Tag Archive for: GOP

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!

RELATED ARTICLES:

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 SelwynDuke.com

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.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

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?

ABOUT THE EMERSON COLLEGE POLLING SOCIETY POLL

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 www.theecps.com.

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 SelwynDuke.com.

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.

LIKELY FOES: CNN’s Liberal vs. Rising Conservatism in Black Americans

AUSTIN, Texas, /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Brad O’Leary, publisher of TheOLearyReport.com, former NBC News Radio/Westwood One talk show host, author of the The United States Citizens’ Handbook and former feature writer for USA Today Weekend magazine, is bringing light to the current rise stemming from longstanding historical roots in conservatism within the Black community in his latest Op-Ed piece, listed below and on TheOLearyReport.com:

How much of the Black population will support Republicans on the three major issues in the 2016 Presidential election?

When George Bush ran for president he got 8% of the Black population’s vote. There was a time when Republican candidates could only count for 8% of the Irish population’s vote. It is perhaps time for the Black voters to feel just as the Irish did, that the Democratic Party deserted them.

According to CNN’s most recent poll, the three major issues that American voters will focus on will be immigration, abortion and guns.

Now, who am I to say that CNN’s liberal bias, if correct may be a danger for the Democratic Party?

CNN will tell you that according to the polls, that the Democrats will be favored. However if you look at that result and the results from other polls in judging Black population responses, it may explain one of the reasons that Donald Trump seems to have the support of 20% of the Black population.

In addition to political polls there is an incredible amount of consumer polling that has been done on the Black population. That polling should frighten the Chairman of the Democratic Party.

First let’s take the Second Amendment and gun ownership. There is no question that gun control was historically a major political effort started at the beginning of the Civil War and was principally designed by the leadership of the Ku Klux Klan, who did not want Black people, especially in the South, to own guns, not even for hunting.

In some places in the South, if a Black person wanted to hunt and keep in mind that most families were fed that way, they had to get permission from the sheriff for a twenty-four hour period for hunting. We have heard stories from many people about that era, including from Condoleezza Rice, who has always supported the 2nd Amendment because her family historically owned guns namely to protect themselves from the Ku Klux Klan.

Today we have many significant Black leaders like Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke and Detroit Police Chief James Craig, who both urged people to buy guns to protect themselves.

We have seen a number of consumer polls indicate that a majority of the Black community, following recent riots, does not fear the police. Instead they fear the drug dealers and the hoodlums who are trying to stir up division and hatred making Black neighborhoods and streets unsafe. It is no wonder that the percentage of the Black population that supports the Second Amendment has increased in the last few years. Recently during the Miss Universe contest, one of the contestants, Miss South Carolina USA, Meagan Pinckney was asked about gun ownership, presumptuous but possibly by a judge, who might have believed that since she was Black and from the South she would give a gun control answer. Contestant Pinckney stunned the television audience by showing her knowledge and support of firearm ownership. Her opinion is not just from her but it is from her peers as well.

Hillary Clinton has made her position clear. She would make it difficult for anyone who is White, Asian or Black to buy a gun, particularly in the cities. At the same time Donald Trump and all the other candidates for president are the strongest group of 2nd Amendment supporters that this country has ever seen.

The second issue CNN touts is such a clearly a Democratic majority supported issue. This issue is abortion.

Now there is no question that a majority of voters believe in a woman’s right to choose. But in a paradox of thinking, a greater majority of Americans think that abortion is either manslaughter or morally unacceptable in today’s society. That doesn’t include the rather substantial number of Americans who believe that 3rd term abortions where a fetus can be seen as moving, breathing and is deemed capable of life outside the womb, is acceptable in massive numbers.

The number of people in the Black population who believe that abortion is morally unacceptable is greater than anyone has ever believed.  The reason that Proposition 9, a heated topic of its own, which would allow gays to marry in California, was defeated at the ballot box largely due to the rallying of Black Christian voters who voted against it in massive numbers. This supports the concept that the Black population is actually quite conservative.

If you do not believe me, do your own test. In New York, five Black fetuses are aborted for every one White fetus. So go to the Black churches in a very liberal city like New York and ask the pastor and congregation what they think of abortion?

Frankly every time Hillary fights for more abortions and protecting the bargain basement selling of fetuses by Planned Parenthood she is also turning off church going Black women. Now that is an issue that no one can claim any of the Republican presidential candidates, including Trump, doesn’t have a clear opinion on. That opinion is there needs to be a stop to aborting Black babies.

Now we get to the third issue that CNN is so excited about, the issue of immigration, which clearly makes Trump and most Republicans extremists. Once again let’s consider how the Black population views immigration and some of the other effects that come from immigration. A rapper by the name of Azealia Banks unexpectedly reflected the conservative outlook of the Black population with her recent pro-Trump comments,

“Do you think it’s bad that I sort of agree with Trump’s stance on immigration? Not for any reason other than black Americans still not having been paid reparations for slavery and the influx [of] INTERNATIONAL immigrants (not just Mexicans), are sucking up state aid, and government money, space in schools, quality of life etc.?? It’s selfish, but America has been really good at convincing me that everyone else’s problems are more important than my own. I want my f*****g money!!…Me first!!!…Thoughts?”

Two areas of life that are directly impacted by immigration are job creation and drivers licenses.

Let me be clear about what the Black population thinks about immigration. For the most part they think the same as Whites and Asians. They think it favors Wall Street, it boosts corporate profit and it increases the value of many stocks. And no one polled is aware of how big immigration is every year. Only 10% of all Americans select the correct immigration numbers.

The Black population is opposed to Hillary’s immigration policy and they are opposed to the attempt by states to let illegals (“Sorry Mr. President that is my word.”) have driver’s licenses without automobile insurance. There is such a law that was just passed in California and the governors in other red states are completely supportive of giving illegals documentation. Now if anybody out there would like to see the polling that proves that this is true, I would be happy to send it to you. 65% of Hispanic citizens of the United States also opposed driver’s licenses without insurance. No surprise because illegal Hispanics hiding from “White” justice aren’t hiding in White neighborhoods.

The Black population believes and correctly so, that Hispanics take jobs away from them, particularly Hispanic teenagers versus Black teenagers.

EDITORS NOTE: For more analysis and commentary from pollster Brad O’Leary, please contact: Radio/TV Show Bookings: grassrootsbehavioral@gmail.com or (737) 704-1578. Readers may download The United States Citizens’ Handbook at no cost: www.USCH.us . Please visit: www.TheOLearyReport.com.

Vast majority of U.S. Muslims are Democrats, so why does Marco Rubio want more?

Julia Hahn, who has been doing a fantastic job at Breitbart on the UN/US State Department Refugee Admissions Program has another good article yesterday entitled, ‘REPORT: MUSLIMS ARE THE FASTEST GROWING IMMIGRANT COMMUNITY‘  (hat tip: Cathy).

Here is how she begins (with some much-needed data!):

Zuckerberg

Trump, never shy to speak up, said in August that the billionaire Facebook founder and No Borders advocate, Mark Zuckerberg, had his own personal U.S. Senator—Marco Rubio.

“Muslims are the fastest growing bloc of immigrants, according to new census data published by the Center for Immigration Studies.

The report, which analyzes data from American Community Survey (ACS), finds that the foreign-born population in the U.S. hit a new record high 42.4 million in July 2014.

The report details that some of “the sending countries with the largest percentage increases in the number of immigrants living in the United States since 2010 were Saudi Arabia (up 93 percent); Bangladesh (up 37 percent); Iraq (up 36 percent); Egypt (up 25 percent); Pakistan, India, and Ethiopia (all up 24 percent); Nigeria and Ghana (both up 21 percent).”

“In contrast to most sending regions and countries, the number of immigrants from Europe and Canada declined,” the report notes.

As Breitbart News has previously documented, every year the United States voluntarily imports more than a quarter of a million– or 280,000– Muslim migrants. This number includes 117,423 migrants who were permanently resettled with Legal Permanent Resident status, as well as an additional 122,921 temporary Muslim workers and foreign students, and 39,932 Muslim refugee and asylees. This means that each year, the U.S. admits a number of Muslim migrants larger in size than the entire population of Des Moines, Iowa.”

Readers, although the number of refugees and asylees is lower than some other categories, remember that they are eligible for all forms of welfare immediately upon arrival as compared to those who entered under other legal immigration programs.  They also get a federal resettlement contracting agency to hold their hands as they sign up, so they are much more costly to the US taxpayer.

What is up with Rubio? 

Muslim immigrants (like most immigrants) are going to vote for Democrats, so why should Senator Marco Rubio be open to inviting more to America?   On the Syrian issue he squished out here earlier this month by saying he was “open” to taking in Syrians Muslims who are now swamping Europe.

Hahn continues at Breitbart:

According to Pew Research, only 11 percent of Muslim Americans identify as Republican or leaning-Republican, making them one of the most reliable Democrat voting blocs in the country.

[….]

Despite the fact only 11 percent of Muslim voters say that they “lean” Republican, many Republican presidential candidates would like to see the number of Muslim immigrants expanded even further.

For instance, GOP presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)—whose campaign predicts he will be in first place by February—has introduced a new foreign worker bill which would substantially increase Muslim immigration. His bill, known as the I-Squared bill, has been described as the “gold standard of high-tech reform,” by billionaire Mark Zuckerberg’s immigration lobbying group.

[….]

In addition, Rubio has also his argued that the United States should increase the number of poor Muslim migrants the United States admits as refugees— on top of the tens of thousands already admitted each year. Experts project that the cost of admitting just ten thousand additional refugees will cost U.S. taxpayers $6.5 billion dollars.

There is much more, continue reading here.

I have a hunch that Fox News is hankering for a Rubio/Fiorina ticket in 2016 (or at least that could be Fox owner Rupert Murdoch’s dream team),here.  Both could be counted on to do as they are told and support bringing in cheap immigrant labor for big business, something Murdoch has been openly supporting.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Senator Sessions Unswayed by Pope Francis on Immigration, Ect.

Germany PM Merkel in the news trying to extricate Germany from the “chaos” she created!

Because of You and Your Destructive Policies, We the People want our Nation Back

Back in 2009, when I started my radio talk show, I knew that President Obama would be one of the worst presidents this nation has ever had.  I also took to heart what Rush Limbaugh said back then about the President.  Rush said “I hope he fails.” Lots of people on the left and in the ‘lame stream’ media blasted Rush for that.  They took him out of context on purpose so they could label Rush and others who agreed with him as racists.

I, of course, knew exactly what Rush meant back then.  I knew if this man succeeded then he would indeed fulfill a promise he made in one of his speeches “To Fundamentally Transform this Nation”. Fast forward some 7 years now and I can honestly say that what Rush wanted, what all true conservatives wanted, did not happen.  In fact the complete opposite happened.

President Obama did not fail he has succeeded.  In fact, I say that President Obama is the most successful president in our nation’s history at getting his agenda passed and implemented.  However, that success has meant failure and decline for this nation.  Obama wanted to punish those who were successful and did not tow his line.  Indeed we now have the longest high level unemployment rate since the Great Depression.

We have the lowest labor participation rate in nearly 40 years.  We have the fewest number of jobs in total compared to the total work force population since the Great Depression.  We have had the longest period of the Federal Reserve leaving the base interest rate at 0% in our history. We have the highest number of people on Food Stamp assistance in history.  We have nearly 50 million Americans now living at or below the poverty line and that is the highest it has been since the Great Depression.

We have a military that is smaller than what we had at the start of World War II and in some cases; it’s smaller than what we had at the start of World War I and Obama wants to cut it even further. Our influence and respect has declined all over the world and even our allies no longer take us seriously.

We have a government bureaucracy that is bigger than it has ever been and more costly than it has ever been.  We have more national debt than we have ever had and that debt as a percentage of our total GDP is the highest it has ever been.  We have police officers being targeted for assassination for the first time in our nation and the President is responsible for a good portion of this ill-will.  He refuses to stand up for law enforcement, yet he often condones and even congratulates those who challenge authority and even threaten our society and its peace.

In fact, things are so bad in this country today that even the Democratic candidates for President are distancing themselves from Obama.  They claim they will not follow in his footsteps yet we know each and every one of them would do so and in fact at least one of them would go even further.

But there is hope because Conservatives are gathering and speaking out.  They are voting in larger numbers and they are making an impact on local politics all over the nation.  They are turning out liberals, Democrats and Socialists almost everywhere. Even in some of our most liberal of cities, there is an air of conservatism that is creeping in.

People are beginning to understand what President John F Kennedy meant when he said.  “Ask not what your country can do for you but ask what you can do for your country”. We are spreading the word from coast to coast that conservatism, the rule of law, small government, efficient government, low taxes, and strong national defense has always meant a great America.

Yes, we are starting to re-energize our grass roots.  We are starting to believe that America can be great again.  We have given our acceptance to the strong, outsider voices for the GOP Presidential nomination race.  The polished, well-rehearsed, typical politicians are languishing at the bottom of the polls and at the bottom of the voters’ heart

We are demanding that our President represent what is best about our nation.  We want leaders that are not afraid to stand up for what is right no matter how bad the odds of winning may seem and most of all WE WANT OUR FREEDOM BACK. In short, Americans have seen what it is like to be a second rate nation in decline and we don’t like it because we want to be that shining beacon of hope for the world.

With the help of God and the American people, we will be that shining, gleaming city of light and hope on the mountain top because that is where the United States of America belongs forever.

When Will the GOP Start Fighting?

The debt ceiling.

The Obama income tax hike.

The Obamacare fight.

The sequester caps.

The Cromnibus.

President Obama’s executive amnesty.

Now, Planned Parenthood.

When does the GOP start winning? Here’s a better question, more appropriate to the times, when does GOP leadership even begin fighting? The GOP leadership has forfeited every one of the above battles without much more than a token, ex-post-facto, response, long after the outcome of the battles were determined.

While the GOP leadership continues to view its own base as problematic and unreasonable, the base is in full revolt, viewing the GOP leadership as deceitful and ineffective.

While the GOP leadership continues to view its own base as problematic and unreasonable, the base is in full revolt, viewing the GOP leadership as deceitful and ineffective. Many in the grassroots community are leaning towards non-politicians in the early presidential selection process as a result of the continued failures of Party leadership. Most unfortunate is that the GOP leadership has made little effort to understand the frustrations of the base, or course correct itself and win back those who have knocked on the doors, waved the campaign signs, manned the polls, and donated their hard earned money. It is my sincere hope to be able to explain to them, in the simplest terms possible, why we have lost faith in their ability to do anything other than make flowery campaign promises.

First, what the heck is their strategy? Do they even have one?

They have forfeited nearly all of the important fights with nothing to show for it. Having campaigned for office myself I have found even the most passionate grassroots conservatives to be very reasonable when it involves using the political machinery to achieve conservative goals. Conservatives largely understand that not every legislative battle will be won but that principles matter and over time, principled votes, even if they fall short, will demonstrate to America that the GOP stands for something.

Being consistently on the right side of the debates on taxes, the debt, healthcare, defense, abortion, immigration, school choice and other issues important to conservatives would have earned GOP leadership a tremendous amount of “trust capital” with the base that would have afforded them some leeway in implementing a strategic legislative strategy. Stated simply, a history of principled leadership would have allowed them to lose a couple of short-term battles without significant consequences from the base because most of us would have understood that these short-term losses were critical towards marshalling resources for long-term, and lasting, Conservative victories.

Sadly, GOP leadership has no such political capital with the base because that’s not their strategy. Their strategy appears to be to forfeit the short-term battles, forfeit the long-term battles, and to do whatever it takes, and to say whatever it takes, to maintain power while ignoring most of what the Party actually stands for. How long do they think this can continue?

This is a fight with such a clear and distinct, right and wrong side that it’s hard to believe even the insulated GOP leadership team is having a tough time picking a side.

After punting on the debt ceiling, we wound up with the sequester spending caps which they then proceeded to punt on as well. After telling the base they would repeal Obamacare they forfeited that fight for a series of show votes, and many in GOP leadership have since moved on. Now we have the Planned Parenthood fight. This is a fight with such a clear and distinct, right and wrong side that it’s hard to believe even the insulated GOP leadership team is having a tough time picking a side. Then, doubling down on silly, they parrot the Left and the media’s ridiculous arguments about government shutdowns insisting, preemptively, that the shutdown would be the GOP’s own fault.

Yes, this is the utter fecklessness of this failed leadership team. A first-grader could follow, logically, that the GOP leadership CAN’T shut down the government. How can they shut down the government if they pass a proper budget, without funding for the organ traffickers at Planned Parenthood, using all of their assigned constitutional duties, and put that budget on the President’s desk? If the President refuses to sign that budget, knowing that his refusal to sign the budget will shut down the government, then the responsibility lies with him. Is this really that difficult for the allegedly bright people elected to GOP leadership on Capitol Hill to comprehend? Or, are they so afraid of the media, the Left, academia, the blogosphere, and just about anyone else with a platform, that they are afraid to take this common sense message to the American people?

If, as a Party, we are going to forfeit the short game, and the long game, because we are afraid to stand on principle, then what’s the point of the Party? If the constitutional power of the purse delegated to the congress is irrelevant, then why not just forfeit away the constitutional republic for a monarchy? Why continue to waste America’s time? Look no further for an explanation as to why there is a rebellion brewing in the ranks of the GOP. We are tired of being tired. We want our Party back and we refuse to waste another dollar, or another bead of sweat, on GOP leaders who are leading us across the eventual horizon of a political black hole.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Conservative Review. The featured image of Senator Mitch McConnell is by Douglas Graham | AP Photo.

What has Rand Paul done?

One of my readers recently replied to me that he had been a Rand Paul supporter but really couldn’t see what Rand had done that was consistent with what he talks about.

Here’s a recent campaign speech, given in Boise, Idaho, about 2 weeks ago, August 27th:

After watching Rand’s speech, I noticed a comment from viewer “Nate Dawg”. I was rather impressed and, after some fact-checking, editing, personalizing and adding a few links, I am happy to answer my reader’s concerns:

Is Rand Paul really a consistent and principled liberty lover? Let’s take a look at his history in the senate:

  1. Introduced a 5-year balanced budget by cutting spending and not raising taxes.
  2. Filibustered for 13 hours to stop Obama/Holder’s illegal drone strikes on Americans – and succeeded.
  3. Filibustered for 11 hours to kill the PATRIOT Act – and succeeded.
  4. Sued the Obama Administration/Justice Department for illegally collecting all Americans’ phone records, as they are still doing under the so-called FREEDOM Act.
  5. Consistently advocates for social issues to be left to the states, just as his father did.
  6. Only Senate Republican who opposed the efforts to bomb Syria in late 2014.
  7. Opposed the US-funded war in Libya.
  8. Detailed specific plans to form a coalition with Kurds, Turks, and Iraqis to defeat ISIS without ever putting U.S. boots on the ground.
  9. Introduced sweeping criminal justice reform legislation (knows how to actually work with the other side).
  10. Introduced groundbreaking legislation in the Senate that would begin to tear down the, totally failed, War on Drugs, making marijuana a schedule 2 drug (allows vital research to be done on THC and CBD, as well as reduces the penalties for possession), and allowing medical marijuana and recreational marijuana in states that legalize it.
  11. His plans for making social security and other entitlements solvent are crystal clear, phasing in raising the age of eligibility and means tests for wealthier recipients. (This would solve the massive deficit coming out of SS and, most likely, lead to privatization in the form of personal accounts, which is a good thing.)
  12. Released a detailed tax plan that would massively reduce the corporate tax rate (ours is the highest IN THE WORLD at 35%) and the personal rate to a flat 14.5% with a family of four, making less than $50K paying nothing. (Not the “Fair Tax”, which I support, but still a “radical” plan, clearly laid out.)
  13. Consistent top ratings from all three major gun rights advocates groups (NRA, GOA NAGR).
  14. Rated as “the most conservative candidate” with a, “10C” conservative record (the highest available and higher than Ted Cruz), AND is rated better than ALL the major Democratic candidates, when it comes to Civil Liberty issues.
  15. Opposed the Iraq Invasion of 2003 (this was before he was elected to the Senate).
  16. And, last but not least, he has some fun in the process.

This is a direct quote from Nate Dawg:

“He’s not perfect, nobody is. But he’s exactly what this country needs. Not another charlatan hurling vague, vitriolic rhetoric at anyone who challenges him, but a clear-minded, sober, logical problem-solver who presents common-sense solutions to systemic issues.”

I, whole-heartedly, agree. And, Rand Paul’s actions line up pretty darn clearly with his talk…

EDITORS NOTE: Please click here for Tad MacKie’s YouTube page.

Republicans Constantly Validate Black Democrats

I am fond of saying that many times Republicans try to do the right thing, but do it the wrong way.

Branch Rickey, former president and general manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers, scoured the Negro Leagues in 1943 to find the best and brightest baseball players who he could sign to integrate baseball.  He wasn’t just looking for raw talent; he was also looking for the “right” person(s).

Jackie Robinson was not the only good ball player in the league back then; for sure he was definitely one of the elite.  But he also had the other skill-sets that would allow him to endure the racist taunts he was about to encounter as the first Black to play professional baseball with white folks.

Rickey chose Robinson not only because of his skill, but also because of his personality which would allow him to keep his composure under the strain of hostility he was about to face.  Rickey constantly validated Robinson specifically and constantly discussed publicly the need for diversity within baseball and ultimately America.

Where are the Branch Rickey’s of the Republican Party today?  There are none.  The last one was former N.F.L. quarterback and former congressman Jack Kemp who died in 2009.

I was plucked out of obscurity by the Bush family in St. Louis when I was fresh out of college from Oral Roberts University.  They had no prior relationship with me, but they, like Rickey, scoured Missouri politics to find the best person(s) with the right political background; but also with the right temperament to proudly represent the Bush family’s name as the then vice president was about to launch his presidential campaign in 1988.  According to them, “they had been following my career and noticing my work in the Republican Party in Missouri.”

My work got me noticed, but my relationships got me opportunity.  I didn’t have to run to be a delegate to our party’s national convention, I was told I would be a delegate; and thus it was so.

My point is very simple, I grew up in a Republican Party when relationships mattered and the party took care of their own.  This is no longer the case.

Republicans today spend more time rewarding their enemies versus rewarding their friends.

Why would Rand Paul have lunch with Al Sharpton last November in the Senate dining room?  By doing it in the Senate dining room, he meant for the media and other members of the U.S. Senate to see them together; thus validating Sharpton as someone to be sought out for private counsel.  I wonder why there is no account of Paul making a similar validation of a Black Republican with relevant party credentials.

Why would Jeb Bush meet with members of the Black Lives Matter group when he has never met with any relevant Black Republicans?  Are you kidding me?  When you have no Blacks in your inner circle you tend to make foolish decisions like this.

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley is the most recent example of validating Black Democrats and ignoring Black Republicans.  She was in town last week to speak before the National Press Club.  I thought the section of her speech about her accomplishments as governor was very good; but the speech was horrible when she began to talk about race relations and the Black community.  I also found it to be very offensive.

It was quite obvious that the speech was written by a White staffer.  Memo to Republicans, you cannot have a White person write a speech about Blacks and race relations!  Period.  End of discussion.  I found the speech like the tinkling cymbal or sounding brass, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

The most offensive part of her speech was when she began to gush over her budding friendship with Jesse Jackson.  I have known Jesse since my high school days in St. Louis and will acknowledge that he has done some good things for America.

But again, why would she not use the occasion of her speech to validate some Black Republicans, not only from her state; but from around the country.  I will tell you why; because she doesn’t know any.  She doesn’t know Bob Brown, Harold Doley, Kay James, Shannon Reeves, Sarah Harper, or Buster Soaries.

When have you ever heard Obama effusively praise a Black Republican other than when someone like former Sen. Ed Brooks dies?  When have you ever heard Massachusetts Gov. Devall Patrick singing the praises of a Black Republican?  When have you ever heard DNC chair Debbie Wassermann Schultz ever praise a Black Republican.

But yet you hear our leaders showering praise upon known Democrats like Bob Johnson and Cathy Hughes; who are both good people and very accomplished.  Yet, their media empires constantly bash Republicans, especially those from the Black community.

If you can’t acknowledge Black Republicans in a speech, should we be surprised that we are not acknowledged in your staffing decisions or your consultant decisions?

As I often say, “the best way to get attention as a Black in the Republican Party is to be a Black Democrat.”