Tag Archive for: Republican

Republican Tim Scott Doesn’t Run from his Blackness

/in , , /by

In the past, I have been extremely critical of so-called Black Republicans, as well as so-called Black conservatives – and that’s not going to change. Too often they feel the need to check their Blackness at the door under the perverted guise of currying favor with Whites within the party.

These are the type of Blacks that many in the party want to showcase. Getting on FOX News Channel seems to be their ultimate prize of validation. Most of these Blacks have no relationship with our community; and come across as so extreme that no one takes them seriously, other than FOX. Yet, many of these Blacks have become the public face of Black Republicans.

But South Carolina senator, Tim Scott, is everything a true Black Republican could and should be. He is Black and proud of it. His Blackness is what he is; his values are who he is.

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, an Indian-American, appointed Scott to fill the U.S. Senate seat that was vacated by Jim DeMint in 2013, making him the first Black senator from South Carolina and the first from the South since 1881; Republican Blanche Kelso Bruce of Mississippi had been the last.

Prior to his appointment to the Senate, Scott was elected in November 2010 to represent South Carolina’s 1st congressional district in the U.S. House of Representatives, the first Black Republican from the state since George W. Murray in 1897. Scott has also served in the South Carolina General Assembly (2009-2011) and on the Charleston County Council from 1996-2008. He and Corey Booker (D-N.J.) are the only two Blacks serving in the U.S. Senate.

To his credit, Scott has not bought into the ridiculous notion that you can’t be Black and Republican, too. I have never heard him make the asinine statement that “I am not a Black senator, I am a senator who happens to be Black,” as though he was just walking down the street and “Blackness” suddenly jumped all over him.

He realizes, like we all should, that his Blackness doesn’t define who he is, but rather the values and the choices he makes for his life. Unlike many Blacks in the past, he has willingly embraced the opportunities to speak to Black audiences anytime the national party has asked him.

Scott fully embraces opportunities presented by the national party to expand the base of the party; while being very cognizant that his first obligation is to the people of South Carolina. They are not mutually exclusive goals.

Scott has made it a point to visit all eight Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) in his state. He actively embraces and seeks opportunities to meet and engage with Black voters of South Carolina whether they vote for him or not.

Several times a year he goes undercover and works low-wage jobs so he can learn what his average constituents go through. He does all this with no media fanfare or staff. Here is how the Washington Post reported on one such encounter, “James Copeland, who recently worked alongside Scott at a Goodwill store in Greenville, S.C. When Copeland – an African-American – was told of Scott’s identity, he responded positively. Oh, wow, I thought he was just some guy off the street. He was really speaking on my level. I felt like I can relate to him. I’d vote for him. Absolutely.”

Another major criticism I have made about Black Republicans is their refusal to hire Blacks on their staffs. This is not the case with Scott. His office is like a mini-United Nations. He actually has Blacks who have authority to make things happen. By doing do, he is opening doors for them to be future powerbrokers within the party.

Two months ago, Scott authored a non-binding resolution in the Senate promoting diversity in hiring. According to Scott, “The ultimate goal of the resolution was to hopefully heighten awareness of the opportunities to create the workforce of the future, today.” Republican senators, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Marco Rubio of Florida, Deb Fischer of Nebraska and Rob Portman of Ohio all signed on as co-sponsors.

While these actions by Scott might seem small in the larger scheme of things, they are not. In the past, figures such as Senator Ed Brooke (R-Mass.), Secretary of Transportation Bill Coleman and Assistant Labor Secretary of Labor Art Fletcher were Republicans who never comprised their blackness. In recent years, however, it has almost a requirement that a Black Republican distance himself from his race to move ahead in the party. Scott may represent a long overdue shift in the other direction.

Through his actions, Scott has proven that Black Republicans don’t have to check their Blackness at the door. Being Black and Republican is not an either/or proposition; but rather a both/and proposition. Now, if we can just get more party members to understand the importance of what Scott is doing.

Peterson Vazquez, My Hispanic Patriot Brother Hero

/in , , , /by
PetersonVazquez-assembly

For a larger view click on the image.

Quoting the Pointer Sisters, “I’m so excited!” Peterson Vazquez is a conservative Republican running for the New York State Assembly

This Hispanic epitomizes the conservative message we must spread to minorities and low info voters. America is the greatest land of opportunity on the planet. Anyone can achieve their American Dream via education, hard work and responsible choices. Folks, them there are fightin’ words to the Democrats and MSM. Minorities are suppose to act like powerless victims of a racist America, unable to achieve without Democrat lowered standards and entitlement programs.

Vazquez was a school dropout who turned his life around; served 13 years in the Army, a disabled veteran, a husband, a father, a small business owner who started from nothing, a Christian and a community leader, running as a Conservative Republican – a great American Dream story. I know Democrats are repulsed, but I can hardly contain my excitement.

A poor rebellious Hispanic kid rising to achieve great success in America. Vazquez’s success flies in the face of the Democrats’ sacred cow false narrative.

Why did this guy choose to become a Republican? Calm down Lloyd. I see your hand raised. Okay, go head. Answer the question. Vazquez chose the Republican party because it truly is the party for dreamers; people who want more out of life for their families and themselves than food stamps and a free Obama phone.

Boldly articulating conservative principles, Vazquez has captured the imagination of the people of Henrietta, Rochester and beyond. Despite having no money or name recognition, Vazquez won 36% of the vote when he ran two years ago. This time around, his star is rising with a growing base of grassroot supporters.

I am excited folks!

Vazquez is being challenged by dueling Nemeses; Democrats and the GOP establishment. It appears that Vazquez’s conservative principles are an anathema to the local non-supportive Republican party; choosing to ignore him.

A local radio show exposed the GOP’s attempt to sabotage Vazquez.

I realize that running for the New York State Assembly is not a high profile national race. However, my gut tells me that this man has the ability to inspire a younger demographic of minority low info voters with his conservative message. We must bolster Vazquez’s efforts with our prayers and support.

I would like to see a major Tea Party organization host a local rally for Vazquez with national minority speakers such as Katrina Pierson, Herman Cain, Kevin Jackson and myself. I would love to sing and speak at a Vazquez rally. What a great minority outreach opportunity, sharing our stories how we achieved our American Dreams via Conservatism. This could be the start of something big.

Folks, check out his website. Watch his video (below). You will be uplifted and impressed as I.

Then, send this courageous young man a check, wave signs, volunteer or send him a note of encouragement. Catching it from both sides of the political isle, Vazquez needs to know his conservative family across America has his back.

Thanks and God bless.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of Peterson Vazquez speaking at an event is courtesy of WN.com.

Selling Our Soul for Votes

/in , , , , /by

America has a two choices: Go left like the Democrats have done or return to the God and Country principles that founded America. Time to sow some different seeds. Selling our Republican souls by attracting “pro-perversion voters” is the wrong strategy to take back the U.S. Senate.

Libertarian Folly: Why Everybody is a Social-issues Voter

/in , , , , /by

There is this notion, one we hear more and more, that the Republican Party has to shed the social issues to seize the future. “Social issues are not the business of government!” says thoroughly modern millennial. It’s a seductive cry, one repeated this past Tuesday in an article about how some young libertarians dubbed the “Liberty Kids” are taking over the moribund Los Angeles GOP. Oh, wouldn’t the political landscape be simple if we could just boil things down to fiscal responsibility? But life is seldom simple.

If you would claim to be purely fiscal, or assert that “social issues” should never be government’s domain, I’d ask a simple question: Would you have no problem with a movement to legalize pedophilia?

Some responses here won’t go beyond eye-rolling and scoffing. Others will verbalize their incredulity and say that such a movement would never be taken seriously. This is not an answer but a dodge. First, the way to determine if one’s principles are sound is by seeing if they can be consistently applied. For instance, if someone claims he never judges others, it’s legitimate to ask whether he remains uncritical even of Nazis and KKK members; that puts the lie to his self-image. And any thinking person lives an examined life and tries to hone his principles.

Second, there is no never-land in reality. People in the ’50s would have said that homosexuality will “never” be accepted in the U.S. And Bill O’Reilly said as recently as 15 or 16 years ago that faux marriage (I don’t use the term “gay marriage”) would “never” be accepted in America. Sometimes “never” lasts only a decade or two.

Third, my question is no longer just theoretical. As I predicted years ago and wrote about here, there now is a movement afoot — one that has received “unbiased” mainstream-media news coverage — to legitimize pedophilia. Moreover, it has co-opted the language of the homosexual lobby, with doctors suggesting that pedophiles are “born that way” and have a “deep-rooted predisposition that does not change.”  A film reviewer characterizing pedophilia as “the love that dare not speak its name” and activists saying that lust for children is “normative” and those acting on it are unjustly “demonized.” Why, one Los Angeles Times article quoted a featured pedophile as saying, “These people felt they could snuff out the desire, or shame me into denying it existed. But it’s as intrinsic as the next person’s heterosexuality.”

My, where have we heard that before?

So, modern Millie, as we venture further down the rabbit hole, know that one day you may be among “these people,” these intolerant folks who just can’t understand why “social issues” should be kept out of politics and government out of the bedroom.

I should also point out that a movement advancing bestiality has also reared its head, using much of the same language as the homosexual and pedophiliac lobbies.

Of course, I’m sure that many libertarians have no problem with legalized bestiality; hey, my goat, my choice, right? And there may even be a rare few who would shrug off pedophilia, saying that, well, if a child agrees, who am I to get in the way of a consensual relationship? But these issues, as revolting and emotionally charged as they are, are just examples. There are a multitude of others, and this becomes clear if we delve a bit more deeply.

After all, what are “social issues”? What are we actually talking about? We’re speaking of moral issues, which, again, thoroughly modern millie would say should be kept out of politics. But this is impossible. For the truth is that every just law is an imposition of morality or a corollary thereof — every one.

Eyes may be rolling again, but let’s analyze it logically. By definition a law is a removal of a freedom, stating that there is something we must or must not do. Now, stripping freedom away is no small matter. Why would we do it? Unless we’re sociopathic, like Aleister Crowley believe “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law” and are willing to impose our will simply because it feels right, there could be only one reason: we see the need to enforce an element of a conception of right and wrong. We prohibit an act because we believe it’s wrong or mandate something because we believe it’s a moral imperative. This is indisputable. After all, would you forcibly prevent someone from doing something that wasn’t wrong? Would you force someone to do something that wasn’t a moral imperative? That would be truly outrageous — genuine tyranny.

There are laws where this is obvious and unquestioned, such as the prohibition against murder. But the same holds true even when the connection to morality isn’t so obvious, such as with speed laws: they’re justified by the idea that it is wrong to endanger others.

Then there is legislation such as ObamaCare. The wind beneath its wings was the idea that it was wrong to leave people without medical care; this case was consistently made, and, were it not for this belief, the bill could never have gotten off the ground. Or consider the contraception mandate and the supposed “war on women”: the issue would have been moot if we believed there was nothing wrong with waging a war on women.

Some will now protest, saying that there is nothing moral about ObamaCare and the contraception mandate. I agree, but this just proves my point. Note that my initial assertion was not that every law is the imposition of morality — it was that every just law is so. Some legislation is based on a mistaken conception of right and wrong, in which case it is merely the imposition of values, which are not good by definition (Mother Teresa had values, but so did Hitler). It is only when the law has a basis in morality, in Moral Truth, which is objective, that it can be just. Hence the inextricable link between law and morality. For a law that isn’t the imposition of morality is one of two other things: the legislation of nonsense or, worse still, the imposition of immorality.

So this is the fatal flaw behind the attack on social conservatives. It would be one thing if the only case made were that their conception of morality was flawed; instead, as with those who sloppily bemoan all “judgment,” they’re attacked with a flawed argument, the notion that their voices should be ignored because they would “impose morality.” But what we call “social conservatives” aren’t distinguished by concern for social issues; the only difference between them and you, modern Millie, is that they care about the social issues that society, often tendentiously, currently defines as social issues and which we happen to be fighting about at the moment. This is seldom realized because most people are creatures of the moment.

But rest assured that, one day, the moment and “never” will meet. And then you very well may look in the mirror and recognize that most unfashionable of things: a social-issues voter.

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

Looking Ahead to November

/in , , , /by

In an October 30, 2008 campaign rally on the campus of my beloved alma mater, the University of Missouri, Barack Obama uttered words that will define him for all time.  He said:

 “After decades of broken politics in Washington, and eight years of failed policies from George W. Bush, and 21 months of a campaign that’s taken us from the rocky coast of Maine to the sunshine of California, we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.  In five days, you can turn the page on policies that put greed and irresponsibility on Wall Street before the hard work and sacrifice of folks on Main Street.  In five days, you can choose policies that invest in our middle class, and create new jobs, and grow this economy, so that everyone has a chance to succeed, not just the CEO, but the secretary and janitor, not just the factory owner, but the men and women on the factory floor.  In five days, you can put an end to the politics that would divide a nation just to win an election, that tries to pit region against region, and city against town, and Republican against Democrat, that asks — asks us to fear at a time when we need to hope.”

It was all a big lie.  Since entering the White House on January 20, 2009, Barack Obama has done the exact opposite of everything he promised in that tirade.  And now, after five years, six months, and twelve days of his destructive leadership, the only hope the American people are left with is the hope that the next two years, five months, and nineteen days will pass quickly.

His idea of fundamentally transforming the United States was a clear miscalculation on his part.  What he clearly fails to understand is that the American people yearn not for transformation, but for fundamental improvement in the quality of our government and common sense solutions to a host of difficult and intractable problems.  They were not looking for someone to fundamentally transform what has been the greatest, most prosperous nation on Earth.

He leaves in his wake a longer list of failures than any president in history.  His most significant “contribution” to the nation is the all but certain reality that he will be forever remembered  as the worst president in American history.  No previous president, of either party, has been responsible for the kind of self-inflicted damage that Obama has done to his own party.

During his first two years in office his greatest accomplishment was passage of the Affordable Care Act, taking control of seventeen percent of the nation’s economy, while running up more national debt and creating more joblessness than all of his predecessors combined.  As a result, the 2010 general elections proved to be an unmitigated disaster for the Democrat Party.

In that election, Republicans reversed their losses of 2006 and 2008, gaining a net sixty-three seats in the House of Representatives.  It was the greatest loss of House seats experienced by either party in more than seventy years.  In the Senate, Republicans gained a net of six seats, expanding their minority from forty-one to forty-seven seats.  Republicans took control of twenty-nine of the fifty governorships, while gaining a total of 628 seats in the state legislatures.  The state legislative victories gave Republicans control of twenty-six state legislatures, making it possible for right-to-work legislation to be adopted in heavily unionized “rust belt” states such as Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin.

It was a whuppin’ of epic proportions, but it likely will pale in comparison to what awaits Democrats in November 2014.  With Obama’s job approval ratings bouncing around in the thirties and low forties and a long list of messy scandals that surpass the worst of the worst among “banana republic” dictators, there’s not much for Democrat candidates to run on.

In the 2014 Senate races, Democrats are forced to defend twenty-one seats to the Republicans fifteen.  Of the twenty-one Democrat seats, only eight can be seen as solidly Democratic, while fourteen of the fifteen Republican seats will almost certainly remain in Republican hands.  Most likely pickups of Democrat seats by Republicans are in Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Dakota, and West Virginia.  Those six seats alone would give Republicans a simple majority of fifty-one seats in the Senate.

However, of the remaining fifteen Democratic seats, Republicans are within striking distance of capturing seats in Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Oregon.  Republicans are also looking forward to potential wins in Minnesota and Montana where incumbent Democrats Al Franken and John Walsh, respectively, have been devastated by charges of plagiarism.  The one seat currently held by Republicans that is in some doubt is the Georgia seat of Saxby Chambliss, where Republicans will face Michelle Nunn, daughter of the late senator Sam Nunn.

It is easy to see how Republicans could gain a total of ten seats, perhaps eleven or twelve if all of the “stars are in alignment” on Election Day.  But what is seldom mentioned by political prognosticators is the possible outcome of House races in the shadow of a highly unpopular president and a do-nothing Democrat-controlled Senate.

In the House of Representatives, Republicans now hold a thirty-three seat majority over Democrats, 234 to 201.  However, a cursory analysis of House races, using 2012 margins as a benchmark, it appears as if Republicans could pick up a total of nineteen Democratic seats in the states of Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia.  Those nineteen seats would give the GOP a comfortable 253 to 182 vote majority in the House.

Taken together, those gains in the House and Senate would represent Obama’s worst nightmare, making his last two years in office a living hell and giving minority leader Nancy Pelosi the ever-shrinking minority that she so richly deserves.  And while some observers may consider my predictions to be overly optimistic, I would remind them of the likely impact of major increases in healthcare premiums to be announced by insurers during the month of October, just days before Barack Obama’s Waterloo; the federal court’s ruling that the Department of Justice must turn over documents relating to the Fast & Furious scandal; and the beginning of televised hearings by the Benghazi Select Committee, chaired by tough former prosecutor, Trey Gowdy (R-SC).  These are issues that Democrat own, lock-stock-and-barrel, but wish they didn’t.

The importance of the 2014 mid-term elections cannot be overstated.  Although Democrats have taken the United States far down the road to a European-style socialist state, there is still time to reverse that trend so long as our electorate is composed of a majority of working men and women, tax payers, and property owners.  We simply cannot allow Democrats to import an additional ten or twelve million voters across our southern border… illegal aliens that Democrats will herd into the voting booths as they did in 1996, when they sent hundreds of thousands of letters, over Bill Clinton’s signature, to illegal aliens in California granting them the right to vote in the November General Election.

Of course, all of this depends on the ability of Republicans to recognize that, on all of the most important issues of the day, the American people agree with core Republican principles by large majorities.  One would think that the Republican Senatorial Committee and the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee would be able to develop a long list of talking points that would totally disarm Democrat candidates.  But that is far from a certainty.  For example, Barack Obama, his Kool-Ade drinkers in Congress, and their lapdogs in the mainstream media maintain a constant drumbeat on issues such as immigration reform, charging that Obama is unable to deal with the hordes illegally crossing our southern border because he is forced to deal with a do-nothing Congress.

To date, I have yet to hear a single congressional Republican pose the question: what good is it for Congress to pass “comprehensive” immigration reform when we are saddled with an outlaw president who cannot be trusted to enforce the law… not even statutes that he, himself, has signed… and a Democrat-controlled Senate that refuses to consider any Republican bill?

Nor have I heard a single congressional Republican challenge the Democratic members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee as they turn the committee’s public hearings into IRS wrongdoing into a partisan political circus.  Not one Republican member has pointed out that most IRS employees are members of the 150,000-member National Treasury Employees Union… a union that gives nearly ninety-five percent of its PAC contributions to Democrats.  Is there really any doubt why Committee Democrats are so uncritical of their IRS benefactors?  The only person to make that connection publicly is Oklahoma attorney Cleeta Mitchell, who represents a number of conservative organizations targeted by the IRS.

It has become a cliché that congressional Republicans are so out of touch with Republican principles that they are often indistinguishable from Democrats.  It is exciting to contemplate what should happen in November, but given the poor quality of the Republican leadership and the meekness of the rank-and-file, the outcome is totally in doubt.  Left to their own devices, congressional Republicans can easily “screw up a one-car funeral.”

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of American Immigration Council and Shutterstock.

A Titan Falls: Politicians Befriend Big Business, Undermine Free Market by Doug Bandow

/in , , , /by

For most people politics looks like a game about who is up or down. Sometimes established favorites win big. Other times long-shots burst forth and upset the established order. The horse race tends to most capture public attention.

The recent Republican primary defeat of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor was one of the bigger shocks to American politics in some time. Two decades ago Democratic House Speaker Tom Foley was ousted in the general election. Fourteen years before that House Majority Whip John Brademas of Indiana went down to defeat. However, congressional leaders usually are handily reelected. Once they are known to for bringing home the bacon for local folks, they become as titans bestriding the world.

But Cantor’s loss will have a much larger impact than simply reshuffling who enjoys the biggest offices on Capitol Hill. He gave lip service to fiscal responsibility but was, argued Nick Gillespie of Reason, “atrocious and hypocritical in all the ways that a Republican can be,” constantly voting to grow government.

Indeed, Cantor’s constituency was as much corporate America as it was Virginia voters. Business was counting on his support to push through reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, long known as “Boeing’s Bank” for the extensive benefits lavished on one company; extension of terrorism risk insurance, which transfers financial liability for loss from firms to taxpayers; and preservation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which nearly wrecked the economy while subsidizing homeowners, builders, and lenders.

Cantor’s loss, said the Washington Post, was “bad news for big business.” The New York Times observed that Cantor was “a powerful ally of business big and small, from giants like Boeing to the many independently owned manufacturers and wholesalers that rely on the federal government for financial support.” He was also “one of Wall Street’s most reliable benefactors in Congress.” His opponent, an economics professor, targeted Cantor’s crony politics.

In practice Cantor’s loss changes little. His replacement as House Majority Leader, California’s Keven McCarthy, appears no less political than Cantor. McCarthy also has relied on Wall Street for fundraising. However, while previously voting to reauthorize the bank, he recently said he would prefer to let the institution’s charter expire. He once owned a sandwich shop, and therefore understands the problems of small business.

Suffering near political death was Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), who trailed a Tea Party-backed state senator in the initial primary vote and narrowly won the runoff, apparently with Democratic support. Widely viewed as the “king of pork,” Cochran relied on his ability to raid the Treasury to pay off fellow Mississippians. Noted the New York Times, the one-time Appropriations Committee chairman and several predecessors all used “their perches on the powerful Appropriations Committees of their chambers to shower their impoverished state with federal funds.”

Cochran also has been a regular supporter of business subsidies. Which is why corporate America returned the favor. Economic elites surprised by Cantor’s loss “are moving quickly to ensure that Mr. Cochran does not meet the same fate,” reported the Times. The incumbent Senate Republican raised $800,000 at just one fund-raiser targeting corporate lobbyists. Big firms like General Atomics and Raytheon have given generously to groups backing Cochran.

It long has been evident that the greatest enemies of capitalism are the capitalists. Even Adam Smith, the famed author of The Wealth of Nations and great proponent of free markets, warned that businessmen oft gathered together to conspire against the public for their own gain. Today it is hard for them to resist doing so. When “everyone” is doing it, who wants to be left out? Especially with boards and shareholders to satisfy.

Of course, business is not alone in shoving its snout into the federal trough. Big Labor and many other influential interests do so as well. However, the disjunction of simultaneously praising and undermining the free market is particularly jarring when coming from businessmen.

Alas, our entire political system has been corrupted. In April Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) gave a thoughtful speech warning of “America’s crisis of crony capitalism, corporate welfare, and political privilege.”  The victims are every day folks, “the poor and middle class” excluded by government “from earning their success on a level playing field.”

No wonder, then, Americans’ ever greater frustration with politics. Blowback is coming as antagonism grows towards those who treat the federal Treasury as a piggy bank for themselves and their supporters. Moreover, as Cantor dramatically discovered, discontent with the politics of privilege may be as strong on the right as on the left. Explained the Times: “Beyond their priorities in Congress, what has unsettled business executives is what they sense as a growing anger over the ‘corporate welfare’ and ‘crony capitalism’ among the many associated with the Tea Party.”

Anger is the appropriate emotion. Who is the better candidate in any particular race is up to the voters in that district or state. But citizens everywhere should be frustrated with a government driven by interest groups where business leaders who actively subvert the market economy.

The problem is not just the money—roughly $100 billion a year for corporate welfare, for instance. Also disturbing is the message government is sending to all Americans. The way to rise and prosper, to expand one’s business and increase one’s income, is to seize control of the State to loot your neighbors. Gaining wealth by working hard is, well, hard work. It is so much better to hire a lobbyist and whisper sweet nothings in legislators’ ears. No heavy lifting there.

Moreover, the illusion of consent cannot hide the dubious moral principles these players rely upon. If government has as purpose, it is to advance particularly important and genuinely collective interests which cannot be achieved privately. Taking people’s earnings for anything less differs little from theft. Sadly, most of today’s vast transfer state looks like a complex of stolen goods.

Eric Cantor’s defeat is a useful reminder to the political class that even they are ultimately accountable to the people. Only by sharing that message widely is there a chance of rolling back the rampant political privilege and cronyism which dominates Washington today.

dougbandow3540ABOUT DOUG BANDOW

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

Reason-Rupe Poll: ‘Millennials Aren’t Liberals, They’re Social Liberals and Fiscal Centrists’

/in , , , , /by

“Since 2004 millennials have been voting increasingly Democratic in presidential elections” says Reason-Rupe polling director Emily Ekins. “But, despite all this, millennials are no more likely than Americans over 30 to say they are Democrats. Instead they are three times as likely to say they are independent and half as likely to say they are Republican.”

This is new information from the most recent Reason-Rupe poll that took a magnifying glass to the millennial generation’s voting habits and thoughts about politics.

“Millennials aren’t liberals, they’re social liberals and their fiscal centrists and their social attitudes are what is largely defining their political identities and driving their voting behavior,” says Ekins.

Watch the video to hear Ekins delve deeper into these results:

[youtube]http://youtu.be/a8G45FR58R4[/youtube]

 

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is courtesy of Forbes.

Intolerance Florida Style: In any War of Ideas support the Civilized man (or woman)

/in , , , , /by

When tolerance on any issue becomes a one way street then civil society is at risk. Case in point, tolerance is something that homosexuals demand.

Homosexuals demand that everyone embrace their unhealthy lifestyle as something good and “gay.” They demand schools allow children to access homosexual websites in the name of their “particular needs“. They demand that Christians, Jews and Muslims not follow their religious beliefs and speak out against sodomy. They demand that those who support traditional marriage be singled out and demonized for being intolerant. They demand an “equal right” to marry, when there is none.

This issue is becoming a political hot potato in Florida.

Preserving and Protecting Traditional Marriage is a plank of Republican Party Platform. The What We Believe 2012 Republican Party Platform states, “The institution of marriage is the foundation of civil society. Its success as an institution will determine our success as a nation. It has been proven by both experience and endless social studies that traditional marriage is best for children.”

Fort Lauderdale TEA Party member Danita Kilcullen sent out an email which pointed out that Republican Broward County Commissioner Chip LaMarca and Republican school board candidate Heather Brinkworth, who Governor Rick Scott recently appointed to the Broward County School Board, marched in the gay pride parade in Wilton Manors on June 21, 2014.

Since doing this Kilcullen has been demonized. In an email to Kilcullen, Carolyn Kelly states (WARNING: Graphic language):

Open letter to Danita…

Nice to see after all these years that you have turned into a good “Jesus loving, God fearing compassionate conservative”!! Danita as we get older most of us have figured out that life is too short to worry about this shit! Let everyone live their lives as they choose and if marriage is part of it, gay or straight, hallelujah! Danita your world view is about as small as a grain of sand on the beach…you and your “believers” cannot put the lid back on the can…life moves forward…its not static or going back two-hundred years as you and your tea bag minions would like it to!

Your group of people, the T-party (tea baggers) did not exist until after Obama was elected President…we all can read between the lines on that one, which reads racists and bigots! It is also is readily apparent that tea baggers as a group must be very miserable people by preaching so much hate to the world under the guise of Christianity. I feel sorry for you that you are so unhappy in your personal life that you have to exert this much energy to preach hate from a soapbox everyday of your life. You would like nothing more to bring the rest of us down to your level. Your message that you project is…if you aren’t white and straight please go back to the closet! Sorry Danita that your life so f*****g miserable that your blatant hatred for so many groups of people has not only ruined your life, but most of the people around you.

It turns out Carolyn Kelly used to be David Eckert. Kilcullen writes:

Carolyn Kelly once was David Eckert who married my best friend, Susan Roberts. David also became our best friend during their courtship and Brian & I were best-man/woman at their outdoor wedding on the intracoastal and our son, Julian, 3 or 4 years old was ring bearer. The marriage was troubled from the start and even during their dating period. They divorced and we tried to remain friends with both. Eventually we stopped hearing from David and he would not return phone calls. A couple of years later I got a phone call on my birthday from David saying he was ready to talk to us. We wondered if he might be gay.

The following day when we were supposed to meet him in one of all of our favorite restaurants, Brian came home and said, “Get ready… it’s worse than you can even imagine,” and told me he was wearing lipstick, had long fingernails, etc. I was already in tears on the way to the restaurant and said I could not go in. Brian said just come for as long as you can and we’ll leave when you need to. We walked in and I did not see him. I took a seat in a booth and Brian walked around looking for him. All of a sudden from out of the bar, walking toward me was a 6’2″ long-haired blond in blue jeans and a white, puffy, long-sleeved blouse, carrying a purse. He slid into the booth across from me and I instantly fell apart. He had breasts and obviously had been taking hormones and his voice was higher pitched. He said he had known since he was small (he was adopted). He said he had been receiving counsel for more than a year, that his family had abandoned him and that is what he was told to expect from both family and friends.

Then he told us he would be flying to London for the sex change. I sobbed the entire time we were there. When we left, I knew that David was dead and for me, it really was as if I’d been to a funeral. For two months I cried and grieved. That was our last contact.

Brian continued to try to talk him out of the surgery and had lunch with him a couple of times. Believe me when I tell you he was freak show and I did not want Brian seen with him, even though he was trying desperately to save him.

David had his surgery and until today we have had no contact. But because I fight this issue, he calls me a “hater.” I do not hate him.

There are two kinds of people. The loving and tolerant and the hating and intolerant. From this one email thread I think you can see the stark differences. One is civil, the other a savage. Ayn Rand wrote, “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man.” In this case support the civilized woman against the savage man, now a woman.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of The Peoples Cube.

Training Your Congressman!

/in , , , , /by

Is it possible that we can straighten out poorly performing politicians?  I say absolutely!

Has John Boehner suddenly been trained to stand for justice for Benghazi? Or is he just blowing smoke because election day is coming?

[youtube]http://youtu.be/Gj52ToRLr_4[/youtube]

Florida: Hamas-linked CAIR attacks Republicans for featuring “extremist anti-Muslim speakers”

/in , , /by
Shibly-300x198

Hassan Shibly, executive director for CAIR Florida.

And true to form, this entire article doesn’t mention CAIR’s ties to Hamas, or its fascist pattern of trying to get any and every speaker canceled if he or she dares to speak the truth about jihad and Islamic terror. Shelby Webb doesn’t see fit to mention, and may not even know, that CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case — so named by the Justice Department. CAIR operatives have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups. Several former CAIR officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror. CAIR’s co-founder and longtime Board chairman (Omar Ahmad), as well as its chief spokesman (Ibrahim Hooper), have made Islamic supremacist statements. Its California chapter distributed the poster above telling Muslims not to talk to the FBI. CAIR has opposed every anti-terror measure that has ever been proposed or implemented.

Note also their use of the term “extremist,” which is the same word they use of jihad terrorists — thus equating the resistance to jihad terror with jihad terror itself, a particularly repulsive exercise in moral equivalence that the mainstream media has accepted with alacrity.

“Islamic group accuses Republicans of fostering anti-Muslim sentiment,” by Shelby Webb, Herald Tribune, April 24, 2014:

A Florida Islamic group is accusing some Republican Party lawmakers and local party organizations of fostering anti-Muslim sentiment.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, sent letters to almost every Republican Club or party extension in the state, asking the groups to stop bringing speakers who espouse anti-Islamic views. The letter said it represented the interests of more than 150,000 registered Florida Muslim voters.

Hassan Shibly, executive director for CAIR, based in Tampa, said such speakers not only inflame anti-Islam tensions but have also led to discriminatory legislation: namely Senate Bill 386, which would ban foreign laws from being enacted in Florida; and House Bill 921, which allows school districts to select textbooks instead of adhering to the statewide curriculum.

Shibly said the textbook debate came about after a parent in Volusia County became uncomfortable with the number of pages in a history textbook that described Islam and organized a protest to persuade the school district to stop using the book. The Volusia School District noted that there are many more references to Christianity in the textbook than there are to Islam.

Shibly said the letters were only sent to Republican lawmakers and groups because Republicans drafted and support these two bills and because no other party has invited anti-Islam speakers to give presentations.

“Our office has documented a pattern of local GOP organizations inviting extremist anti-Muslim speakers who promote fear and hatred of the entire Muslim faith and community, often under the pretense of targeting ‘radicals,’ ” Shibly wrote in the letter.

Sen. Nancy Detert, who represents Sarasota County and part of Charlotte County, refused to comment on the two bills and the letter sent out by CAIR.

“Why should I care about a letter sent out by someone I know nothing about? Is that really worth a story?” Detert said….

You should know.

RELATED STORIES:

Netanyahu at Yad Vashem: Iran = Nazis
Hamas to sue Washington Post for saying it would recognize Israel
NBC’s David Gregory slams Tony Blair over Islamic terrorism: Didn’t you and Bush make it worse?
Saudi authorities plan to regulate local companies producing content for YouTube, to ensure respect for Islamic laws and customs

It’s Hard Being a Black Conservative

/in , , /by

“We’re not being governed. We’re being ruled by incompetence.” – Allen B. West, LTC, US Army (Ret.)

Cover - Guarden of the Republic

Click on the book cover to learn more.

It is refreshing to read a book that reflects one’s own views and “Guardian of the Republic” by Allen West, a former Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Army for over twenty years and a former, one-term congressman from Florida, who is perhaps best known these days as a Fox News channel contributor. He is a very conservative, articulate black American.

As he points out, “The Left must destroy black conservatives because it cannot afford to have freethinking, independent-minded black Americans. When the Left wins, our community loses. The result of such blind loyalty is that many black voters have come to resemble Vladimir Lenin’s ‘useful idiots.’ They make up an electorate that is completely taken for granted and no one even bothers to listen.”

It is ironic that the first black President will not only be remembered as our worst, but that his failure will reflect on the entire black community in America even while men like West and other blacks of real achievement exist.

For now, it is definitely an uphill struggle for black conservatives, particularly for those in public life. “The mainstream media,” says West, “have a clear tendency to recruit other blacks to denigrate and demean black conservatives” and have “sought to disrespect and deny the existence of black conservatives, but they’re losing the battle and they realize it. The big lie that has resulted in the twenty-first century economic plantation will be exposed and defeated, and our community will be restored.”

I don’t know when I first heard West, but I suspect it was during his run for Congress. I do recall I was instantly and enormously impressed. He won that race and served from 2011 to 2013 representing Florida’s 22nd District. His race for reelection was a classic case of electoral tampering, misconduct, and political slander by those who wanted to defeat him.

“One of my biggest frustrations and concerns about America (is that) our electorate doesn’t have a clue about who we are or whence we came.” Much of his book is devoted to a mini-history lesson regarding the founders, the Constitution, and the principles that set America on the path to greatness among nations. West holds two masters degrees; one from Kansas State University in political science and the second from the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College in military arts and sciences.

He had just over twenty years to practice military arts, but he had set his heart on joining the Army early on, joining the ROTC in college and thereafter being recognized at every stage for his intellect and his leadership skills. He was deployed to Kuwait in 1991 and Iraq in 2003.

West is plain-spoken. He defines our fundamental governing principles as “limited government, fiscal responsibility, a free market, individual sovereignty, a strong national defense, and an understanding that all of man’s freedoms come ultimately from God.”

And then he says, “Measured against our fundamental governing principles, we clearly do not have good government—heck, we suck! We have excessive debt, growing poverty, exploding deficits, an expanding nanny-state, and an anemic economy.”

“The sad thing is,” says West, “there seems to be no reprieve in sight. Why? Because, as a nation, we have become uninterested, uninformed, and disengaged from the truth.”

Throughout his book, West mixes lessons regarding the system the Founders implemented and his fears about the present generations of Americans, given the last two elections. “I fear national-level elections have become nothing more than a version of American Idol,” says West at one point. He concludes his first book saying, “We have to turn off the brain-draining reality TV shows for a few hours and read, think, assess, and challenge ourselves to be better.”

West has had a remarkable life to this point and he could choose to make a lot of money in some corporate position or as an entrepreneur, but he wants to reach out, not just to the black community, but to all Americans because he is worried about where President Obama has taken the nation he loves and wants to see it saved from unimaginable and unconscionable debt.

We need a lot more men like Allen West. The black community needs to pay him and other black conservatives more attention. The rest of us should hope that a change in future administrations will bring his talent to bear on the restoration of America.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

POLL: Sink 47%, Jolly, 37 %, Overby 12% in FL-13 Special Election

/in , , /by

SAINT LEO, Fla., Feb. 13, 2014 /PRNewswire/ — Democrat Alex Sink leads Republican David Jolly 46-37 percent ahead of the March 11 special congressional election in the Pinellas, Florida-based 13th congressional district, according to a new poll released today by the Saint Leo University Polling Institute. Libertarian Lucas Overby would get 12 percent of the vote if the election were held today.

“Ms. Sink’s advantage is being driven by solid favorability ratings coupled with issue positions that seem to be more closely aligned with voter preferences than are Jolly’s,” said Frank Orlando, a political science instructor at Saint Leo University.  “She overcomes a partisan ID disadvantage in the district by maintaining much higher favorability among Republicans and Independents than Mr. Jolly does among Democrats.  The fact that a Libertarian candidate has robust support levels in the double digits seems to be contributing to the size of Sink’s lead.”

Democrats are overwhelmingly (88 percent) favoring Sink with only 6 percent favoring Jolly and 4 percent favoring Overby.  However, Republicans are a bit more divided on their candidate.  Only 64 percent of Republicans are backing Jolly.  Sixteen percent of Republicans say they’ll vote for Sink and another 14 percent say they’ll chose the Libertarian candidate.

After a heavy advertising campaign, both Sink and Jolly have become well-known in the district and have similar favorable ratings. Sink has a net favorability ratings of +7 and gross ratings of 51 percent favorable, 44 percent unfavorable. Jolly has a net favorability rating of +3 and gross ratings of 47 percent favorable, 44 percent unfavorable. Sink enjoys an intensity advantage among voters who say they are “very favorable” toward a candidate, with 33 percent holding a “very favorable” opinion of Sink and 21 percent holding a “very favorable” opinion of Jolly.

Libertarian Overby, who has been included in debates and has received more media attention than third party candidates often do, has hard name identification of 58 percent (30 percent favorable, 28 percent unfavorable). His net favorable rating is +2.

Methodology: The Saint Leo University Polling Institute poll of likely voters who live in FL-13 was conducted February 9-11, 2014 using a blended sample reached by Interactive Voice Response and an online panel. The sample size was 400 respondents, yielding a margin of error of +/- 5% with a 95% confidence level. 372 respondents (93% of sample) were reached on randomly dialed landline telephones using an automatic dialer, pre-recorded questions, and touch-tone telephone keypad responses. To ensure that a representative sample of younger voters was included, 28 respondents in this age group were reached using an online panel. To be included in the survey as a “likely voter,” all respondents had to affirm twice that they are 18 or older and then they had to get past three screening questions.

SOURCE: Saint Leo University Polling Institute

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is courtesy of the Tampa Bay Times.

Libertarian Candidate in FL District 13 race seen as Equal to Major Party Challengers

/in , , /by

Danielle Alexandre from the 1787 Radio Network reports:

In the wake of the death of 43 year US House Representative, Bill Young, a special election will be held on March 11, 2014. As the Republican Primary comes to a close the race will come down to Democrat Alex Sink, Republican David Jolly and Libertarian Lucas Overby.

Lucas Overby has been heavily campaigning for this seat, raising over $12,000 in the span of 72 hours to secure his place on the March ballot, holding town hall meetings throughout the district to speak with the voters and launching an aggressive ground campaign with volunteers going door to door in voter outreach efforts.

Today, it was announced that Lucas Overby will also be included in the televised debate for the Florida Congressional District 13 race. This putting him on equal footing with the two major party candidates and making Lucas the first Libertarian candidate included in a debate for a federal office in Florida.

The televised debate will be held on February 3, 2014 from 7-8 pm and can be viewed locally on Bay News 9 or nationally on C-SPAN.

This is a victory for the Libertarian Party which has historically been plagued with media and debate blackouts and gives the Lucas Overby for Congress Campaign the credibility and respect needed to be seen as a viable candidate in this race.  This has become the race to watch for Libertarians around the country.

Read more.

Matt Schnackenberg is the Libertarian candidate in US Congress District 11 and Ray Netherwood in US House Dist 19.

Below is the letter from the Tampa Bay Times Managing Editor inviting candidate Overby to participate in the February 3rd debate with Jolly and Sink:

letter from tampa bay editor

TAKE ACTION: Republican Immigration Reform will lead to 8 million more Anti-gun Voters

/in , , , , /by

“[A] Pew poll suggests that illegal immigrants, if given citizenship, would vote for liberal, anti-gun candidates by an 8-to-1 margin.” – GOA’s Erich Pratt, commenting on Pew poll findings as reported in The Washington Post (7/22/13)

Gun Owners of America (GOA) in an email states, “Next Wednesday, the House Republican leadership will announce a set of “principles” for immigration reform.  Supposedly, if these ‘principles’ are not well-received, the House will shelve the issue for the remainder of the year. To be blunt:  The health of the Second Amendment relies on demolishing these ‘principles’.”

“Immigration reform will add over 8,000,000 anti-gun voters to the voting rolls.  There may be as many as 11.5 million persons illegally in the United States.  And, a Pew poll from last year indicated that if illegal immigrants were given citizenship, they would vote for liberal, anti-gun candidates by an 8-to-1 margin,” notes GOA

Pratt notes, “This is exactly what happened to California — which was once a Red State.  Because of the Simpson-Mazzoli amnesty bill of 1986, the state lurched violently to the left and now can’t pass gun control restrictions fast enough. If this were to happen at the national level, we would lose the ability to stop massive gun bans and gun registration schemes.  And all of this occurs at a time when a Fox poll shows the American people oppose Obama’s immigration policies by a margin of 36% to 54%.”

The first reality is this:  If the House passes ANYTHING, the Senate will tack on its amnesty bill and send it to conference.  And the national conversation will turn off of ObamaCare and onto immigration.

And guess what?  Every gun-hating institution which moved heaven and earth to pass gun control will move heaven and earth to get the House to retreat — if not to a “pathway to citizenship,” to a “pathway to legalization.”

They will have created the biggest and most motivated Obama-loving movement in the country — devoted to electing anti-gun politicians and retaining Harry Reid’s control of the Senate.

What will Republicans get, in exchange for creating an army of pro-Obama election warriors?

Very little.  (Be sure to read GOA legislative counsel Michael Hammond’s analysis, which shows, in great detail, how the Republican leadership’s “principles” will end up backfiring on gun owners.)

The bottom line is that there is a reason why Barack Obama and his “puppet press” have been campaigning for a year to force the Republican House to wade into “immigration reform.”  It is nothing but benefits for anti-gun politicians, and nothing but pain for pro-gun legislators.

Who would be stupid enough to inflict that level of pain on themselves?

ACTION:   Contact your Representative.  If he is a Republican, the pre-written letter will ask him to reject the ridiculous “immigration principles” being hawked by the leadership — principles that will eventually destroy the pro-gun movement in America.  The pre-written letter for Democrats is a generic opposition letter.

ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE:  Remember that clicking on the first “submit” button on the GOA Engage site (where you input your name and address), only submits your information so that your correct legislators can be identified. Hence, the first “submit” button does not actually send your letter.  Instead, it brings you to the next page where you can actually review the pre-written letter. The second “submit” button actually sends the letter.

RELATED COLUMNS:

‘Homeland’ Head: Illegals Have Earned Right to be Citizens…

Republicans ready to roll dice on amnesty…

PODCAST: How Mother Nature will Accelerate the Looming Fiscal Avalanche

/in , , /by

Many are writing about the looming fiscal cliff that Congress and the Obama administration will deal with upon return from the Thanksgiving break. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) warns of a looming fiscal avalanche.

In After Fiscal Cliff Comes Fiscal Avalanche, Rejection of U.S. Debt, Senator Lee writes, “While Washington is preoccupied with the so-called fiscal cliff, little attention has been given to the fiscal avalanche that will occur if we continue down an unsustainable, long-term path, causing markets to turn sour on U.S. debt and leading to a spike in interest rates.”

Senator Lee states, “The Congressional Budget Office projects that under the most likely policy scenario, in 30 years, net interest payments on the debt could total $3.8 trillion in today’s dollars. That is more than total government spending for 2011.”

Robert Wiedemer co-author of America’s Bubble Economy – Aftershock wrote America has suffered through a number of financial bubbles and the aftershock following each. To date each of these bubbles, the most recent being the housing bubble, have burst and fallen onto two other looming bubbles. These two bubbles are the “dollar bubble” and the “debt bubble”. Wiedemer predicts these two bubbles will burst when pricked by the pin called “inflation”.

The government fiscal policies which have lead the US to the fiscal avalanche may be helped along by mother nature.

Relying heavily on the research of experts globally, as well as his own original research that correctly predicted the change in the Sun’s behavior, Mr. John L. Casey has spelled out in his book Cold Sun a convincing case that a new cold era has arrived. In Cold Sun, Mr. Casey presents the evidence showing:

1. Global warming ended years ago.
2. The Sun has entered an ominous state of ‘hibernation.’
3. The Earth’s ocean and atmospheric temperatures are dropping rapidly and are now on a long term decline for the next thirty years.
4. Glacial ice worldwide is growing again and the threat of rising sea levels is over.
5. Why we should be preparing now for the coming cold and its ill-effects including record earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions as well as global agricultural devastation.

Mr. Casey’s predictions of mother nature taking her own course fly in the face of current government policies at the national, state and local levels. In this exclusive interview Mr. Casey explains how mother nature will have her way no matter what we try to do:

While government is focused on reducing CO2 emissions to prevent global warming, the earth is in fact cooling. According to Casey this cooling will shorten the growing season causing food prices to increase, require more fuel and energy to heat homes and businesses. The US will experience an increase in the number of natural disasters costing human life loss and property damage on a grand scale. The US ability to recover from such natural disasters here and globally will be restricted by our debt and cost to service that debt in the long term.

The world’s growing population depends on food. Brian M. Carney in his article for the Wall Street Journal asks, “Can The World Still Feed Itself?“. Mr. Carney interviews Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, Chairman of Nestle’ the world’s largest food-production company. According to Mr. Brabeck-Letmathe, “Politicians do not understand that between the food market and the energy market, there is a close link.” That link is the calorie.

Carney reports, “The energy stored in a bushel of corn can fuel a car or feed a person. And increasingly, thanks to ethanol mandates and subsidies in the U.S. and bio-fuel incentives in Europe, crops formerly grown for food or livestock feed are being grown for fuel. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s most recent estimate predicts that this year, for the first time, American farmers will harvest more corn for ethanol than for feed. In Europe some 50% of the rapeseed crop is going into bio-fuel production, according to Mr. Brabeck-Letmathe, while “world-wide about 18% of sugar is being used for bio-fuel today.”

What does this all mean?

If John Casey is correct in his predictions, and SSRC always is, then cold weather brings with it a shorter growing season and increased demand for fuel to keep people warm. Therefore, we must have policies that increase calories, not decrease the food supply.

These natural events will occur during the same 30 year period where our payments on the national debt will increase to $3.8 trillion.

RELATED COLUMN: Are we living in the Hunger Games?