President Archives - Page 2 of 3

Tag Archive for: President

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

October 14, 2015/in Elections, Featured, Politics/by Selwyn Duke

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.

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

Supreme Court: No More Lifetime Appointments by Doug Bandow

August 3, 2015/in Courts & Law, Featured, Policy, Politics/by Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

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.

A Golden Nugget Hidden in the Trump Spectacle

July 24, 2015/in Commentary, Culture War, Elections, Politics/by Lloyd Marcus

I know. I know. As a veteran political activist, I am suppose to be extremely upset with Donald Trump, out there saying what some on both sides of the political aisle consider to be outrageous things.

But folks, I cannot help myself. It is thrilling to watch someone in the arena of ideas not playing the game according to the dictates of the Left. For far too long, our anti-America enemies on the Left have been allowed to set the rules of engagement. The Left dictates what truths we can say out loud, what words we are permitted to use and what is racist or mean.

Please note. I am neither supporting nor opposing Trump’s comments. I am celebrating Trump’s refreshing unprecedented fearlessness in dealing with the iron-fist out-of-control bullying tactics of the Left/MSM.

I guess it goes back to my childhood living on the mean-streets of Baltimore projects. I detested bullies. They were cowards and mean opportunists. My cousin Jimmy, who loved to fight, taught me the power of a strong military. I was small as a child. When bullies took my lunch money, cousin Jimmy ended the problem. Nothing serious happened, but the bullies knew not to “mess” with Jimmy’s cousin, Peanut (my nickname).

I view the mainstream media and their Leftists partners as the ultimate bullies, whipping Americans into submission, silencing our right to free speech. It sticks in my craw that daring to state an opinion other than the Left’s combined consensus on an issue means your derriere is grass.

It also distresses me that whenever a conservative/Republican says something that the Left chooses to distort and become hysterical about, folks on our side run to microphones to say, “What so-and-so should have said or really meant to say is…” Why surrender to the Left’s distort-and-become-hysterical tactic?

Why kowtow to the Left/MSM, especially when we know they are wrongly interpreting conservatives’ comments on purpose; publishing distortions, exaggerations and lies about what a particular conservative/Republican said?

The Left/MSM allows Democrats to make off-the-cuff outrageous inflammatory statements insulting millions of Americans. Waters – “The tea party can go straight to hell!” Grayson — “Republicans want you to die quickly.” Schultz – “Republicans want to see you dead.” Carson – “The tea party wants blacks hanging on a tree.” Obama about middle America – “Clinging to their Bibles and guns.” Indicting millions, President Carter said an “overwhelming portion” of the opposition to Obama is because “he is a black man.”

Remember the Democrats’ outrageous lying ad showing a Republican pushing an old lady in a wheelchair over a cliff?

Then, there was the absurd shameful irresponsible Democrat ad warning blacks that if they do not vote, they will need to send their kids to school wearing bulletproof vests to protect them from being shot by white police.

Has the MSM demanded that these Democrats apologize/walk back any of their false statements or hate generating ads? No.

Meanwhile, a conservative/Republican has to market test every word that comes out of their mouths, less they suffer the Left’s hysteria/wrath and shoulda-coulda-woulda from fellow conservatives/Republicans. Folks, with the MSM deck so stacked against us, standing up to the Left is extremely challenging. I just wish our side was more forgiving and supportive of our fighters.

Name me one occasion in which a conservative/Republican walking back a statement caused the Left/MSM to forgive him or her. Never. To the Left, an apology is blood in the water, causing a media feeding frenzy to devour a conservative or Republican. Every time one sheepishly apologizes, it is another notch on the Left’s gun barrel; letting the world know they are in charge.

This is what makes Trump’s defiance so remarkable and exhilarating. Thus far Trump has not fallen for the Left’s tactic and become terrorized into walking back his comments. As a matter of fact, Trump routinely doubles down on his original statements. Sorry folks, but I love it. There’s a new sheriff in town. His name is Donald Trump.

Another trick of the Left/MSM is to claim that their hysterical reactions reflect the feelings of a majority of the American people. However, Trump’s addressing illegal immigration shot him to the top of the polls.

Some say Trump is muddying the waters for “serious GOP candidates.” I am not going to argue either way regarding that point. I will say that it is about time someone stood up to these vipers (Leftist media).

A recent incident bears witness to how far PC and Leftist bullying has gotten out of hand; infecting the Democratic party base. Democrat presidential candidate Martin O’Malley was speaking at a Democrat Netroots conference. He was interrupted by protesters screaming about “black lives matter”. The protesters demanded that O’Malley repeat their mantra. Allowing the protesters to hijack the meeting, O’Malley said black lives matter. But when O’Malley added white lives and all lives matter, the audience exploded in outrage, erupting with boos and curse words.

Now, here is the kicker folks, Democrat presidential candidate Martin O’Malley actually apologized for saying white lives and all lives matter. That is crazy and speaks volumes.

Am I grateful for what Donald Trump has done? You betcha!

Republicans Missing the Point Behind Donald Trump’s Ascendancy

July 13, 2015/in Elections, Featured, Immigration, Politics/by Raynard Jackson

Donald Trump’s political ascendancy has less to do with him and more to do with the Republican electorate’s total disillusionment with the lack of leadership coming from our congressional leadership.

All of a sudden, along comes Donald Trump speaking a language the Republican base understands—English!

In my view, Trump, Carly Fiorina, and Chris Christie are the only Republicans that are speaking to the American people in a manner that they can understand. The rest of the field speaks in “politicaleeze.”

The American people want someone like a Christie who will look them straight in the eye and give a direct answer to their question.

Far too many candidates, both Democrats and Republicans, spend too much time poll testing and focus grouping everything and every issue.

This brings me back to Trump. Whatever you think about him, he spoke the truth about the state of illegal immigration; and yes his language was extremely hyperbolic and way over the top. Yes, he could have made the same point without the incendiary language; but nonetheless, he has caused a tectonic shift in the debate over sanctuary cities.

Trump has managed to tap into voter angst and their economic insecurity. So, Republicans should stop fretting so much about how Trump hurt the feelings of Hispanics and deal with the issue he has brought to the forefront of the political landscape.

If our congressional leaders would spend more time promoting the conservative agenda that they ran on last year versus giving Obama victories in trade and amnesty, then a person like Trump would have absolutely no political traction whatsoever.

In many ways, Donald Trump is the Frankenstein that our congressional leadership has created by their lack of any bold legislative action that they promised Republican voters during the 2014 elections.

They told the voters last year that if you give them control of the House and Senate, they would block Obama’s amnesty—they caved; they would reign in federal spending—they caved; they would pass a strong boarder enforcement bill—they got amnesia.

Republican leadership thought these issues would just magically disappear or that the Supreme Court would save them from having to do their jobs; they were very wrong on both counts.

The next U.S. president will be the candidate who can speak directly to the American people in very simplistic language about their vision for the country on issues like immigration, ISIS, the domestic and foreign economy, values, how to manage the growing diversity of our country, etc.

So, as opposed to criticizing Trump, shut him up by addressing the issues he is talking about. Granted, his answers/solutions are extremely sophomoric; but at least he is addressing issues the American people care about in a language they understand.

The same thing can be said about Vermont senator, Bernie Sanders. You write him off at your own peril. He is tapping into the same frustration and disillusionment on the Democratic side that Donald Trump is tapping into on the Republican side.

It was sad watching Hillary Clinton’s interview with CNN last week. She is quite good at talking without saying anything.

But I am getting this same eerie feeling that I got in 2007—2008 when Hillary acted as though winning the Democratic primary was a foregone conclusion. The amount of arrogance she and her campaign are showing is astonishing.

Sanders will continue to provide a vigorous challenge to Hillary from the left and then I expect Vice President Joe Biden to enter the race because of the disillusionment from their party’s base.

So the takeaway from Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders is quite simple. People want to be talked to in a language that they can understand. They want specific answers to the problems facing Americans, no more broad, vague, undecipherable talk.

The American electorate is afraid about their future and needs and wants a presidential candidate who is going to reassure them that their future will be alright under their leadership.

Sometimes candidates need to get rid of their pollsters and just talk to the American people from their hearts about the values and the vision they have for the country.

So, Donald Trump is not the problem with the Republican Party; it is the seeming inability of Republicans to connect with the American people about how they are going to solve the many problems facing America.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Obama Writes Personal Letter to Nearly 50 Felons, But Continues to Ignore Family of Murder Victim Kathryn Steinle [+video]

You’ve Heard of Sanctuary Cities. But Do You Know What They Are?

Mexican Drug Lord ‘El Chapo’ Threatens Trump

RELATED VIDEO: Donald Trump on Hillary Clinton: She has a lot to hide

UPDATE: U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Transnational Crime, Civilian Security, Democracy, Human Rights & Global Women’s Issues, issued the following statement regarding the conspiracy surrounding Mexican drug lord Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman’s recent escape from a Mexican prison:

“Joaquin ‘El Chapo’ Guzman’s escape has dealt a serious blow to all those working in good faith within the Mexican government, law enforcement and judiciary to give that nation a better future. That’s a harder future to achieve as long as drug cartels run amok trafficking drugs, terrorizing the public, and poisoning the rule of law and democratic order that many generations of Mexicans have worked to achieve. The U.S. played a key role in assisting our Mexican partners in finding and arresting Guzman, and we should stand ready to help them find him again and bring to justice all those involved in this conspiracy.

“When Guzman is arrested again, the U.S. should pursue his extradition in accordance with our treaty with Mexico governing such cases. It is not clear to me why the Obama Administration did not formally request his extradition after his previous arrest in 2014. This is the second time Guzman has escaped from prison, and not only is he wanted for major crimes in the U.S., but we have the capabilities to bring him to justice.”

Bernie Sanders U.S. Presidential Democratic Hopeful is Rapidly Gaining Popularity

July 6, 2015/in Elections, Featured, Politics/by Mercedes Schneider

I just read on The Hill an article entitled, “Team Clinton ‘Worried’ about Bernie Sanders Campaign.” Sanders is quickly becoming serious competition for Clinton in the Democratic nomination:

Hillary Clinton’s campaign is “worried” about Bernie Sanders, whom a top Clinton aide described as a “serious force” in the 2016 battle.

“We are worried about him, sure. He will be a serious force for the campaign, and I don’t think that will diminish,” Clinton Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri said Monday in an interview with MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

“It’s to be expected that Sanders would do well in a Democratic primary, and he’s going to do well in Iowa in the Democratic caucus.”

Sanders, an independent senator from Vermont, has emerged as Clinton’s main foil in the Democratic primary.

While he’s still more than 40 percentage points behind Clinton in virtually all national polls, he’s greatly improved his stock in the early primary states.

A new Quinnipiac University poll released last week found he doubled his share of Democratic supporters in Iowa in just seven weeks. Some polls in New Hampshire show Sanders less than 10 points behind Clinton.

Indeed, in the last several hours, Huffington Post columnist H.A. Goodman posted a piece entitled, “‘Bernie Sanders Can Become President’ Has Replaced ‘I Like Him, But He Can’t Win’”:

How many time have you heard the phrase, “I like Bernie Sanders, but he can’t win,” uttered by people who identify themselves as progressives? The facts, however, illustrate that “Bernie Sanders can win” and nobody in politics foreshadowed the Vermont Senator’s latest surge in both Iowa and New Hampshire. He recently raised $15 million in just two months, and his campaign reports that “Nearly 87 percent of the total amount raised during the quarter came from the donors who contributed $250 or less.” While Clinton’s team isn’t worried, they should be, primarily because Hillary Clinton already lost a presidential race (spending $229.4 million in the losing effort) and finished behind both Obama and John Edwards in the 2008 Iowa Caucus.

While Clinton is expected to amass $2.5 billion, Bernie Sanders has cut the former Secretary of State’s lead in New Hampshire from 38 percentage points down to just 8.

Goodman continues by noting that Sanders “snagged a key ally” in New Hampshire: Democratic activist Dudley Dudley. Why the rise in Sanders’ popularity? Well, a key reason seems to rest in the fact that the public can get a clear answer from him– on some issues. As Goodman notes:

…Sanders didn’t need billions of dollars to earn the trust of voters in New Hampshire, or cut Hillary’s lead to only 8 points. Since he voted against the Iraq War and has spent a lifetime championing progressive issues while others waivered (Hillary was against gay marriage until 2013, voted for the Iraq War, pushed for the TPP on 45 separate occasions, and supported Keystone XL), Bernie Sanders doesn’t need to prove he’s a progressive. Voters know what they’re getting with Vermont’s Senator. In contrast, Hillary Clinton rarely offers a direct answer on why she failed to champion certain causes when they weren’t popular.

Clinton might avoid the direct answer, but when it comes to hot-button education issues, such as Common Core, Sanders has not spoken publicly. (More to come on Sanders and education.)

Still, Sanders appears to have what money cannot fabricate– grassroots support:

What polls can’t measure, however, is the numbers Sanders is drawing in overflowing crowds. A Washington Post article titled Sanders draws more than 2,500 to Iowa stop — tops for this presidential cycle so far, explains how an energized base of voters is making what was once improbable a very real possibility. …

Money can’t buy enthusiasm or “eye popping crowds,” and while Clinton has the financial backing (she’s been referred to by POLITICO as Wall Street Republicans Dark secret), Bernie has the hearts and minds of Democrats. The Washington Post writes that he’s gaining larger crowds than anyone in the 2016 presidential race, so while Clinton has the top Democratic strategists on her team, Bernie Sanders owns the grass roots support among voters. …

While Sanders “drew both traditional Democrats and conservatives” in Iowa, it would be unthinkable to see conservatives in any state supporting Hillary Clinton. The ability of Sanders to address issues that both right and left find important (even Ted Cruz is talking about wealth inequality) is one of the many advantages Sanders has over any Democratic rival. This advantage could also catapult him to victory over any GOP challenger. …

Bernie Sanders is drawing record crowds and surging in the polls because his value system is worth infinitely more than his opponent’s ability to generate billions of dollars.

As concerns his views on education, an April 2015 Forbes article notes that Sanders wants to “end the practice of the government making billions in profits from student loans taken out by low and moderate income families.” Also, according to Forbes, Sanders posted the following on Facebook regarding teacher pay:

The great moral, economic and political issue of our time is the grotesque level of income and wealth inequality we are experiencing. Something is very wrong when, last year, the top 25 hedge fund managers earned more than the combined income of 425,000 public school teachers. We have got to get our priorities right.

Sanders is a member of the Senate Ed committee that produced the Every Child Achieves Act of 2015, which will go before the Senate on July 7, 2015. (I have written extensively on the Senate ESEA draft and approved amendments.) Yet is seems that Sanders views this revision of what was originally the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 and commonly called by the name of its last revision, No Child Left Behind (NCLB), as a piece of legislation that needs to go. As noted in the June 2015 US News and World Report:

Sanders is the only candidate so far to focus on problems with No Child Left Behind in his remarks to the unions, according to excerpts provided by the NEA and AFT.

Sanders, who serves on the Senate education committee, said there are few others as opposed as he is to the sweeping education law – which Congress is attempting to update – and to “this absurd effort to force teachers to spend half of their lives teaching kids how to take tests.”

“If I have anything to say in the coming months, we would end [No Child Left Behind],” Sanders told Eskelsen Garcia.

However, Sanders has yet to publicly take a position on issues of Common Core, teacher tenure/evaluation, and school choice. The Senate ESEA draft defers to states on teacher evaluation issues and prohibits the US Secretary of Education from exercising decision making power over state standards and assessments, prohibiting the federal promotion of Common Core by name. But the Senate ESEA draft also preserves annual testing and is incredibly generous to establishing and expanding America’s under-regulated and over-scandaled charter schools.

Kim Jong Un for President of the United States

June 26, 2015/in Satire, Video/by Bill Finlay

We have found the perfect Democratic candidate for the 2016 election.

Sam Pimm to Head Ben Carson for President Super PAC

June 25, 2015/in Elections, Featured, Politics/by Dr. Rich Swier

MERRIFIELD, Va., /PRNewswire/ — The 2016 Committee, a political action committee raising awareness and support for Dr. Ben Carson’s candidacy for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, today announced that Sam Pimm, an experienced campaign manager and expert political consultant, will serve as the Committee’s executive director.

“Sam brings over 30 years of high level campaign and political experience to our committee,” said John Philip Sousa IV, national chairman for The 2016 Committee. “He understands that in order to succeed you need a plan, a strategy, tactics and objectives. In coordination with National Director Vernon Robinson and our regional directors, Sam will immediately begin developing a tight business plan around our existing strategies to help ensure success.”

As executive director for the Committee, Pimm will report directly to the board and oversee all field activities in support of the 2016 Committee’s efforts to send Dr. Carson to the White House. He will be responsible for grassroots organization and provide oversight and strategy for state and regional directors across the country, including in early primary states.

Pimm is the owner and founder of Consultant in a Can, a firm that leverages Pimm’s 36 years of campaign experience to provide consulting services on an affordable basis for state and local Republican candidates. His extensive campaign experience includes hundreds of state legislature campaigns, as well as congressional, senate, and presidential campaigns including Ronald Reagan, Fred Thompson, Phil Gramm and Newt Gingrich.

“I’m excited to join the 2016 Committee and be part of its important mission because I know Dr. Ben Carson is the best hope we have for healing America’s deep economic and social wounds,” Pimm said. “I’m looking forward to working with John Sousa, Vernon Robinson, Chuck Muth, the Committee’s staff and our thousands of amazing grassroots volunteers across the country to win Dr. Carson the keys to the White House.”

Dr. Carson has repeatedly polled at or near the top of a crowded field of Republican candidates in presidential polls around the country. A recent Monmouth University poll showed Dr. Carson leading all other GOP candidates among Republican and Republican-leaning voters.

About the 2016 Committee

The 2016 Committee is a political action committee formed to draft Dr. Ben Carson into the race for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. It was founded in August 2013 by John Philip Sousa IV and Vernon Robinson as the National Draft Ben Carson for President Committee, and works to raise awareness of Dr. Carson’s qualifications and to engage grassroots conservative activists in clamoring for Dr. Carson to run for president. For more information, visit www.2016committee.org or connect on Twitter @DraftRunBenRun or Facebook/RunBenRun.org.

The Trump Card

June 20, 2015/in Elections, Featured, Politics/by Joan Swirsky

A sure-fire way of assessing the threat that leftists feel toward any challenge to their nonsensical narratives and preposterous policies is to measure the long knives and “important” people they drag out to slam the competition.

Whether it’s the leftwing JournoList cabal of 400 so-called journalists and academics who in 2007 colluded to launch relentless character assassinations against every person who challenged Barack Obama about anything, or the obsessive sexist attacks and slander leveled in 2008 against Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin, or, more dramatically, the strange death of Obama critic Andrew Breitbart, the bleeding-heart left has zero tolerance for opposing opinions and those who express them.

But as we’ve seen in the past few days, Republican establishment heavyweights have their own long knives and “important” spokesmen, which they trotted out in force when billionaire real-estate magnate, philanthropist, and TV personality Donald Trump announced his run for the presidency of the United States of America on June 16, 2015.

On the Fox News 6 p.m. show hosted by Bret Baier, two Republican poobahs weighed in and didn’t even try to camouflage their snobbish condescension. George Will, none too elegantly, called Trump a “bloviating ignoramus,” and told Mediaite that he hoped Trump gets “shellacked,” while Charles Krauthammer, a diehard Marco Rubio fan, asked about Trump, “Look…can you take him seriously?”

Legal scholar and political commentator Mark Levin reminds us that in 1976, the distinctly non-prescient and pompous Will advocated a “cleansing of the GOP of Ronald Reagan and his supporters,” calling those who voted for the 40th president, “kamikaze conservatives.” So much for Will, who Trump put away quite nicely!

And wasn’t it lifelong Democrat Krauthammer who was the chief speech writer for über-leftist Democrat Walter Mondale?

Attention you dinosaurs! While you reserve your positive commentaries for the kind of Republicans-In-Name-Only (RINOs) like weak sisters Boehner, McConnell, Romney, et al, who have failed We the People for decades, the multimillions who welcomed the Trump announcement are looking for jobs and a decisive leader with a proven track record in providing jobs.

What all of these snooty talking heads fail to see––or cannot bear to see––is that Trump has actually created thousands if not hundreds of thousands of jobs, and that his pledge to put America back to work is as credible as credible gets. When I think about Barack Obama’s endless and empty promises to “strengthen the middle class”––which all of his policies have done everything to destroy––and compare him to Trump, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know who is the ideological giant and who is the astoundingly ineffectual pipsqueak!

People are looking for a president to close our borders––including building a fence, as Trump as suggested!––to parasitic and disease-ridden illegal immigrants, and the hundreds of thousands of “refugees” whose ties to terrorism are unknown. According to World Net Daily writer Leo Hohmann, since January, over 100,000 Syrians have been sent to more than 70 American cities, in spite of concerns of the Department of Homeland Security and elected officials like Rep Michael McCaul (R-TX), who said that “they present a grave security risk because many Syrians have ties to the Sunni rebel groups ISIS and al-Nusra Front.”

Other sources say that the State Department, working through nine private contractors and 350 subcontractors, resettles U.N.-certified refugees into more than 190 cities and towns across America!

And that’s a drop in the bucket! White House correspondent Neil Munro describes in The Daily Caller a virtual invasion of hundreds of thousands of illegal border crossers,” despite the high unemployment rates among American Latino, African-American and white youths, and the strapped budgets of many cities and towns.” And this, too, is a drop in the bucket!

All the while, critics are ignored by Barack Obama, who clearly encourages this unrestrained and illegal infiltration, and they hear nothing but the tired “racist” mantra of radical groups like La Raza. The reason is simple: according to James Simpson, author of the newly-published The Red-Green Axis: Refugees, Immigration and the Agenda to Erase America, “Hatched by the U.N. and the American Left, the resettlement agenda is dedicated to erasing our culture, traditions and laws, and creating a compliant, welfare-dependent multicultural society with no understanding of America’s constitutional framework and no interest in assimilation. The ultimate target is a voting base large enough for the Left’s long-sought `permanent progressive majority.’”

Can you imagine a President Trump abiding this travesty for even five minutes? Me neither.

We the People are also looking for someone who supports our military instead of eviscerating it, and who will conquer – yes, defeat, slaughter, wipe out – our enemies! In his announcement, Mr. Trump expressed outrage at the shabby treatment veterans receive, and he gave full voice to his support for those who defend our country, too often at cost of their lives.

To quote just about everyone from Brooklyn: “You have a problem with that?”

Apparently the Wills and Krauthammers and their Democrat counterparts do have a problem with the kind of straight talk Donald Trump specializes in, they who parse and measure and mince every word to avoid stepping on the oh-so-sensitive toes of the hot-house-flower, career-victim class that has flourished under Barack Obama and the politically-correct world he and his cronies inhabit.

One of these sages sneeringly predicted that the Trump brouhaha would last but a 24-hour news cycle, which is another testimony to the general cluelessness of “The Celebrity Apprentice” host’s critics. According to Geoff Earle of the NY Post, Trump is crushing the social media scene, with Facebook reporting that within 24 hours after tossing his hat in the ring, “3.4 million people shared information about Trump 6.4 million times,” making him tops among all Republican contenders.” Trump was also “the most searched GOPer in every state the day of his announcement, and his `search interest’—percentage of national queries for the hour after he announced—was 87 percent.”

This is really no surprise. After seven years of hearing its “leader” badmouth America, watch unemployment numbers escalate from about five percent under President Bush to over 15 percent and 20 percent (of unemployed and under-employed), and witness race relations devolve precipitously, most citizens greeted the latest Gallup poll––which reported that Americans have little confidence in most of their major institutions including Congress, the presidency, the Supreme Court, banks and organized religion––with rueful recognition. Only the military and small businesses inspired confidence.

No wonder Trump’s announcement was greeted with such enthusiasm. At last, America seemed to be saying, someone with optimism, with concrete ideas how to improve things, with contempt for those who tiptoe around saying what they think, and who truly embodies American exceptionalism!

Of course, generally unfunny “comedians” like Jon Stewart are relishing a Trump run because they think laughing at conservatives is good for business. The only problem is that their ratings don’t reflect that fantasy.

Trump is a candidate who has made billions by seeing things clearly, negotiating with clarity and power, and establishing a lengthy and formidable track record in getting things done. Here is a candidate whose beautiful, educated, productive, philanthropic, accomplished, contributory, compassionate and respectful large family –– including former wives –– gives testimony to the character of the man.

Meanwhile, Trump is saying everything Americans have been thinking and feeling for the past seven years. On foreign policy, my friend Cherie, an editor on the West Coast, is confident that when it comes to our enemies, Trump will “give ‘em hell, Harry” like Democrat President Harry Truman and General George Patton gave our enemies in World War II, i.e., defeating them decisively! Cherie also had advice for The Donald about his cabinet:

Business mogul Carly Fiorina for his VP running mate
Texas Senator Ted Cruz for Attorney General
Ben Carson for Surgeon General
Utah Congresswoman Mia Love for the Department of Homeland Security
Governor Scott Walker either for the Department of Commerce or to figure out which departments to cut altogether, like the IRS!

Then, Cherie suggests, President Trump should immediately announce that he is re-activating all of the many top brass that Barack Obama so foolishly (or malevolently) fired from our military, promoting each one of them and reorganizing our entire command structure, ditto for West Point, Annapolis, and our Air Force Academy!

And while he’s at it, he can right the vindictive wrong that was done to Dr. Terry Lakin, a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army, flight surgeon to the 4^th Cavalry Regiment, recipient of the Bronze Star Medal, and patriot who had deployed six times prior to his court martial, dismissal from the service, jail time, and loss of his medical license.

I have thought for decades that the massive corporation known as America should be run by a businessman. That is why we also need a president who cherishes, as Trump does, the free-market system, the power of capitalism to “lift all boats,” the foundational values of a democratic republic, a leader who will embrace our allies instead of our genuflecting before our enemies, and who will restore our bedrock relationship with Israel, the only democratic nation in the Middle East.

While I personally believe that Mr. Trump was dead wrong on chastising the heroic Pamela Geller for sponsoring a respectful Draw Mohammed cartoon contest in Texas – for which she became the target of Islamic assassins ––I suspect that candidate Trump, himself a target of the anti-free-speech Nazis on the left, will reverse himself in defending not only his own right to speak his mind, but every American’s right to do the same, including Pamela Geller’s! Today, the alternative, as Geller spells out in detail in her books––here, here, and here–– is Sharia Law in America, complete with mandatory clitoridectomies, death to gays, and “honor” killings, among other lovely tenets of the “religion of peace.”

As for me, I have to admit I’m enjoying immensely the degree to which candidate Trump is driving both the impoverished left and the namby-pamby right clinically insane!

New Concerned American Voters Super PAC Launched to Support Rand Paul for President

June 19, 2015/in Elections, Featured, Politics/by Dr. Rich Swier

WASHINGTON, PRNewswire/ — Concerned American Voters, a political action committee supporting Sen. Rand Paul’s campaign for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, launched today with millions of dollars committed and 40 full-time field staff in the key primary state of Iowa, President Jeff Frazeeand Senior Advisor Matt Kibbe announced.

“Once in a while, you discover a presidential candidate who has the potential to change the political conversation, to elevate key issues in voters’ minds, and disrupt and transform a tired Republican brand,” said Kibbe. “Once in a lifetime, maybe, you will have an opportunity to support a transformative candidate who can do all of these things, and win. Rand Paul is that candidate.”

Kibbe is the former president and founder of FreedomWorks, a national community-building and grassroots advocacy organization of more than 6 million Americans who are passionate about promoting free markets and individual liberty. Frazee is executive director of Young Americans for Liberty and previously served as the national youth coordinator for Ron Paul’s 2008 presidential campaign committee.

Concerned American Voters launches with millions of dollars in funding pledged so far.

Concerned American Voters is building campaign infrastructure by organizing Rand Paul supporters nationwide and in key primary states, including Iowa, where it has 40 full-time field staffers and has already knocked on the doors of more than 60,000 voters. The latest Washington Post/ABC News poll shows Rand Paul tied for the lead among Republican voters nationwide. Polls consistently show he is the Republican most competitive against Hillary Clinton, with independents breaking 45 percent to 37 percent for Rand in a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.

“Our strategy to elect Rand Paul will maximize the potential of the new rules of politics, which are shifting power away from political insiders and establishment favorites, towards more authentic candidates willing to reach directly to voters,” said Frazee, Concerned American Voters campaign director. “By focusing on grassroots organization, e-marketing and proven Get Out The Vote tactics, Concerned American Voters will give Rand the edge he needs to win the Republican nomination and the general election.”

Frazee added, “The Internet cuts out middlemen, party bosses, lobbyists and bundlers looking for a quid pro quo. This is the dynamic that allowed then-Senate candidate Rand Paul to beat Mitch McConnell’s hand-picked successor in Kentucky in 2010. It’s why Senator Mike Lee was able to defeat 18-year incumbent Republican Senator Robert Bennett in Utah that same year. And it’s how Rand Paul will win the White House in 2016.”

Concerned American Voters has recruited a proven team of professionals who have successfully organized grassroots activists for both the ideas of, and the candidates for, liberty – on the ground and through sophisticated social media targeting online – for years. In addition to Frazee and Kibbe, Concerned American Voters’ leadership group includes Senior Development Advisor Terry Kibbe, who brings 18 years of experiences as a fundraiser for various nonprofit and political causes; Chief Operating Officer Edward King, the former national youth director for Ron Paul’s 2012 presidential campaign; Senior Tech Advisor Steve Oskoui, the founder of Austin-based Internet advertising network Smiley Media; Senior Data Architect Mike Topalovich, the founder of cloud-focused technical and business process expert collective Delivered Innovation; and Senior Tech Strategist Martin Avila, the co-founder of political technology firm Terra Eclipse.

For more information on Concerned American Voters, visit ConcernedAmericanVoters.com.

American Exceptionalism: The Defining Question for Presidential Candidates

June 16, 2015/in Elections, Must Read, Politics/by Dan Bongino

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

June 5, 2015/in Elections, Featured, News, Politics/by Dr. Rich Swier

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.

Hillary Clinton: For Richer or Richer

May 28, 2015/in Culture War, Elections, Featured, News, Politics/by Dan Bongino

For an answer to this question, we need to check in with four experts. The first is ‘Rich Hillary Clinton.’ Rich Hillary Clinton, who has been paid more for an hour-long speech than the average median ANNUAL earnings of four American families combined, has stated about her massive wealth, “We pay ordinary income tax, unlike a lot of people who are truly well off, not to name names; and we’ve done it through a dint of hard work.”

Clearly, Rich Hillary Clinton understands that hard work can lead to a prosperous future for those willing to put in the sweat equity, despite the fact that the Clintons consider speaking engagements “hard work” (full disclosure, I have been paid to speak at events and do not consider it “hard work”). Rich Hillary Clinton also believes that she pays her “fair share” of taxes “unlike a lot of other people who are truly well off.”

Rich Hillary Clinton says this despite the fact that, according to Bloomberg News:

Bill and Hillary Clinton have long supported an estate tax to prevent the U.S. from being dominated by inherited wealth. That doesn’t mean they want to pay it. To reduce the tax pinch, the Clintons are using financial planning strategies befitting the top 1 percent of U.S. households in wealth. These moves, common among multimillionaires, will help shield some of their estate from the tax that now tops out at 40 percent of assets upon death.

Countering the assertion that Rich Hillary Clinton is in fact rich is another expert on this topic: Poor Hillary Clinton. Poor Hillary Clinton has stated this about her financial status:

We came out of the White House not only dead broke but in debt.” Poor Hillary Clinton also stated, “We had no money when we got there and we struggled to, you know, piece together the resources for mortgages for houses, for Chelsea’s education, you know, it was not easy.

America should cry for Poor Hillary Clinton. After all, how can we be expected to ignore the desperate pleas for help from a family worth a measly hundred million dollars? I’m wondering if conservatives should band together to create a foundation called the Clinton Foundation to donate to the plight of this struggling American family.

For those still confused about who is in fact considered wealthy and who is not after the Rich Hillary Clinton versus Poor Hillary Clinton debate, our second series of experts on American wealth should be consulted. Rich Alcee Hastings from Florida’s 20th Congressional District earns more in one year than the median income of three average American families combined. Rich Alcee Hastings is so confident about his wealth, and his congressional salary which places him near the top 10% of income earners in the United States, that he feels anyone earning this outrageous sum should pay even more than they do now. In an April 2014 press release, Rich Alcee Hastings stated:

We could end special tax breaks and close tax loopholes available only to the wealthiest Americans. This alone could get us $1 trillion over the next ten years. We could also stop the wealthiest among us from using overseas tax havens to avoid paying their fair share. Along these same lines, let us rid our tax code of ridiculous loopholes like deductions for yachts and the loophole for corporate jets.

Rich Alcee Hastings may not be aware that the top 10% of income earners already pay close to 70% of income taxes, but we’ll forgive him for that because rich people such as him rarely know how much money is missing from their bank accounts.

Painting a starkly different picture is Poor Alcee Hastings. Poor Alcee Hastings was recently quoted complaining about how little money he makes as a hard-working U.S. congressman. Poor Alcee Hastings said Congress is not “being paid properly” and that “Members [of Congress] deserve to be paid, staff deserves to be paid, and the cost of living here is causing serious problems for people who are not wealthy to serve in this institution.” Poor Alcee Hastings has a point here, which Rich Alcee Hastings should consider when deciding who is wealthy and who is not: cost of living and business expenses matter to many Americans who appear wealthy on paper.

Conservatives fight for lower tax rates because, although we understand the importance of taxes to fund the constitutional role of government, we don’t want to pay any more than necessary.

Ok, enough with the satire.

I wrote this piece because sometimes humor is the only way to effectively combat the far Left and its stunning hypocrisy. The hard Left debates themselves with contradictory statements about important issues such as the value of work, fair-share tax rates, income inequality, wealth, the cost of living, and more – all while lecturing us like schoolchildren.

There’s no hypocrisy in basic conservative principles, and that’s why in a world occupied by fallible human beings the default position should be the one that doesn’t contradict itself. Conservatives fight for lower tax rates because, although we understand the importance of taxes to fund the constitutional role of government, we don’t want to pay any more than necessary. Conservatives fight for personal control of healthcare choices because that’s what we want for ourselves. And, we fight for educational choices because that’s what we want for our children. This upcoming presidential election is too important to forfeit because we’re afraid of a good fight. Now is the time to boldly defend conservative principles and shed light on the fact that the hard Left’s “principles” are really nothing more than talking points.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Conservative Review. The featured image is by Elise Amendola | AP Photo. Reprinted with permission.

American Voters Now The Greatest Threat To America?

May 19, 2015/in Courts & Law, Elections, Must Read, Politics/by J.B. Williams

Through illegal immigration and so-called refugee resettlement programs, both importing a new breed of American “citizen” and a new crop of voters, the U.S. elections are now heavily influenced by foreign anti-American interests. The voter demographics of our country are being intentionally and purposefully altered. But that may not be the greatest threat to American sovereignty, security and freedom.

Our nation’s Founders did their level best to create a system of self-governance of, by and for the legitimate citizens of the United States, establishing three co-equal branches of the Federal Government, each with their own set of limited duties and authorities necessary to execute those duties. In this extraordinary effort, they installed countless checks and balances to make possible the ongoing protection of all Natural Rights established for the people in our Charters of Freedom.

One of those measures was a set of few, but strict conditions for high political office, an effort to make certain that only True Americans with no foreign entanglements or allegiances would hold the reins of political power in America. A different set of requirements were created for each branch, two chambers of the legislature, the judiciary and the executive branch.

The most powerful political office in our land and maybe in the entire world is the Oval Office, the office of Commander-in-Chief of the entire United States military and national security apparatus. This office has a very specific eligibility requirement unique to this office alone, that of no other but a natural born Citizen.

In a recent online survey, the following question was asked on more than a dozen known “conservative” Facebook (FB) groups….

“Do YOU believe that 14th Amendment “anchor babies” and “undocumented citizens” are “natural born Citizens” eligible for the Oval Office?”

Over 166 members in those FB groups shared the post and approximately 100 members voted in the survey within hours of the post. 100% of the survey respondents answered the question correctly, NO… no one answered YES or I DON’T KNOW… They may not know what natural born Citizen is, but they seem to know what it is not.

This is good news… this means that these people all know that the March 2015 Harvard Law Review essay clearing both Barack Obama and Sen. Ted Cruz for the Oval Office, is total nonsense, based upon 14th Amendment naturalization codes qualifying anchor babies and undocumented citizens for high office on the basis of misused naturalization statutes and cases.

The FB survey did not mention any candidate names. When respondents were simply answering a non-partisan question pertaining to who is not a natural born Citizen, they were able to get the answer correct with 100% accuracy.

However, some of those same respondents are supporting either an “anchor baby” or an “undocumented citizen” for the 2016 GOP nomination, without connecting the dots between the survey they had just answered and the candidates they support.

An anchor baby is a child born in the United States to foreign parents. Misuses of our immigration and naturalization statutes allow that child to be a U.S. “citizen at birth” under the 14th Amendment – then becoming an anchor under which the parents and other family members can take a shortcut to U.S. citizenship by attaching to the anchor baby. These are “naturalized citizens” and their citizenship is based solely upon 14th Amendment naturalization statutes….

This is the condition of 2016 GOP candidate Marco Rubio, who was born in Florida to two Cuban citizen parents who did not become naturalized citizens of the United States until years after Marco’s birth. Marco Rubio was born Cuban, an anchor baby citizen of the USA only under 14th Amendment naturalization codes. He is not a natural born Citizen of the United States.

Senator Ted Cruz was born in Canada and registered at that time as a native born citizen of Canada at birth. This fact is evidenced by the release of his Canadian birth record and his May 14, 2014 renouncing of his Canadian citizenship. These two very public events prove that Ted Cruz was a Canadian citizen at birth and remained a legal citizen of Canada until renouncing that citizenship on May 14, 2014.

The claim has been made that Ted Cruz is a natural born Citizen of the United States, eligible for the Oval Office, despite these known facts. These claims are again, being made on the basis of misused 14th Amendment naturalization statutes which may allow his mother to confer naturalized U.S. citizenship to Ted, under certain conditions for doing so.

The record shows that Ted’s mother did not register him as a “U.S. Citizen born abroad” in Calgary, but rather as only a native born citizen of Canada at birth. The record also shows that Ted Cruz remained a legal citizen of Canada until May 14, 2014, when he renounced that citizenship.

To date, no records of Ted Cruz ever being registered in the United States as a citizen of any kind have been released or found. A “citizen” without any authenticated documentation is by definition, an “undocumented citizen.” The legal term for undocumented citizen is “illegal alien” or “resident alien,” one who resides in the United States with no known authenticated documentation of their true citizenship status.

In fact, the term “undocumented citizen” is an oxymoron…. According to our immigration and naturalization laws, if one is not documented, they are not a citizen. They are a “resident alien.” In their efforts to collect taxes from anywhere they can, the I.R.S. created numerous new “classes of citizens” in order to collect taxes from people in our country illegally and without any other documentation.

As of this writing, Ted Cruz is a “resident alien” of the United States, not a natural born Citizen of the United States. That’s what our laws and Ted’s personal documentation prove.

When the FB survey asked “conservatives” if anchor babies or undocumented citizens are natural born Citizens eligible for the Oval Office, they answered NO with 100% accuracy. But when you point out that Marco Rubio is nothing more than an anchor baby or that Ted Cruz is anundocumented resident alien, their opinions begin to shift, sometimes violently.

Once the political agenda of the respondent enters the discussion, the simple truth they once knew is replaced by micro debate arguments that allow them to avoid reality by splitting hairs and relying on “legal expert opinions” that serve their agenda, regardless of fundamentally knowing it is all smoke and mirrors…

Despite knowing that a 14th Amendment citizen is a naturalized citizen ineligible for office, they still use 14th Amendment arguments to qualify their candidate of choice.

Americans are accustomed to people with unbridled political ambitions saying anything they have to in pursuit of that power. What’s new here is the willingness of American voters to go along with it.

Over the past couple of weeks, I have received numerous fund-raising emails that I thought came from the Ted Cruz 2016 campaign. In the last day or two, I have received the same fund-raising emails for Marco Rubio – also assuming those emails were sent by his campaign.

But in fact, both of those fund-raising efforts for Cruz and Rubio came from the same source, the National Tea Party. An operation originally established to fight for restoration of Constitutional Government now finds itself squarely in the middle of undermining the Rule of Constitutional Law, and millions of unsuspecting Americans are following their lead.

This is what makes Americans the greatest threat to America… it comes down to just two factors…

The human tendency to follow that which we want to be true, despite knowing what is true.
The tendency to ignore reality in favor of a political fantasy.

Neither Ted Cruz nor Marco Rubio is a natural born Citizen of the United States. A letter to Ted Cruz dated December 2013 literally begged Ted not to force his fraudulent condition into the daylight by running for President. He never answered that letter… His political ambitions proved to be much more powerful than his desire to simply do right.

Still, the real problem remains the average American voter… who despite knowing the truth, side with the lie believing the political end will justify the unconstitutional means.

If natural born Citizen no longer matters to the average voter, then nothing else in the Charters of Freedom matters, because you cannot protect the Constitutional Republic without preventing foreign entities from holding the most powerful office in our land.

Two of the people who should have stopped Obama from the U.S. Senate are instead, trying to ride his coattails of fraud to the Oval Office themselves…. Both are highly trained lawyers, so there is no claiming ignorance of the law. And these two have the backing of the National Tea Party…. Global governance only works in America once anyone from anywhere in the world can be Commander-in-Chief….

The same group will soon announce that Ben Carson is entering the race and they are raising money for all of these candidates…. Only a fool would give them a penny for any of them…. Only to wait to see how the Tea Party uses their money to drive the final nail in the coffin of the United States.

These groups are not just watching the end of the American presidency, they are participating in it… they are leading it.

Dr. Carson Meets the Press

May 14, 2015/in Elections, Must Read, News, Politics/by Paul R. Hollrah

Now that a new Fox News poll shows Dr. Ben Carson tied for first place with former Florida governor Jeb Bush among all potential 2016 Republican presidential nominees, it’s time that he prepared himself for a full scale assault by the mainstream media and by the same establishment Republicans who nominated George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, George W. Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney.

Dr. Carson’s interview with Chris Cuomo of CNN is a perfect example of the inquisition he will face, only because he is a black conservative. In that interview he was asked, “Do you think being gay is a choice?” In response, Dr. Carson used the prison experience to support his point of view. He said, “… a lot of people who go into prison straight – and when they come out, they’re gay. So, did something happen while they were in there? Ask yourself that question.”

That response was not sufficient to satisfy the mainstream media or gay activists. Instead, if he had been adequately prepped he might have said, “There is some clinical research which tends to show that most homosexuals are apparently born with that sexual orientation. However, we must also recognize that many men and women enter the prison population as heterosexuals, but then adopt a homosexual lifestyle while incarcerated… suggesting that, at some point, they chose to engage in homosexual behavior. What this tells us is that there is much we still don’t understand about the homosexual phenomenon.”

As a non-politician, Dr. Carson can expect to be probed even more intensely than his Republican counterparts, even though several competitors are first-term members of the U.S. Senate. Allow me to suggest some of the questions that will likely be put to Dr. Carson, along with some recommended responses:

Interviewer: “Dr. Carson, you are an internationally renowned neurosurgeon. Until recently you served as Chief of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Medical Center. Serving as president of the United States is another matter entirely. With your background, what makes you think that you should be considered as a viable candidate for president of the United States?

Dr. Carson: “Well, I’m told that there are those who say that, given the mess that Barack Obama has made of things, he has essentially ruined things for any future black man who might have presidential ambitions, and that the American people may not elect another black president for generations to come. I would remind them that, after Jimmy Carter earned a reputation as the worst president in U.S. history, I don’t recall anyone suggesting that he’d ruined everything for all future white candidates. Instead, four years later, the people elected a conservative Republican, Ronald Reagan, who not only ended the Cold War but implemented tax policies that gave us a period of economic growth that actually produced revenue surpluses by the mid-90s.”

Interviewer: “In an April NPR interview, President Obama suggested that one of your rivals, Governor Scott Walker, should ‘bone up on foreign policy.’ What do you say to those who suggest that you would have even less experience in foreign affairs than Governor Walker?”

Dr. Carson: “I would suggest that Barack Obama is the last person who should be questioning someone else’s foreign policy credentials. For example, he spent most of his formative years, up to age ten, as a citizen of Indonesia; he has admitted that he visited Pakistan as a 20-year-old student and that he visited relatives in Kenya when he was in his mid-to-late twenties. Visiting relatives and seeing the sights in foreign lands as a child and as a young man has nothing to do with assessing political and economic conditions. In fact, if he’d learned anything at all from his travels he would have a far more positive view of American exceptionalism than he has today.”

Interviewer: “In the history of our country, only twelve of our forty-four presidents had no military service. You would be the first Republican since Herbert Hoover with no military service. That being the case, how would you propose to win the respect of those in the military services as their commander in chief?”

Dr. Carson: “The men and women of our armed forces are the finest that America has to offer. And I can assure you that, regardless of whatever military experience a president may or may not have, the people in our armed services are more than capable of understanding when their commander in chief has their back and whether or not he commands their respect. If I am given the opportunity to serve as their commander in chief, they will know that I will move Heaven and Earth to give them all the tools they need and that I will not send them on fools errands. They can also be assured that, when I do what is necessary to retrieve a man who has been charged with desertion, the release of five of the worst of the worst Islamic terrorists will not be among my bargaining chips.”

Interviewer: “Two of the early entrants into the 2016 Republican presidential primary are first term senators. As a physician, you have even less political experience than they. Don’t you think that the country needs and deserves a leader with far more experience?”

Dr. Carson: “I would point out to you that Barack Obama was a first-term senator when he ran for president and his failures may cause some to think twice about electing another first-term senator, or a pediatric neurosurgeon. However, it is important to realize that Obama’s failures are not a product of his inexperience. He has failed because his ideas and his policies are wrong for this country. In my thirty-six year career as a neurosurgeon at Johns Hopkins, I have been required to make more life-or-death decisions in a week or a month than a president might be called upon to make in two terms in the White House. And,unlike Barack Obama, I have always been available when the really tough decisions had to be made.”

Interviewer: “Dr. Carson, if you are the nominee of the Republican Party, your likely Democrat opponent will be former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. How do you respond to charges that she is highly experienced in foreign affairs while you have little or no experience in that realm?”

Dr. Carson: “Let’s look at the facts. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama engaged in a very bitter campaign for the 2008 Democratic nomination, a campaign in which the Clintons charged that the Obama people played the “race card” on them in South Carolina. In the interest of party unity, Obama agreed to appoint Mrs. Clinton as Secretary of State. He gave her a large staff and the use of an airplane and told her to just travel… which she did… while foreign policy was made at the White House by Obama, Valerie Jarrett, and Susan Rice. It’s impressive to hear Mrs. Clinton cite the number of miles she’s traveled and the number of countries she’s visited. However, when asked to name one accomplishment she can point to as Secretary of State, Democrats are strangely silent. As my colleague, Carly Fiorina, has correctly pointed out, Mrs. Clinton should understand that traveling is an ‘activity,’ not an ‘accomplishment.’ ”

Interviewer: “It is quite clear to everyone by now that Barack Obama and the Democrats are doing everything in their power to wrap up Hispanics as yet another captive voting constituency. In fact, they are talking about giving illegals Social Security cards, voter registration cards, free health care, free education, food stamps, and housing assistance. Since Republicans can’t be expected to enter into a bidding war for the hearts and minds of Hispanics, if you are elected president, how would you propose to counter that effort by the Democrats?”

Dr. Carson: “Your question presupposes that Hispanics would vote as a bloc for no better reason than that their votes are being bought. If I were a Hispanic I would be highly insulted by that suggestion. I believe that the members of our Hispanic population are among the hardest working people in America and I refuse to believe that they come to our country looking for a handout, rather than a hand up. As a case in point, I would refer you to the personal story of Senator Cruz’s father, Raphael, who came to this country from Cuba with only $100 sewed into his clothing. He took a job as a dishwasher and worked his way through college. Now he has a son who is a Harvard Law School graduate and a candidate for president of the United States. That is the American Dream that Hispanics seek and I will never be convinced otherwise.”

Interviewer: “You have been quoted as saying that you would not go to war with Russia over Ukraine, but that military action should not be taken off the table. Armed conflict with Russia could conceivably pose the threat of a nuclear exchange. If you believe that to be true, under what circumstances would you consider going to war with Russia?”

Dr. Carson: “Look. I don’t know of a single person in possession of his faculties who believes that the United States would ever launch a preemptive nuclear attack against another country. But every country with nuclear weapons must know that, if they were ever foolish enough to launch a preemptive strike against the United States, retribution would be swift and certain. In the United States, nuclear weapons are seen as a deterrent, not as tactical weapons.”

Now that Dr. Carson is officially a viable candidate for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination, he should always be aware that every response to reporters’ questions must contain three elements: 1) a brief clarification of the issue at hand, 2) a clear and concise statement of his position on the issue, and 3) a solid shot across the opposition’s bow. If the mainstream media insist on using Barack Obama as the standard by which Dr. Carson is to be judged, then the bar has been set very low. He should take full advantage of that weakness at every opportunity.

Dr. Ben Carson Answers the Clamoring of Millions of Americans to Run for President

May 5, 2015/in Elections, Featured, Healthcare, News, Politics/by Dr. Rich Swier

MERRIFIELD, Va./PRNewswire/ — Citing the critical need to heal a nation more bitterly divided politically than it has been at any time in the past 150 years, Dr. Ben Carson on May 4th in Detroit announced his candidacy for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.

“As a world-renowned neurosurgeon, Dr. Carson knows a thing or two about healing,” said John Philip Sousa IV, co-founder and chairman of The 2016 Committee, the political action committee originally formed to draft Carson into the presidential race. “I know I speak for millions of Americans in thanking Dr. Carson for entering this race and pledging to support his candidacy.”

“Dr. Carson’s candidacy represents the best and really the only opportunity we have to heal America and to bring Americans back together again under the banner of our Constitution,” Sousa added.

The Committee has been at the forefront of the movement urging Dr. Carson to run for president. Starting in August of 2013, it conducted a petition campaign that ultimately collected more than 500,000 signatures from Americans urging Dr. Carson to enter the race. The Committee operates full time offices in Iowa and New Hampshire, and chairmen are in place in nearly every state coordinating more than 30,000 volunteers nationwide. The Committee has raised more than $16 million from more than 150,000 individual donors since 2013.

“For two years, Dr. Carson has said that if people clamored for him to run for president, he would have to answer their call,” said Vernon Robinson, The 2016 Committee’s campaign director. “Well, they indeed clamored, and he has answered them. But our work is far from over. We will continue growing the massive grassroots network in pace to support Dr. Carson’s candidacy, and look ahead toward key Republican presidential straw polls and the September debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.”

“Dr. Carson’s candidacy will build on the massive grass-roots network that sprang up to encourage him to get into the race in the first place,” Robinson said. “He’s in it to win it, and we’re with him all the way.”

Dr. Carson is consistently among likely Republican voters’ top picks for the nomination. In one recent CNN survey, Dr. Carson placed second behind Mitt Romney but ahead of other likely contenders including formerFlorida Gov. Jeb Bush and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. Dr. Carson finished an impressive second place in the 2014 Bloomberg/Des Moines Register presidential poll of likely caucus-goers, and scored an overwhelming victory in the Polk County Republican Dinner in Des Moines in August. He also won the Linn County, Iowa, midterm caucus straw poll in January 2014.

The now-retired Dr. Carson chose Detroit for his announcement because that’s where he grew up and because he wanted to use the bankrupt city as a metaphor for President Obama’s failed economic policies. He says his campaign will speak out against Mr. Obama’s radical left-wing agenda, because he loves his country and wants to save it.

About The 2016 Committee

The 2016 Committee, formed expressly to draft Dr. Carson into the race for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, was founded in August 2013. Going forward, it will work to raise awareness of Dr. Carson’s qualifications, and will engage grass-roots conservative activists on behalf of his candidacy to provide the margin of victory for Ben Carson. For more information, visit www.2016committee.org or connect on Twitter@DraftRunBenRun or Facebook.com/RunBenRun.org.