Tag Archive for: Republican

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

/in , , , /by

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

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

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

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

Trump’s Top Ranking Statements — All Parties

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

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

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

4. I want to save Medicare and Social Security.

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

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

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

Trump’s Top Ranking Statements — Independents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About the Study

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

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

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

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

“La Raza” means “Master Race”

Trump Shatters Republican Primary Vote Record by 1.4 Million Votes

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

Stunning New Development!! Media calls Trump Racist

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

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

Republican Primary Lesson: It’s Not About You!

/in , , , /by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Do We Believe These Pathological Liars? by B.K. Marcus

/in , , , , /by

How do you feel when someone lies to you?

It probably depends on who is doing the lying. A stranger’s fabrications may not phase you, but dishonesty from a friend or lover can end the relationship. The more you feel the liar is supposed to be “on your side,” the more his or her deceptions feel like betrayal — unless, it turns out, the lies come from a politician you support.

When I shared a link on Facebook to Rick Shenkman’s article “Why Are Trump Voters Not Bothered by His Lies?” someone immediately replied by asking, “Why are Hillary voters not bothered by her lies?” Why, in other words, focus on only one mendacious candidate when lying to voters seems like a prerequisite for running for office?

Shenkman, who is the editor of HistoryNewsNetwork.org and the author ofPolitical Animals: How Our Stone-Age Brain Gets in the Way of Smart Politics, might respond with his claim that Trump “has told more lies than any other leading political figure probably ever has.” But his article is in fact about neither Trump’s astonishing number of fibs nor his supporters’ astonishing tolerance for them; it is about how widespread both such lying and such tolerance are across party lines and throughout the era of mass-media mass democracy.

Shenkman is writing for a left-leaning readership, thus his headline’s righteous indignation toward a right-wing candidate, but most of the examples he gives are of deliberately deceitful Democrats. He starts with candidate Kennedy’s campaign claim that the Soviets had more nuclear missiles than the United States:

He continued to insist that there was a missile gap to the Soviet’s advantage even after he was briefed by General Earl Wheeler that there wasn’t. After the election his secretary of defense, Robert McNamara, told the press on background that a study had found there was no missile gap, leading to blaring headlines the next morning.

JFK’s reaction? He ordered his press secretary, Pierre Salinger, to tell the media that there had been no study and that there was a gap. The truth was that JFK himself didn’t take his own rhetoric about the missile gap seriously. At cabinet meetings he cracked on numerous occasions, “Who ever believed in the missile gap” anyway?

Four years later, President Johnson “told the American people that the North Vietnamese were guilty of making repeated unprovoked attacks on [US] naval vessels in the Tonkin Gulf.” As with Kennedy, we know that Johnson was being dishonest, not mistaken. “Hell,” LBJ told an aide, “those dumb stupid sailors were just shooting at flying fish.”

Shenkman barely touches on Nixon’s perfidy in Watergate and never mentions Nixon aide John Ehrlichman’s 1994 interview, admitting that the war on drugs was not about crime or health but was rather a politically motivated attack on war protestors and American blacks. “Did we know we were lying about the drugs?” said the president’s former domestic affairs advisor. “Of course we did.”

And while he may have given Ms. Clinton a pass, Shenkman does mention the millions of supporters who refused to believe the allegations against her husband “until prosecutors revealed they possessed [Monica Lewinsky’s] infamous blue dress.”

No one should be shocked by the frequency of politicians’ duplicity, but it is frustrating when a candidate is caught in an undeniable falsehood and his or her supporters never waiver.  Our political culture expects politicians to perjure and prevaricate left and right, but that doesn’t make their deceptions defensible. So where is the outrage?

“Our brains are partisan,” Shenkman writes:

While we are quick to seize on the misstatements of other candidates, we give them a pass when it’s our own. When the social scientist Drew Westen put voters in an MRI machine he discovered that their brains quickly shut off the flow of information contrary to their beliefs about their favorite candidates. The neurons actively involved in the transmission of this information literally went inactive.

It’s not just the political candidates who are lying. So are the voters. “We lie,” Shenkman points out, “about our unwillingness to put up with lies.”

If politicians keep lying and voters keep shrugging it off, isn’t that an indictment of democracy? Aren’t voters supposed to act as a check on the people in power?

In theory, an election is supposed to be more than a popularity contest. Candidates are supposed to represent an approach to policy making, which is in turn supposed to reflect both facts and a theory of cause and effect. What we have instead is a formalized tribalism, us versus them, facts be damned.

Shenkman assures the reader that the liars don’t get away with it forever, but his evidence for that conclusion is questionable. Johnson and Nixon are remembered as liars by both Democrats and Republicans, but the reckoning for Gulf of Tonkin and Watergate are outliers in the steady stream of deception flowing out of DC and the state capitals. Meanwhile, Mssrs Kennedy and Clinton will be remembered more for deceiving their wives than the voters.

Westen’s research on cognitive dissonance and party politics is troubling, but well before there was any hard data on how voters process unwanted facts, the theory of rational ignorance told us why so many facts are so unwanted: to the individual voter, the cost of acquiring the relevant knowledge far outweighs the practical benefits of knowing the truth when casting a ballot.

In contrast, the benefits of supporting a candidate accrue, not from any actual effect on the electoral outcome, but largely from the signaling that it provides the voter: this is the sort of person I am, and these are the sorts of causes I support. Symbolic affiliation isn’t dependent on the truth of any particular facts, so why should we expect inconvenient falsehoods to change anyone’s political alignment?

As I wrote in “Too Dumb for Democracy?” (Freeman, spring 2015), “getting an issue like the minimum wage terribly wrong takes no work and has the immediate payoff of feeling like you’re on the side of the angels. It also solidifies your standing within your own ideological tribe. Bothering to understand supply and demand … offers no practical reward after you pull the lever in the election booth.”

The lies we care the least to uncover are precisely those for which the cost of caring outweighs the benefits of our vigilance. That describes almost anything we may ever be asked to vote on. But when knowing the truth directly matters to the decisions we make every day — the truth about our jobs, our homes, our families and loved ones — the relative benefits of knowing the truth are far greater, and we therefore penalize the liars in our lives. Cognitive dissonance may be a barrier to accepting hard truths, but even cognitive dissonance is price sensitive.

The more decisions we cede to the political process, the less we should expect anyone to protect our interests. Even we don’t bother to do it, because the rules of the game — majority rules — render our efforts ineffectual. Worse than that: we’re not even rewarded for knowing what policies really are or aren’t in our best interest.

The truth can win out, but it’s a lot less likely in an election.

B.K. MarcusB.K. Marcus

B.K. Marcus is editor of the Freeman.

A Video Message from Phyllis Schlafly

/in , , , , /by

Phyllis Schlafly gives an update on the status and upcoming events of Eagle Forum. Among other things Schlafly speaks about the upcoming GOP convention, her new book and Republican “king makers.”

Schlafly quotes former Senator Everett Dirksen of Illinois, who at the 1953 Republican National Convention, took to the floor and accused the king makers of leading the Republicans “down the road to defeat.” Dirksen received mixed boos and cheers rang out from the delegates.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Don’t take us down the path to defeat again by Mitchell Hadley

The 2 Million Voters Who Will Elect the Next President

Ballot Access Fraud may Disqualify Ted Cruz in New Jersey Primary

/in , , , /by

BETHESDA, Md./PRNewswire/ — Ted Cruz risks primary disqualification in New Jersey resulting from charges of ballot access fraud. A primary ballot disqualification hearing is scheduled by the Secretary of State for Monday, April 11 at 9:00 a.m. in Mercerville, New Jersey.

Washington D.C. Law Professor Victor Williams charges that Ted Cruz fraudulently certified his constitutional eligibility for office to gain ballot access. Williams demands that Cruz be disqualified from several late-primary ballots: “Cruz committed ballot access fraud in each state when he falsely swore that he was a ‘natural born’ American citizen.” Cruz was born in Calgary, Canada and held his resulting Canadian citizenship until May 2014. Cruz is a naturalized (not natural born) American citizen.

Williams’ fraud charges had quick effect in New Jersey. Rather than accepting Cruz’s ballot petition when filed last week, the Secretary of State (Kim Guadagno) scheduled the unusual Administrative Law hearing for April 11. The Canadian-born Cruz must prove that he did not falsely certify his eligibility for office.

Cruz’s ballot eligibility is also being challenged in California, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, Oregon, South Dakota, and Washington.

Late-Entrant GOP Candidate Asserts “Competitor Candidate Standing” to Disqualify Cruz

Victor Williams warns of further action if Cruz is not disqualified from New Jersey’s June 7th primary. Williams has unique litigation strategy. Williams became a late-entrant GOP presidential candidate. Now his “competitor candidate” status provides the strongest “standing” to challenge Cruz.

Attacking from Cruz’s left flank, Williams announced his presidential campaign with a Huffington Post commentary:

Williams is registered/declared as a “write-in” candidate for the GOP presidential nomination in multiple states. Such “write-in” candidates are considered “genuine opposition” regardless of actual chances or support. Example: Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski.

Williams’ website — VictorWilliamsforPresident.com — details the law professor/candidate’s litigation strategy. It also details Williams unique policy positions on providing student loan debt relief and ending corporate stock buybacks.

From Hardscrabble Arkansas to Harvard then Three Law Degrees

Victor Williams is long-time attorney, law professor, and prolific scholar in Washington, D.C.

A first-generation college graduate from Arkansas, Williams earned a Harvard graduate degree and then three law degrees. Williams’ scholarship has defended the Executive authority of the past four presidents – without regard to party.

Sickened by the corruption, dysfunction, and incompetence of the established political order, Professor Williams launched www.disruptivejustice.org in June 2014 to apply disruptive innovation theory to law and politics.

Williams is referenced as a “Republican Lawrence Lessig” (the Harvard professor who ran as a Democrat).

Williams damns the extremist, Senate-buffoonery of Ted Cruz to shut down the government, cause a public debt default, and forbid abortion for female victims of rape and incest.

Williams promises to “Put American Workers First.”

Williams declares: “American workers deserve a government that works as hard as they do.”

RELATED ARTICLE: Why is RNC Allowing Cruz’s Bid for President? Craige McMillan notes Canada was not ‘a province of America’ in 1970

Reflecting on Our Efforts Campaigning for Cruz Thus Far

/in , , /by

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.

Ted Cruz Heidi NC Rally (1)

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!

Are Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton now co-chairs of the #DumpTrump campaign?

/in , , /by

On Tuesday, March 15th, Donald Trump won Florida, Missouri, Illinois and North Carolina. He lost to Governor Kasich in Ohio. Ted Cruz won no states outright.

florda primary votes by countyNo candidate for the GOP presidential nomination has ever failed to win the sunshine state. The same holds true in the general election.

The GOP must win Florida early in order to put a Republican in the White House on November 8th.

Click here for the 2016 Delegate Count & Primary Results

I received an email titled “One-on-one race” from the Ted Cruz campaign stating:

Tonight, there is no ambiguity.

I’m the only candidate that has defeated Trump outside my home state, that can unify all conservatives, and who has a pathway to win the delegates necessary to earn the nomination.

It appears that Ted Cruz has, along with Hillary Clinton, joined with those behind the #DumpTrump campaign. Among those groups that have made it their mission to dump Trump are Moveon.org, Black Lives Matter, La Raza, George Soros, the Republican establishment, the main stream media and the elite politicians inside the Washington D.C. beltway.

But can they dump Trump?

Neil Munro, from Breitbart in his column Three-Quarters of GOP Voters Back Donald Trump Nomination, if He Gets Most Delegates”  writes:

Three out of four Republicans believe the party establishment should support Donald Trump if he gets the nomination, whose voter support also has broken through the 50 percent mark, up from 44 percent in late February, according to a new poll from YouGov.

Only 13 percent of the party supporters — or just one in eight voters — say the establishment should oppose Trump if he is nominated, says the March 10 to 12 survey.

“If Trump should win … Republican voters, including those supporting other candidates, want the establishment to support him,” YouGov reported.

I have written in my column “Donald Trump is a ‘Christian Nationalist'”:

Donald Trump went from running a campaign, to heading a movement and is now leading an insurgency. Until today I could not define what was driving this insurgency. I may now have the answer.

Karl Marx wrote: “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people“.

Donald Trump is viewed by his followers as the heart of a heartless world, the soul fighting a soulless government and he understands that it is morals that drives him and the American dream. It is religion that is inextricably linked to politics in America. It is something citizens have not seen since the American Revolution.

Senator Ted Cruz does not have the momentum of Donald Trump. If Senator Cruz’s goal is to have just enough delegates to force a brokered convention then he may do more harm to the Republican Party, than good.

Hillary Clinton, the Democrat establishment candidate, has effectively stopped the Bernie insurgency. Should Senator Cruz continue to try to stop the growing Trump insurgency? By doing so will he alienate those who have voted in large numbers for Trump and cause the GOP to split?

It appears the GOP establishment, Hillary Clinton and Senator Cruz want a Republican house divided. Is that a winning political strategy for Republicans November? It certainly is for Democrats.

Time will tell if Donald Trump achieves the needed delegates to win the nomination outright. He is over half way there. As some have said, nothing can seem to stop the Trump Train.

RELATED VIDEOS:

Donald Trump Super Tuesday Press Conference After Winning FL, IL, NC (3-15-16)

Curly Haugland, an unbound GOP delegate from North Dakota, on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” questioned why primaries and caucuses are even held. Haugland states, “We choose the nominee, not the voters“:

RELATED ARTICLES:

We choose the nominee, not the voters: Senior GOP official

The GOP Sellout Continues

Why Washington’s Political Class Is Losing Control

ICE: 124 illegal immigrants released from jail later charged in 138 murder cases

BEYOND DISTRUST: How Americans View Their Government – PEW Research

The ‘Compassionate’ Bullying of the Left

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump © Mike Stone / Reuters.

Why Bernie Sanders [and Donald Trump] Matter

/in , , /by

why bernie sanders matters book coverWASHINGTON, D.C. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Bernie Sanders’ appeal to young, often first time voters, is not a mystery to Harry Jaffe, whose recent book “Why Bernie Sanders Matters” was the subject of a Focus Washington interview with Chuck Conconi. Jaffe said the youthful voters are “attracted to” the VermontSenator’s authenticity.

In that, Jaffe explained, Sanders has “a commonality with (Donald) Trump” in that neither are part of the establishment. The comparison between the two maverick candidates, however, Jaffe points out is that Sanders is a “Populist Socialist,” while Trump is “Populist Fascist.”

In a comparison with the campaign style of Hillary Clinton, with whom he is vying for the Democratic Party nomination to run for president, Jaffe said Sanders says what he thinks and if you don’t agree with it, don’t vote for him. Clinton, on the other hand, he continues, first factors what her handlers think, then what her husband, former President Bill Clinton, thinks and then what she thinks before making a statement. Jaffe said younger voters can detect that difference.

Jaffe also said that the black vote is not monolithic and that southern African Americans — largely rural, more religious and conservative — are quite different from their northern counterparts, who are urban and prioritize good jobs and making a living. The contention is that while Clinton runs exceptionally well with African Americans in the southern states, she might not do as well among northern blacks in the upcoming Ohio and Illinois primaries.

A Washington Magazine editor at large, Jaffe, who has worked on books by educator Michele Rhee and former congresswoman Gabby Gifford, said that pollsters and much of the media were surprised by Sanders upset victory in the Michigan primary. Jaffe said he wasn’t surprised and doesn’t think Sanders was surprised either. He contends that Sanders will also do well in the upcoming Ohio and Illinois primaries because Sanders, who consistently votes against international trade agreements, has always been a spokesman for the working class who see their jobs outsourced overseas, and that they are not getting paid as well as they once were. They like his opposition to trade agreements, a factor that political pundits said was a major part of his Michigan victory.

Harry Jaffe provides interesting insights on democratic voters, upcoming primaries and even some surprises about the candidate himself as a college student during the 1960s. Bernie Sanders champions voters who feel like they don’t matter in Washington; and because he lets them know that they do matter, Bernie Sanders’Presidential bid matters.

See the full interview: http://www.focuswashington.com/2016/03/11/why-bernie-sanders-matters/

To learn more about the author, see his website at: http://www.harryjaffe.com/

About MSLGROUP

MSLGROUP is Publicis Groupe’s strategic communications and engagement group, advisors in all aspects of communication strategy: from consumer PR to financial communications, from public affairs to reputation management and from crisis communications to experiential marketing and events. With more than 3,000 people across close to 100 offices worldwide, MSLGROUP is also the largest PR network in Europe, fast-growing China and India. The group offers strategic planning and counsel, insight-guided thinking and big, compelling ideas – followed by thorough execution.
www.mslgroup.com | Twitter | Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube | Slideshare | Pinterest

About Publicis Groupe

Publicis Groupe [Euronext Paris FR0000130577, CAC 40] is a global leader in marketing, communication, and business transformation. In a world marked by increased convergence and consumer empowerment, Publicis Groupe offers a full range of services and skills: digital, technology & consulting with Publicis.Sapient (SapientNitro, Sapient Global Markets, Sapient Government Services, Razorfish Global, DigitasLBi, Rosetta) – the world’s largest most forward-thinking digitally centered platform focused exclusively on digital transformation in an always-on world – as well as creative networks such as BBH, Leo Burnett, Publicis Worldwide, Saatchi & Saatchi, public affairs, corporate communications and events with MSLGROUP, ad tech solutions with VivaKi, media strategy, planning and buying through Starcom MediaVest Group and ZenithOptimedia, healthcare communications, with Publicis Healthcare Communications Group (PHCG), and finally, brand asset production with Prodigious. Present in 108 countries, the Groupe employs more than 76,000 professionals.

Trump and Clinton Likely Winners in Florida Primary Races

/in , , /by

SAINT LEO, Fla. /PRNewswire/ — In Florida, Donald Trump is maintaining his lead among GOP presidential candidates, getting the support of 41.4 percent of likely Republican primary voters surveyed this week by the Saint Leo University Polling Institute.

Florida’s own Marco Rubio trailed behind, attracting just 22.8 percent of the 500 Republicans surveyed in the online poll. As for other GOP candidates, 12.4 percent favored U.S. Senator Ted Cruz, and 10.8 percent will vote for former Ohio Governor John Kasich. Another 12.6 percent said they are undecided.

The poll also surveyed 500 likely Democratic Florida primary voters and found U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton strongly in the lead, with 59.4 percent selecting her over U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Sanders supporters amounted to 27 percent of those polled, meaning he was more than 32 points behind Clinton. The proportion of undecided Democrats was 13.6 percent.

Political science instructor Frank Orlando said that Marco Rubio is under intense pressure in his home state. “If he loses Tuesday, he’s effectively done,” said Orlando. “Even if he wins, the road is still very difficult, but one could see him gaining some momentum back and surviving the process. He needs to use Thursday night’s debate performance and all the ground game he can manage to change the tide in a hurry.”

Trump’s results showed broad appeal, but more so among men, particularly among white males. In the poll, 47.3 percent of males said they would vote for Trump compared to 34.2 percent of females. “If he does end up being the [Republican] nominee, we might witness the greatest gender gap in recorded history,” said Orlando.

On the Democratic side, Orlando sees Clinton’s poll results foreshadowing victory in the Florida primary. “Being down by 32 is quite a mountain to climb,” Orlando said. “Also, Florida has a higher minority population and a larger proportion of older voters. Both of these things help Clinton.”

ABOUT THE SAINT LEO UNIVERSITY POLLING INSTITUTE

The Saint Leo University Polling Institute survey results about Florida and national politics, public policy issues, Pope Francis’ popularity, and other topics, can be found here: http://polls.saintleo.edu. You can also follow the institute on Twitter @saintleopolls.

RELATED ARTICLES:

One of the groups organizing against Trump in Chicago was a “refugee rights” group

RNC Launches Website Dedicated to Clinton’s Email Scandal

An Overthrow of the Government

/in , , /by

Sure enough, presidential candidate Donald J. Trump racked up impressive statistics in his Fox News debate tonight, effectively trouncing the competition that included Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, and Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

Once again, however, Fox’s Megyn “hell hath no fury like a woman scorned” Kelly ambushed Mr. Trump by falsely stating that the Better Business Bureau had given Trump University a D-minus rating, when in fact it’s rating is, as Trump asserted, an A!

Here is the Better Business Bureau report, with an ‘A’ grade for Trump University.

trump university bbb report grade a

The same trouncing happened last week when Trump’s victories in the primaries garnered him the lion’s share of electoral votes by winning Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Massachusetts, Tennessee, and Virginia, which, according to Philip Bump of The Washington Post, “no Republican has ever won…going back to 1960.”

Both pundits and pollsters attributed the massive turn-outs to Mr. Trump’s having excited, inspired and therefore mobilized the electorate––in some cases well over 100% increase above the 2012 midterms. In one instance, Mr. Trump beat Sen. Cruz by 450,000 votes; in another he beat Sen. Rubio by over a million votes! According to writers Bill Barrow and Emily Swanson, Trump had “significant support across educational, ideological, age and income classifications.”

In his victory speech last week, looking and sounding presidential, Mr. Trump accurately proclaimed: “We have expanded the Republican Party.”

This ought to have been music to the ears of Republicans everywhere, especially “establishment” types who constantly seek to attract influential voting blocs comprised of African-Americans, Hispanics, and young people, all of whom––mysteriously, incomprehensibly, self-destructively––have huddled under the Democrat tent for decades, gaining not a micrometer of progress in their personal lives, wages, schools, crime rates, the pathetic list is endless.

Trump, only nine months into being a politician, has accomplished this incredible feat. But the more he succeeds, the more the Grand Poobahs of the Grand Old Party, as well as the media (both right and left), have devolved into what appears to be a clinical state of hysteria.

Think about this. Barack Obama’s record violates every principle and value that Republicans and Conservatives claim they stand for. Under his watch, we have…

  • 94-million unemployed Americans
  • An almost-insurmountable debt of nearly $20 trillion
  • Borders so porous that not thousands but millions of unvetted and potentially murderous illegal aliens (i.e., jihadists) have been able to invade our shores and set up their U.S.-government-dependent shop in sanctuary cities around our nation
  • A severely diminished military and nothing less than vile treatment of our veterans
  • Trampling on the Constitution
  • Bypassing Congress to act unilaterally (and illegally)
  • Appeasing our enemies and spitting at our allies

…and yet those same Republicans and Conservatives––in full control of the Senate and House––have been notably absent in mustering up anything more than mild rebuke to counter Mr. Obama’s assaults on our country.

But to them, Trump is the real threat!

BATTEN DOWN THE HATCHES

That’s what the frenzied GOP, media, and also-rans are trying to do, figuratively closing any openings in what they believe is their own personal Ship of State now that the threatening weather called Donald Trump is upon them. They are in a state of impotent horror, given their abject failure––in spite of multimillions spent and generous media assistance––to stem the Trump juggernaut.

Ironic, isn’t it. If any entity deserves a comeuppance, it is the very arrogant, go-along-to-get-along, ineffectual, leftist-whipped, emasculated, cave-to-Obama, bow-to-the-lobbyists, accommodate-the-Arab-lobby establishment!

Impotent? Emasculated? Yes, money and power are mighty motivators, but it is a tacit acknowledgment of their own sissified selves that is now spurring Trump’s critics into action.

And they’re trying their damnedest!

On March 2, a gaggle of Republican national security leaders––no doubt many of them members of the globalist Council on Foreign Relations whose animating raison d’ȇtre would be threatened by a Trump presidency––wrote an open letter to Trump expressing their “united opposition” to his candidacy.”  They don’t like his “vision of American influence and power in the world….advocacy for aggressively waging trade wars…rhetoric [that] undercuts the seriousness of combating Islamic radicalism…insistence that Mexico will fund a wall on the southern border…,” on and on. Comical, isn’t it, that everything they’ve failed to address with any seriousness or success compels them to slam the guy who promises to address those issues and succeed.

On March 3, 22 Republicans––including philandering Congressman Mark Sanford and the execrable Glenn Beck––declared that they would not vote for Trump.

August writers like the Wall St. Journal’s Bret Stephens have been apoplectic about Trump for months, sparing no slur or invective. Author and military historian Max Boot has dug deep into his assault repertoire to make sure no insult has gone unhurled.  And the usually dazzling Andrew C. McCarthy at National Review Online is simply unable to contain his hostility to Trump’s candidacy, just as most of the other writers at NRO have jumped on the anti-Trump bandwagon. And that’s not to omit the florid hysteria emanating from Commentarymagazine.com.

On March 4, desperate anti-Trump operatives pimped out good ole patsy Mitt Romney to go before a teleprompter and read the words written for him by an anti-Trump operative. So sad––a man who once had class.

But no one forgot that Romney, a lifelong liberal, lost both senatorial and presidential elections and that the last image of him––etched indelibly in the American public’s consciousness––was of him debating his rival for the presidency, Barack Obama, and simply folding like a cheap suit!

Romney––who The Wall St. Journal called “a flawed messenger”––didn’t look or sound like he had dementia, so it’s strange indeed that he barely mentioned the endorsement Trump gave him for his campaign for president, and the lavish praise he heaped upon Trump.

Romney’s hit job evoked the following 22-word, devastating and well-deserved tweet from Trump: “Looks like two-time failed candidate Mitt Romney is going to be telling Republicans how to get elected. Not a good messenger!”

All of the abovementioned people––and dozens I haven’t named––are growing frustrated that their old tricks of marginalizing and finally destroying the target in question haven’t worked. They long to emulate the JournOlist  of 2007, when over-400 members of the leftist media colluded to quash any and every criticism or fact-based doubt about Mr. Obama’s Constitutional eligibility to hold office, to intimidate any critic into silence.

To this day, has anyone seen even one of Barack Obama’s college transcripts, his marriage license, a doctor’s evaluation? Now it’s the Republicans––actually those cocktail-swigging “conservatives” who routinely cozy up to the lobbyists they’re beholden to––who have gotten together to defeat Trump. These feckless so-called leaders decided that their target, a self-funded former liberal, was worth more of their negative, insult-laden literary output and passionate commentary than the Marxist-driven, jihadist-defending, anti-Constitutional, anti-American regime in power.

If you ever wonder how this could happen, why Republicans and self-described Conservatives could rebel so ferociously against a candidate who promises to strengthen our military, bring jobs and industry back to America, seal our borders against the  onslaught of illegal aliens, and make America great again, wonder no more.

FOLLOW THE MONEY

Doesn’t it always come down to money? Money leads to power and influence and control, all of which politicians––that too-often pliable and buyable species––lust for. It’s not only the ephemeral day-to-day power they fear losing, it’s the entire network they’re enmeshed in, which involves all the treaties and deals and “arrangements” they’ve signed onto and the pelf it promises to keep on yielding (for Exhibit No. 1, see The Clinton Foundation and the mountain of cash it reaps).

Imagine their fear of a president who actually cuts the pork, actually strikes deals that don’t line his own pockets, actually exposes the bad deals that have been made by the bad players in Washington, D.C. Imagine what Trump will learn about the massive under-the-table, self-serving deals that were made in the Iran deal and others.

The same lust for power applies to media moguls whose wealth is not limited to TV stations and newspapers but to the very deals made by government and on Wall St. No one knows this better than Mr. Trump, the author of the mega-bestseller, The Art of the Deal. That’s why his critics are so terrified. They pretend to be offended by the kind of comment or gesture that they themselves express routinely. But they’re really afraid of being in the presence of someone who is utterly immune to either their blandishments or strong-arm tactics.

Roger Stone, a former advisor to Mr. Trump, told writer S. Noble at WorldNetDaily.com, that the perceived threat is so real that “The GOP establishment would rather suffer through four years of Hillary––whose policies are indistinguishable from Marco Rubio’s or Mitt Romney’s––than to have an outsider be president, like Trump who is beholden to no one.”

As Mark Cunningham wrote in the New York Post: “All the noise about Donald Trump’s ‘hostile takeover’ of the Republican Party misses a key point: Such takeovers only succeed when existing management has failed massively. And that’s true of both the GOP and the conservative movement. Trump’s a disrupter—but most of the fire aimed his way is just shooting the messenger.”

Monica Crowley, editor of online opinion at The Washington Times, explains that the “emotionally fragile Republican ruling class” deluded themselves into thinking that Mr. Trump couldn’t possibly win. “Then actual voting began. And the first-timer, the brash anti-politician, began racking up resounding victories…”

In addition, Crowley writes: “Like his style or not, Mr. Trump is an in-your-face guy. Voters want that kind of guy taking it to President Obama’s record, [to] Hillary Clinton…and to the unbridled, destructive leftism that has rendered America virtually unrecognizable.” And, I might add, taking it to the wimps in the GOP!

Former Governor Mike Huckabee told Fox News that Donald Trump’s success represents a peaceful “overthrow of the government” and that the Republican establishment should be glad it’s being achieved with “ballots not bullets.” He added that the Trump phenomenon was a “political revolution in the Republican Party and in the country.”

Trump the ‘Unifier’, Trump the Individualist, Trump the Republican

/in , , , /by

Super Tuesday voters gave Donald Trump clear wins in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Virginia and Vermont. Senator Ted Cruz won in his home state of Texas and the neighboring state of Oklahoma. Senator Marco Rubio won in Minnesota.

trump supporters youngTrump made a short statement at his Mar-A-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida following the super Tuesday primary results:

I will say this, we have expanded the Republican party. When you look at what’s happened in South Carolina and you see the kind of numbers that we got in terms of extra people coming in. They came from the Democratic party… and they were never going to switch and they all switched. They were Independents. We’ve expanded the party. Look at the number of votes we had in that area as an example. Four years ago they had 390,000 or so votes. We doubled it. We’re almost 800,000. The Democrats went down.

There’s much less enthusiasm for the Democrats. I’m a unifier. I know people will find this hard to believe. Once we get this finished, I’m going to go after one person on the assumption she is allowed to run. I don’t know if she will be allowed to run. I don’t think Marco will be able to beat her. I think Ted will have a very hard time… I just tell you this, we are going to be a much finer party, a much — we’re going to be a unified party. We are going to be a much bigger you can see that happening. We’re going to be a much bigger party. our party is expanding.

All you have to do is take a look at the primary states where I’ve won. Much larger number. I think we’ll be more inclusive and more unified. I think we’ll be a much bigger party. I think we’re going to win in November.

It is clear that Donald Trump has energized the electorate, driving voters to the polls to support the Republican party in record numbers.

Ayn Rand wrote a short nineteen page paper asking: What is the basic issue facing the world today? Rand, in her paper makes the case that, “The basic issue in the world today is between two principles: Individualism and Collectivism.” Rand defines these two principles as follows:

  • Individualism – Each man exists by his own right and for his own sake, not for the sake of the group.
  • Collectivism – Each man exists only by the permission of the group and for the sake of the group.

It is becoming clearer that on November 8th the battle will be between a Collectivist (either Hillary Clinton or Senator Bernie Sanders) and an Individualist, Donald J. Trump.

French historian Alexis de Tocqueville  (1805-1859)  wrote, “The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.”

Let the people chose which path they will follow. Will they follow those who “bribe the people with their own money” or those who remain dedicated to preserving the Republic? That is the basic issue facing America today.

gop delegate count

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Trump Insurgency

Trump Has It Right

Super PAC Helping Elect Republicans Supporting a Conservative Clean Energy Agenda

/in , , , /by

CHARLOTTE, N.C. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Conservative philanthropist Jay Faison today announced the formation of ClearPath Action, a new independent expenditure-only political action committee being established to help elect Republicans to public office and advance a conservative clean energy policy agenda for GOP lawmakers.  Faison is also the CEO and founder of ClearPath, a private non-profit foundation dedicated to accelerating conservative clean energy policy solutions.

“No one is currently providing enough support to candidates who embrace conservative clean energy principles and feel compelled to talk about clean energy as part of their campaign,” said Faison in announcing the effort.  “We’re forming this committee to make an impact, provide support, and help Republicans this election cycle and in future election cycles.”

“We know that Democrats are using clean energy as a wedge issue and we’re committed to fighting back and going on offense for the GOP,” added Faison.  “We don’t have to agree on climate change to agree that Republicans can support a conservative clean energy platform that provides energy security, creates jobs and boosts our economy, and reduces pollution.”

clearpat actionABOUT CLEARPATH ACTION

ClearPath Action is building a sophisticated campaign infrastructure with plans to help support multiple Republican candidates throughout the country in 2016.

For more information on ClearPath Action, visit www.ClearPathAction.org.

Is Trump Trustworthy? Is Cruz Likable?

/in , , , , , /by

A puzzling mindset has emerged in some conservatives regarding Cruz. A publisher who usually publishes my articles rejected one touting Ted Cruz for president. The publisher politely lectured me about my support for Cruz; calling it misguided and even non Christian. I love the way when people know you are Christian they try to use your faith to manipulate you. (smile)

Conservatives choosing to perceive Trump as they want him to be is a reflection of their anger, frustration and fear of losing their country. I witnessed this phenomenon when Trump first announced his campaign. An evangelical minister attempted to convince me that Trump is a committed Christian. I was a bit taken aback. While I do not think poorly of Trump, it never occurred to me to use the words “Trump” and “Christian” in the same sentence. My Evangelical brother’s effort to make Trump a strong Christian confirmed that Conservatives are desperate. Pure and simple.

The reality is many conservatives will follow anyone promising “real” change in Washington. Given the betrayal, heartache and disappointment that the GOP has put tea partiers/patriots through, I cannot criticize my patriot brothers and sisters who support Trump. It kind of offends me when I hear conservative pundits trashing Trump supporters; in essence, beating up on the victims.

I will state again that if Trump becomes our GOP nominee, I will wave “Vote Trump!” signs on street corners. However, I do have concerns about the man. I am not talking about the mainstream media, Democrats and RINO’s accusations about Trump.

As a matter of fact, please allow me to digress for a moment. I heard a report that British politicians have half a million signatures on a petition supportive of banning Trump from the UK because of his proposal to temporarily ban Muslims from the U.S. Folks, this infuriated me. I thought, “Just because you idiots have surrendered to political correctness and allowed Muslim terrorists to dominate your country, does not mean we should do the same in the US!”

Back to my issues with Trump. My dad said a snake can swim under water a very long time just like a fish. However, it eventually has to come up for air because it is not a fish, it is a snake. Folks, I am not calling Trump a snake. I am simply saying while Trump has touted conservative values during his campaign, Trump’s history is not conservative. Perhaps, Trump has had a road to Damascus conversion and is now a rabid conservative. Who knows? But why risk it?

A wise person said, “The best predictor of future behavior is… past behavior.” Folks, I suspect that there is very little doubt in your mind as to who Ted Cruz is and what he will do as president. Cruz has a history of rock solid conservatism.

And dare I mention the “C” word, character. Cruz proudly proclaims his Christianity. Real religious conviction affects ones character/behavior. I want my president to believe that there is a God and that it is not him.

“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom…” Proverbs 8:10

William Bradford, the Christian who lead the pilgrims on the Mayflower to the new world, seeking religious freedom, knew this scripture to be true. Bradford was very outspoken about his belief and trust in God to lead them to their new home in the new world; built on the unique concept of individual freedom.

What I found most distressing about SCOTUS, in essence, making same sex marriage the law of the land is the Left’s successful effort to make normal what has been considered deviant since the beginning of time. SCOTUS’s decision opened the floodgates not for tolerance, but for Americans to be bullied into embracing anti-biblical behavior. Why do same sex couples force Christian businesses to service their weddings rather than going to businesses with flashing neon signs, “We Service Homosexual Weddings”? Clearly, their agenda is not about getting a wedding cake and all about the Left’s intolerance of Christians.

It still blows my mind that Christians are actually being thrown into jail in the United States of America for not embracing sodomy. Ted Cruz has vowed to defend religious freedom. I know he will.

A tea party group leader said they feel like Cruz is lecturing them when he speaks. I thought, “Excuse me. With a morally bankrupted anti-America scoundrel like Barack Obama running our country for eight years, America desperately needs a leader/Commander-in-Chief of the highest character and moral standards”. No way, would I reject such a candidate because I feel a bit intimidated in their presence. In a field of two-faced, say-whatever-necessary-to-win candidates, I say praise God for a candidate who truly stands for something (conservatism).

When I was a child, I assumed all US presidents were exceptional people of the highest character. Man, was I wrong. Americans long for a great trustworthy and moral leader. America desperately needs Ted Cruz.

RELATED ARTICLE: What Trump and Sanders Said about Oil Prices 4 Years Ago

Trump, Cruz and New York Values

/in , , , /by

New York City values are going through the roof. And it’s not just real estate. A prime story the last many days has been the GOP debate dust-up between Donald Trump and Senator Ted Cruz. After the senator impugned “New York values” in an effort to call into question the businessman’s conservative bona fides, Trump responded with an impassioned defense of New Yorkers’ character. Trump won the exchange on style with rhetorical effectiveness, but, frankly, Cruz was right on substance.

This is not a commentary on whether Trump exemplifies NY values. In fact, I love most of what The Donald is saying; furthermore, while I have great respect for Cruz, the fact that no other candidate Thursday night could join Trump in supporting a halt to Muslim immigration — a common-sense measure — calls their qualifications for the presidency into question. But this isn’t a commentary on that, either, or on NY values, although I will touch on them. This article is about something far deeper.

All of us generalize. And most of us bristle at generalizations we don’t’ like — whether true or not. It’s then that we, waxing emotional, may complain about the “folly of generalization.”

Now, it may come as a shock to the critics of mine who suppose I live in West Virginia and eat chicken-fried steak, but I was born in NY and grew up in NYC — the Bronx, to be precise. And believe me, there are NY values (along with an ever decreasing number of NY virtues). Moreover, as Cruz said, most people know what they are. Trump certainly does; after all, he referenced his NY values in a 1999 interview. And while radio host and Trump supporter Michael Savage, another man I greatly respect, took exception to Cruz’ remarks, I remember when he complained on air that Vermont was ruined and became Sandersized when too many New Yorkers moved there.

What are NY values? Well, state residents elected a governor who said in 2014 that pro-life, pro-Second Amendment conservatives “have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are’”; and the Big Apple elevated to mayor Bolshevik Bill, a Marxist who honeymooned in Cuba and once raised money for the Sandinistas. You figure it out.

My real concern here, however, is not how people value New Yorkers or Cruz or Trump, but how they value generalization itself. For our refusal to properly generalize is one of the characteristic faults of our time — and a dangerous one at that.

Here’s a good example: if it’s wrong to generalize about New Yorkers because, in principle, it’s wrong to generalize, how can we then generalize about terrorists or Muslims? Doesn’t it make it harder to justify a halt to Muslim immigration if generalization is taken off the table? So some may get offended and say “Not all New Yorkers are liberals,” but this is reminiscent of liberals opposing common-sense profiling and saying “Not all Muslims are terrorists” (or “Not all terrorists are Muslim”). In point of fact, the percentage of Muslims who are terrorists is lower than the percentage of New Yorkers who are liberal, but this is irrelevant. The fact that virtually all the terrorists bedeviling us are Muslim is significant and indicates the importance of honest examination of Islamic values — which, like NY values, certainly exist.

The reality is that “not all _____ are _____” is not a valid argument against generalization, only reflective of a misunderstanding of it. If I say “Men are taller than women,” it’s silly to respond “But not all men are taller than all women!” After all, I didn’t say “all” and wasn’t implying the absence of individual variation; rather, I was referring to men and women as groups. And just as we must judge every individual as an individual and not paint everyone with the same brush, we must judge an individual group as an individual group and not paint every one with the same brush.

In fact, the only reason we can even identify groups as “groups” is that there are differences among them. And barring the rare cases in which groups are differentiated solely by location (as when dividing a class of boys into two groups placed at different tables), those differences are often neither arbitrary nor insignificant. Is location the only thing differentiating Afghans from Americans? Is location the only thing differentiating New Yorkers from Alabamans? Just as there’ll be very different government if you replace the 320 million Americans in the US with 320 million Muslims, there’ll be very different state government if you replace the 4.8 million Alabamans in Alabama with average New Yorkers.

In fairness, most NY counties without big population centers are red. “Aha,” you say, “what about those rural values in the Empire State?!” Yes, there can be sub-groups within groups, and there is a general ideological divide between the woods and the hoods. But the point is that speaking of “rural values” is a generalization, too — and a correct one.

Why does this matter? Question: who’s in closer touch with reality, someone who only understands individual variation or someone who also understands group variation? In fact, the latter is necessary for survival. Just as being able to judge individual character (as when choosing a babysitter) is important, so is being able to judge group character (related to this is being able to properly judge what faults are found mostly in a given group, even if they’re exhibited by only a minority in the group). This is especially true given that understanding group character aids in assessing individual character.

This is not synonymous with prejudice. It rather is part of profiling, which, to paraphrase Dr. Walter Williams, is a method by which we can make determinations based on scant information when the cost of obtaining more information is too high. For example, since an Israeli airport-security agent can’t spend a month living with and becoming acquainted with every traveler, he must make judgments based on group associations; thus, knowing not all Muslims are terrorists but virtually all Mideast terrorists are Muslim, he’ll scrutinize a Muslim flier more closely.

We all make such generalization/profiling-based judgments. A stranded woman motorist may refuse to roll down her window and accept aid from a young man with greasy hair who’s peppered with tattoos and body-piercings; of course, he could conceivably be well-meaning, but this is a situation where she really does have to judge the book by its cover. Likewise, she may refuse to lower her window for any man, knowing that while most men aren’t rapists, most all rapists are men. I’m not hiring a member of the Communist Party USA as a babysitter no matter how pleasant the person appears. And not all dogs bite, but it’s still a good policy to not pet strange dogs.

Doctors also must consider group characteristics, to do their patients justice. For example, understanding that Pima Indians have the world’s highest diabetes rate and that black men’s prostate-cancer rate is twice white men’s can serve as indicators for screening. And only women are routinely examined for breast cancer even though men occasionally develop the disease.

Of course, no good person wants generalization to descend into prejudice, a fault man so often exhibits. But to consequently dismiss generalization, and thus throw out of the baby with the bathwater, is much like dispensing with medical diagnostics merely because witch doctors have existed. Moreover, note that since “prejudice” is defined as “an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason,” such an uninformed, unfavorable opinion of generalization is a prejudice itself. And it’s a prejudice that can get you killed.

Bernie’s Bolsheviks vs. Donald’s Trumpites

/in , , , /by

Bolshevik: Russian for “One of the Majority.” There appear to be two movements in the 2016 presidential primary race. One is led by Bernie Sanders and his Bolsheviks. The other is lead by Donald Trump and those who “Want to Make America Great, Again”, known at Trumpites. One movement promotes collectivism, the other individualism. Ayn Rand defines the principles underlying these movements as follows:

  • Individualism – Each man exists by his own right and for his own sake, not for the sake of the group.
  • Collectivism – Each man exists only by the permission of the group and for the sake of the group (i.e. One of the Majority).

Question: Which movement will win on November 8th, 2016?

Chris Stirewalt from Fox News reports:

Hillary Clinton’s campaign network is riot with talk about socialism, seeping in under the door or perhaps in the fluoridated water. You never know where the “conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids” will turn up.

Among those warning of socialist creep is prominent Clinton booster, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon, who got double coupons for warning of a threat to the very heartland of the nation. “Here in the heartland, we like our politicians in the mainstream, and he is not — he’s a socialist,” Nixon told the NYT.

The sinister socialist to whom Nixon is referring is 74-year-old Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who has been in Congress since 1991 and for all of his adamancy about being an independent and a, yes, socialist has almost always been a perfectly pliant supporter of the Democratic party. Read more.

Megan Kelly Tweeted: A stunning new poll out of  with the below graphic:

poll out of New Hampshire

I recently wrote a column titled “The Trump Insurgency.” In that column I noted:

The definition of an insurgency is a “rebellion against an existing government by a group not recognized as a belligerent.”

Is it Trump who created an insurgency or is Trump following the lead of a growing insurgency that was already taking place? I have written that Trump leads his followers by following their lead. The movement began during the Presidency of Bill Clinton and continues today. It is a struggle between the individualist and the collectivist.

The choice for America is between a collectivist form of government or one that returns power to the people.

In a column titled “Government Caused the ‘Great Stagnation‘” Peter J. Boettke, Professor of Economics and Philosophy at George Mason University, discusses how government has outgrown America’s ability to pay for it. Boettke writes, “Government is too big, too bloated. Washington faces a spending problem, not a revenue problem. But too many within the economy depend on the government transfers to live and to work. Yet the economy is not growing at a rate that can afford the illusion. Where are we to go from here?”

Boettke labels totalitarian government as “Stupidity.” Boettke notes that, “[W]e fought off (in the West, at least) totalitarian government (Stupidity).”

However, that has changed. Today stupidity reigns supreme with more and more citizens receiving government subsidies and largess.

If either Hillary or Sanders wins the Democratic Party nomination for president, we could see the party at the last minute recruit Uncle Joe Biden to run.

This would be a last ditch effort to end the stupidity, or maybe not?

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Trump: Biden would run if Clinton indicted

World faces wave of epic debt defaults, fears central bank veteran

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of Senator Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump is courtesy of AP/Jacquelyn Martin/Seth Wenig/Photo montage by Salon.