unconstitutional candidates to seek and hold the most powerful office in our land, that of Commander-in-Chief.

The term natural born Citizen is based on historical concepts as old as all recorded time. If you want to know where and why the Founders borrowed the term for Article II, I cover that in this piece… and if you want to know the true historical definition of the term, I cover that in this piece.

Natural born Citizen is a term based in biblical teachings based upon the concepts of a patriarchal society wherein in the Father is the head of the family unit. The intentional destruction of the family unit has greatly complicated the discussion with scholarly changes in the definition of words like marriage, family and shifting gender roles forced by liberal restructuring of American society, also for political purposes.

14th Naturalization Amendment terms like “citizen at birth” and “birthright citizenship” have been intentionally been tossed into the mix to further complicate the understanding of three basic English words defined in every English dictionary. The purpose of all these efforts is to eliminate the NBC requirement for office by simply redefining the term. But that is not the only purpose…

Setting politics aside for a moment, natural born Citizenship is the inalienable natural right of every child to inherit the country of their natural birth father upon birth, not only due to no application of man-made statute or legal opinions, but inalienable by these means.

When people begin to play with definitions, it is an overt effort to alter our Founding principles and values and Constitutional protections of all inalienable Natural Rights as guaranteed by our Constitution and Bill of Rights. It is a much larger issue than who can or cannot occupy the Oval Office, although this is indeed an issue paramount to the sovereignty and security of these United States.

Contrary to the intentional mis-education of American society, we do not enjoy “constitutional rights.” We have long enjoyed “constitutionally protected Natural Rights.”

Beginning in 2008, when folks were trying to disqualify John McCain, born the son of American parentage stationed abroad in Panama on the service of our country with the U.S. Navy, some plucked a single sentence from the proper source of the Founders NBC term, The Law of Nations by Vattel, as if they believe that it was unnecessary for Vattel to take great care to write an entire chapter on the subject, when a single sentence says it all.

“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

As already demonstrated above, natives and naturals are in fact two different things, which confirms that the structure of this single sentence is not the definition of any one thing, but rather a general statement about more than one thing… Reference to “parents” does not mean both parents within the family unit, but rather all citizen family units which bear “citizen” children.

Why did these individuals not pluck any of the following single sentences from Vattel, appearing in the same paragraph Section 212 of Chapter XIX of the Law of Nations?

“As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”

Or this one – “as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it.”

Or this one – “The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.”

Or even this one – “I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

When trying to sum up natural born Citizen using a single sentence from Vattel, any of the four sentences above would be accurate. So, why didn’t the people who cherry-picked the unrelated general sentence pluck any of these other single sentences from the same paragraph?

There are two reasons… first, the truth did not suit the political agenda, which was to disqualify John McCain on the basis that although he was born to a citizen father (and mother), he was born in Panama, not on U.S. soil – and second, because the progressive shifting definitions of marriage and family, along with gender roles lead many to believe that the original definition and Founders intent of the term are antiquated and outdated. It leads many to falsely think it is some offense to women’s rights…

The Citizenship Act of 1934 pertaining only to “naturalized citizenship” is the cornerstone of today’s effort to destroy the NBC term and thereby eliminate the requirement from Article II. FDR’s Naturalization Act was the result of an international treaty from a Pan American conference of December 26, 1933, essentially agreeing that there should be no distinction between the sexes as it related to nationality under legislative processes. Of course, this pertained only to “naturalized citizenship” under congressional naturalization legislation.

Still, it has since been improperly used to claim that citizenship and even natural born Citizenship can pass from either Father or Mother, as a matter of alleged gender equality. Yet, this claim pertains only to naturalized citizenship, which is mutually exclusive of natural born Citizenship.

As all governmental power in the United States is limited in nature and derived from the people, nothing beyond what which was ratified by the people in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is under the consent of the people. The people have not consented to any alterations of Article II requirements for high office, so no alterations have been legally made.

Why natural born Citizen is non-negotiable

Much more than a political ambition or agenda is at stake here… The Natural Right of every child to inherit the condition of their birth family, specifically that of the Father (patriarch), the head of the family, is a constitutionally protected Natural Right.

Americans must understand that everything our Founders created was based upon inalienable Natural Rights, not man-made laws via legislative process or judicial review. When anyone begins to mess around with natural born, they are in fact messing around the Natural Law and all Natural Rights, the cornerstone of our Founders creation and any form of freedom and liberty.

If a child born to an American Father is stripped of their Natural Right to inherit the country of their Father, what other Natural Rights can be stripped from the child or the parent by mere man-made statute, court interpretation or Harvard Law Review? The answer is all of them…

In my personal opinion, the three most important words in all of the U.S. Constitution are natural born Citizen… because all Natural Rights flow through this patriarchal social concept and the sovereignty and security of our Constitutional Republic are protected from foreign invasion at the highest level by these three simple words, natural born Citizen.

Once any citizen of any type, by any means, including “undocumented citizens” can occupy the Oval Office, then any foreign entity can occupy that office, controlling the future of this nation and form of freedom and liberty itself as Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military force on earth.

Mere momentary political interest is not enough reason to let everything die…

I pray that Americans will cease to be so blind and foolish…. quickly!

RELATED ARTICLE: Media Repression on the Question of What is a “natural born Citizen?”

Rand Paul Launches 2016 Campaign: “A Different Kind of Republican Leader”

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) has launched his campaign for the 2016 Republican Presidential nomination. Rand Paul follows in the shadow of his father Ron. Will he change from the losing strategy of his father and take a new and “different” approach? Time will tell.

Here is the video titled “A Different Kind of Republican Leader” he has posted on YouTube:

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘I Am Who I Am’: 3 Questions for Rand Paul

These 36 Photos of Rand Paul Prove He’s Not Your Average GOP Contender

Rand Paul Begins a Campaign for President With ‘Guts’ and ‘Gray Cells’

Disarming the Armchair Critics

Should people outside a democracy – if they are citizens of that democracy – be allowed to cast a ballot? It is a question which has gone on in Israel for many years and which returned in the wake of Benjamin Netanyahu’s triumph in the polls this week.

There are many elections in which citizens and non-citizens outside the country clearly prefer one candidate over another. Before the 2008 elections it was undeniably the case that international support for Barack Obama’s Presidential race vastly exceeded international support for the candidacy of John McCain. It is highly unlikely that had Senator McCain made a trip to Berlin to give a keynote speech that he would have filled a room, let alone a public space with German citizens as far as the eye could see. In 2008 the world wanted a change of American leadership. As it turned out the American people did as well so their interests aligned.

It can safely be said that much of the public and political class in the West was hoping for a change of Israeli leadership this week. The White House could barely disguise its hostility to Netanyahu’s triumph at the polls, publicly criticising remarks made in the last hours of the campaign before the White House managed a rather grudging congratulations in private. In Europe too the feeling was that a Livni-Hertzog coalition of the left would somehow deliver a different, more palatable ally with concerns for the peace process with the Palestinians somewhere nearer the top of their agenda.

But the Israeli public thought otherwise. And this is a reminder not just of the adequacy of the democratic system, but an argument against the franchise being extended to expats. Because it is easier to take risks for peace if you are not actually taking any risks yourself. The Israeli public’s high turnout in this week’s elections is partly a demonstration that they take their politics seriously, but also a demonstration that they take their security seriously. It is true that no leaps forward have been made in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute during Netanyahu’s time in office. But nor have there been any large scale terror attacks. And the response to last summer’s barrage of rockets was deemed by most of the public to be both necessary and proportionate.

When they go to the ballot box the Israeli public know that they are casting a vote which might well have an effect on the security and wellbeing of their family to an extent that most Western voters cannot imagine. Outside the country one might wish the country to be willing to take risks. But inside the country the public wishes for security and stability. Whatever one’s views on the results that fact at least deserves to be accepted and respected.

LeadershipNOW: America’s Search for the Most Qualified U.S. Presidential Candidate

CLEVELANDMarch 19, 2015 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — It would be hard to embrace any of the candidates in our last few presidential elections to even run a $20 Million company. If we don’t elect better leaders we will completely lose our position as a leading country.

Famed executive search consultant, transformation CEO and leadership expert, Jeff Christian, who conducted HP’s search for a new CEO, the largest executive search in history, has now set his sights higher, unveiling today his intention to use the best search technologies used in industry, non-profits, and other organizations to identify the most exceptional leaders for the role of President of the United States through a new organization called LeadershipNOW.

jeff christian leadership now ceo

Jeff Christian, CEO LeadershipNOW.

Jeff Christian, Transformational CEO

At age 23, Jeff Christian founded Christian and Timbers, the most rapidly growing executive search firm from 1980s through 2000s. According to Dr. Tom Janz, who worked with Jeff as a coach in 2014 and 2015, “Jeff Christian is a transformational CEO, having built Christian and Timbers into the clear market leader in its space, one of the strongest indicators of a transformational CEO. He is credited for transforming the sleepy executive search industry, a rolodex business, into an information knowledge based powerhouse.” Christian personally led searches which filled top leadership roles and boards of Silicon Valley’s most admired corporations including HP, Cisco System and Apple. He not only found the top talent, he helped it succeed, launching two venture capital companies which landed him on the Forbes Midas list for 5 years as a top deal maker.  Christian authored “The Headhunter’s Edge”, a Random House book where he first introduced the concepts of “Transformational Leadership” and “Talent Centric Companies”.  His most recent company, RevenueNOW, the only company that ensures rapid revenue acceleration, applies transformational components to help America’s entrepreneurs transform their businesses. LeadershipNOW applies these technologies to the political selection process for the first time.

“As far as challenging our thinking, Jeff will do that. As we were putting together the profile for the CEO search that is currently underway, instead of just following the specs, Jeff thought about them, rewrote them and came back to us and said, ‘We ought to be more open in this area.’ He really pushes and hauls the definition before he gets started.”

– Lew Platt, former CEO Hewlett-Packard

America’s Search for the next President

Christian has long dreamed of applying the most advanced science of executive search to selecting U.S. Presidential candidates.  “America’s top corporations use the best of executive search science, which includes creation of a detailed position profile that realistically defines qualities required to be the most effective president. These profiles will be developed by a citizens selection committee drawn from America’s most trusted business, non-profit and academics thought leaders with direct input from all Americans though the LeadershipNOW website.  Christian criticizes the old style politics: “America’s political parties use methods that have hardly changed since the days when smoke filled room deal makers selected presidential candidates.   America’s voters deserve the best candidates from each party and for every office, and we need a modern selection system for identifying and assessing them.  We have created LeadershipNOW to make sure Americans get a choice between strong leaders.”

Scientific Leadership Search will Enable More Informed Choices

Jeff Christian, the top expert on Transformational Leadership, and Dr. Tom Janz, who wrote the definitive book on behavioral interviewing and leadership assessment, have come together to develop an assessment tool and process to identify the very best transformational political leaders.  Christian explains “traditional back room political deal making doesn’t select for those qualities that make for effective government executives and legislators.  By assessing candidates and publicly sharing their results, the result for America should be that the most qualified candidates who might get otherwise be overlooked might just be discovered for the gems they are.  Using scientific search techniques, everyone will know who really stacks up and what their strengths and weaknesses are.”

Candidates Take Notice

“It’s a double edged sword, because scientific search methodologies and assessment can also pinpoint hidden weaknesses.  But the better a leader the candidate is, the less their risk and the more they have to gain by this transparency.” Christian revealed.  Some Republican candidates have taken notice and indicated their willingness to go under the LeadershipNOW microscope.

“Right now, Hillary is the one name that people know. A search is all about discovering what you don’t know, so every other candidate, Republican or Democrat, has the opportunity to become the new front runner, because they will have the strongest emotional link with the voters. So the first candidate courageous enough to follow this initiative has to be taken seriously,” said one political analyst.

Leadership Search technology for local, state and other federal offices as well.

While LeadershipNow is currently developing Presidential position profiles, assessments and recruiting independent governance councils to guide the evaluation processes, it plans to offer similar services for allraces on a non-partisan basis.  Christian is passionate in his commitment to greater public accountability for all offices, “For every office from village major, to governor or senator, voters deserve to know whether candidates have the leadership qualities the desire.  LeadershipNow will measure them and give them the information they need to make the most informed choices about which candidates to give their donations and votes to.”  Campaigns can even use these services to evaluate their own internal leadership, and after the election to assess possible cabinet and staff positions, so candidates can assure the voters that their staff are equally well qualified and worthy of trust.

LeadershipNOW is a new organization that is draws on the talent and technologies of Christian’s most recent venture, RevenueNOW, a consulting organization which merges capabilities of top executive recruiting, private equity, and brand marketing firms. The founding leadership of RevenueNow includes Jeff Christian, Dr. Janz and Scott McGregor.

Jeff Christian is the CEO and founder of the search firm Christian and Timbers and two venture funds, who transformed the Executive Search industry. He is also as the author of The Headhunter’s Edge.

Dr. Tom Janz literally wrote the book on behavioral leadership Assessment: Behavior Description Interviewing.

Scott McGregor is a Silicon Valley entrepreneur and co-inventor of Web Conferencing and Prescient Agents  predictive analytics technologies, technologies that have changed the lives of over one billion individuals around the world.