WASHINGTON, April 19, 2016 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The following tip sheet was released today by the U.S. Census Bureau:
In advance of the April 26 primaries, the U.S. Census Bureau presents a variety of statistics that give an overall profile of each participating state’s voting-age population and industries. Statistics include:
Voting-age population and estimate of eligible voters (i.e., citizens age 18 and older).
Breakdown of voting-age population by race and Hispanic origin.
Selected economic characteristics, including median household income and poverty.
Selected social characteristics, including educational attainment.
County Business Patterns (providing information on employment by specific industries).
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/april-26-primaries.jpg374639Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2016-04-20 04:15:242016-04-20 04:17:26Demographic and Economic Infographics of States Holding April 26 Primaries
Mr. Lindsey has been a GOP delegate in Douglas County for 15 years and a life long member of the Republican Party and now you allegedly censor and denied him access to the delegate vote and also replaced him because of his vote for Trump.
Remarks of Colorado Trump delegate Lindsey who was removed and replaced:
Now I am not sure what kind of Soviet style Marxist agenda you are running in Douglas County Colorado but I would say by the time my column is posted I will send a link to it to the in box of tens of thousands people across America.
I used to work for FOX News Radio as a political commentator and I am going to give you the opportunity to tell us why a 15-year GOP delegate was removed from his position, in effect nullifying his vote for Mr. Trump because of his political beliefs.
He tells us that he was replaced by someone that will vote YOUR way.
The author with Sean Hannity.
Now Colorado is divided into 64 counties. It appears Mr. Trump won 37 of these counties (57.8%) and Mr. Cruz won 24 counties (42.2%) . Yet Trump only got 6 delegate votes and Cruz 33.
I excluded Kasich as his support was negligible. Very interesting.
Do you have a problem with math in the Colorado GOP or are you guys running a Ponzi scheme like Hillary Clinton? Just asking not accusing.
Perhaps you are using Jeb Bush Common Core math to add up the delegates. Maybe its called voter fraud? Who knows?
But now I will send a link to this article to Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and a few other folks and perhaps you would like to discuss it with me.
I am now headed out to eat breakfast with Mr. Gary O’Neil a world famous veteran and retired Army Ranger and Mr. Ricki DiSantis a former CEO on Wall Street and a World Trade Center Survivor from 9/11. I will bring this up with them.
Perhaps the Sheriff in Douglas County should take a look into this so I am copying him plus the three Republican members of the FEC in Washington, D.C.
I am copying this to:
Wendy Mannita Holmes , Director of Pubic Affairs Douglas County Colorado
Douglas County Sheriff
Douglas County County Commissioners
Chief Political Advisor to Donald Trump
Governor Rick Scott
Federal Elections Committee Washington, D.C.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/douglas-county-colorado-gop.jpg395639Geoff Rosshttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngGeoff Ross2016-04-10 16:57:412016-04-17 07:43:14Colorado: Douglas County GOP Removes Delegate who Voted for Donald Trump
Mary and I flew into Orlando, Florida this evening after ten intense days of campaigning for Ted Cruz in Wisconsin. A shuttle took us to our car at the park-and-go near the airport. We made the hour long drive home to Deltona. The pet/house sitter vacated earlier. I was greeted by Sammy our greyhound upon entering our front door. I loved on him a bit, petting him while talking to him; his tail wagged like crazy. It is good to be home.
After settling in, I poured myself a diet soda, put on soft music, lit a candle, sat on the soda, propped my feet up on the coffee-table and reflected on the Cruz campaign and our efforts thus far to help him secure the GOP presidential nomination.
Our Conservative Campaign Committee team of which I am chairman have followed the Cruz campaign state-to-state, independently providing boots-on-the-ground, implementing various get-out-the-vote-for-Cruz initiatives. We endorsed Cruz early in the campaign season. We had a banner made which reads, “Ted Cruz: Conservative Hero.” We have displayed that banner at Cruz rallies and on busy street corners in numerous cities in practically every state primary and caucus.
For me to list all the spectacular moments on the campaign trail would make for a very long article. However, for some reason, a memory of Cruz’s wife Heidi sticks out in my brain. It kind of epitomizes the tone/vibe of the Cruz campaign that our CCC team has witnessed state-to-state.
Heidi Cruz at North Carolina rally.
It was a small event, about 150 people, in Fayetteville North Carolina. Ted was not there. Heidi was the keynote speaker. One of the points Heidi made is Ted is so relaxed and unstressed on the campaign trail. At the end of the event, our team met Heidi. She thanked us for our efforts and posed for a picture in front of our banner.
Our team was piled in the SUV leaving the event. I saw Heidi and her staffers casually walking to their cars. Heidi had a big smile on her face, chatting with people, seemingly without a care in the world. Her demeanor and body language spoke to me in a way I can not explain. Ted and Heidi are “for real” folks. What you see is what you get. I believe and trust them.
Another incident that is not particularly political stands out. It was the “Women for Cruz” event in Madison Wisconsin which featured a panel discussion with Carly Fiorina, Heidi, Ted and his mom Eleanor. Eleanor was extremely frail. It took a couple of security personnel to help her onto the stage. Frankly, Eleanor reminded me of my late mom and most moms of her generation. Eleanor said to keep Ted out of trouble as a child, she nurtured his interests. Ted loved and memorized the Constitution. Eleanor drove Ted to numerous group meetings where he recited the Constitution, impressing adults with his talent for public speaking.
Again, I felt a genuineness in the way Eleanor, Heidi and Ted expressed their love and admiration for each other; inspiring and quite moving. I whispered to a CCC team member, “If their responses are scripted, Ted, Heidi and Eleanor deserve Academy Awards.” The Cruz family are plain old-fashion good people folks.
Cruz winning Wisconsin was particularly thrilling. Our CCC team was boots-on-the-ground, but it took grassroots support from patriots across America to propel Cruz to victory. Thanks patriots. I love it when we work together to get-r-done!
Three weeks before the Wisconsin election, pundits and the mainstream media counted Cruz out, claiming Wisconsin was “a perfect state for Donald Trump.” Immediately on the heels of Cruz’s huge win in Wisconsin, 1.3 million patriots across America made $10, $25 and $50 donations to Cruz’s campaign; raising over $2 million in one day.
Clearly, a shift towards Cruz is underway. In keeping with the old saying, the cream really does rise to the top. I long suspected that Cruz would emerge as the obvious best GOP presidential candidate once the field narrowed down to a two man race. Yes, I realize what’s his name, the third guy, is still in the race.
Recent polling confirms that Cruz can beat Hillary in the general. The swiftly growing Cruz-mania has given me new hope regarding the character and soul of my country. Mainstream media, Democrats and the Left have convinced the GOP establishment and many Americans that we are now a Leftist country. The Left’s bogus narrative is a majority of Americans are repulsed by Cruz’s brand of Conservatism rooted in traditional principles and values which have made America great and exceptional.
The truth is as more Americans have an opportunity to hear Cruz’s common sense, unfiltered, optimistic and unifying articulation of Conservatism, it connects with their inner spirit. They instinctively know Cruz’s Conservatism is best for all Americans. Americans are also beginning to realize that Ted Cruz is the only candidate they can trust to reverse Obama’s messes.
After a few days of r and r, Mary and I will rejoin our Conservative Campaign Committee team on the campaign trail for Cruz. Thanks again for all your hard work. God bless!
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/ted-cruz-ap-photo-1-e1460124325871.jpg360640Lloyd Marcushttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngLloyd Marcus2016-04-08 10:06:222016-04-08 10:10:20Reflecting on Our Efforts Campaigning for Cruz Thus Far
I have said that Americans will know who will win the Republican nomination for President by March 15th. It now appears that the race is down to two men: Donald J. Trump and Senator Ted Cruz. Neither of these candidates is favored by the GOP establishment (GOPe). Both are considered outsiders and outliers.
Trump and Cruz are men fundamentally detached from the main body of the GOPe.
RELATED VIDEO: 5 Secret Conspiracies to Stop Donald Trump. Video created by DARK 5:
Here is the delegate count to date courtesy of the Associated Press:
Alabama · 50 delegates: Trump won and has 36 delegates, Cruz has 13, Rubio has 1
Alaska · 28 delegates: Cruz won and has 12 delegates, Trump has 11, Rubio has 5
Arkansas · 40 delegates: Trump won and has 16 delegates, Cruz has 14, Rubio has 9
Georgia · 76 delegates: Trump won and has 40 delegates, Rubio has 14, Cruz has 18
Massachusetts · 42 delegates: Trump won and has 22 delegates, Kasich has 8, Rubio has 8, Cruz has 4
Minnesota · 38 delegates: Rubio won and has 17 delegates, Cruz has 13, Trump has 8
Oklahoma · 43 delegates: Cruz won and has 15 delegates, Trump has 13, Rubio has 12
Tennessee · 58 delegates: Trump won and has 31 delegates, Cruz has 15, Rubio has 9
Texas · 155 delegates: Cruz won and has 102 delegates, Trump has 47, Rubio has 3
Vermont · 16 delegates: Trump won and has 6 delegates, Kasich has 6
Virginia · 49 delegates: Trump won and has 17 delegates, Rubio has 16, Cruz has 8, Kasich has 5, Carson has 3
Kansas · 40 delegates: Cruz won and has 24 delegates, Trump has 9, Rubio has 6, Kasich has 1
Kentucky · 46 delegates: Trump won and has 16 delegates, Cruz has 14, Rubio has 7, Kasich has 6
Louisiana · 46 delegates: Trump won and has 15 delegates, Cruz has 14
Maine · 23 delegates: Cruz won and has 12 delegates, Trump has 9, Kasich has 2
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/gop-candidates.jpg359640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2016-03-06 06:37:222016-03-06 08:29:26By the Numbers: Its a Two Man Race for the GOP Nomination
WASHINGTON /PRNewswire/ — One America News Network, “OAN”, a credible source for 24/7 national and international news, released today its most recent 2016 Republican and Democratic Presidential New Hampshire Poll results conducted by Gravis Marketing. The poll results show that Democratic Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders has increased his support to 39%, with Hillary Clinton only 4 percentage points ahead at 43%. The results represent a major surge in the polls for Sanders, landing him within the margin of error away from Clinton. Undeclared Elizabeth Warren received 8% with Joe Biden achieving 6%. Martin O’Malley and Jim Webb both received 2% with Lincoln Chafee not registering a reportable percentage.
GOP Presidential candidate Donald Trump continues his large lead with 32%, followed by John Kasich at 15% with Chris Christie coming in third at 9%. Rounding out the top five are Ben Carson and Scott Walker, both achieving 8%. Jeb Bush just missed the top five with 7% of the vote from polled Republican participants.
According to Robert Herring, Sr., CEO of One America News Network, “Bernie Sanders is surging in New Hampshire and threatening to win this early State. With 14% of the participants voting for two undeclared candidates, we may see a Sanders victory in New Hampshire. Kasich is also gaining in the polls and will be the challenger to watch.”
Gravis Marketing, a nonpartisan research firm, conducted a random survey of 1179 registered voters across the U.S. regarding the presidential election. The sample includes 599 Republicans and 475 Democrats. The poll has an overall margin of error of +/- 2.9%, 4.0% for the Republican results and 4.5% for the Democrat results. The total may not equal exactly 100% due to rounding. The polls were conducted on July 31st throughAugust 3rd using interactive voice response, IVR, technology and weighted separately for each population in the question presented. The poll was conducted exclusively for One America News Network.
One America News Network has been providing extensive coverage of the 2016 Presidential campaign, including numerous exclusive one-on-one interviews with the leading candidates. One America News Network will be releasing on-going 2016 Presidential polling results, including national Presidential polling results at the end of July. Complete poll results will be posted tomorrow at http://www.oann.com/pollNH
ABOUT ONE AMERICA NEWS NETWORK
One America News Network offers 21 hours of live news coverage plus two one-hour political talk shows, namely The Daily Ledger and On Point with Tomi Lahren. While other emerging and established cable news networks offer multiple hours of live news coverage, only OAN can claim to consistently provide 21 hours of live coverage every weekday. Third party viewership data for Q2 2015 from Rentrak, namely accumulated viewer hours, shows that OAN surpasses other news channels such as Al Jazeera America, Fusion, Fox Business News, and Bloomberg TV as measured on AT&T U-verse TV, across 65 markets.
Since its debut on July 4, 2013, One America News Network has grown its distribution to over 12 million households with carriage by AT&T U-Verse TV (ch 208/1208 in HD), Verizon FiOS TV (ch 116/616 in HD), GCI Cable, Frontier Communications, CenturyLink PRISM TV, Consolidated Communications, Duncan Cable, GVTC and numerous additional video providers. One America News Network operates production studios and news bureaus in California and Washington, DC. For more information on One America News Network, please visit www.OANN.com.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/hillary-bernie-sanders.jpg458611Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2015-08-06 08:39:452015-08-06 10:06:16Clinton in Jeopardy of Losing New Hampshire to Sanders
While we endure the daily lies of President Obama, do we really want to have another four to eight years more of Hillary Clinton’s? It’s not like we don’t have ample evidence of her indifference to the truth and that is not what America wants in a President, now or ever.
The office has already been degraded to a point where neither our allies nor our enemies trusts anything Obama says. Do we really want to continue a process that could utterly destroy our nation?
Hillary Clinton’s announcement that she intends to run for President is predicated not on any achievements in her life beyond having married Bill Clinton. Instead, her message is that America needs a woman as President. Having already elected an abject failure because he was black, one can only hope and pray that enough voters will conclude that America needs to avoid race or gender to be the determining factor.
In 1974 the 27-year old Hillary was fired from a committee related to the Watergate investigation. Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised her and when the investigation was over, he fired her and refused to give her a letter of recommendation. When asked why, he said, “Because she was a liar. She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee, and the rules of confidentiality.”
She has not changed. Writing about her emails, Ronald D. Rotunda, a professor at Chapman University’s Fowler School of Law, said her admitted destruction of more than 30,000 emails “sure looks like an obstruction of justice—a serious violation of the criminal law. The law says that no one has to us email, but it is a crime (18 U.S.C. section 1519) to destroy even one message to prevent it from being subpoenaed.” The law, said Rotunda, punishes this with up to 20 years imprisonment.
Instead, Hillary is asking voters to give her at least four years in the highest office in the land.
Even pundits like The New York Times’ Maureen Dowd, writing in mid-March responded to Hillary saying “None of what you said made any sense. Keeping a single account mingling business and personal with your own server wasn’t about ‘convenience.’ It was about expedience. You became judge and jury on what’s relevant because you didn’t want to leave digital fingerprints for others to retrace.”
“You assume that if it’s good for the Clintons, it’s good for the world, you’re always tangling up government policy with your own needs, desires, deceptions, marital bargains, and gremlins.”
Around the same time as Dowd’s rebuke, I wrote that I thought that the revelations about the emails and the millions the Clinton foundation received from nations with whom she was dealing as Secretary of State would be sufficient for those in charge of the Democratic Party to convince her not to run. I was wrong. I was wrong because I profoundly underestimated Hillary’s deep well of ambition and indifference to the laws everyone else must obey. I was wrong because the Democratic Party is totally corrupt.
It is not as if anyone paying any attention would not know that she is politically to the far Left, a politician who does not believe that the powers of our government are derived from “the consent of the governed.” Throughout her life she has let us know that with quotes such as:
“We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”
“(We) can’t just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people.”
“I certainly think the free-market has failed.” These quotes are the personification of Communism.
In March, the political pundit, Peggy Noonan, writing in The Wall Street Journal, said “We are defining political deviancy down.” Referring to the email scandal, she asked “Is it too much to imagine that Mrs. Clinton wanted to conceal the record of her communications as America’s top diplomat…?” That was the reason she ignored the government’s rules regarding such communications. Rarely mentioned is the very strong likelihood that her email account had been hacked by our nation’s enemies and thus everything she was doing, officially and privately, was known to them.
“The story,” said Noonan “is that this is what she does and always has. The rules apply to others, not her.” That is, simply said, a criminal mentality. “Why doesn’t the legacy press swarm her on this?” asked Noonan. “Because she is political royalty.”
We fought a Revolution to free America from the British royalty. This was so ingrained in the thinking of the Founding Fathers that section 9 of Article One of the Constitution says “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States. And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of Congress, accept any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” That’s what the foundation did.
Noonan had earlier written a book about Hillary. “As I researched I remembered why, four years into the Clinton administration, the New York Times columnist William Safire called Hillary ‘a congenital liar…compelled to mislead, and to ensnare her subordinates and friends in a web of deceit.’”
“Do we have to go through all that again?” asked Noonan. “A generation or two ago, a person so encrusted in a reputation for scandal would not be considered a possible presidential contender. She would be ineligible. Now she is inevitable.”
Well, maybe not inevitable. We have a long time to go until the primaries arrive and then the election. We have enough time to ask ourselves if we live in a republic where merit, integrity, and honesty are still the standards by which we select our President.
CAMARILLO, Calif./PRNewswire/ — Erick Erickson, Editor-in-Chief of Salem Media Group’s (NASDAQ: SALM) RedState.com, announced on Tuesday the first speaker lineup for the 2015 RedState Gathering. Governor Scott Walker, Governor Jeb Bush, Governor Rick Perry, Governor Bobby Jindal, Carly Fiorina and Senator Marco Rubio have all confirmed they will speak at the event.
In a slight change of tradition, this year’s RedState Gathering will be themed “Vision 2020.”
“Though I am loathe to ever suggest a topic for speakers, I have asked each of the 2016 candidates to focus on one thing: I’d like them to present their 2020 vision for what the nation should look like after their first four years,” Erickson said. “We need to know what they see as the areas that need fixing and how their fixes will reshape the country.
Jonathan Garthwaite, Salem Vice President and General Manager of Townhall Media (under which RedState operates) said, “RedState Gathering attendees are some of the hardest working conservative activists online and door-to-door who have pushed hundreds of conservative candidates to the top. There is no better place than the Gathering for the presidential candidates to come to and give their vision for America.”
The RedState Gathering will take place at the Intercontinental Buckhead Hotel in Atlanta, Georgia, August 6-9, 2015. In addition to a majority of the GOP presidential field, invitations have also been extended to members of Congress and other local and state elected officials. The weekend will kick-off on Thursday with a discussion between Erick Ericksonr and MSNBC host Joe Scarborough and wind down with a new event on Saturday evening called the RedState Tailgate, featuring a surprise guest speaker.
Registrations to attend the RedState Gathering are currently open. To register or for additional information, please visit RedStateGathering.com. The early bird registration fee of $249 expires May 23rd.
ABOUT SALEM MEDIA GROUP:
Salem Media Group is America’s leading Christian and conservative multi-media corporation, with media properties comprising radio, digital media and book, magazine and newsletter publishing. Each day Salem serves a loyal and dedicated audience of listeners and readers numbering in the millions nationally. With its unique programming focus, Salem provides compelling content, fresh commentary and relevant information from some of the most respected figures across the media landscape.
The company, through its Salem Radio Group, is the largest commercial U.S. radio broadcasting company providing Christian and conservative programming. Salem owns and operates 110 local radio stations, with 65 stations in the top 25 media markets. Salem Radio Network (“SRN”) is a full-service national radio network, with nationally syndicated programs comprising Christian teaching and talk, conservative talk, news, and music. SRN is home to many industry-leading hosts including: Bill Bennett, Mike Gallagher, Hugh Hewitt, Michael Medved, Dennis Prager and Eric Metaxas.
Salem’s Regnery Publishing unit, with a 65-year history, remains the nation’s leading publisher of conservative books. Having published many of the seminal works of the early conservative movement, Regnery today continues as the dominant publisher in the conservative space, with leading authors including: Ann Coulter, Dinesh D’Souza, Newt Gingrich, David Limbaugh, Ed Klein and Mark Steyn. Salem’s book publishing business also includes Xulon Press™, a leading provider of self-publishing services for Christian and conservative authors.
RELATED VIDEO: A new poll in New Hampshire puts Rand Paul and Scott Walker in first place among GOP candidates in the Granite State. Hillary Clinton still leads among Democrats, but she is showing some weakness. Hear why.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/red-state-gathering-2015.jpg360640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2015-05-18 07:27:352015-05-18 07:34:402016 GOP Hopefuls Set To Speak At Salem Media Group's RedState Gathering In August
The left has to do some soul-searching and reflect why it describes anti-Semitism as political expression, but criticism of Muslims as hate speech. Liberal Jews have to do the same about Obama.
The 2016 presidential cycle is beginning to gear up, with Hillary Clinton assuming the mantle of presumptive Democratic nominee and Republican hopefuls preparing to compete with each other during the primary season. And Jewish Democrats are already lining up to shill for Clinton and attack the Republicans.
If the litmus test for Jewish voter loyalty is Israel, however, Democrats long ago abdicated any authority to determine “who’s good for the Jews” by their continuing support for Barack Obama – despite his relationships with Israel-bashers, his appeasement of Islamist regimes, his disrespectful treatment of Binyamin Netanyahu, and his pursuit of a deal with Iran that rewards aggression, enables its nuclear ambitions and threatens the existence of the Jewish State.
Jewish Democrats attacked Republican Senator Marco Rubio for allegedly creating a political wedge issue when he spoke in support of Israel from the Senate floor in response to the White House’s personal attacks against Netanyahu before his address to Congress in March. They criticized Rubio even as Obama refused to meet with Netanyahu and Democratic operatives were meddling in Israel’s election in an unsuccessful attempt to push a left-wing coalition to victory. It seems that party hacks were more interested in belittling Rubio’s unwavering support for Israel than in condemning the negative message sent by the fifty-eight Congressional Democrats (some of them Jews) who boycotted Bibi’s speech, and by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s churlish conduct in turning her back to the Prime Minister as he spoke.
Similarly, the National Jewish Democratic Council was quick to criticize Kentucky Senator Rand Paul for his position on aid to Israel and to insinuate that he would be detrimental to the Jewish State. This criticism is actually valid in light of Paul’s past statements about reducing aid to Israel and his isolationist rhetoric – as well as the dubious positions of his father, Rep. Ron Paul, regarding Israel. But it is hypocritical for Jewish Democrats to sound the alarm regarding Paul’s candidacy considering how they portrayed Obama as a friend to Israel and champion of Jewish values while ignoring his associations with anti-Semites, his uncritical acceptance of the revisionist Palestinian narrative, and his hostility toward the Jewish State – particularly during last year’s war in Gaza.
There is clearly a strategy to push a distorted narrative that taints all conservatives with the presumption of anti-Semitism, though hatred of Jews is far more prevalent on the political left these days. While there is a history of anti-Semitism on the right to be sure, there is just as long and pernicious a tradition of Jew-hatred on the left, where it has been a potent political force since the rise of socialism, communism and European liberalism. It permeated the ideological fabric of these movements because it was part of the societies in which they grew. Progressives today often project hostility for Jews and Israel onto conservatives while pretending that liberal and Muslim anti-Semitism does not exist.
Studies show that anti-Semitism today is much more pervasive on the left than the right. As reported in the “Annual Report: Anti-Semitism in 2013, Trends and Events” by Israel’s Ministry for Jerusalem and Diaspora Affairs, for example, “[t]he anti-Zionism prevalent mainly on the left, which has already become an integral part of the permanent worldview of individuals and groups of the left, can today be defined as a cultural code replacing anti-Semitism and enabling its disseminators to deny all connection to anti-Semitism.”
And a 2014 German study analyzing anti-Semitic trends reflected by hate mail showed that most bigoted communications during the survey period came from the political mainstream, including university professors and the well-educated (i.e., segments of the population that tend to identify as liberal). In contrast, only three percent of the offensive communications came from right-wing nationalists. The study, conducted by Professor Monika Schwarz-Friesel, professor of linguistics at the Technical University of Berlin, and published in a book entitled, “The Language of Hostility toward Jews in the 21st Century,” indicated that hatred of Jews was often presented as criticism of Israel using traditional anti-Semitic canards and imagery.
Though progressive anti-Zionists glibly attempt to distinguish hatred of Israel from hatred of Jews, it is a distinction without a difference. The left-wing movements in Europe traditionally considered religion and nationality societal evils and, accordingly, disparaged the Jews because they represented the most enduring elements of both. The anti-Zionism espoused by so many progressives today makes use of the same stereotypes and conspiracy theories that have been ascribed to Jews for generations and, consequently, is no different from old-fashioned Jew-hatred.
The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (“BDS”) and Israel Apartheid Week (“IAW”) movements are purely creations of the progressive left in partnership with Islamist interests. The left is obsessed with demonizing Israel and advancing anti-Jewish conspiracy theories, with progressive academics routinely defending campus anti-Semitism as political speech while simultaneously censoring any criticism of Muslims as “Islamophobic.”
Conversely, the European right today is generally more supportive of Israel, Jews and free speech. American conservatives likewise exhibit greater affinity for Israel than do their liberal counterparts, and Congressional Republicans support pro-Israel legislation and resolutions far more frequently than do their Democratic colleagues. These trends were reflected in a recent Gallup poll showing that 83% of Republicans sympathize with Israel compared to only 48% of Democrats. Indeed, pejorative Congressional letters mischaracterizing Israeli policies as belligerent and reproaching Israel for defending herself are written almost exclusively by Democrats.
The left maintains a sympathetic attitude towards Islamist rejectionism as reflected by its support for BDS, IAW and the revisionist Palestinian narrative, and this cannot be obscured by the hurling of scandalous accusations of Jew-hatred against conservatives who, unlike liberals, have taken meaningful and effective steps to combat it. Nearly a quarter century ago, the late William F. Buckley rid the National Review of those whose denunciations of Israel he believed were motivated by anti-Semitism. He then wrote “In Search of Anti-Semitism,” which represented a watershed in political self-analysis and moral accountability.
The left has yet to engage in similar soul searching. Instead, it excuses anti-Semitism as political expression, even as it stifles criticism of Muslims as hate-speech. Unfortunately, warped views often attributed to the “hard left” have infected the liberal mainstream, as evidenced by the failure of its establishment to wholeheartedly condemn bigotry against Jews and Israel the way Buckley did in 1992, or to ostracize progressive extremists whose venom clearly sounds in classical anti-Semitism.
When it comes to party politics, Jewish Democrats have been deluding themselves since the days of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, when they substituted New Deal priorities for authentic Jewish values and regarded FDR as a savior. Despite their blind devotion, FDR was accepting only of those who were assimilated and aligned with him politically. He seemed indifferent to Jewish suffering in Europe, as reflected by the views of his special Mideast envoy, Harold Hoskins, who recommended censoring “Zionist propaganda” that consisted largely of publicizing the Nazi genocide and lobbying for rescue efforts. Roosevelt’s Secretary of State, Cordell Hull, advised the maintenance of tight immigration restrictions that effectively condemned many to the death camps, and such recommendations guided FDR’s policy for much of the Second World War.
When reports of the genocide began to spread early in the war, the administration prevailed upon its progressive Jewish allies to downplay the news and discredit those reporting it. Many Jewish New Dealers acquiesced in an effort to prevent distractions to the war effort and embarrassment to a president they idolized. Some of FDR’s Jewish acolytes waged a shameful campaign to malign those who were publicizing the Holocaust, including Peter Bergson (Hillel Kook), going so far as to demand that Bergson and his compatriots be investigated for tax crimes and jailed or deported, though no improprieties were ever found.
Some Jewish Democrats even attempted to undermine the 1943 “Rabbis’ March on Washington” conceived by Bergson in conjunction with the Aggudat HaRabonim. The event involved four-hundred Orthodox rabbinical scholars, including Rabbis Eliezer Silver, Avraham Kalmanowitz and Moshe Feinstein, many of whom were immigrants and none of whom looked or dressed like FDR’s secular political cronies. Encouraged by some of his Jewish confidantes, Roosevelt left the White House to avoid meeting the rabbis.
Many assimilated New Dealers sacrificed Jewish interests and pledged themselves to an administration that devoted military resources to saving works of European art, but which refused to bomb the concentration camps or the railway lines leading to them in order to stop the carnage. When US policy finally changed to make saving Jewish lives a priority, it proved too little, too late. Nevertheless, the lionization of Roosevelt provided the blueprint for a political cognitive dissonance that continues today.
The endorsement of President Obama is a case in point. He sat in the pews of Jeremiah Wright’s church for more than twenty years and associated with radical academics and anti-Israel ideologues. As a senator he had no record of support for Israel, and since becoming president he has conspicuously refused to acknowledge the Jews’ historical rights in their homeland. He has treated Israel more like an enemy than an ally and has appeased Islamist regimes dedicated to destroying her and exterminating her people. Nevertheless, he has been portrayed as philo-Semitic by the liberal Jewish elite.
The real story should be apparent from his words and actions, however, including his public spats with Netanyahu and lecturing to Israelis who reject his worldview – which to the attuned ear might sound similar in tone to common progressive excoriation of Israel.
It would be more honest for his Jewish supporters to admit they no longer regard Israel and traditional values as political priorities. However, given their support for a man who has been deemed more hostile to the Jewish State than any other president, it is disingenuous for them to use faux concern for Israel as a pretext for discouraging other Jews from voting Republican.
Since the days of FDR, politically progressive Jews have sacrificed religious and ethnic loyalty for political acceptance. That was why Roosevelt knew he could count on Jewish support in downplaying reports of the Holocaust when he so requested. And this is why Obama recently met with American Jewish leaders in an attempt to silence criticism of an Iran policy that threatens the future of the Jewish homeland.
The partisan delusion continues with groups such as “Jewish Americans for Hillary,” whose website proclaims that “[t]hroughout her career, Hillary Clinton has fought for the issues that matter most to Jewish Americans.” Given her complicity in Obama’s efforts to “put daylight” between the U.S. and Israel, one has to wonder what issues they believe are important to American Jews. Her position during the Ramat Shlomo crisis in 2010 should indicate where she really stands. When Obama referred to Ramat Shlomo – an established Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem – as a “settlement” and demanded that Israel cease all building activities there, Clinton chided Netanyahu publicly and characterized neighborhood construction as “an insult to the United States.”
During her tenure under Obama, Clinton did not disagree when he demanded that Israel pull back to the 1949 armistice lines and divide Jerusalem; and she devalued Israeli sovereignty by lambasting construction on ancestral Jewish land while ignoring illegal Arab building. She promoted Mahmoud Abbas as moderate, whitewashed the PA’s support for terrorism, and presided over renewed American participation in the anti-Semitic UN Human Rights Council.
As Mrs. Clinton attempts to rewrite her history at the State Department and posture herself as a stalwart ally within the Obama administration, Jewish voters should instead consider the decline in American national prestige and the shameful treatment of Israel that characterized her tenure as America’s top diplomat.
If Jews who supported President Obama now truly care about Israel’s future, they should acknowledge how he has compromised her national integrity, empowered her enemies and exacerbated the existential threat to her survival. They must also recognize that he has not acted alone, and that his ill-conceived policies have been enabled by fellow Democrats – including Hillary Clinton, whose actual record on Israel is spotty and opportunistic at best.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/2016-race-for-president.jpg401640Matthew Hausman, J.D.http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMatthew Hausman, J.D.2015-05-17 08:39:112015-05-17 09:59:45Anti-Semitism and Jewish Dissonance on the 2016 Campaign Trail
On February 15, 2013, I published a column titled “The Black Reagan,” in which I compared Dr. Benjamin Carson, former Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Medical Center, in Baltimore, to Ronald Reagan, the most beloved president of the 20th century. Now, as we approach the 2016 presidential campaign, we find Dr. Carson launching his political career in much the same way that Reagan did on October 27, 1964. It was on that day that Reagan made a speech on behalf of Senator Barry Goldwater that few conservatives, or liberals, will ever forget.
Dr. Carson’s February 7, 2013, speech at the 2013 National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, DC, will also be remembered as a historical turning point. To put it bluntly, with Barack Obama seated within spitting distance, Dr. Carson proceeded to take Obama and all of his liberal friends out behind the woodshed for a long-overdue public ass-kicking.
Dr. Carson, is a black man who typifies exactly what any young man or woman… regardless of race, creed, or color… can achieve in the United States with a little bit of non-Benjamin Spock parenting, some good study habits, a solid work ethic, and some intelligent life choices. In fact, Dr. Carson is the exact polar opposite of the long-oppressed plantation slaves that liberals and Democrats want black men to be because the very existence of the Democratic Party depends on the continued belief among black Americans that they are the victims of white racism.
Dr. Carson is the product of a single parent home in Detroit. His mother, who dropped out of school in third grade and who married at age 13, worked two or three jobs in order to make ends meet. Yet, as her two sons were growing up, she was wise enough to limit the amount of time they spent watching TV each day. Instead, she required them to read two library books each week. And although she, herself, was unable to read, she required her sons to write book reports on each of the books they’d read.
After earning an undergraduate degree in psychology from Yale University, Carson attended the University of Michigan School of Medicine. Following med school he served his residency in neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins, where he eventually became Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery. Finally, having proven himself to be the ideal role model for black children… far beyond what liberals and Democrats would ever expect or want a black man to achieve… he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President George W. Bush on June 19, 2008.
In his 1964 speech, Reagan reminded us that the Democrats were attempting to convince the people that the primary issues of that election were the “maintenance of peace and prosperity,” and that “we’ve never had it so good.” In response, Reagan said, “But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity isn’t something on which we can base our hopes for the future. No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income.” He continued, “Today, 37 cents of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector’s share, and yet our government continues to spend $17 million a day more than we take in. We haven’t balanced our budget in 28 out of the last 34 years. We have raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times greater than the combined debt of all other nations in the world.” Multiply those 1964 statistics by a factor of ten and Dr. Carson could have used the same statistics in his 2013 prayer breakfast speech.
In his 1964 speech, Reagan ridiculed Senator Joseph Clark, (D-PA), who once described liberalism as “meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government.” Reagan said, “This was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize… A government can’t control the economy without controlling people. And they knew (that), when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose.”
Dr. Carson opened his remarks by quoting Proverbs 11:9, which King Solomon must have written with Barack Obama in mind. The proverb tells us, “An hypocrite with his mouth destroyeth his neighbour: but through knowledge shall the just be delivered.” Obama should have taken that as a hint that he was about to receive a major league tongue-lashing.
In a direct challenge to Obama’s idea of “fairness,” Dr. Carson said, “When I pick up my Bible, you know what I see? I see the fairest individual in the universe… God. He’s given us a system. It’s called (the) tithe. Now, we don’t necessarily have to do it, 10 percent, but it’s the principle. He didn’t say, if your crops fail, don’t give me any tithes. He didn’t say, if you have a bumper crop, give me triple tithes. So there must be something inherently fair about proportionality. You make $10 billion, you put in $1 billion. You make $10, you put in $1… but now some people say, that’s not ‘fair’ because it doesn’t hurt the guy who made $10 billion as much as the guy who made $10. Where does it say you have to hurt the guy? He’s just put a billion in the pot. We don’t need to hurt him.”
But the most interesting parallel to be drawn between the Reagan speech in 1964 and the Carson speech in 2013 is the way in which both speakers made the point that it is not liberals and Democrats… those who exist by taking money from those who have it and giving it to those who don’t… who are the most loving, caring, and compassionate.
In commenting on the cruel way in which Democrats attempted to demonize Goldwater in 1964, Reagan told his audience some things about Goldwater that few people were aware of. He told of how, before he entered politics, Goldwater instituted a profit-sharing plan in his business long before trade unions ever thought of it; how he provided health insurance for all of his employees; how he set aside 50% of his business profits, before taxes, in order to establish a retirement plan for his employees. And he told of how Goldwater sent a regular monthly check, for life, to a former employee who was ill and could not work, and how he provided daycare for the children of mothers who worked in his stores.
Reagan told the story of a returning serviceman, during the Korean War, who found himself stranded at the Los Angeles International Airport in the week before Christmas, trying to get home to Arizona. Many other returning GIs were having the same problem; there simply were no seats available on any of the commercial airlines. But then a voice came over the public address system saying, “Any men in uniform wanting a ride to Arizona, go to runway such-and-such.” When they arrived at that location they found Sen. Goldwater waiting there in his plane. Then, in the days before Christmas, Goldwater spent every day, all day long, flying planeloads of Arizona servicemen from Los Angeles to their hometown airports in Arizona.
In his Prayer Breakfast speech, Dr. Carson described how, some16 years earlier, he and his wife heard of an international study which showed that, in terms of their ability to solve math and science problems, American eighth graders ranked 21st out of the 22 countries surveyed. It was then that he and his wife created the Carson Scholars Fund.
Instead of receiving only sports trophies for victories on the playing fields, the Carsons saw to it that schools and students were also recognized for scholastic achievement. The Scholars Fund awarded scholarships to students from all backgrounds for superior academic performance… Those who demonstrated academic excellence received cash awards. As Dr. Carson explained, “The money would go into a Trust. They would get interest on it. When they would go to college they would get the money…”
According to Dr. Carson, “Many teachers have told us that when we put a Carson Scholar in their classroom, the GPA of the whole classroom goes up over the next year. It’s been very gratifying. We started 16 years ago with 25 scholarships in Maryland, now we’ve given out more than 5,000 and we are in all 50 states, but we’ve also put in Reading Rooms. These are fascinating places that no little kid could possibly pass up. And they get points for the amount of time they spend reading, and the number of books they read… In the beginning they do it for the prizes, but it doesn’t take long before their academic performance begins to improve.” It’s the sort of thing that conservatives regularly do. Liberals, on the other hand, are noted only for their generosity with other peoples’ money.
In his prayer breakfast remarks, Dr. Carson told the story of a very successful young businessman who loved to buy his mother exotic gifts for Mother’s Day. When he ran out of new ideas he came across some very expensive birds. The birds could dance, they could sing, and they could talk, but they cost $5,000 apiece. He was so excited, he bought two of them. And when he sent them to his mother he couldn’t wait to call her up on Mother’s Day. He said, “Mother, mother, what did you think of those birds?” To which she replied, “They was good.”
The young man was horrified. He said, “No, no, no, Mother! Surely you didn’t eat those birds. Those birds cost $5,000 apiece! They could dance, they could sing, they could talk!” To which the mother replied, “Well, they should have said something.”
Ronald Reagan said something very important in his 1964 speech and it was the launching pad that ultimately sent him to the White House. Dr. Ben Carson also said some very important things in his speech on February 7, 2013, and it will be interesting to see how far and to what heights it takes him. Like Ronald Reagan, Dr. Carson knows what he believes and does not have to pause to think about which political constituency he might offend before he speaks. His honesty and sincerity, like Ronald Reagan’s, is such that it appeals to nearly all Americans.
Conservatives have been hungering for a true conservative leader since the day that Ronald Reagan left the White House in January 1989. It is easy to see how Dr. Ben Carson, the “black Reagan,” could fill those very large shoes.
RELATED VIDEO: Dr. Carson’s comments at the 2013 National Prayer Breakfast:
AUTHORS COMMENTS: In a spirit of full disclosure, I feel compelled to mention that, in the days following the writing of this column, I was contacted by the group that is actively promoting Dr. Ben Carson’s presidential campaign. As a result of that conversation I have agreed to join the organization’s editorial task force and to become a member of their think tank.
In recent months I have had the opportunity to offer what I think was some good advice to the Oklahoma coordinator for the Carson organization. When asked what they could be doing to help build a large grassroots organization, I replied, “Nothing. At this stage of the game the only thing Dr. Carson can do to promote his political ambitions is for him to continue doing exactly what he’s doing… which is to appear before as many large and influential audiences as possible. He has done that quite successfully and we find that, at events such as the Southern Republican Leadership Conference and the Iowa Freedom Summit, Dr. Carson has regularly come in second in the straw polls.
I would also predict that Dr. Carson will do quite well in the first Republican primary debate, but it will be the second and thirds debates that will be critically important. When he matches or exceeds expectations in the second and third debates he will quickly emerge as one of the front runners. However, being realistic, I think that Dr. Carson may very well end up in the second spot on the ticket, running with Gov. Scott Walker or another conservative with greater name recognition. I’m convinced that, if Dr. Carson can draw even 17% of the black vote… which is eminently doable… it will be nearly impossible for the Democrat candidate to win.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/bencarson4.jpg436635Paul R. Hollrahhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngPaul R. Hollrah2015-02-20 05:29:332015-02-20 05:32:12The Black Reagan