Tag Archive for: Jeb Bush

Jeb Bush Campaign: Out of Touch, Disconnected and on the Ropes

/in , , /by

The beginning of the end may be occurring with the Jeb Bush Presidential campaign. While a major reshuffle and downsizing has already taken place within the campaign, and while donations and general support have greatly rescinded, the looming Iowa caucus may be but another sign of disintegration of the Bush campaign. Consider the following internal campaign findings now being leaked publicly:

  1. The recent televised debate held in Boulder, Colorado was a loss for candidate Jeb Bush. Appearing bewildered and un-energized, candidate Jeb Bush presented weak, uncollected with his thoughts, and lashing out just to be heard and appear significant. His very poor presence at the debate was topped only by a lecture the next day at a campaign appearance wherein Bush gave a strong impression that there were other things he could be doing rather than seeking the presidency.
  2. Big named establishment donors are annoyed with the lack of sophistication, aggressive campaign team, and ability to steer the appearing rudderless campaign.
  3. The Jeb Bush campaign has barely made an appearance in Iowa, and has not worked diligently phone banks, direct mail, personal voter contacting, public appearances, and TV or radio Ads.
  4. The Bush campaign did, however, recently conduct an extensive candidate preference survey with astonishing results: Out of 70,000 phone calls, only 1,281 supporters were identified. This converts to approximately 1.8% of campaign phone canvassing support.
  5. An internal memo of the Bush campaign reveals this support was uncovered by phone survey only, and the candidate himself has not spent time in Iowa nor sought voters, nor has received any significant endorsements.

These findings are a clear message within the campaign’s highest level that barring a miracle of some massive and significant manifestation, Jeb Bush will lose Iowa and receive a terribly serious, even devastating blow against campaign survival. The Jeb Bush “brain trust” is comprised of many GOP establishment insiders and professional GOP political consultants and operatives. The environment within said group is reportedly anguish, tense, disbelieving and absolute confusion as to how two “outsiders” can be leading the nomination process when neither has any political experience. Furthermore, the same GOP political wonks are flabbergasted that there is even growing appeal for Senator Ted Cruz who is also seen as an “outsider,” and not accepted by the GOP establishment; much like Trump and Carson.

There is a complete disconnect between the GOP establishment like (Romney, McCain, McConnell, Boehner, Karl Rove) GOP establishment backed candidates like Lindsey Graham, John Kasich, Chris Christie, and even Carly Fiorina, and the general public across the Land. While the GOP establishment subtly positioned their chosen candidates, the complete not understanding the mood, the anger and the fear of the grass-roots further demonstrates just how out-of-touch and disregarding establishment politicians and operatives truly are toward the people.

The Jeb Bush campaign is a perfect example of this disconnect.

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

/in , , , /by

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.

Washington Post Editorial Board Supports Jeb Bush in His Common Core Quandary

/in , , , /by

On August 17, 2015, the Washington Post editorial board wrote a piece in which it “did not blame Mr. [Jeb] Bush from shying away from the term [Common Core].”

Bush has his political career on his mind, and using the term “Common Core” is “poison” to that career. So, Bush is using a carefully-crafted Common-Core euphemism, saying that he is for “higher standards, state-created, locally implemented, where the federal government has no role in the creation of standards, content or curriculum.”

The Washington Post editorial board sympathizes with Bush, who supposedly was put in this position because of the “bogus premise” that Common Core is a “federal takeover of education.”

In 2009, the federal government used future Race to the Top (RTTT) funding to entice governors to sign their states up for a Common Core that did not yet exist. The 2009 National Governors Association (NGA) Symposium is clear about this in its 16-page document from the Symposium.

However, the intention was not only for there to be a Common Core. Common Core was only one of four interconnected, test-centric reforms known as the Four Assurances (listed here in brief):

1. Common standards and assessments

2. Teacher performance (value-added assessment)

3. “Turnaround” of “low performing” schools

4. Building data systems.

In 2009, the governors of 46 states and three territories signed NGA’s agreement detailing how Common Core was to be developed (note that “states” were being directed by the nonprofit NGA and another nonprofit, the Council of Chief State School Officers, CCSSO, on this “state led” development) and which was intended to lead to unquestioned, automatic Common Core adoption.

Why would so many governors fall for this?

The money. US Secretary of Education Arne Duncan was at this 2009 NGA Symposium, and he promised these governors a potential slice of billions of dollars in American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA)  funding– but only if they agreed to incorporate all Four Assurances into the education systems of their states. The excerpt below is from the NGA’s 16-page, 2009 report:

Governors have an unprecedented opportunity through the ARRA to make bold reforms in education. With momentum building around the four assurances and the Race to the Top funds, governors may want to consider the following as they move forward with their education reform agendas:

1. The four assurances do not exist in a vacuum. To improve educational outcomes for students in the U.S. and qualify for RTT funding, governors will need to work on all four assurances simultaneously. The issues discussed in this report are all interconnected, and policies which may seem likely to improve one area could have unintended consequences for another area of reform. Joanne Weiss from the U.S. Department of Education explained that when deciding which states will receive awards from the $4.35 billion Race to the Top competitive grant program, the Department will be watching for integrated plans that address all four of the reform areas. Therefore, states must work in concert on improving standards and assessments, increasing teacher effectiveness, providing support for low-performing schools, and strengthening data quality. [Emphasis added.]

At the 2009 NGA Symposium, Duncan made the grand announcement that the feds would cover the costs to get the “common assessments” off of the ground:

At the Symposium, Secretary Duncan made an important announcement regarding these [ARRA] funds: $350 million of the Race to the Top funds has been earmarked to support the development of high-quality common assessments.

These governors were led right into the federal will for state-level education by the promise of federal money. It was just that easy.

The governors traded state autonomy for federal money. And the federal government– US Secretary of Education Arne Duncan backed by President Barack Obama– encouraged them to do so and allowed it to happen.

In its Jeb Bush defense, the Washington Post editorial staff not only downplays the federal enticement; the Washington Post editorial board defends the federal role:

The pressure [Republicans in the presidential race to turn against Common Core] is built on bogus premises. Common Core is not a federal takeover of education. States developed the standards, accepted them voluntarily and implement them with local flexibility. The federal government merely encouraged states to adopt them, as it should have.  [Emphasis added.]

The Washington Post editorial board assumes that the governors who signed on for Common Core did so for some primary reason greater that the federal dollars doing so would possibly bring into their states. However, any governor who really wanted “higher standards” would surely have insisted on some empirical evidence that the resulting standards were indeed “higher” prior to agreeing to adopt them. Yet this common-sense insistence did not happen.

The promise of federal dollars won.

The RTTT competition for federal funding if a state agreed to institute the Four Assurances did happen, as did the federal “competition” to fund two Common Core testing consortia, PARCC and Smarter Balanced.

Even the pro-Common Core Fordham Institute could not could not construct “evidence” that Common Core was “higher” than the current standards in all 50 states and DC– but it still not only endorsed Common Core but also traveled to states with standards it rated as “higher” than Common Core, only to try to convince these states to settle for Common Core.

However, it was bound to happen that a number of these governors would put their own careers ahead of any Common Core allegiance since their initial commitment was only a superficial, bandwagon commitment to federal money.

And now, we have the Washington Post giving a thumbs-up to Republican Jeb Bush and Democratic governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo, for “fighting the poison.” However, the Washington Post’s publicly aligning Republican Jeb! with a Democratic governor– and one whose approval rating is at an all-time low (also here)– probably does little to advance Jeb! and his euphemistic “higher standards” before a public that is growing increasingly wise to federally-enticed Common Core.

It’s August 2015, and Jeb Bush Doesn’t Know What Common Core Means Anymore

/in , , , /by

Jeb Bush is trying to distance himself from Common Core.

jeb bush 3

He is avoiding using the term, and when he was asked about Common Core while campaigning in Iowa on Friday, August 14, 2015, Bush responded, “The term Common Core is so darned poisonous, I don’t even know what it means anymore.”

He’s just a guy who supports “state-created higher standards”:

Bush has previously described the standards as “poisonous politically,” but on Friday, he seemed thoroughly exasperated by the term itself and looked to move past it.

“I’m for higher standards – state-created, locally implemented – where the federal government has no role in the creation of standards, content or curriculum,” Bush said in Iowa.

He doesn’t say that the government should have no role in creating assessments. Strategic omission since the federal government obviously funded two Common Core assessment consortia, PARCC and Smarter Balanced.

Jeb Bush arrived very late to the “I just want higher standards” party, but here he is, nonetheless. However, Jeb Bush knows full well the well-founded criticisms of the Common Core. On December 1, 2011, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), an organization in which Jeb Bush is active and highly influential, actually passed a model resolution opposing Common Core, the purpose of which was for legislators to carry back to their Common Core-endorsing states in order to formally oppose Common Core.

Here is the text of that resolution:

Resolution Opposing the Implementation of the Common Core State Standards Initiative

Model Resolution

WHEREAS, high student performance and closing the achievement gap is fundamentally linked to an overall reform of our public education system through a strong system of accountability and transparency built on state standards, and

WHEREAS, the responsibility for the education of each child of this nation primarily lies with parents, supported by locally elected school boards and state governments, and

WHEREAS, common standards have resulted in increased decision making on issues of state and local significancewithout the input of state and local stakeholders, and

WHEREAS, no empirical evidence indicates that centralized education standards necessarily result in higher student achievement, and

WHEREAS, special interest groups can expose the vulnerability of the centralized decision making that governs common standards and lower the standards’ rigor and quality to suit their priorities, and

WHEREAS, adoption of the Common Core standards would force several states to lower their standards, and

WHEREAS, the National Assessment of Educational Progress national test already exists and allows comparisons of academic achievement to be made across the states, without the necessity of imposing national standards, curricula or assessments, and

WHEREAS, imposing a set of national standards is likely to lead to the imposition of a national curriculum and national assessment upon the various states, a clear violation of the Elementary Secondary Education Act, and

WHEREAS, claims from the Common Core Initiative that the Common Core will not dictate what teachers teach in the classroom are refuted by language in the standards as written, and

WHEREAS, common standards will continue to lessen the ability for local stakeholders to innovate and continue to make improvements over time, and 

WHEREAS, when no less than 22 states face budget shortfalls and Race to the Top funding for states is limited, $350 million for consortia to develop new assessments aligned with the Common Core standards will not cover the entire cost of overhauling state accountability systems, which includes implementation of standards and testing and associated professional development and curriculum restructuring, and

WHEREAS, local education officials, school leaders, teachers, and parents were not included in the discussion, evaluation and preparation of the standards that would affect students in this state.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the {legislative body} of the state of {name of state} rejects any policies and procedures that would be incumbent on the state based on the Common Core State Standards Initiative. [Emphasis added excepting bolded, capped words.]

However, on November 19, 2012– almost a year following the ALEC vote to oppose CCSS– Jeb Bush’s Foundation for Excellence in Education (FEE) promoted the idea of an ALEC “final final vote.” The person promoting this idea was none other than former ALEC Education Task Force Director-gone-FEE Communications Specialist David Myslinski. Below is an excerpt:

Over the weekend, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) rejected an anti-Common Core bill, thus completing its 18-month exploration of the Common Core State Standards.This action reaffirmed ALEC’s position that states should be in charge of their education standards and supports the option for states to freely adopt Common Core.

By rejecting the bill, which would have tied the hands of state legislators, ALEC made clear its support of states raising student expectations through higher standards—working in consort with other states or working independently.[Emphasis added.]

Jeb Bush influenced ALEC to ditch its detailed resolution against Common Core. For Bush’s FEE to insinuate that a non-official piece of ALEC-generated model legislation would somehow have “tied legislator hands” is not enough to conceal the hypocrisy that the ALEC about-face was a Jeb Bush effort to “tie legislator hands” in favor of Common Core.

That Bush has faithfully campaigned for that Common Core is no secret. In April 2014, Bush told New York Times reporter Peter Baker that defending Common Core “was the right thing to do”:

… [Bush] made clear he would not shrink from views scorned by the dominant wing of the party. He defended his commitment to the so-called Common Core set of educational standards. “I just don’t feel compelled to run for cover when I think this is the right thing to do for our country,” he said.

And in November 2014, when Bush addressed his FEE, he clearly backed Common Core as though it were empirically proven to remedy all that ails American public education. As the Washington Times reports, Bush speaks of needing to “experiment” and “improve based on evidence”:

“We should be willing to experiment. We should always look to improve our thinking based on the evidence. This is why the debate over the Common Core State Standards has been troubling,” he said Thursday in a keynote address at a gathering of Foundation for Excellence in Education, a group he founded after his tenure as Florida governor ended in 2007.

“I respect those who have weighed in on all sides of this issue. Nobody in this debate has a bad motive. But let’s take a step back from this debate for a second,” he continued. “Only a quarter of our high school graduates who took the ACT are fully prepared for college. More than half who attend community college need to take some kind of remedial course. Six hundred thousand skilled manufacturing jobs remain unfilled because we haven’t trained enough people with those skills. And almost a third of high school graduates fail the military entrance exam. Given this reality, there is no question we need higher academic standards and — at the local level — diverse high-quality content and curricula. And, in my view, the rigor of the Common Core State Standards must be the new minimum in classrooms.” [Emphasis added.]

In November 2014, Bush was certain about his push for Common Core. In November 2014, Bush’s very public view was that America should be willing to “experiment” with Common Core. Now, he could not ask America to consider the evidence that Common Core would actually deliver since the experiment must precede the “wait and see.” However, Bush does not promote Common Core “results” as “wait and see”; he promotes Common Core as the Known and Recognized American Public Education Solution.

But that was nine months ago.

It’s now August 2015, and the political pressure to remain wed to Common Core has Jeb Bush reckoning with a Common Core poison that apparently has given him some amazing memory loss.

He isn’t even sure what Common Core means anymore.

But I think Jeb Bush most certainly does know what Common Core means:

According to RealClearPolitics, in the Iowa Republican Presidential Caucus for August 7 – 11, 2015, Bush is sitting at 7th place.

His Common Core faithfulness is albatrossing his efforts at being the third Bush to reside at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Poll: Teflon Donald Takes Double Digit Lead into GOP Debates

/in , , /by

BOSTON /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — One week out from the first GOP debate, Donald Trump leads the Republican field with 31% of the vote, followed by Gov. Jeb Bush at 15% and Gov. Scott Walker in third at 13%. The survey was conducted July 26 to July 28, with 481 likely GOP voters at a 4.4% margin of error.

248896

Forty percent (40%) of respondents viewed Trump’s comments regarding Senator John McCain’s War record as unimportant to their vote while another 47% said they would be less likely to vote for Trump because of his comments about the Arizona Senator. Interestingly, 11% percent said they were more likely to vote for Trump because of his commentary on McCain.

Rounding out the top 10 Republicans in this poll were Sen. Ted Cruz at 8%, Gov. Mike Huckabee at 6%, followed by Dr. Ben Carson at 5%, Sen. Rand Paul at 4% and Sen. Marco Rubio at 4%. Carly Fiorina was in 9th place at 3% and Gov. John Kasich was tied with Gov. Chris Christie with 2% of the vote. All other candidates received under 1% of the vote; 7% of Republican Primary voters were undecided.

Sen. Hillary Clinton holds a significant lead with 54% of the vote in the Democrat Primary with Sen. Bernie Sanders in second at 33% and VP Joe Biden at 9%.  All other announced candidates register under 2% of the vote each. The sample size of likely Democrat Primary voters was 476 with a margin of error of 4.4%.

248897

In a head to head contest, Clinton holds a 2 point lead over Jeb Bush 44% to 42%, an 8 point lead over Walker 49% to 41%, and a 9 point lead over Donald Trump 49% to 40%.

The poll suggests that likely voters are not that thrilled with any of the presidential candidate as all held higher negative then favorable opinions except for Sanders who had a 33% favorable and 32% unfavorable opinion.

Clinton holds an overall 38% favorable and 48% unfavorable rating, Trump is at 31% to 56% rating, Bush at 25% to 52% and Walker at 24% to 38%.

Trump holds the highest favorable rating among Republican primary voters at 54% to 33%, with Bush at 40% to 39% and Walker at 46% to 20%.

ABOUT THE  EMERSON COLLEGE POLL

The Emerson College Polling Society poll was conducted Sunday July 26 through Tuesday July 28. The polling sample for both the Democrat and the GOP Primary consisted of 476 and 481 likely voters each, with a margin of error of +/-4.4% and a 95% confidence level. The General Election sample consisted of 950 likely voters with a margin of error of +/-3.1% 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.

RELATED ARTICLE: SHOCK POLL — Donald Trump Leads Jeb Bush in Florida

Hearst Television to Carry August 3rd New Hampshire Presidential Forum

/in , , /by

LogoHearstTINEW YORK /PRNewswire/ — Hearst Television Inc., one of the country’s largest television station groups and a Peabody- and Cronkite-award-winning leader in television and digital political journalism, today announced it will televise the August 3 Voters First Forum, featuring GOP presidential candidates, in the 27 local Hearst markets across the United States.  The forum is produced and hosted by New Hampshire’s Union Leader newspaper and C-SPAN.

The two-hour forum will start at 7pm ET at the Dana Center at St. Anselm College in Goffstown, New Hampshire, on Monday, August 3.  Currently 14 candidates are scheduled to appear: Jeb Bush, Ben Carson,Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, Lindsey Graham, Bobby Jindal, John Kasich, George Pataki, Rand Paul,Rick Perry, Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum and Scott Walker.  Jack Heath of Manchester’s WGIR-AM Radio, host of the station’s New Hampshire Today program, will moderate the forum. Each candidate will have approximately five minutes to answer questions individually on the stage.

Hearst Television, collectively reaching nearly 21 million households, will provide the C-SPAN telecast to its stations for local broadcast.  The forum will air on either the station’s primary or digital channel and will be streamed from its website.  This enables broadcast-only viewers in these markets the opportunity of seeing the forum as part of Hearst Television’s ongoing Commitment 2016 initiative, which will include multiple debates at the national, regional and local levels, as well as other special political coverage leading up to November 2016.

Hearst Television reaches millions of viewers throughout key election states. Three Hearst stations serve viewers in the first three caucus and primary states: WMUR-TV in Manchester, NH, KCCI-TV in Des Moines, Iowa, and WYFF-TV in Greenville, South Carolina.

“This is an opportunity for us to provide our viewers a chance to see and hear from the large majority of the GOP candidates in advance of the first national debate,” said Emerson Coleman, vice president, programming, at Hearst Television.   “There are more than two million households in the cities we serve that may not otherwise have the ability to view this important event on television.”

C-SPAN will show the forum, in its entirety, on C-SPAN TV, C-SPAN Radio, and via livestream on C-SPAN.org.  In addition to C-SPAN, the Union Leader, WGIR-AM and St. Anselm, forum co-sponsors include: I-Heart Networks; the Cedar Rapids (Iowa) Gazette; KCRG –TV, Cedar Rapids; the Charleston (S.C.) Post & Courier; and WLXT-TV, Columbia, S.C.

About Hearst Television

Hearst Television, a national multi-media company, owns and operates 31 local television stations and two local radio stations, serving 32 U.S. cities and reaching approximately 19% of U.S. television households.  The TV stations broadcast 60 video channels, featuring local and national news, weather, information, sports and entertainment programming, and local community service-oriented programs.  The stations also host and operate digital on-line and mobile platforms that extend the company’s brands and content to local, national and international audiences.  Hearst Television is recognized as one of the industry’s premier companies, and has been honored with numerous awards for distinguished journalism, industry innovation, and community service.  Hearst Television is a wholly owned subsidiary of Hearst Corporation.  The Company’s Web address is www.hearsttelevision.com.

Will You Play Your Trump Card in 2016?

/in , , /by

This political season has started with a big bang. So far, we do not even have to pay that much attention to the boring Democratic side of this process. What we have at this writing is more than 16 serious candidates for the GOP nomination for President of the United States of America.

I cannot recall a time when we had so many candidates to choose from. We, of course have the typical white male candidates. But we also have many minority candidates representing the Hispanic community and the Indian (from India) community as well as a strong female candidate. The diversity of this field of candidates is staggering, indeed.

But so far, there seems to be one candidate in particular that seems to be garnering the attention of the media and the nation. That candidate is Donald Trump, of course The reason? Well, the reason is very simple. Donald Trump is telling it like he sees it. He is saying what is on his mind and what he believes the problems are. And he doesn’t care if some folks don’t like what he says or how he says it. He is sticking to his guns and the people of this country seem to be liking that.

Now some say that Donald should bow out of the competition. Make no mistake about it this fight for the GOP nomination for president of the United States of America is a competition. It’s a take no prisoners competition where the winner takes it all and he or she just might take the The White House. So there is a lot at stake and the professional politician knows there is a lot at stake because what they cannot have is an unpolished, non-politician ruining their chances of being the next President.

The professionals will say how raw Donald is and they will say how UN-presidential Donald is. They state that as President you have to be more diplomatic. They say that nobody takes him seriously. They say that Donald has no real chance at getting elected. They say that Donald Trump cannot beat Hillary Clinton in the November 2016 election. In short they all will say anything to discredit and to get rid of The Donald because they know that Donald Trump cannot be bought. He cannot be bribed and he cannot be persuaded because he is an honest man with a true American heart and that scares professional politicians’ on both sides of the political aisle.

After all, how can you control a man who is used to calling all the shots? How do you control a man who is self-made and doesn’t need nor want any insider money? How do you control a man who already wields tremendous influence and power around the world in business and political circles? You can’t. They can’t. Let me suggest something for the professionals out there running for high office. Take note of Donald Trump and take note of how the voters seem to be supporting him. Take note that the American people are following him in growing numbers because the American people like the fact that he is not polished.

They know he is brash and bombastic and they know he is a little arrogant. They know he will do his best to clean house in Washington, D.C. if he is elected. They know that many world leaders would not want to negotiate with Donald because he would do what is best for this country and her people. I would suggest that the professionals begin to sound more like Donald and tell us the truth, not what they think we want to hear. Talk to us from the heart not what some poll data thinks we want to hear.

Be bold and bombastic and even a little arrogant in your presence and make the people believe that you are a strong leader that cannot be bought. Make the people believe that you are strong leader that cannot be persuaded and a strong leader that will look after the interest of the people of the United States of America and not their own selfish interest.

In return the American people will then follow you and the American people will reward you with higher office. The American people will back you and support you while in office and all it takes is for you to be more like Donald and less like, well less like you. After all, this nation was started and built by amateur statesmen and they built the most prosperous and most powerful nation this world has ever known. We have had professional politicians in charge for about 150 years or so now and look at the mess those professionals have made. Maybe it’s time we pick the men and women who are not so polished. and not so politically trained.

Maybe its time we choose a candidate with a little tarnish on them because they cannot do any more damage than what the professionals have already done.

RELATED ARTICLE: Is President Kennedy Now a Conservative Republican?

Presidential Candidates, Members of Congress, and Governors Call for Military Right-to-Carry

/in , , , /by

Following the murder of four U.S. Marines and a U.S. Navy sailor by a terrorist in Chattanooga, presidential candidates, including former Florida governor Jeb Bush (R), Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee (R), businessman Donald Trump, Wisconsin governor Scott Walker (R), and former U.S. Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), have called for a change in federal law to allow stateside military personnel to carry firearms for protection. In addition, the governors of Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas have directed the adjutants general of their National Guards to authorize Guardsmen to be armed in their states.

Before the attack in Chattanooga, congressional Armed Services Committee Chairmen Sen. John McCain and Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX) had been planning to include legislation in the upcoming National Defense Authorization Act to clarify an Army post commander’s authority to allow the carrying of personal firearms for protection. Now, numerous other senators and representatives have stated their support for legislation to allow military personnel to be armed for protection of themselves and their fellow troops here at home.

The outpouring of support for allowing military personnel to protect themselves is more than justified by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, which included an attack upon the Pentagon, and events related to other military facilities thereafter.  In 2009, a terrorist killed 12 military personnel and one civilian, and wounded 30 others on Fort Hood, Texas. That same year, another attack occurred upon a military recruiting office in Little Rock, Arkansas, resulting in the death of one soldier and the wounding of another. Over the next two years, law enforcement authorities foiled planned attacks upon military facilities in Baltimore and Seattle. In 2013, 12 people were killed and four were wounded in an attack upon the Washington, D.C., Navy Yard. And only eight months ago, the FBI issued a warning that ISIS was recruiting extremists to attack our military personnel here at home.

Military personnel are effectively prohibited from carrying personal firearms for protection by a Department of Defense Directive of 2011, which states:

Arming DoD personnel with firearms shall be limited and controlled. Qualified personnel shall be armed when required for assigned duties and there is reasonable expectation that DoD installations, property, or personnel lives or DoD assets will be jeopardized if personnel are not armed…

That directive traces back to another Directive from the early 1990s, which contains similar language.

EDITORS NOTE: We encourage readers to contact their U.S. senators and representatives, to voice their strong support for legislation to allow our military personnel to carry firearms for their protection.

Donald Trump and Other GOP Nominees Neck and Neck

/in , , /by

NEW YORK /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Donald Trump has definitely ingested the race for the 2016 Republican nomination with a sense of, well, I guess the right adjective depends on where you stand on the political spectrum. But, especially after the criticism of POWs this past weekend, the path to the nomination is not an easy one for him. The talk has been that he might use some of his considerable fortune, a la Ross Perot in 1992, and run as an Independent. If so, what does that mean for the race with some of the leading Republican contenders right now and Hillary Clinton, the leading Democratic contender?

These are the results of an online survey conducted by Regina Corso Consulting among 2,012 U.S. adults 18 and older between July 20 and 22, 2015.

Clinton/Bush/Trump

If the election was a three way race, almost two in five Americans (39%) would vote for Hillary Clinton, while almost one in five would each vote for Jeb Bush (19%) or Donald Trump (18%); one-quarter (25%) are not at all sure. As expected, strong majorities of Democrats (74%) and Liberals (68%) would vote for Clinton, but among Republicans and Conservatives there is a divide. Two in five Republicans (41%) and one-third of Conservatives (33%) would vote for Jeb Bush while three in ten Republicans (30%) and Conservatives (29%) would vote for Trump. Among Independents, three in ten (31%) would vote for Hillary Clinton, one in five (21%) would vote forDonald Trump and less than one in five (17%) would vote for Jeb Bush.

Clinton/Walker/Trump

Changing the Republican nominee, two in five Americans (40%) would vote for Hillary Clinton, almost one in five (18%) would vote for Donald Trump and 15% would vote for Scott Walker while over one-quarter (27%) are not at all sure. Strong majorities of Democrats (75%) and Liberals (72%) would vote for Hillary Clinton while those on the other side of the aisle are even more divided. Three in ten Republicans would each vote for Scott Walker(31%) and Donald Trump (30%) and three in ten Conservatives would each vote for Scott Walker (29%) and Donald Trump (29%). Among Independents, almost three in ten (28%) would vote for Clinton, one in five (20%) would vote for Trump and 16% would vote for Walker.

Clinton/Paul/Trump

Looking at still a different possible Republican nominee, if the election were to be held today, almost two in five Americans (39%) would vote for Hillary Clinton, almost one in five (19%) would vote for Donald Trump and 17% would vote for Rand Paul. Over seven in ten Democrats (76%) and Liberals (71%) would vote for Clinton; at least one-third of Republicans (36%) and Conservatives (33%) would vote for Trump; and over one-quarter of Republicans (31%) and Conservatives (27%) would vote for Paul. Among Independents, over one-quarter (28%) would vote for Clinton while just over one in five would each vote for Trump (22%) and Walker (21%).

Musings

At this stage of an election, these polls should be looked at with a great deal of caution. Is this what will happen in November? Most assuredly it isn’t. But, these do give us an important takeaway – there is a desire for something different out there. One thing about Donald Trump that can’t be denied is he tells it exactly as he thinks and feels it. Many of those who have catapulted him to the top of a number of Republican primary polls probably aren’t saying they want him to be President or even the GOP nominee. They are saying they don’t want more of the status quo. A candidate who dares to be a little different can go a long way.

ABOUT REGINA CORSO CONSULTING:

Regina Corso Consulting is a full service research firm specializing on research for public release. They provide research for agencies and companies to help them drive their PR. For more information, please visit ReginaCorsoConsulting.com.

For full methodology/data, please click here.

One America News Network Releases National Presidential Polling Results

/in , , /by

SAN DIEGO /PRNewswire/ — One America News Network, “OAN”, a credible source for 24/7 national and international news, released today its most recent 2016 Republican and Democratic Presidential Polling Results.   The results show that GOP Presidential candidate Jeb Bush leads the Republicans with 22 percent, a 7 percent margin over Donald Trump, and Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton leads with 55 percent, a 41 percent lead over Joe Biden’s 14 percent, with Bernie Sanders closely trailing Biden at 13 percent.

Assuming you had to vote today, which 2016 GOP Candidate would you vote for? (PRNewsFoto/One America News Network)

Assuming you had to vote today, which 2016 GOP Candidate would you vote for? (PRNewsFoto/One America News Network)

The recently conducted One America News national polling also shows a heavily divided country when it comes to the job approval performance of President Obama.   Eighty-nine percent of Republican voters disapprove of the President’s performance whereas 74 percent of Democrats approve of the President’s performance.

Assuming you had to vote today, which 2016 Democrat Candidate would you vote for? (PRNewsFoto/One America News Network)

Assuming you had to vote today, which 2016 Democrat Candidate would you vote for? (PRNewsFoto/One America News Network)

Do you approve or disapprove of President Obama's Job Performance? (PRNewsFoto/One America News Network)

Do you approve or disapprove of President Obama’s Job Performance? (PRNewsFoto/One America News Network)

According to Robert Herring, Sr., CEO of One America News Network, “It’s still very early in the campaign process and there’s strong support for a number of candidates on both sides.   We clearly have a divided country that is very engaged in the upcoming election.  One America News Network, utilizing Gravis Marketing, will perform and release national polling results for both parties as we get closer to the first GOP debate.”

The national polling, which took place on July 1st and 2nd, was performed exclusively for One America News by third party research firm Gravis Marketing.  Gravis Marketing, a nonpartisan research firm, conducted a random survey of 519 Democratic voters and 473 registered Republican voters across the United States using interactive voice response, IVR, technology.  Republican voters polled were able to choose from 15 GOP candidates while Democratic registered voters were able to choose from 5 Democratic potential candidates. Undecided was not an available option, thus results sum to 100 percent and may show higher percentages than polls allowing for “undecided” vote counts.  The margin of error is 4.3% for the Democratic polling and 4.5% for the Republican polling results.  For full national presidential polling results, visit www.oann.com/poll

One America News Network has been providing extensive coverage of the 2016 Presidential campaign, including numerous exclusive one-on-one interviews with the leading candidates.

About One America News Network (“OAN”)

One America News Network offers 21 hours of live news coverage plus two one-hour political talk shows, namely The Daily Ledger and On Point with Tomi Lahren.  While other emerging and established cable news networks offer multiple hours of live news coverage, only OAN can claim to consistently provide 21 hours of live coverage every weekday.   Third party viewership data for Q2 2015 from Rentrak, namely accumulated viewer hours, shows that OAN surpasses other news channels such as Al Jazeera America, Fusion, Fox Business News, and Bloomberg TV as measured on AT&T U-verse TV, across 65 markets.

Since its debut on July 4, 2013, One America News Network has grown its distribution to over 12 million households with carriage by AT&T U-Verse TV (ch 208/1208 in HD), Verizon FiOS TV (ch 116/616 in HD), GCI Cable, Frontier Communications, CenturyLink PRISM TV, Consolidated Communications, Duncan Cable, GVTC and numerous additional video providers.  One America News Network operates production studios and news bureaus in California and Washington, DC.   For more information on One America News Network, please visitwww.OANN.com.

They’re Just Committing the Crimes Americans Won’t Commit

/in , , , /by
sanchez_mug

Francisco Sanchez murderer of Kathryn Steinle from San Francisco, an illegal alien who was deported 5 times.

With the San Francisco woman murdered by one of Barack Obama’s “new Americans,” we should ask: how much innocent blood will be spilled on the altar of the Left’s “fundamental transformation” of America? While callow and cowardly corporations are severing ties with Donald Trump because he dared speak a truth in an age of lies, the reality of far too many of the illegals invading our country is this:

They’re just committing the crimes Americans won’t commit.

Some will say, of course, that Americans sometimes do such evil as well. But it’s also true that Americans do sometimes take the menial jobs so often performed by illegals, yet we nonetheless hear the statement, “They’re just doing the jobs Americans won’t do.” So since we’re indulging rhetoric and generalizations here, turnaround is fair play.

Will people ever rise up and make that sickening agenda-facilitating suppression of truth known as political correctness exactly what it should be: a recognized vile heresy, to be stamped out with extreme prejudice? I recently heard someone take exception to the term “illegals,” making that now stale point that “no one is illegal” (cue the tiny violin). This person argued that bank robbers break the law as well, but we don’t brand them “illegals.” Point taken. We call bank robbers “criminals.”

And if the Left wants to apply the same descriptive to illegal aliens, it works for me.

(Or would “undocumented criminals” be preferable?)

It would be wholly accurate, too. Generally lost in our self-flagellating, suicidal pander-fest is that every illegal migrant is a criminal by definition. This is why the lying Left — ever engaging in language manipulation — dislikes the word “illegal”: accurate terminology relates the truth of a matter. This is intolerable when your agenda is completely contrary to Truth.

An even better adjective for illegals, however, is “invaders.” And Francisco Sanchez, the vile murderer of the San Francisco woman, Kathryn Steinle, certainly fits the bill. He repeatedly invaded our country for the purposes of destruction, dealing drugs and being convicted of felonies seven times until he finally took a life. Yet he is not the only one culpable in his malevolent act.

What do you call government officials who not only abdicate their responsibility to halt an invasion, but actually aid and abet it? Quislings? Traitors? Leftists? But I repeat myself.

These terms are not too strong. I previously reported on Obama’s plan to “seed” communities around America with foreigners who would, as the scheme goes, “navigate” and not assimilate as they “push citizens into the shadows” (that is, those they don’t push into graves). Again, what do you call such people?

It isn’t just Obama, of course. These traitors have many names, such as Jerry Brown, Jeb Bush, Rahm Emanuel, Hillary Clinton, Luis Gutierrez and Mark Zuckerberg. But, hey, who can blame them, right? They’re just pushing the policies Americans won’t push.

Unfortunately and as has been said before, treason today is now the norm. If you don’t drink deeply of the cup of multiculturalism, internationalism, Western demographic genocide and cultural suicide, you’re a “nativist” or, worse still, a “racist,” the latter of which has just come to mean “anything bad” to young skulls full of mush whose now putrefying gray matter endured endless sanitary spin cycles in the propaganda mills masquerading as universities. The inmates not only run the asylum, they’re numerous enough to classify the normal as abnormal. You’re a boy who’s sure he’s a girl? You’re white but identify as black? You think an invader is the equivalent of a citizen? Those people who’d cramp your style with that pesky Objective Reality are the problem. Off to re-education camps with them.

Another fancy is that Mexico isn’t a dangerous enemy. If you’re an illegal alien in Mexico, the best thing that can happen to you  is that you merely get deported; also possible is that the police will beat you Pelosi-senseless or even kill you (it’s said that you can buy your way of a fatal hit-and-run in Mexico for $450; the rule of law isn’t exactly big there). And no ACLU will come running and sue the government on your behalf. None of this stops that dysfunctional cartel-ridden nation from issuing its people actual instructions on how to better invade the U.S. and game our system. Nor does it stop them from lecturing us on the humane treatment of undocumented criminals. This is why a real president would tell the Mexican regime that if it didn’t stop weaponizing its population against us, we’d demonstrate that borders can be transgressed both ways and make Black Jack Pershing look like a missionary.

Instead, people are more worried about the Confederate flag flying in America than the Mexican flag flying here. As for Obama and his ilk, they welcome invaders because, upon being naturalized, 70 to 90 percent of them vote for leftists. And our leftists truly would rather reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.

But who is really to blame? Our Hell-raisers are only in power because far too many of us are just voting for the politicians Americans wouldn’t vote for.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

RELATED ARTICLES:

GOP Lawmakers Push Obama Administration to Get Tough on Sanctuary Cities After San Francisco Killing

How San Francisco Aided and Abetted the Murder of Kate Steinle

Ben Carson: Sanctuary Cities for Illegal Immigrants Are ‘Ridiculous’

Two Previously Deported Illegal Aliens Allegedly Murdered Two Women in Two States.. In 24 Hours

Illegal Alien Suspect in California Shooting Allegedly Used a Federal Agent’s Gun

How Unusual Is the Francisco Sanchez Case? The Facts About Illegal Immigrants and Crimes

Man Arrested in Connection With San Francisco Killing Had Been Deported Previously FIVE Times

A Behind the Scenes Look at the Republican Candidates

/in , , /by

Join The United West team as they show an excellent analysis of the current crop of Republican Presidential candidates presented by Orlando attorney, John Stemberger.

Stemberger evaluates each Republican Presidential hopeful by examining their pros & cons and then reveals the rich benefactors behind each candidate and how that money may help or hurt them.

This is very interesting and necessary information to know in order to intelligently vote on November 8, 2016.

American Exceptionalism: The Defining Question for Presidential Candidates

/in , , /by

The most important question we can ask our presidential candidates in this rapidly approaching primary season is for their definition of American Exceptionalism. After six-plus years of an administration that has apologized for America, demoralized our American military, destroyed our status on the international stage, attacked America’s unparalleled entrepreneurial vigor, and assaulted our future path to prosperity, I’ve had enough. My daughters deserve better, your children deserve better, and the many men and women who sacrificed and died for the ideas our flag represents deserve better.

We are an exceptional nation, and Americans are an exceptional people, and we should never make any apologies for that. We are not only the economic breadbasket of the world, and the innovative idea factory of the world, but we are a beacon of freedom for other nations to follow. Yes, we’ve fallen short at times, but we’ve always gotten back up and emerged stronger.

We were born of a revolution where the odds of being victorious were incalculable. We conquered the scourge of slavery. We sent our fighting men and women to foreign shores to conquer fascism and communism. And we measure our national valor not by the conquered land we’ve acquired, but by the land we’ve returned to people we’ve set free from the shackles of tyranny in exchange for the blood of our sons and daughters. Our commitment to liberty and freedom as gifted by God, not man, is unique and has no equal on the world stage either now, or historically. Reagan recognized this, JFK recognized this, our military men and women recognize this and, most importantly, the overwhelming majority of Americans recognize this.

It’s time for an American renaissance. We’ve been through the economic travails and the international Barack Obama American apology tour and it’s time for an American president who will boldly stand, both at home and abroad, for a reinvigorated and vibrant American spirit, which shines brightly on the global stage. Our next president must passionately fight back against the idea that the United States of America can happily enter into an era of “managed decline.” I will be no part of any “managed decline” and our next President should reaffirm that an exceptional America will never decline, managed or otherwise, in this lifetime or in the lifetimes of the American sons and daughters to follow.

While I’ll be intensely focused on all of the candidate’s responses to questions on taxes, spending and the other important issues of our time, it’s their answers as to what makes America exceptional that will tell me if they can right America’s course. I ask you to join me in this mission to challenge our candidates for president, and everywhere else at the state and local levels, and to ask our future leaders what makes America exceptional. It’s not a gotcha question and I’m not looking for a candidate who can wax poetic in their response. I am looking for a candidate who can firmly, passionately and vigorously defend the axiom that this nation has been touched by the hand of God and has no equal, and that it’s not who we’ve been willing to fight with that has made us exceptional, but what we have been willing to fight for.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Conservative Review. The featured image of Rick Santorum is by Tom Williams | AP Photo.

Poll Finds No Clear GOP Front-runner Yet

/in , , , /by

PITTSBURGH, PRNewswire/ — Republican voters remain divided over which candidate they prefer in the 2016 presidential race, with three polling over 10 percent and four others close behind, according to a nationwide poll by the Robert Morris University Polling Institute Powered by Trib Total Media.

The poll showed former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (15.4 percent), Florida U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio (14.6 percent) and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (13.8 percent) contending to lead a crowded field. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (7.5 percent), former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (7.5 percent), Texas U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (7.1 percent) and Dr. Ben Carson (6.7 percent) — polled within 10 points of the leader.

“The big loser in this poll is Rand Paul, who only received 2.0 percent of the Republicans surveyed,” said RMU political scientist Philip Harold.

Among Democrats polled, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (55.8 percent) held what would seem to be an insurmountable lead over Vice President Joe Biden (8.0 percent), Vermont U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (4.8 percent) and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (2.9 percent). The poll was completed before former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley announced he would seek the Democratic nomination, but he nonetheless registered support at 0.6 percent.

METHODOLOGY: The poll sampled opinions of 1,003 adults approximately proportional to state population contribution nationwide. The survey was conducted May 8-16, 2015 using an online survey instrument. The poll has a +/- 3.0 percent margin of error at a 95 percent confidence level on a composite basis.

ABOUT ROBERT MORRIS UNIVERSITY: 

Through 60 undergraduate and 20 graduate degree programs across five academic schools, Robert Morris University (RMU) in Pittsburgh, Pa., works to change its students’ lives so that they can go out and change the lives of others for the better. More than 5,000 undergraduate and graduate, nontraditional and online students from 47 states and 39 nations are enrolled at RMU, just 20 minutes from downtown Pittsburgh. Learn more at rmu.edu.

ABOUT TRIB TOTAL MEDIA

Trib Total Media is a multimedia network of daily and weekly newspapers, weekly shoppers, and websites delivering news, information and advertising to over 1.2 million readers across Western Pennsylvania every week. Trib Total Media also provides targeted direct mail, commercial printing and promotional item services. Visit us online at tribtotalmedia.com.

2016 GOP Hopefuls Set To Speak At Salem Media Group’s RedState Gathering In August

/in , , , /by

CAMARILLO, Calif./PRNewswire/ — Erick Erickson, Editor-in-Chief of Salem Media Group’s (NASDAQ: SALM) RedState.com, announced on Tuesday the first speaker lineup for the 2015 RedState Gathering. Governor Scott Walker, Governor Jeb Bush, Governor Rick Perry, Governor Bobby Jindal, Carly Fiorina and Senator Marco Rubio have all confirmed they will speak at the event.

In a slight change of tradition, this year’s RedState Gathering will be themed “Vision 2020.”

“Though I am loathe to ever suggest a topic for speakers, I have asked each of the 2016 candidates to focus on one thing: I’d like them to present their 2020 vision for what the nation should look like after their first four years,” Erickson said. “We need to know what they see as the areas that need fixing and how their fixes will reshape the country.

Jonathan Garthwaite, Salem Vice President and General Manager of Townhall Media (under which RedState operates) said, “RedState Gathering attendees are some of the hardest working conservative activists online and door-to-door who have pushed hundreds of conservative candidates to the top. There is no better place than the Gathering for the presidential candidates to come to and give their vision for America.”

The RedState Gathering will take place at the Intercontinental Buckhead Hotel in Atlanta, Georgia, August 6-9, 2015. In addition to a majority of the GOP presidential field, invitations have also been extended to members of Congress and other local and state elected officials. The weekend will kick-off on Thursday with a discussion between Erick Ericksonr and MSNBC host Joe Scarborough and wind down with a new event on Saturday evening called the RedState Tailgate, featuring a surprise guest speaker.

Registrations to attend the RedState Gathering are currently open. To register or for additional information, please visit RedStateGathering.com. The early bird registration fee of $249 expires May 23rd.

ABOUT SALEM MEDIA GROUP:

Salem Media Group is America’s leading Christian and conservative multi-media corporation, with media properties comprising radio, digital media and book, magazine and newsletter publishing.  Each day Salem serves a loyal and dedicated audience of listeners and readers numbering in the millions nationally.  With its unique programming focus, Salem provides compelling content, fresh commentary and relevant information from some of the most respected figures across the media landscape.

The company, through its Salem Radio Group, is the largest commercial U.S. radio broadcasting company providing Christian and conservative programming.  Salem owns and operates 110 local radio stations, with 65 stations in the top 25 media markets.  Salem Radio Network (“SRN”) is a full-service national radio network, with nationally syndicated programs comprising Christian teaching and talk, conservative talk, news, and music.  SRN is home to many industry-leading hosts including: Bill Bennett, Mike Gallagher, Hugh Hewitt, Michael Medved, Dennis Prager and Eric Metaxas.

Salem New Media is a powerful source of Christian and conservative themed news, analysis, and commentary.  Salem’s Christian sites include: Christianity.com®, BibleStudyTools.com, GodTube.com, GodVine.com,WorshipHouseMedia.com and OnePlace.com. Considered by many to be a consolidation of the conservative news and opinion sector’s most influential brands, Salem’s conservative sites include Red State.com, Townhall.com®, HotAir.com, Twitchy.com,  BearingArms.com and Human Events.com .

Salem’s Regnery Publishing unit, with a 65-year history, remains the nation’s leading publisher of conservative books.  Having published many of the seminal works of the early conservative movement, Regnery today continues as the dominant publisher in the conservative space, with leading authors including: Ann Coulter, Dinesh D’Souza, Newt Gingrich, David Limbaugh, Ed Klein and Mark Steyn. Salem’s book publishing business also includes Xulon Press™, a leading provider of self-publishing services for Christian and conservative authors.

Salem Publishing™ publishes Christian and conservative magazines including Homecoming®, YouthWorker Journal™, The Singing News, and Preaching.

Salem Media Group also owns Eagle Financial Publications and Eagle Wellness. Eagle Financial Publications provide market analysis and specific investment advice for individual investors from financial commentators Mark Skousen, Nicholas Vardy, Chris Versace, Bryan Perry and Doug Fabian. Eagle Wellness provides practical health advice and is a trusted source for nutritional supplements from one of the country’s leading complementary health physicians.

RELATED VIDEO: A new poll in New Hampshire puts Rand Paul and Scott Walker in first place among GOP candidates in the Granite State. Hillary Clinton still leads among Democrats, but she is showing some weakness. Hear why.