Tag Archive for: GOP

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

/in , , , , /by

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

/in , , , /by

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!

/in , , , /by

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 , , , /by

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

/in , , /by

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

/in , , , , /by

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

/in , , , , /by

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

/in , , /by

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’

/in , , , , /by

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

/in , , /by

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.”

Republicans Are Nowhere to Be Found

/in , , , /by

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

/in , , , /by

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

/in , , , , /by

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!

/in , , , /by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The GOP Debate: Missing the Banana Boat on Immigration

/in , , , , , /by

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 SelwynDuke.com