Posts

Celebrating the New Year With Our 100 Day Plan

Here we are as in olden days, happy golden days, of yore …” Christmas was awesome! Since moving to Florida 16 years ago, this was Mary and my first Christmas back to Baltimore for the annual Christmas Eve festivities at my dad’s home. My four younger siblings, their kids and grand-kids were there. The millennial girls prepared a delicious homemade feast. We joined hands in a huge circle for Dad to say grace.

Dad, 89 caught me by surprise. Passing the baton of family leadership, Dad said his time was running out and they should come to me as patriarch of the family.

I’m a mystery to many in my family; the embarrassing traitorous black political activist they see in the media bashing their beloved Obama. So when patriarch Dad said this is my beloved son, hear ye him, that was huge. It is a responsibility I take very seriously.

As Chairman of the Conservative Campaign Committee, I am with our team in a secured underground bunker in an undisclosed location planning our strategy for assisting the implementation of The 100 Day Plan (Donald Trump’s Contract With The American Voter); just kidding about the bunker.

While I did not become a Christian preacher like my dad, politics is my ministry. This battle goes beyond Democrats vs Republicans/Conservatives vs Liberals. We battle not against flesh and blood, but spiritual wickedness in high places; good vs evil. No, I am not saying everything Republican is good. I am saying 99% of the modern Democrat party’s agenda is anti-God, anti-America and anti-traditional wholesome values. If you believe you’re a chicken trapped in a human body, count on the democrats to pass legislation to fund your feather implants and force us to celebrate your Chickenization.

During the debates Trump said partial-birth abortion is wrong. Hillary’s shocking retort was a woman has the right to kill her baby on the day of delivery. Then, she used the Left’s tactic of attempting to brand anyone who thinks otherwise a male Neanderthal who hates women. Evil folks.

Trump’s landslide electoral victory was clearly a repudiation of the Left’s agenda from forcing Americans to allow men to use restrooms with their daughters to dethroning America as the world power.

I am convinced many still do not comprehend the Left’s disdain for us normal Americans, God, traditional family and country. Forcing the Left’s minority agenda down our throats is all that matters; trumping national security and American lives. Therefore, no tactic is too deadly, divisive or evil. This is the arena in which we fight. Some on our side still don’t get it; wanting to bring an olive branch or a knife to a gun fight.

With blood coming out of their eyes from hate and rage, the Left is committed 24/7 to branding Trump’s election illegitimate and blocking our 100 Day Plan.

Leftist actor Charlie Sheen tweeted that he wishes for the death of Trump.

Extreme Leftist, Democrat Rep. Maxine Walters vowed, “I’m going to fight him every inch of the way!”

Make no mistake about it folks, all the Left’s vitriol against Trump is really their hatred for us; every day Americans. CNN’s hate-filled Leftist Van Jones slandered Trump voters calling them angry white racist against a changing country and a black president.

Even Leftist columnist Maureen Dowd had to admit that this election was Americans rejecting Obama’s and the Left’s agenda. Mr. Trump received over 62 million votes, not all of them cast by homophobes, Islamophobes, racists, sexists, misogynists or any other “ists.”

So here we are folks. The Inauguration is weeks away. The Left true to its evil nature is still being obstructive; spewing fear and hate including celebs refusing to perform at the Inauguration. Fine. This is God’s way of providing an opportunity for other deserving artists.

I’m so excited about the new year 2017. However, the Left “ain’t” stoppin’ and they ain’t goin’ away. I cannot express enough how crucially important it is that we stay alert and protective of our 100 Day Plan; doing everything legally possible to push it through.

I feel like singing, “Happy days are here again…The skies above are clear again…So let’s sing a song of cheer again…Happy days are here again!”

Maybe Kaine Thinks You Are Not too Bright

Either progressive Vice Presidential candidate Tim Kaine is stupid or he believes the American people are.  Progressive Senator Tim Kaine D-Va. Has portrayed presidential candidate Donald Trump as a xenophobe.  According to Dictionary.com the word xenophobe is defined as a person who fears or hates foreigners, strange customs, etc.  Kaine went on to utter, “Look, this same speech has been given throughout our history, against the Irish, against the Italian-American immigrant (how one can be an Italian-American immigrant is beyond me) against Jews coming from Eastern Europe.  It is a deportation nation… That is not going to make our nation great.

“The continuous flow of new energy and new ideas has made our nation great, Kaine said Clinton, in the first 100 days of her administration, would announce an effort to reform immigration “in a comprehensive way.”  “And it’s going to have a couple of key pillars.  It’s going to have the pillar of trying to keep families together as a key value.  It’s going to have helping employers figure out the immigration status of people they hire.  “It is going to be providing a path, for people who are here if they pay their taxes and submit to criminal back ground record checks and follow the law, over a period of years, they can earn the right to citizenship, come out of a shadow economy where they’re being paid sub-minimum wages, hurting American workers and being treated more fairly.  “That will help American workers and help the economy.

“And finally, we’re going to do what we did in the Senate bill back in 2013, a significant investment in border security.  Your right, illegal immigration is a problem, and we have border security.  Kaine said, he thinks the American people will “send a mandate for comprehensive reform on November eighth.  When individuals such as Donald Trump runs for president, it would seem that one of the top requirements would be to place a high priority status to genuine border security.  That dear reader is what presidential candidate Donald Trump has been emphasizing almost since day one of his candidacy.  He has consistently spoken of the need to stop illegal immigration.

Trump has emphasized the need to protect our borders, not only from illegal immigration, but also from Islamic terrorists that many, including yours truly believe have been slipping into America among the throngs illegals sauntering into America.  I find Kaine’s accusation of xenophobe against Donald Trump to be both false and sinister in nature.  I have never heard or read about any authentic example of Donald Trump being full of hatred or fear against foreigners.

However, unlike many elected officials who are supposed to be in favor of protecting our nation against enemies, both foreign and domestic, but they are not.  Trump has consistently called for defending our borders.  There are two possible reasons that one can be foolish enough to equate protecting our borders and national sovereignty with xenophobic tendencies.

  1. Number one is quite common. There are now millions of high school and recent college graduates who were indoctrinated against American culture, American exceptionalism and American borders.
  2. Many political office holders who have vowed to uphold the United States Constitution actually govern in opposition to constitutional constraints upon government while seeking to make it easier for illegal immigrants to live unopposed in our republic.

Sanctuary cities are a perfect example where quite often American hating bigoted illegal immigrants have robbed, raped and murdered Americans.  Yet the globalist government officials look the other way or only seek to send the criminal illegal immigrants across the border.  Officials do nothing when the murderous illegals return into the United States to abuse our nation’s misguided generosity that American taxpayers are placed on the hook for.   In fact, there has been more expressed outrage from progressive democrats and globalist republicans over Donald Trump’s reaction to illegal immigrant atrocities than the actual criminal activities of the illegal immigrants.

It is a shame to have to mention this, but many black Americans and Latinos both legal and illegally in America equate protecting the U.S. border with racism.  What is scary is that there are many others as well who are actually dumb enough to believe that.  Also, many progressives use that mantra as part of a ploy to guilt America into not protecting her own border security and national sovereignty.  That is because, like many globalist republicans and most democrats they want the U.S. to be changed from powerful to pummeled so she will simply fold into a United Nations global union.

Tim Kaine weighed in about all the money spent on border security in 2013.  What a B.S. artist.  Yes, money was spent, but on what? Feeding and housing illegal immigrants in sanctuary cities.  He like many, talk about keeping families together.  I have a great idea.  When illegal immigrants decide to stroll into our republic, simply deport them with their entire family back to the country they came from.  We must also get rid of that awful anchor baby law.

If someone slips into the United States illegally has a baby and gets caught, Daddy, Mommy and little baby should not be rewarded with the American dream at taxpayer expense.  We should not be rewarding bad behavior with the American lifestyle. The incentive to get pregnant and come to America to have the baby must be eliminated.

The United States can do Mexico a huge favor by first getting our own economic house in order.  Then showing nations like Mexico how they can also be economically successful without the need to send their citizens into America for three hots and a cot, jobs, housing, education, etc.  This is the United States of America and we must govern ourselves accordingly and not allow globalists, and Islamic and illegal immigrant apologists like Kaine, Clinton, Kasich and others to change our republic into a United Nations outpost.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Clinton: It was wrong to call half of Trump supporters ‘deplorable’

A Cat and Mouse Game with State Over Clinton-Deleted Emails

Top Clinton Foundation Executive Sought Diplomatic Passport

EDITORS NOTE: Please join Ron every Friday as I Blow Away the Myths and Reveal the Truth on AM 1180 KCKQ in Reno, Nev. or americamatters.us at 2:00 PM PST, 5:00 PM EST.

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

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

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

With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do.

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

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

Wikipedia notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In other words always Trust Thyself!

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

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

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

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

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

Trump’s Top Ranking Statements — All Parties

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

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

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

4. I want to save Medicare and Social Security.

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

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

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

Trump’s Top Ranking Statements — Independents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About the Study

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

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

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

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

“La Raza” means “Master Race”

Trump Shatters Republican Primary Vote Record by 1.4 Million Votes

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

Stunning New Development!! Media calls Trump Racist

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

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

Republican Primary Lesson: It’s Not About You!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly how many delegates will Donald Trump get? Take our online survey!

There has been wild speculation about who the delegates will vote for at the 2016 Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio. Donald Trump has led the delegate count since the start of the GOP primary season. He has been followed by Senator Ted Cruz and in a distant third place by Govern John Kasich.

Many pundits and political websites have given predictions about what the final delegate count will be for Mr. Trump.

I have found the most insightful and thorough analysis on this topic to be from FiveThirtyEight.com.

Nate Silver in a column titled, “A State-By-State Roadmap For The Rest Of The Republican Primary” writes:

Three weeks ago, when we last took a detailed look at Donald Trump’s quest to win 1,237 delegates, his path looked rocky but endurable. The panel of eight experts FiveThirtyEight assembled projected Trump to wind up with 1,208 by the time California and four other states finished counting their votes on June 7, a number that would leave him tantalizingly close to clinching the Republican presidential nomination — probably close enough that he’d be able to get over the hump by persuading some uncommitted delegates to come his way before the convention.

Since then, Trump has gotten mostly bad news. Last week, he lost Wisconsin, which our panel originally considered a toss-up state leaning in Trump’s direction. Then this weekend, he was shut out of delegates at the Colorado state convention. He’s also had a couple of minor setbacks; Trump got no delegates in Utah when we thought he might get a few. All told, Trump would finish with 1,175 delegates if he hits our panel’s original estimate in the remaining states. That’s far enough away from 1,237 that winning over enough uncommitted voters will be challenging, especially given Trump’s lack of success at finding pro-Trump delegates.

But we also have a lot of new information at our disposal. Trump’s polling has held up well in the Northeast, and he has a good chance to beat the panel’s original projections in New York and Connecticut. On the flip side, his loss in Wisconsin bodes poorly for his performance in Indiana, another state we originally had as leaning toward Trump. So it’s time to revisit our projections, going through the remaining states one at a time. (Given how much delegate rules vary from state to state, there’s really no avoiding this level of detail, much to the bane of my editor.)

Read the FiveThirtyEight state-by-state breakdown of the remaining primaries with projections by clicking here.

So according to FiveThirtyEight Trump will end up with 1,175 delegates, more than Senator Cruz and Governor Kasich combined.

Is that enough to win the nomination? What do you think?

Please take our confidential survey on Donald Trump being the GOP nominee:

RELATED ARTICLES:

HUNDREDS of Trump Supporters Turn Out for “STOP THE STEAL” Rally at Colorado State Capitol

As Miami GOP picks delegates, Trump backers say they’re being left out

VIDEO: Donald Trump changes accent, becomes acceptable to elites

How can Trump win the progressive elites over to his side? By switching to a Royal British accent. This way, exactly the same words and phrases will begin to sound much more profound, distinguished, and presidential.

According to this video, he has already made a few test runs, with smashing success. Tally-ho, old boy!

EDITORS NOTE: This political satire column and video originally appeared on The Peoples Cube.

American-Mideast Coalition for Trump calls on voters to support the ‘freedom candidate’

WASHINGTON, D.C. /PRNewswire/ — The Co-Chairs of American-Mideast Coalition for Trump (AMCT) Tom Harb and John Hajjar issued the following statement in support of Donald Trump for President:

We, representatives of Middle East-American groups in the United States, from various ancestries, ethnicities and religions, announce the launching of the “American-Mideast Coalition for Trump” in support of the U.S. Presidential candidacy of Donald J. Trump.

As representatives of United States citizens from Syrian, Lebanese, Egyptian, Iraqi, Arab, Assyrian, Syriac, Yazidi, Sudanese, Berber, Iranian, and other communities from the Greater Middle East, we see Mr. Trump as our favorite candidate in the primaries because of the following reasons:

  1. His opposition to the destructive Iran Deal signed by the Obama administration with the Ayatollah regime in Tehran;
  2. His firm opposition to the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist influence in the United States;
  3. His determination to destroy ISIS and push back against all terror groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah and all other Jihadi terror groups;
  4. His willingness to take action in defense of the persecuted Christians and Yazidis in the Middle East;
  5. His determination to help in the creation of free zones inside Syria and Iraq to resettle the refugees;
  6. His support for the formation of an Arab coalition against terrorists;
  7. His vision to help the Middle East become stable and prosper.

Based on these seven principles, we extend our support to Donald J. Trump to become the Republican nominee and later be elected as the President of the United States.

We call on all our friends who are members of the Republican Party and all citizens who can vote in the Republican primaries to select Donald J. Trump as their choice. It is important to give Mr. Trump a clear, early and decisive victory in the primaries so that he becomes a strong nominee able to begin engaging in the national election and then be elected as President on November 4, 2016.

We are calling on millions of Americans from Mideast background to join us in supporting Mr. Trump.

Bloomberg for President?

Amid reports that the FBI is close to recommending that the Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecute Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified materials, and that FBI Director James Comey and other agency personnel investigating Clinton may resign if the DOJ refuses to do so, sources close to Michael Bloomberg say the billionaire former mayor of New York City may run for president if Clinton appears unable to win the Democratic Party’s nomination.

CBS New York reports, “[t]hey say Bloomberg would strongly consider running if the general election looked like it would be a contest between Democrat Bernie Sanders and Republicans Donald Trump or Ted Cruz.” Bloomberg, who has let on that he would be willing to spend 1 billion dollars on a campaign, is expected to make his decision by March. Four states are holding their presidential primaries and caucuses in February, and another 14 will do so on Super Tuesday, March 1st.

Appearing unfazed by her troubles, Clinton insists “nothing that I did was wrong” and said of the Bloomberg news, “the way I read what he said was if I didn’t get the nomination, he might consider it. Well, I’m going to relieve him of that and get the nomination, so he doesn’t have to.”

Unfortunately, from Clinton’s perspective, that may be a fairly big “if.” Polls show her being trounced by Sen. Bernie Sanders in New Hampshire and also losing Iowa, where the country’s first presidential primaries and caucuses will be held, and that her national figures are dropping. Other polls show that more Americans view her unfavorably than favorably.

Fox News reports, “[t]he FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of private email as secretary of state has expanded to look at whether the possible ‘intersection’ of Clinton Foundation work and State Department business may have violated public corruption laws.” Fox followed up on the story on Tuesday, saying, “The security investigation is now part and parcel with the criminal [public corruption] investigation.”

Bloomberg must theorize that he could appeal to voters on the basis of his success as a businessman and his time as the mayor of the nation’s most populous city. But he faces a difficult “if” of his own. Clinton been casting herself as the most anti-gun presidential candidate in American history, a distinction Bloomberg would certainly want to challenge if he threw his hat into the ring. Also, and perhaps for the same reason, a Morning Consult poll released this week found Bloomberg at 13% in a hypothetical three-way race against Donald Trump and Clinton, 11% when the Republican candidate is Sen. Ted Cruz, and down to 10% when the Republican is Sen. Marco Rubio.

Bloomberg might be able to bump those numbers up among Democrats a bit, if he promised to pardon Clinton on the first day of his presidency. That would not only endear him to Clinton’s most fanatical supporters, it would wipe the slate clean, at least legally-speaking, for someone who shares his deep antipathy for guns. With public opinion trending steadily against gun control, a President Bloomberg couldn’t afford to have one of his strongest anti-gun allies in court or in prison.

National Black Republican Association Endorses Donald J. Trump

frances riceWe, the grassroots activists of the National Black Republican Association, are pleased to announce our endorsement of Donald J. Trump for President of the United States of America.

As citizens who happen to be black, we support Mr. Trump because he shares our values. We, like Mr. Trump, are fiscally conservative, steadfastly pro-life and believers in a small government that fosters freedom for individuals and businesses, so they can grow and become prosperous.

We are deeply concerned about illegal immigration, a major cause of high black unemployment, especially among black youth.

Black Americans across America are beginning to wake up and see clearly the reality of what is happening in black neighborhoods. Democrats have run black communities for the past 60 years and the socialist policies of the Democrats have turned those communities into economic and social wastelands, witness Detroit, Baltimore and South Chicago.

We believe that Mr. Trump has demonstrated that he can push back against the mainstream media, end political correctness and free black communities from the destructive grip of socialist Democrats.

We urge our fellow black Americans to seize control over their own destiny and leverage their vote the way other groups do. It is way past time black Americans stop having their vote taken for granted by Democrats, hold politicians accountable for the content of their policies and not vote merely based on the label of their party.

86% of Millennials Believe Presidential Candidates Ignore Them

NEW YORK, NY /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The vast majority of recent college graduates believe that the current presidential candidates are not talking about the issues that matter most to them, according to a new survey of millennials by GenFKD, a non-partisan organization dedicated to promoting economic understanding and financial literacy to college students and recent graduates.

millenial app iphone

Millennials account for 36 percent of eligible voters, the largest demographic in the 2016 election, according to ThinkProgress.  Despite their voting power, 86 percent of those 18 to 34 say this year’s presidential candidates are not addressing them or their key issues they care most about.

  • Jobs and economic growth (19%)
  • Climate change (14%)
  • Health Care (11%)
  • Student Debt (10%)

“It is very disappointing that the presidential candidates are ignoring a vital demographic group and the issues that matter most to millennials,” said Justin Dent, president and co-founder of GenFKD. “With an uncertain economy and international instability, millennials are more engaged than ever in the upcoming election, yet they are left out of the discussion.”

GenFKD polled 752 millennials through Survey Monkey to determine which issues most concern them and if they felt their concerns were being adequately acknowledged in the national debate.

“Millennials are clearly concerned about the economy they will inherit, and the opportunities available to them,” said Christopher Koopman of the Mercatus Institute at George Mason University.   “Unfortunately, political candidates have a strong incentive to support special interests over the causes that matter most to young people. There is a danger in doing that because millennials are concerned, active, and engaged.”

“Until now, there have been less than a handful of millennial issues addressed in hours and hours of debates and interviews,” said Dent, a student at the University of Maryland. “We’re worried about jobs and graduating into a nation of the underemployed.”

About GenFKD

GenFKD is a non-partisan peer-to-peer organization that utilizes editorial content and grassroots organizing to engage millennials on economic and financial public policy and basic pocketbook finance. The non-profit organization seeks to utilize its expansive social following and network of 28 college chapters to present critical information relating to jobs and the economy in a way that is informative, approachable and useful.

About The Survey

The GenFKD “Millennial Sentiment” survey was conducted online December 15-22, 2015, among a national sample of 752 adults between the ages of 18 and 34. Respondents for this non-probability survey were selected using a SurveyMonkey Audience. As the sample for the survey self-selected for participation, sampling error cannot be calculated.

RELATED ARTICLE: Six Years Later, 93% of U.S. Counties Haven’t Recovered From Recession, Study Finds

To use Schlonged or not to use Schlonged, that is not the question!

Donald Trump stated after the December 21st CNN Democratic debate, “Even a race to Obama, she was gonna beat Obama. I don’t know who would be worse, I don’t know, how could it be worse? But she was going to beat — she was favored to win — and she got schlonged, she lost, I mean she lost.”

The media went ballistic over Trump’s use of the word schlonged. 

Jeremy Diamond, from CNN wrote:

Donald Trump attacked Hillary Clinton in vulgar terms Monday night, saying that her bathroom break during the last Democratic debate was just too “disgusting” to talk about and then stating she “got schlonged” by Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential race.

It appears that Trump was referring to the 2008 Democratic primaries in Michigan and Florida, where Hillary was denied delegate votes. The 2008 Democratic presidential primary turned from a quest for the popular vote, which Clinton claimed she won, to a race for delegate and super delegate votes, which Obama won.

Lee S. Gliddon, Jr. in an email points out the definition of the verb “shalong” in the Unencyclopedia as:

Schlong (sve), to, verb, derived from the Swedish “Slöngga” (to mow one´s lawn at great pace with extreme tenacity in a Stockholm-style pattern). First used by Leslie A. McGaffiter in the (June 5th) 1816 congregation of the Scottish National Parliament: “[…]now let´s all schlong together!”.

So who is mowing Hillary’s lawn now?

Bill Curry in his October 2013 SALON article titled, “The DNC screwed Hillary — now get ready for a Bernie Sanders earthquake” believes that the same thing is happening in the 2016 Democratic primary. Curry notes:

The Democratic National Committee delayed the debates as long as it could and limited their total number to six. By way of comparison, there were 26 debates in 2008. The first was held in April 2007; by this point in the cycle there had already been 13. To enforce its new limit the party threatens a drastic sanction: anyone caught participating in a rogue debate will be locked out of all party debates.

The phrase ‘Democratic National Committee’ is imprecise. When DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz announced the schedule last August she didn’t say who made the decision or how. Nor did anyone ask. It seems like an awfully closed system for an outfit with the word ‘democratic’ right there in its name. I wondered how the party picked it. Did its national committee hold a meeting? If so, was it public? Was there a notice, agenda, or minutes? Was there even a vote?

It is interesting that the media seems to have forgotten what Hillary Clinton said about Southern working class whites In 1995 – “Screw ‘Em!” Sam Stein from the Huffington Post reported:

In January 1995, as the Clintons were licking their wounds from the 1994 congressional elections, a debate emerged at a retreat at Camp David. Should the administration make overtures to working class white southerners who had all but forsaken the Democratic Party? The then-first lady took a less than inclusive approach.

“Screw ’em,” she told her husband. “You don’t owe them a thing, Bill. They’re doing nothing for you; you don’t have to do anything for them.”

So much for white working class voters across America.

Remember that it was Hillary, who in 2014, said that President Obama has “No hand on the f***ing tiller.” Francesca Chambers writer for the DailyMail.com wrote:

Hillary Clinton berated President Barack Obama as ‘incompetent and feckless’ and said he had become ‘a joke’ after having one too many glasses of wine at a reunion dinner last year with friends from college, a new tell-all book reveals.

‘When her friends asked Hillary to tell them what she thought — really thought — about the president she had served for four draining years, she lit into Obama with a passion that surprised them all,’ former Newsweek editor Edward Klein writes in his book Blood Feud.

‘”The thing with Obama is that he can’t be bothered and there is no hand on the tiller half the time,”‘ Clinton is said to have barked in her boozy rant. ‘That’s the story of the Obama presidency. No hand on the f***ing tiller.’

Read more.

The issue is not to use the word schlonged or not. The issue is are the Democratic Party primaries fair or not. That is the real question! Will Hillary pay the price of calling the President incompetent? Who is the schlonger and who will be the schlongee?

Will Hillary get schlonged by the DNC in 2016? Only time and the Democratic primaries will tell.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Nuclear Option: Donald Trump Schools Rivals on ‘The Art of the Schlong’

Donald Trump says Clinton’s bathroom break during the debate is ‘too disgusting’ to talk about – Washington Post

Hillary Clinton to Howard Dean: Screw you. – The Daily Kos

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 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.

Supreme Court: No More Lifetime Appointments by Doug Bandow

Democrats and Republicans alike have turned Supreme Court appointments into a partisan slugfest. No wonder: while the judiciary has long been described as the least dangerous branch of government, the court has become instead a continuing constitutional convention. Just five votes can turn the Constitution inside out.

The latest Supreme Court term was seen as a shift to the left. The high court rewrote Obamacare to save the president’s landmark legislation to socialize American health care and completed a social revolution by nationalizing gay marriage. These decisions set off a flurry of promises from Republican Party presidential candidates to confront the judiciary.

Extreme Measures

Jeb Bush said he would only appoint judges “with a proven record of judicial restraint,” even though previous presidents claiming to do the same chose Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, and John Roberts, among many other conservative disappointments.

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) called for judicial retention elections. Such a change at the federal level would require a constitutional amendment, though it would mimic the practices of some 20 states. Even more controversially, Cruz suggested that only those whose case was brought before the justices had to respect Supreme Court rulings.

Extreme measures seem necessary because a simultaneously progressive and activist judiciary has joined the legislature and executive in forthrightly making public policy.

Should Justices Serve for Life?

The influence of judges has been magnified by their relative immunity from political pressure. Although the courts sometimes follow the election returns, in many cases — such as abortion and gay marriage — judicial decisions have short-circuited normal political discourse.

That fact alone makes judicial appointments important. Their significance is magnified by judges’ life tenure.

Lose the battle over filling a Supreme Court slot and you may suffer the consequences for decades. Gerald Ford’s unelected presidency merits little more than a historical footnote, but his Supreme Court legacy long persisted through Justice John Paul Stevens, a judicial ideologue hostile to liberty in most forms. Republicans going back to Dwight Eisenhower publicly lamented the evolution of their appointees, and every one of them made at least one choice that ultimately advanced a big-government agenda. Anthony Kennedy and John Roberts fill that role today.

Lifetime tenure has other consequences. The appointment process is endlessly arbitrary, as judges hang on, irrespective of advancing age. Although instances of obvious infirmity are few — the last clear Supreme Court case was William O. Douglas, who served more than 36 years before retiring in 1975 — outcomes should not be affected by actuarial tables. A gerontocratic court differs dramatically from the society on behalf of which its members purport to speak. The lack of turnover also may deaden court debate, reinforcing established patterns of thinking.

Life tenure is enshrined in the Constitution and rooted in history. The justification for lifetime appointment is to insulate the courts from transient political pressures. Some such protection is necessary if judges are to feel free to make unpopular decisions upholding the nation’s fundamental law.

Yet, judicial independence does not require lack of accountability. Judges are supposed to play a limited though vital role: interpreting, not transforming, the law. The dichotomy of activism versus restraint is the wrong prism for viewing judges. They should be active in enforcing the law, striking down legislation, and vindicating rights when required by the Constitution. They should be restrained in substituting their policy preferences for those of elected representatives.

When jurists violate this role, as do so many judges, they should be held accountable. Unfortunately, many of the proposed responses are more dangerous than the judges themselves. For instance, limiting court jurisdiction or impeaching errant jurists, oft proposed in the past, provides obvious opportunities for abuse. Worse is Cruz’s idea that most people should ignore the Supreme Court. Where government branches collide, someone must have a final say, or else the result will be enduring political conflict and limited legal legitimacy.

Ignore the Court?

More important, Cruz would presumably not want politicians to ignore court rulings with which he agreed. After all, as originally conceived, the judiciary was tasked with the critical role of holding the executive and legislative branches accountable, limiting their propensity to exceed their bounds and abuse the people. For instance, Alexander Hamilton imagined independent courts playing a “peculiarly essential” role to safeguard liberties and being an “excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of the representative body.” Indeed, he contended, the judiciary would “guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals” from “the people themselves.”

Thomas Jefferson argued that judges would provide a “legal check” on political majorities. James Madison, often viewed as the father of the Constitution, predicted that

independent tribunals of justice will consider themselves in a peculiar manner the guardians of [Bill of Rights guarantees]; they will be an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive; they will be naturally led to resist every encroachment upon rights expressly stipulated for in the constitution by the declaration of rights.

Of course, all too often the judiciary fails to fulfill this role today. No less than the presidents and congressmen, judges have become avid advocates of statism. Jurists as well as politicians should be held accountable. Unreviewable power is always dangerous.

Throw the Bums Out?

Some 20 states have implemented Cruz’s second idea, of retention elections. Few judges are defenestrated, but on occasion, the results are dramatic. Three decades ago, California voters ousted three state supreme court jurists who had effectively repealed the death penalty. In 2010, Iowa voters defeated three state supreme court judges who ruled in favor of gay marriage.

National judicial elections, however, would be far more problematic. Should the decision be made via national vote or by a majority of state votes? Moreover, it is hard to believe that Americans who today choose their president based on 30-second television spots would pay serious attention to esoteric legal issues and make the fine distinctions characteristic of legal and constitutional analysis. Worse, judicial votes might reinforce the reigning political consensus, allowing majorities to remove justices most prepared to enforce the constitution against those in power. Unfortunately, further politicizing the judiciary would be an uncertain means of counteracting the problem of a politicized judiciary.

There is a better alternative.

The Solution: Fixed Terms

The Constitution should be amended to authorize fixed terms for federal judges. Perhaps one term of 10 or 12 years for Supreme Court justices, though Federalist Society founder Steve Calabresi suggested 18-year terms. Another option would be a renewable term of 6 or 8 years. Staggering terms would ensure every president at least a couple of appointments. Mixing short and long terms would expand diversity.

Such an approach would offer several advantages. While every appointment would remain important, judicial nominations would no longer be as likely to become political Armageddon. The new justice’s service would be bounded with his exit from office already set, and another appointment would be due a couple of years later.

Term limits also would ensure a steady transformation of the court’s membership. New additions at regular intervals would encourage intellectual as well as physical rejuvenation of the court. No longer would justices attempt to desperately hang on in order to outlast a president of another party. Law rather than health would determine the pace of judicial appointments.

Most important, fixed terms would establish judicial accountability. Justices still would be independent, largely immune to political retaliation for their decisions. Thus, if so inclined, they still could “resist every encroachment upon rights expressly stipulated for in the constitution by the declaration of rights.”

Nevertheless, abusive judges would no longer serve for life. Elective officials could reassert control over the court without destroying the judicial institution. There would be no court-packing, a la Franklin Delano Roosevelt, as transformation would take time, over two or three presidencies.

The Supreme Court has become as consequential as the presidency in making public policy. Indeed, contrary to their originally envisioned role, judges have become as likely as politicians to push to expand state power and limit individual liberty. It is necessary to find a way to impose accountability while preserving independence. Appointing judges to fixed terms would simultaneously achieve both objectives.


Doug Bandow

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and the author of a number of books on economics and politics. He writes regularly on military non-interventionism.