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!


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

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.


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, 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.”

Republicans Are Nowhere to Be Found

In many ways, like Job in the Bible, “For the thing which I greatly feared is come upon me, and that which I was afraid of is come unto me (Job 3:25 King James Version).

I was hoping against all hope that the Republican Party would do something to really pay homage to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birthday today.  But, like Job, I have been forced to conclude “that which I was afraid of is come unto me.”

Republicans are a national party, control 31 out of 50 governors, control the U.S House of Representatives and control the U.S. Senate; and the party as a whole, has done nothing to celebrate the contribution King made to Blacks, America, and the world.

I am sure a Republican somewhere has issued the annual perfunctory press release; but why the party doesn’t take this occasion to sit at the feet of Black Republican luminaries who worked with King is baffling to me.

King actually frequently stayed in the home of Bob Brown in Hickory, North Carolina.  I have stayed at Bob’s house and it is a living museum of American and world history.  There are personal photos and letters from King to Bob.  There are handwritten notes to Bob from former South African president Nelson Mandela when he was in prison.  There are volumes of letters and photos from world leaders to Bob.

There are photos of Bob with every U.S. president from Nixon to the present.  Bob is a walking history book of the Civil Rights movement and a lifetime Republican.

You have Bill Coleman, the first Black to serve as a cabinet secretary in the history of America.  He was law partners with former U.S. Supreme Court justice Thurgood Marshall; and they both argued the famous Brown vs Board of Education case before the Supreme Court.  Oh, and Coleman is another lifetime Republican.

There are Black Republicans all over the country who worked deeply in the Civil Rights movement, but the party has no idea who they are.  The few Black staffers who work within various Republican entities have no idea who these people are, nor do they have any curiosity to discover who these people are that paved the way for them.

At best, a Republican leader might attend a MLK event being sponsored by a liberal Black Democratic organization (their local NAACP, etc.).

But why should that be the case when Republicans are very capable of doing both local and national pro-life events all over the country?  They don’t simply issue perfunctory press releases.  Why?

Because the party obviously puts a certain value on the pro-life issue and its supporters.  I will leave you to make your own conclusions of this issue relative to MLK’s holiday.

Not one presidential campaign has a campaign event celebrating King’s birthday; but they all run over each other to get in front of a camera for Reagan’s birthday.  Again, I will leave you to make your own conclusions of this issue relative to MLK’s holiday.

In politics, optics matter and my party is totally tone deaf when it comes to optics within the Black community.  Spouses tend not to forget their significant other’s birthday because they know it is important to them.

Memo to Republicans, MLK’s birthday is very important to Blacks and more broadly to America.

With control of congress, 31 governorships, and a majority of state legislatures, and a national party; you really expect me to believe we couldn’t have orchestrated a series of national and local MLK celebrations?

The party, at every level, should have organized Black businessmen all across the country to have a discussion of a 21st century version of Civil Rights to address issues like: entrepreneurship, access to capital, education, crime & justice.

What policy solutions are Republicans in congress willing to offer to address these issues?

But they also need to sit at the feet of people like the Bob Browns and the Bill Colmans.  These are the people the party must consult with relative to the voting rights case that the Supreme Court ruled on a few years ago regarding section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

You would think that the occasion of King’s birthday would be a time the Republican Party can come together with Black Republicans and discuss how to restore the party to being the party of Lincoln.

But if the party can’t honor one of our own icons, how can we honor them with our vote?

Obama has been an abject failure as president relative to the Black community.  Republicans have the right message for the Black community; but they must engage with Black Republicans who have institutional memory and relationships with the Browns and the Colemans.

The window is closing fast on the Republican Party for this year’s presidential election and beyond.  If the party doesn’t start engaging with the Black community in a meaningful way, Democrats will yet again win the white house and forever change the fabric of our country irreparably.

Language in Thought and Action

Last week I was reflecting on how to better help the Republican Party get more Blacks engaged in the party and ended up taking a mental stroll down memory lane.

In my freshman year in college at Oral Roberts University, my freshman textbook for my English class was Language in Thought and Action. The author was former Republican U.S. Senator, S.I. Hayakawa from California. He was a university professor and linguist by training.

This book is must reading if you want to truly understand the art of communications and how to better ensure that the message you want to deliver to a person or group is properly received.

Herein lies the problem with the Republican Party when it comes to the Black community.

Republicans are horrible at messaging, especially when it comes to the Black community. In the rare event that the party or a campaign hires a Black, in most cases these hires have absolutely no understanding of messaging and communications.

One of my favorite quotes from Hayakawa’s book is, “meanings are in people, not in words.”

Republicans constantly talk about being the big tent party and the party of Lincoln. Well, that is not what the Black community is hearing by the words and actions of the Republican Party.

I have told this to Republicans ad nauseam, but they have yet to learn this lesson.

For example, when Blacks of a certain age hear Republicans use the term “conservative,” what they hear is Strom Thurmond or Jesse Helms (who were both members of the U.S. Senate and were strong segregationists during the Civil Rights movement). As soon as Blacks hear the word conservative, they shut down because no one ever takes the time to define the word and its meaning in the 21st century.

Another example is when Republicans obsessively talk about giving more power back to the states. Well, to many Blacks this evokes a painful memory and a painful history that they would rather not relive.

I thoroughly understand what Republicans are saying about giving more power back to the sates, but “meanings are in people, not in words.”

In effective communications, it’s not what you say that is important; but rather how your words are received by your targeted audience.

Just imagine a Republican standing before a Black audience today and constantly using the word Afro-American or Colored when referring to Blacks.

When Republicans today attempt to communicate with Blacks, they are using the functional equivalent of words like Afro-American and Colored.

The party and its candidates for various offices are totally wasting money and time with the current approach of communication they are using.

In any effective communications strategy, there must be two elements: an awareness phase and then a call to action.

The awareness phase asks the question what is it that I want to communicate to my audience; what is the takeaway message I want to communicate to my audience; and why am I talking before this audience?

The call to action phase asks the question, now that you have heard my speech, heard my radio spot, or read my comments to you, what is it that I now want you to do?

If you use the two above elements to analyze any Republican communication to the Black community, you will begin to understand why there is no mass movement within the Black community towards the Republican Party.

So, in order for Republicans to begin to effectively communicate with the Black community, they must first define their terms of engagement. When they use the term conservative, what do they mean; how do they define states’ rights? Why should Blacks be open or even listen to the Republican Party and its message?

I challenge Republican to answer these questions without talking about Abraham Lincoln, slavery, or mentioning Civil Rights; or using meaningless phrases like the party of smaller government, less government regulation or individual freedom.

In other words, what is the relevance of the Republican Party to the Black community in 2016?

Notice when Republicans engage with the Black community, there is never a call to action. There is never an email address given to contact a specific person; there is never anyone asking the Black community to “join” the Republican Party by doing this or that. In other words, no one asks for the sale.

If the actress Halley Barry gives you her phone number so you can stay in touch with her and you have many great phone conversations; but you never ask her out to dinner, what have you accomplished?

I had lunch last week with a Black A-list football player who has coached a major Republican presidential candidate’s son. I asked him has this candidate ever asked him to campaign with him and he said no.

You have got to be kidding me. They talk frequently and he has all of this candidate’s private numbers. This is exhibit A in my frustration with the Republican Party.

VIDEO: GOP Candidates Completely Wrong on Origin of the Islamic State

The name ISIS [Islamic State] was said over 100 times during the last GOP debate and yet so many factually incorrect statements were made. Truth in the Media’s Ben Swann gives those candidates a Reality Check about where ISIS really came from.

EDITORS NOTE: Learn More at Truth In Media.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The GOP Debate: Missing the Banana Boat on Immigration

It’s a tragic fact of man’s nature that people prescribe an ounce of prevention when a pound of cure is needed — and a pound of cure when times call for a ton of desperate measures.

Immigration, rightly and largely thanks to Donald Trump, has become a big issue this election cycle.

But not big enough.

And Tuesday’s GOP debate was illustrative of the problem. When John “Can’t do” Kasich and Jeb “Invasion is an act of love” Bush both scoffed at the idea of following the law, saying we “can’t” deport illegals, the response was lacking. Only Senator Ted Cruz rode in to save the issue from their demagoguery. He said it was “offensive” to suggest that enforcing the law is anti-immigrant and warned that the Republicans will lose if they “join Democrats as the party of amnesty.” He also quite eloquently pointed out that the media wouldn’t be suppressing the dark reality of illegal migration if “a bunch of people with journalism degrees were coming over and driving down the wages in the press,” and that there’s nothing compassionate about diminishing millions of Americans’ earnings.

Yet even the intelligent, staunchly traditionalist Cruz misses the boat on immigration. Even the intrepid, titillatingly anti-establishment Trump does. In 2013, Cruz proposed (at 3:28 in this video) increasing H1B visas 500 percent and doubling legal immigration. And Trump repeats the theme that immigration must be done “legally.” The problem?

Americans are “legally” being done out of their jobs. They’re “legally” being pushed into socialism. And they’re “legally” having their culture stolen away. Yet much more than this went unmentioned during Tuesday’s debate.

“Think about the families!” cried Kasich, alluding to family unification. “C’mon, folks!” Okay, c’mon, let’s think about families.

The families argument is pure propaganda. Families can also be united by sending people the other way — back to their native countries, where most family members often are in the first place. Second, the families argument could be used as a pretext for not enforcing any law. Why imprison people for bank robbery or embezzlement? If they have children, the kids will be left without a parent, or even parentless and have to languish in foster care. And as with illegals, many other law-breakers engage in their crimes “because they want a better life.” How many mafia figures didn’t use their ill-gotten gains to support their families?

Moreover, failure to enforce immigration law is discriminatory. If such law can be flouted with impunity, why should any of us have to follow the law? The amnesty crowd are essentially creating a privileged group — illegal migrants — who alone will get a pass on their criminality. Is unfair discrimination compassionate?

Kasich also trumpeted Ronald Reagan’s 1986 amnesty and said the idea of deporting “11 million people who are law-abiding…is not an adult argument.” But is this a mature statement? The illegals by definition aren’t “law-abiding” because they broke the law in coming to the U.S. in the first place. Here’s something else unmentioned: Reagan reportedly called the 1986 amnesty “My biggest mistake.”

And Kasich, Bush, “Gang of Eight” Marco Rubio and others think we should repeat it.

Note that since the ’86 mistake there have been six more amnesties, each one attended by promises to secure the border. It’s said, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” Should we play the fool an eighth time? Are we Charlie Brown with the football?

Transitioning to political footballs, there’s the Kasich-Bush-Insane notion that we “can’t deport 11 million people.” Here’s the ideal debate response:

Well, we certainly can’t if we look to make not good policy but excuses. But despite what “Can’t do” Kasich might say this isn’t a matter of capability but will. But first realize that we don’t have to deport illegals — we can get them to deport themselves.

You use a carrot-and-stick approach; the removal of the carrot and application of the stick. First make sure illegals can’t get any government benefits; of course, this includes no driver’s licenses, which can enable illegals to vote in our elections. Then ensure they can’t get jobs by punishing employers hiring them. Once these incentives to remain are gone, most will leave voluntarily, as Arizona’s crackdown on illegals some years back proved. And once most depart, deporting the few remaining will be an easy task. So the issue isn’t complicated; it’s only made so by pandering politicians who put votes ahead of country.

Speaking of a treasonous spirit, the topic of H1B visas — which allow employers to recruit high-skilled foreign workers — came up during the second-to-last GOP debate on Oct. 28. Once again, no candidate fielded it sufficiently. Ideal debate statement:

In the news there has been story after story recently about corporations replacing high-skilled American workers with lower-wage foreigners; this is a violation of the law, which stipulates that an H1B-visa recruit can only be retained if it “will not affect the working conditions of workers similarly employed,” but this law is routinely flouted and unenforced. Outrageously and rubbing salt in the wound, in some cases these Americans have even been forced to train their foreign replacements under threat of losing their severance packages! This is treasonous! And think about the families, the families that these Americans can no longer support. Is this compassionate? Is this an “act of love”?

The H1B-visa program is being abused, and is used to abuse Americans, by crony capitalists in and out of government who grease each other’s palms. This will stop, cold, under my presidency. More than 94 million Americans are not in the labor force. We need to ensure that corporations hire available American talent. Let high-skilled foreigners build up their foreign countries, and let high-skilled Americans have the jobs that are their birthright.

Returning to Tuesday’s debate, many candidates mentioned Islamic terrorism when asked to cite America’s biggest current threat. Yet not a single debater pointed out the following. Debate statement:

With many millions of unknown-quantity illegals violating our border during the last couple of decades, probability dictates that some terrorists have come across. There’s no doubt that some weapons of mass destruction have come across. Yet we can’t get it across to our feckless leaders that it’s silly, in the extreme, to talk about a “war on terror” and pursue “nation building” in faraway lands while leaving our back door to Mexico vulnerable. It’s a bit like going to the nearest crime-ridden naked-city street looking to be Charles Bronson in Death Wish and leaving your home’s door wide open on your way out. And think about the families on 9/11 and those on the next 9/11, whose loved ones will have been sacrificed on the altar of political pandering. Leaving your national family’s door open isn’t an act of love. It’s criminal negligence and an act of treason.

Having said all this, none of the above addresses our main “legal” problem: legal immigration. Since the Immigration Reform and Nationality Act of 1965, 85 percent of our immigrants have hailed from the Third World and Asia; 70 to 90 percent of those vote for socialistic candidates upon being naturalized. This is a universal Western phenomenon, mind you, and was actually referenced by Labour Party operative Andrew Neather. A former aide to ex-British prime minister Tony Blair, he admitted in 2009 that the massive immigration into the United Kingdom over the last 15 years was designed to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.”

Yet such schemes wouldn’t be possible had Westerners, including conservative ones, not fallen victim to “immigrationism”: the idea that immigration is always good, always necessary and must be unquestioned. The reality?

Immigration always presents problems of assimilation. It’s just a matter of whether the likelihood of it is great or virtually nil.

As to the latter, a recent poll showed that a majority of Muslims in America prefer Sharia law to American civil law. Note also the studies showing that young Muslims in the West are actually more Islamic and anti-Western than their elders.

In addition, note that amnesty duly passed into law would be as “legal” as our widely accepted legal immigration. Legal is not synonymous with smart.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to

What would I ask Republican Presidential candidates tonight?

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

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

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


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

Another South Carolina County Council says no to refugee resettlement

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

GOP Media Takedown: A Recipe for Victory

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

And it helps when that boogeyman is real.

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

They quite literally revealed a strategy for GOP electoral gains.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Florida Results Surprising

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RELATED ARTICLE: Does Class Warfare win elections?


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

Only Obama Can Shut Down the Government

The inclination many establishment Republicans have shown for premature legislative and ideological surrender is, at times, only matched by their eagerness to surrender the messaging battle as well.

Committed conservatives are already fighting a difficult messaging battle. They face committed liberal activists, far-left elected officials at the local, state, and federal level, an entrenched federal bureaucracy, an ideologically blinded media, an influential entertainment community, and an insulated, left-leaning academic community. We do not need to waste precious resources fighting against our own party. But the establishment has backed us into a corner by integrating the language of the Left into its own messaging.

I witnessed this recently at a Republican debate I attended for Florida’s 18th congressional district. The moderator of the debate asked the candidates a question about a vote for or against a debt ceiling hike, and insinuated via the wording of the question that a “no” vote would be a vote for shutting down the government. I was hoping the candidates would see through the messaging magic trick the debate moderator was playing on them, but many did not. By answering this “question,” without challenging the inaccurate premise of the question, many of the candidates lent credence to the premise that the GOP is responsible for “shutting down the government.” This is complete garbage and no activist, candidate, elected official, or responsible member of the GOP with a media voice should make room for this nonsensical idea.

Democrats, and their ideologically-aligned media friends, invented the false narrative that the GOP is responsible for any government shutdown as a tool to force the GOP to forfeit the constitutional congressional power of the purse, which the GOP-led House of Representatives rightfully holds.

Now that the narrative has been firmly implanted in the American public conscience, with the assistance of many in the GOP, and with Republican leadership afraid to tell the truth about how the government “shuts down,” the GOP insider class has effectively disempowered itself, along with the voters who busted their butts to get them elected and millions of conservative Americans who are pleading for their lawmakers to fight back against President Obama’s “fundamental transformation.”

Here are the very simple, and indisputable facts, about government “shutdowns.” The Republican-led House of Representatives has the constitutional duty to put forth, and pass, a federal budget. When a compromise budget is accepted by both the House and the Senate, it is then passed on to President Obama who can choose whether to sign the budget. If the president refuses to sign the budget and the government “shuts down”—a misnomer in itself because the government’s essential functions continue unabated during a “shutdown”— it is the exclusive result of presidential inaction. This requires no leap in logic or world-class imagination to figure out.

With this said, I am pleading with Republicans across the grassroots and elected spectrum to please stop saying, “We shouldn’t shut down the government.” Of course we shouldn’t shut down the government because we can’t shut down the government. Only the president can do that.

Do you really think that if the roles were reversed, and the Republicans held the White House and the Democrats held the House and Senate, that the media narrative would be the same? Of course not. The media would be blaming the Republican President for “shutting down the government” if he refused to sign the Democratic congress’ budget.

So please stop playing along like media lapdogs and carrying their messaging water for them. Just gather yourselves together and commit to doing the right thing and not the easy thing, and tell the people the truth. We deserve it.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Conservative Review. The featured image of President Obama is by Pablo Martinez Monsivais | AP Photo.

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

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

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

But what is a “serious candidate,” anyway?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Answer: Donald Trump.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tens of millions of Americans fear being politically incorrect.

But relatively few Americans actually embrace political correctness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Invisible Black Republican

I have been asking and will continue to ask, where are the Black Republicans?  Race will be one of the top issues in the 2016 elections and none of our presidential campaigns have any Blacks in the media representing their respective campaigns.

Why in the hell do Republicans continue to have white staffers try to address racial issues within the Black community?  Are these campaigns really that stupid?

Black Republicans have absolutely no presence in the media when it comes to representing any official Republican entity:  RNC, House Campaign Committee, Senatorial Committee, presidential campaigns, Republican Governor’s Association, etc.

The response I constantly get is that “they” can only “pitch” Blacks to various media outlets; but they can’t make a CNN or MSNBC put Black Republicans on the air.  Factually, this is a true statement; they can’t make a news network do anything.

My response is very simple, if these Republican communications staffers can’t get the job done; then they should be fired.  Each of these entities has their own internal PR/communications staff and has proven to be totally incompetent when it comes to Black surrogates.

Can you imagine a private sector company retaining a PR firm to place their employees in various media outlets and they came to you and told you they couldn’t get your employees placed?  You would fire them immediately and get a new firm who will get the job done.

Where are people like Sean Moss?  He served as regional administrator for Housing and Urban Development (HUD) under George W. Bush.  He should be all over the media discussing the disastrous decline of Black home ownership under the Obama administration.

Where is Allegra McCullough?  She served as regional administration for the Small Business Administration (SBA) under George W. Bush.  She should be all over the media highlighting how loans to Black business went from 8% under Bush to 1.8% under Obama.

Where is Bob Brown?  He was the highest serving Black in the Nixon administration and a personal confidant of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and former South African president Nelson Mandela.  He should be all over the media discussing civil and voting rights; after all, he was at the table during these discussions in the 1960s.

Where is Bob Woodson?  He worked with former congressman Jack Kemp when he was secretary of HUD for former president George H.W. Bush.  He should be all over the media talking about Ferguson and Baltimore since he works in inner city communities all across the country with stunning success.

Where is Shannon Reeves?  He’s a former RNC staffer, former congressional candidate, lifetime member of the NAACP and a former board member, and finishing his PhD in political statistics.  He should be all over the media talking about voting and civil rights.  He also should be working within the party on data metrics for the Black community.

These are just a few people that come to mind immediately.  So to my Republican friends, I am quite tired of you telling me that you can’t find or don’t know any Blacks you can hire.

To Republicans who are paid to do communications within various party entities listed above, if you can’t get “real” Black surrogates in various media forums; simply man-up and resign because you are not up to the job.

Republicans will not win next year’s presidential election without getting more than the usual 9% of the Black vote.  Blacks are totally disillusioned with Obama and the Democrats; but unfortunately Republicans have continued to ignore the Black community.

I have presented Republicans many opportunities to speak directly to the Black community via radio, TV, and newspapers; but their all white staffers continue to see no value in engaging with the Black community; and unfortunately, many of the few Black staffers feel the same way.

Do Republicans not understand how out of touch they look showing up at a Black church with an all-white staff or showing up at the National Urban League’s annual conference with not one Black on staff?

I’ve said it once and I will say it a thousand times, how can you seek to be president of the United States and not have any Blacks on your staff?  How is it even remotely fathomable in the 21st century for me to have to continue to write about the lack of diversity within the Republican Party?

But just as distressing is the silence of Black Republicans who are too afraid to voice publicly what they constantly voice to me privately.  What exactly are they afraid of? Losing their low level job? Or not being patted on the head and told “that’er boy?”

I want to win the elections next year and if I have to continue to criticize my party until they heed my advice; then look for more columns like this.  When will Republicans learn that they can’t win elections by only appealing to white voters?  Mathematically it is not possible.

But at the same time, don’t just go out there and hire a couple of Black twenty year olds who don’t have the necessary experience or institutional knowledge to know who the relevant Black Republicans are.  Most party leaders and Black staffer have no idea who the people I listed above are.

Republicans should be embarrassed that they have to be chided into doing what’s in their own best interest.  But Black Republicans should also be embarrassed for being so silent and invisible on this issue.

Republican Leadership Trumped Again

The political story of the year by far is the sudden resignation of House Speaker, John Boehner.  His announcement last Friday sent tectonic shock waves throughout the body politic.

Boehner’s resignation was a direct result of Donald Trump’s presidential candidacy; not Trump the person, but rather what Trump represents.

In many ways, as a candidate, Trump is very flawed; but what he represents is very much real.

Trump’s unconventional approach to campaigning and his theatrics are wearing very thin on the voters.  He must now begin to address the American people with substantive policy initiatives.  We know he is  very wealthy, we know he loves Mexicans and they love him too, and we know his hair is real, etc.

But now Trump has to convince the electorate that he has a plan to deal with ISIS, that he has a plan to reduce government spending, and that he has a plan to create jobs in this anemic economy, etc.

That’s Trump the candidate.  Trump the symbol is totally different.

Trump is the vessel the Republican base has chosen to represent their anger and disillusionment with the party.  The party establishment refused to listen to the base when they quietly voiced their dissatisfaction.  They were simply told to write a check, vote for them, and just shut the hell up.

Many in the party no longer know what we stand for as Republicans; other than Trump (illegal immigration), can you name the signature issue of any other candidates for president?  The world is falling apart right in front of us, both domestically and internationally and Republicans are not putting forth any solutions; just caving in to Obama at every chance.

I think it is extremely condescending for some to attempt to chide the base of the party for having “unrealistic” expectations from the Republican Congress.  Well, if this be true, the fault clearly falls on these same people for raising the expectations thusly.

The base was told last year that if they voted for Republicans, they would stop Obama’s amnesty; repeal Obamacare, and cut spending.  Congress has not done nor attempted to do any of these things.

The base doesn’t need lecturing and condescension; they are fully aware that Obama has the power of the veto.  The base doesn’t mind losing a vote, but they at least want to see Congress put up a fight for the principles that they claim to believe in.  Make Obama veto a border bill or make Obama veto a spending bill.

The base will respect and support loses when the leadership stands by their (and our) principles.

The unwillingness of our leaders to fight for our values has led to the creation of Donald Trump.  Trump would have no raison d’etre for his candidacy if Republicans had fought against Obama’s liberal agenda.

So, replacing Boehner with someone who is going to continue the status quo is not the solution.  Republicans should pick up to three issues that they are going to focus on like a laser beam for the rest of the year.  I would choose national security, a border bill, and decreasing spending as the three priorities for the rest of this year.  Force Obama to come our way on these issues or use the power of the purse to force his hand and use the nuclear option in the senate.

Even if the party’s establishment is successful at getting rid of Trump, who will address the issues that he represents?  The American people don’t want amnesty, yet it seems the Republican Party’s leadership is hell-bent on giving it to those in the country illegally.

The American people want us to take a tougher stand on China’s hacking and espionage; but instead they get a state dinner.

Again, Trump is not the problem, so take him down if you must; but then what?  To be very candid, several of our guys running in the presidential primary could legitimately be running in the Democratic primary based on where they stand on the issues.

We know we can’t count on the mainstream media to fairly portray the Republican message.  But there are over two hundred Black newspapers begging the Republican leadership to engage with them.  There are many Black reporters who can’t get Republican leaders or their staffs to return their calls.

The Black media is not hostile to Republicans; they don’t know Republicans.  How many Republican presidential candidates have engaged with the Black media?  When has the House/Senate leadership ever engaged with the Black media?

When oil companies have depleted the oil from their known reserves; they begin to engage in “exploratory” drilling to find that new source of reserves.

To my Republican Party, the Black community is that new source of oil.  You have thoroughly depleted your proven reserves (the White, male vote).  When will you start drilling for “Black gold” (pun intended)?

If you don’t want to engage with the Black community because it’s the smart thing to do; at least do it for political survival.  Please, don’t get trumped again by your ego.