Posts

PODCAST: Rioters’ ‘Defund The Police’ Push Puts Democrat Candidates On Defense!

GUESTS AND TOPICS:

SUSAN CRABTREE

Susan Crabtree is a White House and national political correspondent for RealClearPolitics where she covers President Trump, his administration and their conflicts with Capitol Hill, the 2020 election, spending battles and national security. She previously served as a senior writer for the Washington Free Beacon, and five years as a White House Correspondent for the Washington Examiner. Prior stints include seven years as a senior editor and investigative reporter for The Hill. She is a frequent guest political analyst on Fox News as well as numerous conservative talk radio shows. Susan has written for several magazines, including The Weekly Standard and The Economist-owned Capital Style, where she was a senior writer.

TOPIC: Rioters’ ‘Defund The Police’ Push Puts Democrat Candidates On Defense!

ANN MARIE HANCOCK

Ann Marie Hancock is an award-winning journalist, radio and television personality, and talk show host who has interviewed many famous people. She has appeared on Bertice Berry, Rolanda, NBC’s The Other Side, The Angel Show and Inside Edition.Hancock is the author of two previous books: Be A Light and Wake Up America. Her latest book, You Can’t Drive Your Car to Your Own Funeral, is based on the three-year journey of caring for her terminal mother and the spiritual as well as practical lessons she learned along the way.

TOPIC: “You Can’t Drive Your Car to Your Own Funeral”

KARYN TURK

Karyn Turk is a political commentator, actor, and news broadcaster. She is a prominent Trump supporter and has been vocal about her support for Donald Trump on various media interviews. She is married to Palm Beach attorney Evan Turk, and the couple has been involved in fundraisers for Roger Stone and hosted the Roger Stone Legal Fund in March and September 2019. Karyn’s career started in marketing when she joined CBS Radio. She also worked with InnoMed Technologies Inc., a medical device company. In 2016, Turk won the Mrs. Florida U.S. continental pageant to mark a milestone in her modeling career. In the same year, Turk got a job as a broadcaster on Eye On channels, a Florida-based news channel. Karyn was named one of Florida’s Top Power Women and Influencers.

TOPIC: THE TRUTH ABOUT THE COVID19 PLANDEMIC. GATES EXPOSED!

©All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Body found in Minneapolis pawnshop that was torched in George Floyd protests

RELATED VIDEO: Brad Johnson speaks to the curious actions of Seattle City Council to eliminate the police.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen

Emerson Self Reliance book coverIn his 1841 essay “Self-Reliance”, Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote:

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.

With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do.

He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — ‘Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.’ — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood?

Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.

Wikipedia notes:

Emerson presupposes that the mind is initially subject to an unhappy conformism. Throughout the essay he gives a defense for his famous catch-phrase “Trust thyself”. This argument makes three major points: that each person has his own self-contained genius, that society and worldly influences must be resisted in favor of one’s own individuality, and that self-worth has great importance and value.

Emerson understood that forced consistency destroys the individual mind and spirit.

Gerald Russello writes in his column Open season on religious persons? that the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent refusal to rule on a religious freedom case demonstrates government’s determination to force conformity.

In Stormans, Inc. v. Weisman, the Supreme Court refused to review a federal court’s decision that upheld a Washington State regulation forbidding pharmacists from refusing to provide contraceptives or abortifacients contrary to their religious belief.

This refusal, in other words, lets the federal appellate court decision stand, which would permit Washington State to force the consciences of pharmacists.  The case is potentially a dark precedent because it allows states to discriminate against religious believers, even when the discrimination against them is clear – and even when no one was adversely affected by the assertion of religious conscience.

The next president will be either one who believes in self-reliance or one who believes in foolish consistency. That president will not only change government itself but also appoint, perhaps three, Supreme Court justices, whose judicial temperament will or will not “force conformity.”

donald-trump-quotes-thinking-big-600x400

There are groups in America that want forced conformity such as: the Democratic Party, the Communist Party of the USA (who has nominated Hillary Clinton for president), Islamic Supremacist organizations, career statesmen of both political parties and one candidate for president.

It is important for Americans to ‘Trust Thyself” rather than trust government. As Ronald Reagan said, “Government is the problem, not the solution.”

In other words always Trust Thyself!

VIDEO Compilation of CNN and MSNBC Cutting Guests Mics to Protect Hillary Clinton

Hat tip to Centipede Productions for creating this compilation of CNN and MSNBC news personalities stopping critics of Hillary Clinton by cutting them off at the microphone.

Can you say media bias?

RELATED ARTICLES:

Media bias could wind up helping Donald Trump

Pete Hoekstra: Trump Not Saying Obama Literal Founder of ISIS

Taliban sympathizer attends Clinton rally; MSM focuses on Trump Second Amendment comments

VIDEO: We Expose the real Khizr Khan as Trump meets with 6 Gold Star Families

We interviewed Dr. Andy Bostom who details the shariah-compliant views of Democratic National Convention speaker, Gold Star Father, Khizr Khan. At the same time Donald Trump met with six Gold Star families in Jacksonville, Florida on Wednesday, August 3rd, 2016 (see the Military Times story below).

, from the Military Times reports:

… Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump met Wednesday with the families of troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan to hear their concerns about the campaign and broader national security issues.

The private conference, which attendees said lasted about 30 minutes before a rally in Florida, included top Trump defense adviser retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn and was organized by Karen Vaughn, the mother of a fallen Navy SEAL and a featured speaker at last month’s Republican convention. Ten parents, siblings and spouses of fallen service members were included.

“It was really a chance to tell our stories, but also talk about problems with the rules of engagem ent [for troops in war zones] and the failed policies of the current administration,” Vaughn said. “I walked out feeling like I understood where his heart is, regardless of the comments that he made that may seem insensitive to some.”

[ … ]

Vaughn said she and other families in the Florida meeting sympathize with Khan, but also feel the ensuing media coverage has overshadowed more important issues for their community.

She accused those supporting Trump’s rival, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, of exaggerating those comments in an effort to cover her own national security shortfalls. Vaughn also lamented what she see as insensitivity toward the families of several Americans killed in the 2012 terrorist attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya. Clinton was secretary of State at that time, and she has come under intense scrutiny for what her critics say was gross miscalculation and inaction as the attack occurred.

Read more.

It appears that not all Gold Star families are interested in scoring political points. Rather they are interested in insuring no other Blue Star families become Gold Star families.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Khan story reminds me of the food stamp fraud stories that so intrigued me

Three Names that will go down in infamy: Crist, Rubio and Cruz

There are now three infamous “Republican” names that will be remembered for decades to come. Each harmed not only their Party but also betrayed the American people. The names are:

  1. Former Florida Governor Charlie Crist, who when he lost his GOP Primary bid for the U.S. Senate ran as an independent, then changed party affiliation and is now running for the U.S. House of Representatives in Florida’s District 13 (prophetic).
  2. Senator Marco Rubio, who won the GOP Primary for the U.S. Senate promising that the word “amnesty” was not in his lexicon. Once elected Rubio became the face of the GOP effort for “immigration reform”. Rubio lied and Floridians carry the $5 billion burden to medicate, educate and incarcerate illegal aliens. Rubio is running to keep his seat in the U.S. Senate after a failed campaign to become the GOP nominee for president.
  3. Senator Ted Cruz, who began his run for the GOP nomination for president as an outsider and then became the consummate insider. Cruz failed to endorse the GOP nominee on July 20, 2016. This failure led to his being booed at the GOP Convention (watch the video below).

VIDEO: Wednesday, July 20 2016: During his speech at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ted Cruz refused to endorse Donald Trump and was booed by the RNC crowd – then Donald Trump shows up before Cruz is finished speaking and the crowd goes wild!

After Cruz’s remarks Ann Coulter Tweeted:

Last night, Cruz showed that he’s earned a leading role in the nation’s political future. And that nation is Canada.

An op-ed titled “That Moment When Ted Cruz Doused Himself With Gasoline and Lit the Match On Stage” notes:

It’s called self immolation.  July 20th 2016 will go down in Cruz family history as that moment when Ted Cruz detonated his career suicide belt and created the #NeverCruz movement.

Forget the non endorsement, that’s not the issue.  Senator Cruz had a remarkable opportunity, he blew it.  Cruz accepted an invitation to speak to the GOP convention then insulted the audience.  Cruz couldn’t rise above his own brutal ego and petty selfishness.  The arrogance simply went too far, he humiliated himself in front of millions.

It happened just like we predicted it would.  Donald Trump gave Senator Ted Cruz the rope, and Ted hung himself -diminished himself- on national TV.

Don’t be too angry…  The backlash Cruz is going to get from his prideful and arrogant display will be written in the annals of political history and shared with political science classes for generations.

Read more.

Ted Cruz now joins a rogues gallery of those who cannot abide losing and will do anything to win, even if it means harming their party and the people who trusted them and put them into positions of power.

I recall a Tweet that pointed out TrusTED was the past tense of the word trust. I guess that Tweet was prophetic. Can you say betrayal, traitor, establishment republican?

These three names will live in infamy.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Cruz gets booed after he declines to endorse Trump

Video: Laura Ingraham Challenges “Boys With Bruised Egos” To Follow RNC Pledge, Endorse Trump

Tucker Carlson: No Chance Cruz Will Ever Get Elected President, Voters Will Not Forget This

Cleveland Police: Protester Lights Himself On Fire While Trying To Burn American Flag

VIDEO: GOP Congressman to House Democrats during sit-in: ‘Radical Islam killed these people’

The unnamed man who took hostages in a theater in Germany today had no problem getting a gun, despite Germany’s draconian gun laws. The House Democrats are perpetuating the prevailing willful ignorance about the real threat of jihad terror.

“GOP Congressman to House Democrats during sit-in: ‘Radical Islam killed these people,’” AOL News, June 23, 2016:

Tensions between Democrats and Republicans reached a boiling point , with one Republican lawmaker getting into a shouting match over a sit-in aimed at forcing votes on gun control measures.

Representative Louie Gohmert staging his own protest yelling at the Democrats saying, “We’re talking about radical Islam”. While also proclaiming, “Radical Islam killed these people.”

The Congressman waving his finger at posters featuring photos of the victims of the recent mass shooting in Orlando that left 49 people dead.

Gohmert’s own protests were then drowned out by the Democratics [sic] shouting, “Don’t let terrorists have a gun!”

The Democrats began their sit-in because of the Senate’s rejection of four purposed gun bills. Congressman John Lewis is leading the charge saying Congress has a moral obligation to speak up and speak out to address gun violence….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Saudis kept 2 jihad groups with ties to Huma Abedin off US terror list

UK Muslim stabs girlfriend: mother disapproved of his relationship with non-Muslim

Trump’s ‘rhetoric resonates’ with Democrats, Independents and Republicans alike

SHELTON, Conn. /PRNewswire/ — Since announcing his run for president last June, Donald J. Trump’s public remarks have had the world talking. In a recent online study of 1,500 voters, SSI, the global leader in research data collection, measured respondent agreement and disagreement with 200 policy statements made by Trump. Several of his statements received positive responses from voters across the political spectrum.

After reading each statement, respondents indicated whether it increased, decreased or had no impact on their likelihood to vote for Trump. Respondents selected “has no impact” 49 percent of the time, “increases” 29 percent of the time and “decreases” their likelihood of voting for Trump 22 percent of the time.

“Although Trump is often regarded as a polarizing figure, our study shows that the sentiment and substance of many of his statements do resonate with most Americans,” said Paul Johnson, director of analytics, SSI. “Voters are aware of what Trump has said and they like many elements. In fact, Trump’s rhetoric persuades more swing voters than it pushes away.”

In particular, several of Trump’s populist statements scored high across all party affiliations. Republicans, Democrats and Independents in the study were unanimous in their positive response to the following: “We need to once again have a government that is of the people, for the people and by the people.” Respondents from every party also reacted positively to this statement: “The only special interest not being served by our government is the American people.”

Trump’s Top Ranking Statements — All Parties

1. Our country needs a truly great leader, and we need a truly great leader now.

2. One of the key problems today is that politics is such a disgrace. Good people don’t go into government.

3. We need to once again have a government that is of the people, for the people and by the people.

4. I want to save Medicare and Social Security.

5. Too few Americans are working, too many jobs have been shipped overseas and too many middle class families cannot make ends meet.

Many of Trump’s statements had a strong impact on Independent voters. “While only a minority of people, less than five percent, switched their preferred candidate after reading the Trump statements, 56 percent of them were Independents,” said Johnson. “Eighteen percent of these switchers went away from Trump, but 30 percent switched to Trump, giving him a net positive take among undecided voters.”

Two policy themes that resonated strongly with both Independents and Republicans were domestic job protection and budget discipline. However, Independents reacted negatively to statements around waterboarding and global warming denial.

Trump’s Top Ranking Statements — Independents

1. Our country needs a truly great leader, and we need a truly great leader now.

2. One of the key problems today is that politics is such a disgrace. Good people don’t go into government.

3. We need to once again have a government that is of the people, for the people and by the people.

4. If you tax something you get less of it. It’s as simple as that. The more you tax work, the less people are willing to work. The more you tax investments, the fewer investments you’ll get. This isn’t rocket science.

5. We’ve got to bring on the competition. Education reformers call this school choice, charter schools, vouchers, even opportunity scholarships. I call it competition—the American way.

The remaining top statements vary significantly by Republican versus Democratic audiences. Respondents who identify themselves as Republicans agree most with statements emphasizing the importance of building a wall along the Mexico border, building up the military and imposing budget discipline.

Those who identify as Democrats agree most with statements promoting universal healthcare, unions, Medicare, Social Security, Planned Parenthood and LGBT rights. In several cases, top statements for Republicans appeared as lowest ranking statements for Democrats and vice versa.

About the Study

SSI tested 200 statements made by Trump (regarding a variety of policy topics and positions). The study measured respondent agreement and disagreement with between 30 to 200 different policy statements. All respondents were exposed to at least 30 statements, with some respondents opting into additional rounds of exposure to more statements.

Initially, respondents were not aware that the statements had been made by Trump. Following statement exposure, respondents were informed that all statements were, in fact, from Trump. Respondents were asked both before and after statement testing who was their preferred candidate. Switchers were those who were not consistent pre- and post-statement attribution.

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

In Robust Response to Tel Aviv Terror, Trump Rips ‘Uncivilized’ Palestinians Who Praised Attack

“La Raza” means “Master Race”

Trump Shatters Republican Primary Vote Record by 1.4 Million Votes

Hispanic activists’ anti-Trump efforts fall flat as citizenship push sputters – Washington Times

Stunning New Development!! Media calls Trump Racist

La Raza Circulates State-By-State Guide On Where To Vote Without ID

Meet The Pro-Illegal Immigrant Groups The La Raza Lawyers Of San Diego Consider Part Of Their ‘Community’

Republican Primary Lesson: It’s Not About You!

The existential threat to America today is not communism but colonization by illegal aliens and Muslim “refugees.” Political correctness subverts our First Amendment rights and shuts down even discussions about the threats to the middle class.

On the day Donald Trump resoundingly won primaries in West Virginia and Nebraska, the same day that Ted Cruz gave one last, desperate call-out to voters by indicating that he would consider reentering the race if Nebraska voters decided he should, a Quinnipiac poll provided yet one more shock to the pundit class.  It showed Trump even with Hillary Clinton in three key states.  He was beating her on leadership abilities, economic issues, and security issues.

Voters also thought that Trump was more “honest and trustworthy” than Clinton.

Trump had a lower rating on “moral standards” probably because of his playboy past.

The question remains: why would people trust someone who has low moral standards?  How did Trump earn this trust?

He certainly did not do it the way Ted Cruz did by speaking in front of a large banner with “TrusTed” on it.  He did not do it by telling his parents’ hard-scrabble stories the way Cruz and Marco Rubio did.  He did not by simply presenting his name with an exclamation point the way “Jeb!” did.  He did not do it with a phony “aw shucks” act like John Kasich’s.

Oddly, the man who is cast by the pundit class as being the supreme narcissist used the old Reagan slogan, “Make America Great Again.”  He tapped into the patriotic desires of Americans suffering two terms of an anti-American Obama presidency.

As voters rejected the other candidates’ appeals, commentators upped the rhetoric and aimed it at Trump’s supporters. The libertarians and millennial conservatives pulled out their thesauruses for new terms of insult.  Erick Erickson alternated between references to Scripture and casting Satanic aspersions on Trump supporters.  National Review’s Kevin Williamson likened them to Hitler supporters, and said their communities “deserved to die.”  The ominous meme about “angry white working class voters” was circulated by pundits who had studiously avoided any parallel categorization of Michelle Obama.

Adopting a new more conciliatory tone, David Brooks acknowledged the “pain” of “declinism” and called for a New Deal-like effort to change the “national story” from the old model of rugged individualism.  He suggested a “new definition of masculinity” for the new economy that rewards “emotional connection and verbal expressiveness.”  (Brooks is detail oriented, as his praise of the creases in then-candidate Obama’s pants showed.)

These commentators who attended elite schools and had connections were initially confident that the champion Princeton debater, praised by his former Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz as “off the charts brilliant,” would win out over the buffoon who spoke in sentence fragments.  Cruz’s campaign, as the Washington Post described it, “reflected its candidate: methodical, strategic and data-driven.”  It “deployed a sophisticated data strategy that used psychographic information to appeal to the fears or hopes of potential voters.”

On the day of the do-or-die primary, Cruz decided to talk to a man holding a Trump sign at his event in Marion, Indiana.  With cameras trailing, Cruz walked up to a guy who would probably not react favorably to Brooks’ “new definition of masculinity.”  He was from Ohio, a “pole-climber,” as he put it — someone Brooks, sitting in an office admiring the creases in his own pants, might espy, from a distance repairing the lines.

The effort was clearly intended to present Cruz as patient and charitable towards someone holding minimal “verbal expressiveness.”  Sure enough, in grammatically incorrect phrases, the man said that he supported Trump because of “the wall” and the Second Amendment.  He told him, “You are the problem, politician,” and asked where his Goldman-Sachs jacket was.  Cruz, with evident exasperation, repeated the well-known charges against Trump.  He asked him if he knew that he had argued a Second Amendment case before the Supreme Court.

Clips from the exchange were played on Fox on May 7, with Greg Gutfeld’s facial contortions and comments interspersed to show how impenetrable Trump supporters are to Cruz’s debating points.

While those in the #NeverTrump camp probably found Gutfeld’s mockery funny, others, such as other pole-climbers who are already disgusted with the sneering at their kind, probably did not.

Nor did they miss the announced “deal” with rival John Kasich, or fall for the slogan of used car salesmen and consumer advocates (“trust me”).

Do the candidates not understand that the hard-luck stories about immigrant parents bring only a “so what?” from children of immigrants who did not go Princeton or Harvard?  Do they understand that abstractions about “free enterprise” mean little when your job has been sent abroad?  Do they understand that bantering in Spanish on the debate stage doesn’t win any points if you have to compete for work with Mexicans hanging out at Home Depot?

Do they understand that talk about the Constitution inspires very little confidence if it comes from someone like Marco Rubio, who betrayed his supporters on immigration?  Do they understand that when you say “when I am president,” as Rubio did, that it comes off as presumptuous?  All three of the candidates who blamed Trump’s “rhetoric” for the rioters who closed down the rally in Chicago on March 11 lost credibility—and votes.

Did the Big Brains who kept invoking Ronald Reagan not listen to “the speech” on behalf of presidential candidate Barry Goldwater?  Reagan, calling himself a “former Democrat,” addressed middle-Americans’ concerns, then arising from the existential threat of communism and growth of government: an administration that sought to imprison farmers for improper bookkeeping, that built public housing, and that harassed businessmen.  Reagan told stories, about an Arkansas farmer who lost his 960-acre farm for over-planting his rice allotment.  He related a story about a young woman pregnant with her seventh child seeking a divorce so that she could qualify for Aid to Dependent Children, which provided more money than her husband, a laborer, could earn.

The existential threat today is not communism but colonization by illegal aliens and Muslim “refugees.”  Political correctness subverts our First Amendment rights and shuts down even discussions about the threats to the middle class.

As I described at this site, Trump at his rally on April 10, in Rochester, New York, connected with voters by talking about their concerns, such as the recent closing of SentrySafe, which followed Carrier Air Conditioning’s exit from Indiana to Mexico.

The day after the Indiana primaries, CNN invited a number of #NeverTrump-ers — over-glossed, quick-tongued politicos – who were contemplating a third party.

The #NeverTrump-ers ominously imply that if Trump is the nominee, “it will be a long, hot summer — and fall,” — continuing the idea that any violence will be Trump’s fault.  Erick Erickson, on the morning after the Nebraska win, predicting that the “Schadenfreudenfuhrer” will “beclown” himself over the next two months, advised delegates to the national convention to reject the will of the voters.  Otherwise, “We will see a party fail to unite. It’s [sic] standard bearers will flee.”

These “standard-bearers,” not looking beyond their own reflections, continue in the same self-destructive path.  As they accelerate the insults, they show that they may have “psychographic information,” but not much empathy or common sense.

New Republican Party: The Red, Purple and Parchment Troika

In my column New Democrat Party: The Red-Green-Rainbow Troika we took a look at the Democratic Party and how President Obama has fundamentally changed it by forming political alliances, creating a Troika. The members of the Red-Green-Rainbow Troika are certainly strange bedfellows but politics makes for strange bedfellows.

Now let’s look at the Republican Party.

Who has fundamentally changed it, why and is it for the better or worse? Who are members of the New Republican Party Troika (NRPT)? These are questions that may help voters understand what happened during the presidential primary of 2016 and what will happen in the lead up to November 8th.

Just like the Democratic Party, the GOP is make up of a Troika. The Republican Troika consists of three major factions:

  1. Conservative Republicans (a.k.a. the reds). These are the Grand Old Party elite (GOPe). They joined the party after the Goldwater years and have gained in power and prestige due to their unwavering party loyalty. They normally vote the Republican ticket.
  2. Republicans In Name Only (a.k.a. the purples or RINOs). These are individuals who joined the Republican party solely to win a political seat or appointment. A perfect example is former Florida Governor, former Republican and now Democrat Charlie Crist. The purples do not hold conservative values, rather they change as does the weather in the Sunshine State. The RINOs will not necessarily vote for the Republican ticket. Some have joined movements to undermine Republican nominees for president dating back to the days of Barry Goldwater.
  3. Constitutional Conservatives (a.k.a. the TEA Party). They embrace the parchment upon which the Constitution and Bill of Rights are written and signed by the Founding Fathers. This group includes Libertarians.

What differentiates these three factions is their commitment to “conservative values”, which are defined differently by each faction.

Arizona Republican Senator Barry Goldwater and presidential candidate in his book “The Conscience of a Conservative” wrote:

I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed” before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ “interests,” I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.

This statement, to many Republicans, defines Conservative values at every level of government. The idea of limited government as envisioned by the Founders and enshrined in the Constitution. States rights are paramount and trump efforts to impose government laws and regulations upon the population.

But not all members of the Troika embrace Goldwater’s statement. For you see there has been no true Conservative leader of the Republican Party since Ronald Reagan. How do we know? The American Enterprise Institute’s  in a column titled A reality check about Republican presidents measured the growth of government (i.e. regulations) over the past fifty years. Murray writes:

…I think it’s useful to remind everyone of the ways in which having a Republican president hasn’t made all that much difference for the last fifty years, with Ronald Reagan as the one exception.

First, here’s the history of the most commonly used measure of growth in the regulatory state, the number of pages in the Federal Code of Regulations.

murray_05132016

We can fairly blame LBJ’s Democratic administration for the initial spike in regulations, and Jimmy Carter’s years saw another steep rise. But using number of pages as the measure understates what happened during the Nixon years, when we got the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, plus much of the legislation that gave regulators the latitude to define terms such as “clean” or “safe” as they saw fit.

After the Carter years, the slope of the trendline was shallowest in the Reagan and Clinton administrations (with the Clinton result concentrated in his second term, when a Republican House imposed a moratorium on some new regulations). The increase during the Obama years remained on the same slope as the one during George W. Bush’s years. And if you’re thinking about the Democrats’ most egregious regulatory excess, Dodd-Frank in 2010, recall that Sarbanes-Oxley passed in 2002, when Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate.

I should add that presidents don’t bear a lot of blame for failing to reduce regulation — their power to restrain the activities of the regulatory agencies is limited — but neither has electing a Republican president done any good, with Reagan as a partial exception.

Read more.

With the GOP nominee process ending and Donald Trump as the nominee, what has changed? Who is now the leader of the GOP?

Many would say Trump, as the nominee, will be driving the policy and politics of the Republican Party. However, their are those who write and speculate that their remains an internal discord within the party between one of the three factions. The most likely faction to cause this discord are the purples/RINOs. The other two factions have begun uniting behind Trump.

Ayn Rand wrote, “The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other – until one day when they are suddenly declared to be the country’s official ideology.”

What are the uncontested absurdities of the Republican Party elite? Here’s a short list:

  1. Fear. Republican elites fear being called out by Democrats, the media and at times by fellow Republicans. The fear is palpable.
  2. Political correctness. Republicans succumb to the pressures of being politically correct (see #1 above).
  3. Compromise. Republicans are prone to compromise their values when it is unnecessary or by dint of constant pressure from the Democrat Troika. Compromise is the art of losing slowly. Something the GOPe is accustomed to.
  4. Elitism. The Republican elite (GOPe) has consistently ignored the voices of primary voters in 2008, 20012 and in 2016.
  5. Old guard career politicians. The old guard is not focused on retaining the core values of the party of Abraham Lincoln, rather it is focused on winning re-election.
  6. Lack of leadership. The GOP has controlled Congress for the past 4 years yet has failed to stop the agenda of the Democrat Troika. The leadership of McConnell/Boehner and now McConnell/Ryan have failed to make headway.
  7. Politics by press release. Republicans have become the party of the press release. They send out press statements that sound good on the surface but seldom become political reality, law or have an impact on public policy or Main Street Americans.
  8. Ignoring the base. The GOPe believe they can win presidential elections with old guard, politically correct, compromising, career politicians.
  9. Going along to get along. The best way to win re-election is to go along with the GOPe and Democrats. Shutting down the government to keep from increasing the national debt or reducing the size of government spending goes against the grain of the GOPe.
  10. The GOPe eats its own. The GOPe in the name of items #1-#9 will attack candidates and elected Republicans. Moderate means purple.

So what’s the solution to all of these Republican absurdities? As Newt Gingrich wrote in an article in The Washington Times on January 8, 2016 titled “Donald Trump”:

You’re sick of politicians, sick of the Democratic Party, Republican Party, and sick of illegal’s. You just want this thing fixed. Trump may not be a saint, but doesn’t have any lobbyist money influencing him, he doesn’t have political correctness restraining him, all you know is that he has been very successful, a good negotiator, he has built a lot of things, and he’s also not a politician, so he’s not a cowardly politician. And he says he’ll fix it. You don’t care if the guy has bad hair. You just want those raccoon’s [rabid, messy, mean politicians] gone. Out of your house!

Donald J. Trump has changed the political paradigm. Will the purples follow or become the thorn in the side of Trump. That is the question.

lincoln quote

RELATED ARTICLES:

House Republicans to Move Forward on Spending Without a Budget Number

An Economist Explains Why America Is Moving Toward Totalitarianism

List of Attendees for Zuckerberg’s Facebook Meeting are all Members of #NeverTrump Movement

The GOP must play its Trump Card

After Donald Trump’s victory in Indiana the media, Democrats and some Republicans are crying in their beer.

Now is the time for the GOP to play its Trump card.

Trump Indiana victory speech:

If the goal of the GOP is to take back the White House and keep a majority in both houses of Congress, the game is in their hands. The goal is to win! Trump has energized the American voters. His campaign is now an insurgency. The GOP cannot fear the insurgents, rather they must embrace them.

The insurgents are the American people.

Politicians no longer control the bully pulpit. The American people do. That is how the Republican Party has been fundamentally transformed over the past nine months. It is a new Republican Party, one with a broad base of support. One that is energized. One that is ready for change to bring back the hope of making America great again.

Trump won with his simple message – Americans first!

The GOP will be facing Hillary Clinton, a candidate that is flawed, the consummate politician and beholding to special interests. Trump is the exact opposite. He has never run for public office until now and for the highest seat in the land. He is not a politician and because he is self-funding, is beholding to none other than the American people.

This has been described as the “election  of the century.” In reality it is a “battle royal between the individualist and the collectivist.”

Ayn Rand wrote a short nineteen page paper asking: What is the basic issue facing the world today? Rand, in her paper makes the case that, “The basic issue in the world today is between two principles: Individualism and Collectivism.” Rand defines these two principles as follows:

  • Individualism – Each man exists by his own right and for his own sake, not for the sake of the group.
  • Collectivism – Each man exists only by the permission of the group and for the sake of the group.

It appears the ideal of collectivism is alive and well. Collectivism is what drives the followers of Marx, Mao and Mohammed. The new Collectivists are now in power. Obama has fundamentally transformed the Democratic Party. But this malaise can and must be reversed.

Ayn Rand wrote:

“The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other – until one day when they are suddenly declared to be the country’s official ideology.”

Donald Trump is contesting the absurdities that Americans have had to deal with for over one-hundred years. Trump is not politically correct, and the people love him for it. Trump hates the absurd. The greatest absurdity being that government is smarter than the individual.

That is the battle, that is the war, that is the conflict.

This war must be won at all cost. To do otherwise is to doom our children and grandchildren to a life of slavery under a tyrannical government.

The Ted Cruz Canadian Citizenship — A New Look

The eligibility of Ted Cruz has been and is still being called into question.   The question will never be answered until it gets answered either by supposition, or by the courts.  Plus, these questions were brought to bear in the 1800s and decided by the Supreme Court during that 100 year period.

In this paper, I am going to try something different in presenting this case of the eligibility of Ted Cruz, by introducing this paper with some paragraphs from The Presidency Manifesto of Ted Cruz:

“If I were to be elected as your President, it would not be according to how it should be but would be according to how it became with the unconstitutional election of Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro.  You see, I, like him, am not a ‘a natural born citizen’ as the Constitution requires of a President.”

“I was not born as a natural citizen of the United States of America because my father was a Cuban national (living in exile due to his opposition to the policies of Fidel Castro and his communist government) just as Barack Obama was not a natural citizen because his father was a subject of the British government, – being governed, along with his children, by the British Nationality Act of 1948.”

“But not being ‘a natural born citizen’ did not keep his party from illegitimately nominating him to be their presidential candidate…”  “Well as they say… two can play that game…” – Written by Adrien Nash as Ted Cruz (November 2014)

These paragraphs are essentially true as it pertains to birth place and the term “natural born citizen”.  The writer laid out Ted Cruz’s ineligibility by equating it to President Obama with the exception of stating that Ted Cruz openly stated he was born in Calgary, Canada.

According to Rafael Cruz, in 1970, when Ted Cruz was born in Canada, Cruz Senior stated that they lived in Canada for at least four years and had applied for and received Canadian citizenship under the Canadian Immigration and Naturalization Laws.  Rafael Cruz did not renounce his Canadian citizenship until 2005.  His wife and son were still Canadian citizens (Politicalconundrum, 2015).

Prior to the Cruz family moving to the United States in 1974, Eleanor and Raphael Cruz appeared on the “Urban Preliminary List Of Electors” (Atkinson, 1974).  To vote, one must be a citizen and during an interview with NPR, Cruz stated, he and Eleanor are Canadian citizens.

The Canadian Citizenship Act of 1946, or commonly called, “Act of 1947”.  This Act fully defines him as a Canadian citizen.  Parliament, later replaced the Act of 1947 with The Citizenship Act, February 1977.  The Citizenship Act also recognized, “dual citizenship”.  If the situation was more of an ideal situation, the best Ted Cruz could get is dual citizenship.  According to Cruz Senior, both Eleanor and he were Canadian citizens the year Ted Cruz was born.  The end result, this “The Citizenship Act” does not apply to Ted because he is a natural born Canadian.

People have been searching the Delaware, Department of Health database for Ted Cruz’s mother and they are finding a “no record exists”.  The reason why Eleanor Elizabeth Darragh Wilson Cruz birth certificate in Delaware does not exist is because there is no birth certificate for this name.  On Line 2, full name of child: Eleanor Darragh.  On Line 31, the father verified baby Eleanor, by writing Eleanor Darragh.  Using any other search string will not yield any results for Eleanor Darragh.

According to the Chart, Citizenship at Birth for Children Born Outside the U.S. and its Territories, as indicated in the USCIS Policy Manual does not apply.  If Eleanor Cruz had maintained her US citizenship, then the chart would apply.  Also, based on The Three Legged Stool Test… the first leg, to be a natural born citizen, the person must be born of US Parents.  The second leg, is the father must be natural born, or naturalized and the third leg, the mother, is the same as the second leg (Kerchner, 2013).  This test fails at every question asked.

While courts are deciding in Ted Cruz’s favor, the lower courts are not paying attention to the Supreme Court’s decisions on citizenship.  There have been four decisions in the 1800s that has settled the natural born citizenship challenges.  Although, the SCOTUS did not specifically say “natural born citizen”, they have supplied a definition what a natural born citizen is.  These four cases were:

  • The Venus, 12 U.S. Cranch 253 253 (1814)
  • Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
  • Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
  • United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

Covering each one briefly, one will notice how closely these decisions are made.

The Venus (1814)

Justice Livingston quoted from the book, Law of Nations, specifically, Book 1, Chapter 19, Section 212.  “The citizens are members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages”.  “The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens…”

Shanks v. Dupont (1830)

“If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country”.

Minor v. Happersett (1875)

“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.  These were natives or natural-born citizens, …”

United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)

“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.  These were natives or natural-born citizens, …”

With the basis of these Supreme Court decisions, the written conclusion as stated by the unknown author at Four Winds 10 – Truth Winds:  “In this sense, the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term ‘natural born citizen’ to any other category than those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.  (June 2011)

The Calvin Case, 7 Coke Report states, “… for he cannot be a subject born of one kingdom that was born under the ligeance of a King of another kingdom, …”  (Roland, 2016).  George Bancroft in 1884, characterized the debate on qualifications for the Presidency, … “that no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, should be eligible to the office of president, …”  The numerous colonies in the 1600s and 1700s were using the language of “natural-born”.  (Roland, 2016)

While eligibility challenges are ongoing, Jerome R. Corsi (2016), penned an article, Eligibility challenges heat up for Cruz, Rubio.  The argument in question is that Mary Brigid McManamon argued that Ted Cruz is not eligible to be president, whereas, John C. Eastman argued that Ted Cruz is eligible.  Eastman was referencing the bill that was passed in 1790.  This bill was later replaced in 1795.

During the research for this paper, there are a few things that need to be pointed out.  Most of this paper entailed reiterating what others have said.  This commentary should highlight the things necessary that proves Ted Cruz is not eligible for the Office of the Presidency.

Through articles and other documents, this research concludes that Ted Cruz, in fact, was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada as a “natural born citizen” without the inclines of dual citizenship.  Eleanor Elizabeth Darragh Wilson Cruz was in fact born in Wilmington, DE, but not under that name.  She was born with the name of Eleanor Darragh and her father verified the name by writing it on the birth certificate.

Most of the iterations in this paper primarily support each other, to include the Law of Nations stating that a child born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.

Further investigation indicated Senator Ted Cruz has some very distinct problems he must resolve, yet, he can never be eligible for the Office of the President.  While many have heard and read this claim, they brushed it aside, due to information that has been missed, or purposely left out.

Too much weight has been placed on Eleanor’s birth certificate that would qualify him as a US Citizen.  The reality is Ted Cruz was never a citizen of the United States, or at the least a dual citizen; in fact it is neither.  His citizenship has always been Canadian.

There has been no Consulate Report of Birth Abroad, because neither parent could legally file one.  The argument tends to repeat itself because of the mother’s birth certificate.  It is true, she was born in Delaware, but that is far as it goes.

To qualify my statement that Ted Cruz is a “Natural born Canadian citizen”, an interview was conducted by National Public Radio (NPR) with Rafael B. Cruz, Ted’s father.  Referencing timeline, 1970, Rafael Cruz stated that he and Eleanor applied for and received Canadian citizenship under the Immigration and Naturalization laws.  Timeline, February, 2015, there is no evidence of US citizenship to confirm his true citizenship status.  Ted Cruz, by way of his father had been confirmed that he is a Canadian citizen.

What does this mean for Ted Cruz?  Let me place this as bullet points.

  • In 2014, he renounced his Canadian citizenship.
  • He is a resident alien.
  • He is illegally holding a political office as a Senator.
  • Since 2014, he has been a person without a country.
  • Ted Cruz’s family, specifically his children are not natural born citizens.

If we follow the decision that was handed down in the Shanks v Dupont (1830), if under age children follows the national character of their father, the children do not and cannot carry any part of their Canadian citizenship – even though Ted Cruz is half-Cuban – since their father renounced his Canadian citizenship.  It will be up to the mother to get these children naturalized to the United States.

Ted Cruz, when he discovered that he was still a Canadian, he needed to apply for citizenship to the United States.  The members of the US Senate will be well within their means to expel Ted Cruz from the senate due to his citizenship status.

In the final analysis, Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen.  He is not even a citizen of the United States.  The best category he can fit into is, resident alien.  Ted Cruz had sealed his records; birth records, family records.  The last question is where did Ted Cruz get his passport in 1986?  This may be an interest for someone who wants to dig a little deeper.

A Video Message from Phyllis Schlafly

Phyllis Schlafly gives an update on the status and upcoming events of Eagle Forum. Among other things Schlafly speaks about the upcoming GOP convention, her new book and Republican “king makers.”

Schlafly quotes former Senator Everett Dirksen of Illinois, who at the 1953 Republican National Convention, took to the floor and accused the king makers of leading the Republicans “down the road to defeat.” Dirksen received mixed boos and cheers rang out from the delegates.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Don’t take us down the path to defeat again by Mitchell Hadley

The 2 Million Voters Who Will Elect the Next President

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!

Donald Trump is a ‘Christian Nationalist’

I have written that Donald Trump went from running a campaign, to heading a movement and is now leading an insurgency. Until today I could not define what was driving this insurgency. I may now have the answer.

Karl Marx wrote: “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people“.

Donald Trump is viewed by his followers as the heart of a heartless world, the soul fighting a soulless government and he understands that it is morals that drives him and the American dream. It is religion that is inextricably linked to politics in America. It is something citizens have not seen since the American Revolution.

Mahatma Gandhi said, “Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is.”

Gandhi also said, “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

Michael Savage in his column “Here’s how to define Donald Trump” writes:

And I want to define something for you.

Here’s something important. People don’t know how to define Donald Trump.

I’ve defined him as a moderate nationalist. But I’m going to redefine Donald Trump for everyone listening to this show around the world on “The Savage Nation,” because I’m the idea man. I’m known as the idea man.

And here’s your idea. Take it, run with it, drop it, reject it, debate it.

Trump is a Christian nationalist.

No one’s said that.

He’s proud to be a Christian. He is a proud Christian, and he’s a proud American nationalist.

This is anathema. This is anathema to the media. This is anathema to the university America haters. This is anathema to the thuggish left who has taken over everything in this country and threatens everybody by threatening your advertisers if you dare speak out about their communism and their desire to control every aspect of our life from top to bottom, telling us what we’re supposed to think about sexuality.

Everything; they tell us what we’re supposed to think.

Well, finally we have someone who said: “Drop dead. We’re not your slaves. We’re not slaves of the radical left. We’re not gonna eat this garbage anymore, and we’re fighting back.”

And he is the man carrying the banner of this Christian nationalism, and that is why he’s ruffling feathers around the world, because they’re used to stamping on us.

They have disrobed the Statue of Liberty and molested her. The radical left has disrobed her and rolled her in mud, and the Statue of Liberty is crying, and Donald Trump wants to clean her and clothe her again! [Emphasis added]

Read more.

Trump is a church militant. The Church Militant comprises the souls on Earth engaged in battle against the forces evil. The evils that Trump and the insurgency are battling are: political correctness, political power, collectivism, Communism, socialism and radical Islamism. All of which are forces of evil.

I can now define the insurgency as a “Christian insurgency” and Donald Trump embodies the core of it.

This is why Trump is winning.

RELATED ARTICLES:

How a Suspected Murderer and Criminally Convicted Illegal Immigrant Avoided Deportation

Why Washington’s Political Class Is Losing Control

ICE: 124 illegal immigrants released from jail later charged in 138 murder cases

BEYOND DISTRUST: How Americans View Their Government – PEW Research

The ‘Compassionate’ Bullying of the Left

Islamic States’ Crimes Against Christians Detailed in New Report

An Overthrow of the Government

Sure enough, presidential candidate Donald J. Trump racked up impressive statistics in his Fox News debate tonight, effectively trouncing the competition that included Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, and Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

Once again, however, Fox’s Megyn “hell hath no fury like a woman scorned” Kelly ambushed Mr. Trump by falsely stating that the Better Business Bureau had given Trump University a D-minus rating, when in fact it’s rating is, as Trump asserted, an A!

Here is the Better Business Bureau report, with an ‘A’ grade for Trump University.

trump university bbb report grade a

The same trouncing happened last week when Trump’s victories in the primaries garnered him the lion’s share of electoral votes by winning Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Massachusetts, Tennessee, and Virginia, which, according to Philip Bump of The Washington Post, “no Republican has ever won…going back to 1960.”

Both pundits and pollsters attributed the massive turn-outs to Mr. Trump’s having excited, inspired and therefore mobilized the electorate––in some cases well over 100% increase above the 2012 midterms. In one instance, Mr. Trump beat Sen. Cruz by 450,000 votes; in another he beat Sen. Rubio by over a million votes! According to writers Bill Barrow and Emily Swanson, Trump had “significant support across educational, ideological, age and income classifications.”

In his victory speech last week, looking and sounding presidential, Mr. Trump accurately proclaimed: “We have expanded the Republican Party.”

This ought to have been music to the ears of Republicans everywhere, especially “establishment” types who constantly seek to attract influential voting blocs comprised of African-Americans, Hispanics, and young people, all of whom––mysteriously, incomprehensibly, self-destructively––have huddled under the Democrat tent for decades, gaining not a micrometer of progress in their personal lives, wages, schools, crime rates, the pathetic list is endless.

Trump, only nine months into being a politician, has accomplished this incredible feat. But the more he succeeds, the more the Grand Poobahs of the Grand Old Party, as well as the media (both right and left), have devolved into what appears to be a clinical state of hysteria.

Think about this. Barack Obama’s record violates every principle and value that Republicans and Conservatives claim they stand for. Under his watch, we have…

  • 94-million unemployed Americans
  • An almost-insurmountable debt of nearly $20 trillion
  • Borders so porous that not thousands but millions of unvetted and potentially murderous illegal aliens (i.e., jihadists) have been able to invade our shores and set up their U.S.-government-dependent shop in sanctuary cities around our nation
  • A severely diminished military and nothing less than vile treatment of our veterans
  • Trampling on the Constitution
  • Bypassing Congress to act unilaterally (and illegally)
  • Appeasing our enemies and spitting at our allies

…and yet those same Republicans and Conservatives––in full control of the Senate and House––have been notably absent in mustering up anything more than mild rebuke to counter Mr. Obama’s assaults on our country.

But to them, Trump is the real threat!

BATTEN DOWN THE HATCHES

That’s what the frenzied GOP, media, and also-rans are trying to do, figuratively closing any openings in what they believe is their own personal Ship of State now that the threatening weather called Donald Trump is upon them. They are in a state of impotent horror, given their abject failure––in spite of multimillions spent and generous media assistance––to stem the Trump juggernaut.

Ironic, isn’t it. If any entity deserves a comeuppance, it is the very arrogant, go-along-to-get-along, ineffectual, leftist-whipped, emasculated, cave-to-Obama, bow-to-the-lobbyists, accommodate-the-Arab-lobby establishment!

Impotent? Emasculated? Yes, money and power are mighty motivators, but it is a tacit acknowledgment of their own sissified selves that is now spurring Trump’s critics into action.

And they’re trying their damnedest!

On March 2, a gaggle of Republican national security leaders––no doubt many of them members of the globalist Council on Foreign Relations whose animating raison d’ȇtre would be threatened by a Trump presidency––wrote an open letter to Trump expressing their “united opposition” to his candidacy.”  They don’t like his “vision of American influence and power in the world….advocacy for aggressively waging trade wars…rhetoric [that] undercuts the seriousness of combating Islamic radicalism…insistence that Mexico will fund a wall on the southern border…,” on and on. Comical, isn’t it, that everything they’ve failed to address with any seriousness or success compels them to slam the guy who promises to address those issues and succeed.

On March 3, 22 Republicans––including philandering Congressman Mark Sanford and the execrable Glenn Beck––declared that they would not vote for Trump.

August writers like the Wall St. Journal’s Bret Stephens have been apoplectic about Trump for months, sparing no slur or invective. Author and military historian Max Boot has dug deep into his assault repertoire to make sure no insult has gone unhurled.  And the usually dazzling Andrew C. McCarthy at National Review Online is simply unable to contain his hostility to Trump’s candidacy, just as most of the other writers at NRO have jumped on the anti-Trump bandwagon. And that’s not to omit the florid hysteria emanating from Commentarymagazine.com.

On March 4, desperate anti-Trump operatives pimped out good ole patsy Mitt Romney to go before a teleprompter and read the words written for him by an anti-Trump operative. So sad––a man who once had class.

But no one forgot that Romney, a lifelong liberal, lost both senatorial and presidential elections and that the last image of him––etched indelibly in the American public’s consciousness––was of him debating his rival for the presidency, Barack Obama, and simply folding like a cheap suit!

Romney––who The Wall St. Journal called “a flawed messenger”––didn’t look or sound like he had dementia, so it’s strange indeed that he barely mentioned the endorsement Trump gave him for his campaign for president, and the lavish praise he heaped upon Trump.

Romney’s hit job evoked the following 22-word, devastating and well-deserved tweet from Trump: “Looks like two-time failed candidate Mitt Romney is going to be telling Republicans how to get elected. Not a good messenger!”

All of the abovementioned people––and dozens I haven’t named––are growing frustrated that their old tricks of marginalizing and finally destroying the target in question haven’t worked. They long to emulate the JournOlist  of 2007, when over-400 members of the leftist media colluded to quash any and every criticism or fact-based doubt about Mr. Obama’s Constitutional eligibility to hold office, to intimidate any critic into silence.

To this day, has anyone seen even one of Barack Obama’s college transcripts, his marriage license, a doctor’s evaluation? Now it’s the Republicans––actually those cocktail-swigging “conservatives” who routinely cozy up to the lobbyists they’re beholden to––who have gotten together to defeat Trump. These feckless so-called leaders decided that their target, a self-funded former liberal, was worth more of their negative, insult-laden literary output and passionate commentary than the Marxist-driven, jihadist-defending, anti-Constitutional, anti-American regime in power.

If you ever wonder how this could happen, why Republicans and self-described Conservatives could rebel so ferociously against a candidate who promises to strengthen our military, bring jobs and industry back to America, seal our borders against the  onslaught of illegal aliens, and make America great again, wonder no more.

FOLLOW THE MONEY

Doesn’t it always come down to money? Money leads to power and influence and control, all of which politicians––that too-often pliable and buyable species––lust for. It’s not only the ephemeral day-to-day power they fear losing, it’s the entire network they’re enmeshed in, which involves all the treaties and deals and “arrangements” they’ve signed onto and the pelf it promises to keep on yielding (for Exhibit No. 1, see The Clinton Foundation and the mountain of cash it reaps).

Imagine their fear of a president who actually cuts the pork, actually strikes deals that don’t line his own pockets, actually exposes the bad deals that have been made by the bad players in Washington, D.C. Imagine what Trump will learn about the massive under-the-table, self-serving deals that were made in the Iran deal and others.

The same lust for power applies to media moguls whose wealth is not limited to TV stations and newspapers but to the very deals made by government and on Wall St. No one knows this better than Mr. Trump, the author of the mega-bestseller, The Art of the Deal. That’s why his critics are so terrified. They pretend to be offended by the kind of comment or gesture that they themselves express routinely. But they’re really afraid of being in the presence of someone who is utterly immune to either their blandishments or strong-arm tactics.

Roger Stone, a former advisor to Mr. Trump, told writer S. Noble at WorldNetDaily.com, that the perceived threat is so real that “The GOP establishment would rather suffer through four years of Hillary––whose policies are indistinguishable from Marco Rubio’s or Mitt Romney’s––than to have an outsider be president, like Trump who is beholden to no one.”

As Mark Cunningham wrote in the New York Post: “All the noise about Donald Trump’s ‘hostile takeover’ of the Republican Party misses a key point: Such takeovers only succeed when existing management has failed massively. And that’s true of both the GOP and the conservative movement. Trump’s a disrupter—but most of the fire aimed his way is just shooting the messenger.”

Monica Crowley, editor of online opinion at The Washington Times, explains that the “emotionally fragile Republican ruling class” deluded themselves into thinking that Mr. Trump couldn’t possibly win. “Then actual voting began. And the first-timer, the brash anti-politician, began racking up resounding victories…”

In addition, Crowley writes: “Like his style or not, Mr. Trump is an in-your-face guy. Voters want that kind of guy taking it to President Obama’s record, [to] Hillary Clinton…and to the unbridled, destructive leftism that has rendered America virtually unrecognizable.” And, I might add, taking it to the wimps in the GOP!

Former Governor Mike Huckabee told Fox News that Donald Trump’s success represents a peaceful “overthrow of the government” and that the Republican establishment should be glad it’s being achieved with “ballots not bullets.” He added that the Trump phenomenon was a “political revolution in the Republican Party and in the country.”