Jimmy Kimmel sure likes to lampoon but only for one side, well we think fair play is called for in this election. We whipped up a little Children’s Book of our own for everyone’s favorite political gangster, ole Machine Gun Clinton.
HAT TIP: Semi Respectable – Cartoons
I was surprised to see that this large number—38%—of Democrats think our refugee admissions are too high!
Readers you have to wade through a lot of column inches before you get to what I consider the meat of this story by AP. It sure looks like Americans generally are not in agreement with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on admitting tens of thousands of refugees from mostly Muslim countries, especially Syrians.
Associated Press at WHIO (12 paragraphs into the story). Emphasis below is mine:
Americans are slightly more likely to oppose than favor a temporary ban on Muslims who are not U.S. citizens from entering the United States, by a 52 percent to 45 percent margin that has been strikingly consistent in AP-GfK polls conducted this year.
Sixty-nine percent of Republicans say they favor the temporary ban on Muslim immigration, while 68 percent of Democrats are opposed. Half of whites and just a third of non-whites say they favor the ban. Seventy-six percent of Trump supporters are in favor.
On a trip to Scotland last month, Trump shifted his rhetoric, saying he would instead “want terrorists out” of the U.S., and to do so, he would limit people’s entry from “specific terrorist countries and we know who those terrorist countries are.”
The poll indicates that rhetorical shift could win support. Among those asked more broadly about a temporary ban on immigrants from areas of the world where there is a history of terrorism against the U.S. or its allies, 63 percent are in favor and 34 percent opposed. Ninety-four percent of Trump supporters say they favor this proposal, as do 45 percent of Clinton supporters.
“That’s a necessity for creating stability,” said Ryan Williams, 40, a health care provider from Jacksonville, North Carolina.
Most Americans — 53 percent — think the United States is currently letting in too many refugees from Syria, engulfed in civil war since 2011 and the Islamic State militant group’s de facto center. President Barack Obama has pledged to admit some 10,000 Syrian refugees this year.
Remember Hillary is on record saying she wants to admit 65,000 Syrians immediately (only 11 percent of Americans agree with her!):
Another 33 percent think the current level is about right, while just 11 percent want to let in more. About 4 in 10 think there’s a very or somewhat high risk of refugees committing acts of religious or political violence in the United States, 34 percent think the risk moderate, and 24 percent consider it very or somewhat low.
Seventy-six percent of Republicans think the U.S. should allow fewer refugees. Among Democrats, 43 percent think the current level is about right, 38 percent think the U.S. should allow fewer, and 18 percent want to allow more.
This tells me that Trump has to continue to pound the issue of refugees! (And, that the propagandists at The Hive have their work cut out for them).
BTW, if every American could see what I’ve seen over the last two days on my road trip, these numbers would be even higher!
One more thing…I’ve heard several times lately that some Americans think that the U.S. refugee program is a temporary one for the refugees, that they only come here until things calm down in their home countries. That is NOT the case! Refugees who come to the U.S. come here permanently and ultimately become citizens.
RELATED ARTICLES:
After Nice, France Grapples With How to Combat Terrorism
The Attempted Coup Reveals Turkey’s Instability. That’s Bad News for the U.S.
These Are the Tools We Need to Win the Long War Against Islamist Terrorism
…get this! 40% of Democrats agree!
I love how this is written. The Reuters reporter says only 40% of Dems have the same fear. Holy cow, that is a lot of people! Consider also that 74% of plain vanilla Republicans also worry about the resettlement of Middle Eastern refugees into their towns.
I would have guessed the Dems would be a far lower percentage than 40% (so does that mean there might be inroads into the Democratic electorate for Trump?).
Supporters of Donald Trump, the presumptive U.S. Republican presidential nominee, see refugees arriving from Iraq and Syria as one of the greatest threats to the United States, according to a study released on Thursday by the Pew Research Center.
Eighty-five percent of respondents who said they supported Trump saw the refugees fleeing the Islamic State militant group as a threat, compared with 74 percent of Republicans overall, said the study.
[….]
Only 40 percent of Democrats viewed the refugees from the region as a major threat.
The Dems must be told over and over again that Hillary will continue the Obama push for more and more Syrian and Iraqi refugees to colonize America!
RELATED ARTICLES:
Islamic State recruiters arrested, worked at Moscow airport and for Russian intelligence
North Dakota State legislator signals interest in suing feds over refugee program
Hungary to hold referendum on refugees this fall
ACLU of New Jersey asks Christie to NOT withdraw from federal refugee program
Not only are young voters more likely to support Democrats than Republicans, they are also more likely to support the most left-wing Democrats. In recent polls of voters under 30, self-declared democratic socialist Bernie Sanders beats the more mainstream Hillary Clinton by almost six-to-one.
Former professor Mark Pastin, writing in the Weekly Standard, acknowledges some of Clinton’s flaws as a candidate, but concludes that “the most compelling explanation” for young Democrats’ overwhelming preference for Sanders “is that young voters actually like the idea of a socialist revolution.”
I’m embarrassed to confess that when I was a young voter, I probably would have been among the “Sandernistas.”
I don’t think Pastin is right about the revolution, though. Much of Sanders’s success in defanging the word socialism is in pairing it with an emphasis on democracy, as George Bernard Shaw and the Fabians did in an earlier era. Democratic socialists — at least among my comrades — preferred the idea of evolutionary socialism, and we tried hard to distance ourselves from the revolutionary folks.
Whether by evolution or revolution, however, what we all sought was less competition and more cooperation, less commerce and more compassion. Above all, we wanted greater equality.
“When I asked my students what they thought socialism meant,” Pastin writes, “they would generally recite some version of the Marxist chestnut ‘from each according to ability and to each according to need.'” That sounds about right, but add to that the assumption that it’s government’s job to effect the transfer.
My father, gently skeptical of my politics, pointed out a problem confronting American socialists: we tended to imagine ourselves on the receiving end of the redistribution — rob from the rich and give to the rest of us. “However poor we may think we are in the United States,” he told me, “we would have to give up most of what we now have in order to make everyone in the world equal.” This was strange to hear from someone always behind on the rent and facing ever-growing debt.
Pastin makes a related point: “I’ve always thought that socialism appealed to students because they have never not been on the receiving end of government largesse.”
As an informal test of his students’ egalitarian beliefs, Pastin “would offer to run the class along socialist principles, such as the mandate to take from the able and give to the needy.” Specifically, he proposed subtracting points from the A students and transferring them to those who would otherwise earn lower grades.
Even the most ardent socialist students balked at this arrangement. In fact, according to Pastin, the highest-performing students were both more likely to be self-declared socialists and more likely to meet his proposal with outrage: grading, they argued, should be a matter of merit.
Is it pure hypocrisy on the part of these rhetorical radicals, or is there a logical consistency behind this apparent contradiction in their values?
Trying to recall the details of my own callow political folly, I seem to recall three main issues behind my anti-capitalistic mentality:
I don’t know how many of today’s young socialists hold these same assumptions, but a question recently posted to Quora.com sounds like it could have been written by one of my fellow lefties in the 1980s: “Should I drop out of college to disobey the capitalist world that values a human with a piece of paper?” (See Praxis strategist Derek Magill’s withering advice to the would-be dropout.)
Even if a different array of confusions drives the radical chic of millennial voters, what is clear is that they see American capitalism as rigged. “Crony capitalism,” from their perspective, is redundant — and “free market” is an oxymoron. They’re not necessarily opposed to meritocracy; they just don’t see what merit has to do with the marketplace.
Grading that would penalize the studious to reward the slackers is obviously unfair, and a sure-fire strategy to kill anyone’s incentive to do the homework. It’s not that the socialist students are applying the principle inconsistently; it’s that they don’t see what merit has to do with commerce. Some of that may be intellectual laziness, some is the result of indoctrination by anti-capitalist faculty, but much of it is also based in the reality of America’s mixed economy.
Not only have young voters spent most of their lives sheltered from the productive side of the commercial world, schooled by men and women who are themselves deliberately insulated from the marketplace, but time spent in the reality of the private sector is hardly an education in what the advocates of economic freedom have in mind when we talk about the free market.
If my own experience is any guide, today’s democratic socialists will have to spend a lot of time unlearning much of what they’ve been taught.
Pastin’s informal experiment is an illuminating first step, and it’s a powerful way to expose the conflict between his students’ understanding of merit and the socialists’ understanding of equality. But there’s also a danger in comparing the economy to the classroom. By offering his grade redistribution as an analogy for socialism, Pastin seems to imply that the merit-based grade system better resembles a free market. But that’s silly.
For one thing, studying hard for your next exam may improve your own GPA, but it probably doesn’t help your classmates. In contrast, an unhampered marketplace makes everyone better off, however unequally.
More significantly, in a free economy, there is no one person in the role of the grade-giving professor. In the absence of coercion, power has a hard time remaining that centralized. Yes, wealth can be seen as a kind of grade, but in the free market, an entrepreneur’s profits and losses are like millions of cumulative grades from the consumers. A+ for improving our lives. F for wasting time and resources.
That kind of spontaneous, decentralized, self-regulating prosperity is every bit as radical as the visions of young socialists, minus the impoverishing effects of coerced redistribution. It’s almost certainly not what they imagine when they say they oppose “capitalism.”
B.K. Marcus is editor of the Freeman.
I have written that 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.
Mahatma Gandhi said, “Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is.”
Gandhi also said, “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
Michael Savage in his column “Here’s how to define Donald Trump” writes:
And I want to define something for you.
Here’s something important. People don’t know how to define Donald Trump.
I’ve defined him as a moderate nationalist. But I’m going to redefine Donald Trump for everyone listening to this show around the world on “The Savage Nation,” because I’m the idea man. I’m known as the idea man.
And here’s your idea. Take it, run with it, drop it, reject it, debate it.
Trump is a Christian nationalist.
No one’s said that.
He’s proud to be a Christian. He is a proud Christian, and he’s a proud American nationalist.
This is anathema. This is anathema to the media. This is anathema to the university America haters. This is anathema to the thuggish left who has taken over everything in this country and threatens everybody by threatening your advertisers if you dare speak out about their communism and their desire to control every aspect of our life from top to bottom, telling us what we’re supposed to think about sexuality.
Everything; they tell us what we’re supposed to think.
Well, finally we have someone who said: “Drop dead. We’re not your slaves. We’re not slaves of the radical left. We’re not gonna eat this garbage anymore, and we’re fighting back.”
And he is the man carrying the banner of this Christian nationalism, and that is why he’s ruffling feathers around the world, because they’re used to stamping on us.
They have disrobed the Statue of Liberty and molested her. The radical left has disrobed her and rolled her in mud, and the Statue of Liberty is crying, and Donald Trump wants to clean her and clothe her again! [Emphasis added]
Trump is a church militant. The Church Militant comprises the souls on Earth engaged in battle against the forces evil. The evils that Trump and the insurgency are battling are: political correctness, political power, collectivism, Communism, socialism and radical Islamism. All of which are forces of evil.
I can now define the insurgency as a “Christian insurgency” and Donald Trump embodies the core of it.
This is why Trump is winning.
RELATED ARTICLES:
How a Suspected Murderer and Criminally Convicted Illegal Immigrant Avoided Deportation
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
Islamic States’ Crimes Against Christians Detailed in New Report
Sometimes it is said that a man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he then be trusted with the government of others? Recent history has proven that to be very true. No one of with any measure of moral conscience will deny the recent history of government being shepherded toward oblivion by proponents of evil. I hate to bring it up, but the Obama administration is perhaps the premier example of a man that cannot be trusted and should not be have been granted the privilege of governing our republic. But unfortunately therein lies another problem that must be addressed as we engage perhaps the most important election in our nation’s history.
As “We the People” prepare to choose who will lead our republic, perhaps we should take a closer look at ourselves and refine our vision of what kind of America do we want going forward. To aid in our search let us consider what do we want to leave for our children. History will answer that question loud and clear with the results of our decisions. If we do not reconnect with the Christian based values that were the foundational building blocks of our America we shall witness the completion of the destructive mission of the progressive enemies from within our population ranks. Let us as Americans with courage and confidence pursue our own federal and republican principles.
As part of his 1801 Inaugural address, President Thomas Jefferson stated: Enlightened by a benign religion, professed, indeed, and practiced in various forms, yet all of them inculcating honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude, and the love of man; acknowledging and adoring an overruling Providence, which by all its dispensations proves that it delights in the happiness of man here and his greater happiness hereafter. With all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and prosperous people? (I couldn’t help but pause here and ask this question. Have you noticed how the further Americans are indoctrinated against the principles and beliefs that made the United States the envy of the world, she is actually both less happy and prosperous?)
Still one thing more, fellow citizens—a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned…You should understand what I deem the essential principles of our government…. Equal and exact justice to all men, of, whatever state or persuasion, religious or political…the arraignment of all abuses at the bar of public reason; freedom of religion; freedom of the press, and freedom of a person under the protection of the habeas corpus and trial by jury impartially selected…
Unfortunately, our nation has succumbed to the lowest common denominator when it comes to morality, government function, individual liberties, as well as the economy and other relevant concerns.
If our republic is to reemerge as a beacon of light and liberty, to the teeming masses that would want to come to America legally to become Americans, our nation will first have to return to being the actual America that good and decent people around the world would want to be a part of. Think about it, as our nation has become increasingly immoral, she has also degenerated from a land of liberty into a semi big government police state over every aspect of our lives. In other words, the government takes over a people that don’t use self-control.
Without any effort, immorality replaces under utilized or untaught morality. That is why the immoral from around the world are the majority of individuals now filing illegally into our nation with the permission of a corrupt government that appeases our enemies who want to come in and wreak havoc at taxpayer expense, just to add insult to injury. That is why the Obama administration was ready to take Arizona to court and put a hurting on Texas for daring to protect the border with Mexico since the immoral federal government has gone loco.
Despite all of the negative developments over the past several decades that have culminated in the worst administration in our nation’s history and could potentially harm our nation beyond repair. (After all, Obama did say he wanted to fundamentally change America.) Obviously, his interpretation of changes could not have even been enacted before the turn of the century. I believe that I have witnessed the real beginning of renewal in our country. Many people of faith are finally becoming interested enough to learn about and care what happens to the United States of America. Remember, it was an active, brave and intelligent church that was an integral part of the fight for independence and later against slavery.
Remembering the wise words of orator, author statesman, and abolitionist Frederick Douglas: The Declaration of Independence is the ringbolt to the chain of your nation’s destiny; so, indeed, I regard it. The principles contained in that instrument are saving principles. Stand by them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and whatever cost. I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Douglas. America, if you are to be great again, you must first seek to be good, for it is then you shall make better decisions and take right actions that will recalibrate our destiny from utter disaster to undeniable recovery and greatness.
Everybody knows that money buys elections. That’s what opponents of theCitizens United decision have been ominously warning us for six years, and their message resonates. A CNN poll found that 67 percent of Americans think that “elections are generally for sale to the candidate who can raise the most money.”
The trouble is that there is very little evidence for this. Even though the candidate with the most money usually wins, the general rule is that moneychases winners rather than creates winners. People give to candidates they think are likely to win, and incumbents (who almost always win) and candidates in safe districts still raise money, even if they’re not challenged. On the flip side, donors and parties don’t waste support on long-shot races.
More importantly, money never guarantees any election. For instance, billionaire Meg Whitman spent $144 million of her own money on the California governor’s race; Jerry Brown spent just $36 million but crushed Whitman, 53 percent to 40 percent.
Mitt Romney, the GOP, and their PACs outspent Barack Obama and friends by over $120 million, and we know what came of that. Anthony Brown (D) outspent Larry Hogan (R) almost five to one in the 2014 Maryland governor’s race and lost, in a state that is two to one Democrat.
We can likely add Jeb Bush’s candidacy to this list. The Jeb! campaign and pro-Jeb groups have collectively raised $155 million. Only Hillary Clinton has raised more. According to the New York Times, he’s dominating “the money race” among Republicans.
But in the actual race, he got a dismal sixth place in Iowa, with 2.8 percent of the vote. Polls put Jeb fifth in New Hampshire and fifth nationally. Currently, Betfair places his odds of winning the nomination at 5.2 percent.
In fact, the whole Republican race shows that money can’t simply buy votes. Scott Walker raised $34 million in three months, spent all of it — and then dropped out, five months before Iowa. Meanwhile, Donald Trump has dominated news coverage and polls for months with only $19 million.
When you plot money vs. poll numbers, what jumps out is how little correlation there is:
… And money vs. Iowa caucus votes:
… And money vs. odds of winning the nomination:
Jeb and Jeb-PACs have spent $89.1 million so far and received 5,238 votes — over $17,000 per vote received. Trump has spent just $300 per vote.
This is not to say that money doesn’t matter — you can’t run a campaign without it, and campaign finance laws are designed to make it difficult for upstart challengers to become competitive. But after a certain amount (about $500,000 for a typical congressional race), there are rapidly diminishing returns, and dumping more money on a failing campaign will not save it.
There’s a lot of baseless fears about free speech, but the idea that the people with the most expensive microphone will always get their way is one of the easiest to disprove. More speech, more discussion, and more competition in the field of ideas is not what’s wrong with American politics — but they might be part of the solution to it.
Daniel Bier is the editor of Anything Peaceful. He writes on issues relating to science, civil liberties, and economic freedom.
In many ways, like Job in the Bible, “For the thing which I greatly feared is come upon me, and that which I was afraid of is come unto me (Job 3:25 King James Version).
I was hoping against all hope that the Republican Party would do something to really pay homage to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birthday today. But, like Job, I have been forced to conclude “that which I was afraid of is come unto me.”
Republicans are a national party, control 31 out of 50 governors, control the U.S House of Representatives and control the U.S. Senate; and the party as a whole, has done nothing to celebrate the contribution King made to Blacks, America, and the world.
I am sure a Republican somewhere has issued the annual perfunctory press release; but why the party doesn’t take this occasion to sit at the feet of Black Republican luminaries who worked with King is baffling to me.
King actually frequently stayed in the home of Bob Brown in Hickory, North Carolina. I have stayed at Bob’s house and it is a living museum of American and world history. There are personal photos and letters from King to Bob. There are handwritten notes to Bob from former South African president Nelson Mandela when he was in prison. There are volumes of letters and photos from world leaders to Bob.
There are photos of Bob with every U.S. president from Nixon to the present. Bob is a walking history book of the Civil Rights movement and a lifetime Republican.
You have Bill Coleman, the first Black to serve as a cabinet secretary in the history of America. He was law partners with former U.S. Supreme Court justice Thurgood Marshall; and they both argued the famous Brown vs Board of Education case before the Supreme Court. Oh, and Coleman is another lifetime Republican.
There are Black Republicans all over the country who worked deeply in the Civil Rights movement, but the party has no idea who they are. The few Black staffers who work within various Republican entities have no idea who these people are, nor do they have any curiosity to discover who these people are that paved the way for them.
At best, a Republican leader might attend a MLK event being sponsored by a liberal Black Democratic organization (their local NAACP, etc.).
But why should that be the case when Republicans are very capable of doing both local and national pro-life events all over the country? They don’t simply issue perfunctory press releases. Why?
Because the party obviously puts a certain value on the pro-life issue and its supporters. I will leave you to make your own conclusions of this issue relative to MLK’s holiday.
Not one presidential campaign has a campaign event celebrating King’s birthday; but they all run over each other to get in front of a camera for Reagan’s birthday. Again, I will leave you to make your own conclusions of this issue relative to MLK’s holiday.
In politics, optics matter and my party is totally tone deaf when it comes to optics within the Black community. Spouses tend not to forget their significant other’s birthday because they know it is important to them.
Memo to Republicans, MLK’s birthday is very important to Blacks and more broadly to America.
With control of congress, 31 governorships, and a majority of state legislatures, and a national party; you really expect me to believe we couldn’t have orchestrated a series of national and local MLK celebrations?
The party, at every level, should have organized Black businessmen all across the country to have a discussion of a 21st century version of Civil Rights to address issues like: entrepreneurship, access to capital, education, crime & justice.
What policy solutions are Republicans in congress willing to offer to address these issues?
But they also need to sit at the feet of people like the Bob Browns and the Bill Colmans. These are the people the party must consult with relative to the voting rights case that the Supreme Court ruled on a few years ago regarding section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
You would think that the occasion of King’s birthday would be a time the Republican Party can come together with Black Republicans and discuss how to restore the party to being the party of Lincoln.
But if the party can’t honor one of our own icons, how can we honor them with our vote?
Obama has been an abject failure as president relative to the Black community. Republicans have the right message for the Black community; but they must engage with Black Republicans who have institutional memory and relationships with the Browns and the Colemans.
The window is closing fast on the Republican Party for this year’s presidential election and beyond. If the party doesn’t start engaging with the Black community in a meaningful way, Democrats will yet again win the white house and forever change the fabric of our country irreparably.
Trumpites are fundamentally changing the Republican Party into the New American Party. Blue Dogs are moving away from the Democratic Party and becoming independents, with some registering as Republicans in order to support Trump in the primary (see below).
Their sole objective is to make America great again.
They have a leader named Trump, who in fact, follows their lead. The Republican and Democratic Parties need to take heed of this committed and energetic group of voters.
Sun Tzu wrote, “Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster.”
Trumpites know their enemies, which include but are not limited to: Obama Democrats, establishment Republicans (a.k.a. GOPe), the media, Muslims, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, George Will, Jeb Bush, and on and on.
Trumpites believe they can win the battle for the White House with the only candidate who is actually following the Department of Homeland Security’s policy of when you see something, say something – Donald J. Trump.
When Trump sees something, he says something and more American voters love him for it.
The New York Post’s Marisa Schultz writes:
Donald Trump ratcheted up his attacks on Hillary Clinton Sunday, blasting her for playing the “woman’s card” and saying her notoriously philandering husband would be “fair game” when he hits the campaign trail for his wife.
Bill Clinton was a “liability” when Hillary ran against President Obama in 2008, and it will be no different this election cycle, Trump predicted on “Fox and Friends.”
Now that’s saying something. An establishment Republican would never say that for fear of being labeled an anti-woman bigot. Trumpites eat up this kind of directness and confrontational attitude with glee. Trumpites love the truth and anyone who speaks it in plain, simple terms.
Trump is a master of the sound bite and speaks the language of Joe and Jane six-pack.
Trump Democrats registering as Republicans.
I saw this post on Twitter today:
TRUMP WORLD (@trump_world)
12/28/15, 8:30 AM“Today we went and changed our party from Democrat to Republican so we can vote for @realDonaldTrump“
In a Politico column titled “Trump ties with Pope Francis in U.S. poll for second most-admired man in the world” Nick Gass writes:
On the list of most admired men, Pope Francis and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump tied for second place with 5 percent each. Meanwhile, Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders earned 3 percent, with Bill Gates at 2 percent.
A mix of religious and political figures, including the Dalai Lama and George W. Bush, rounded out the top 10, with 1 percent each. For Trump, this is his fifth finish in the top 10, the other instances coming in 1988, 1989, 1990 and 2011.Read more.
The frustration with both political parties has fueled the rise of the Trumpites.
Trumpites are those from all parties, every walk of life and every economic class. Trumpites are sick and tired of politics as usual, hate career politicians and feel the government is totally corrupt and oppressive. This is the core that will fundamentally transform the Republican Party, and those 115 Republicans who voted for the Paul Ryan omnibus budget.
Trumpites are nationalists but not socialists. They are the former silent majority, who now have a national spokesman – Donald J. Trump.
Their leader is Donald Trump, their goal is to win the White House in 2016, not for any political party but for America.
In 1776 those who broke away from the ruling class were called patriots and it was they who fundamentally changed America from a subservient colony of King George III to a Constitutional Republic based on individual freedom and liberty.
Today these anti-ruling class voters call themselves “Trumpites.”
RELATED VIDEO: Trump Supporter Nessun Dorma Video – Trump Versus the Liberal Media:
RELATED ARTICLES:
Minorities line up behind Donald Trump
What most concerns GOP ‘elites’ about Donald Trump? Online Poll
Dinesh D’Souza spoke to the Park Cities Women’s Republican Club about the progressive heist of America on December 1st in Dallas, and the conversation was broadcast nationwide on C-SPAN Book TV. During the talk, D’Souza shows that progressive politics is nothing but a series of scams and cons aimed at stealing the wealth of America.
Watch now:
In Stealing America, D’Souza shows that the biggest crooks in America are the progressives perpetrating this con. Andrew McCarthy’s review of the book in National Review shows that despite Obama’s best efforts, D’Souza is intent on exposing their crimes:
“America flourished because it was an anti-theft society: freedom inextricably linked to the protection of private property, unleashing creativity, entrepreneurship, and unprecedented prosperity. The progressive critique of that society is not advanced in good faith; it is, as D’Souza portrays it, a “con.” Its purpose — not its unintended consequence but its aim — is to seize the wealth and power of achievers. The con is systematized by the Democratic party now under Obama’s leadership, with Hillary waiting in the wings.
Dinesh D’Souza implores us to recognize the con for what it is, and work, as he works, to expose it, rather than dignify it as an alternative political philosophy. America, he contends, is well on the way to being stolen. We will lose our country if we fail to reaffirm our anti-theft roots.”
I’m happy to report that our readers are more up on the news than I have been these last few days. Thanks to all of you who are sending me hot-off-the-press news on the roiling controversy about Syrian refugee resettlement AP (After Paris). I just don’t have the time to post it all!
Speaker Ryan and Senate Majority leader McConnell will be the ones who determine the fate of resettlement of Syrian refugees in the US this year (not the governors!). Kentucky is gradually becoming an important resettlement target and it’s been a mystery to me why McConnell has let it happen. I can only assume McConnell gets campaign contributions from industries, including the chicken processing industry, which needs cheap reliable laborers. For ambitious readers, we have a very large archive on Kentucky extending back many years (with many problems) here.
LOL! I did take a break today as Rush Limbaugh held forth for what I assume was much of his show and every time I turned on the TV I heard the “R” word (refugee). Heck, everyone is covering it, I reminded myself.
Here, at Politico, is a story from yesterday I’ve been meaning to get to.
Don’t get me wrong, it is wonderful that governors across the country are speaking up, but even if you wish them to have the power to stop the resettlement (unless there was a Constitutional challenge which does need to get underway, but will take years!) there is really only one place it can be done quickly with any finality (for this year) and that is in Congress where the FUNDING MUST BE CUT OFF.
See our post on Saturday where I said just that—CONGRESS MUST USE ITS POWER OF THE PURSE!
The refugee resettlement contractors know that very well or they wouldn’t have had an emergency press conference call today!
Here is Politico telling us what the stakes are and informing us that what happens next will be the first crisis for new House Speaker Paul Ryan.
A cascade of Republicans on Monday implored the Obama administration to scrap plans to resettle 10,000 Syrian refugees in the United States next year, saying they pose an unacceptable security risk in the wake of last week’s terrorist attacks in Paris.
And, in a dramatic twist, the sudden standoff is raising the possibility of a government shutdown next month.
Throughout the day a host of Republican governors around the country, wary that refugees could end up in their home states, blasted President Barack Obama’s plans. But those governors lack real sway over the process, andsome are asking Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) to insert a provision in the Dec. 11 spending bill that would bar more Syrian settlers.
Did you see this? Lindsey Graham has backed off his earlier proposal to ADD funding for Syrian resettlement!
The politics are moving fast: The Democratic governor of New Hampshire, a Senate candidate, is siding with conservatives, and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is reversing his support for a $1 billion spending bill intended to allow in more Syrian refugees after touting the measure just weeks ago. GOP leaders are keeping their options open as they mull whether to try to block new Syrian refugees by adding language to the must-pass spending bill.
[….]
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), one of the leading immigration hard-liners in the Capitol, sent a letter to colleagues calling for provisions in the omnibus spending bill that would give Congress more oversight over Syrian refugees.
[….]
Ryan and McConnell will have to decide quickly on a course of action as they confront the first potential legislative crisis since Ryan became speaker.
Please everyone, starting tomorrow call your Washington elected representatives and call the leadership—Ryan and McConnell—and let them know how you feel. And, keep calling through the Thanksgiving recess.
By the way, the resettlement contractors*** are ginning up their grassroots and the most maddening part of that is that they get to use your tax dollars to do it!
***Nine major federal contractors which like to call themselves VOLAGs (Voluntary agencies) which is such a joke considering how much federal money they receive:
RELATED ARTICLES:
Huckabee: Speaker Ryan should reject Syrian refugees or resign7
House Immigration Subcommittee to hold hearing on Syrian resettlement on November 19th
AP (After Paris) two Governors say don’t send Syrian refugees to my state
Guest post: Disillusioned Refugee Resettlement Worker Unloads
Breaking news: Michigan Gov. now says “no thanks” to Syrian refugees
White House Petition: Moratorium on all Middle Eastern refugee resettlement to America; sign it!
This video created by Ronnie Buss was sent to me by Daniel, a reader.
It is great political satire about how President Obama has weakened the U.S. military to the point of no return and how the Republicans in Congress have failed to stop him on the Iran Nuclear Deal.
Watch this 2 minute video and laugh or cry for the U.S. Armed Forces:
ABOUT RONNIE BUSS CREATOR OF THIS VIDEO:
Ronnie Buss is a singer/songwriter/parodist/common sense advocate. He regularly pokes fun at liberals, celebrities, sacred cows, and other topics. He sheds light on things that are topical and/or newsworthy.
Please subscribe to his YouTube channel by clicking here.
RELATED ARTICLES:
There’s one very DISTURBING question about the U.S. warrior just killed in Iraq
Obama Administration and UN Announce Global Police Force to Fight ‘Extremism’ In U.S.
Ever since Donald Trump rose to front-runner status in the 2016 GOP presidential field, we’ve heard dismissive talk about how he’s not a “serious” candidate. Pundits and political-party leaders have made this claim, in efforts ranging from seriously intended but unserious commentary to the tactic of hoping that if you act as if something is true it will be considered so. But whether or not Trump is a serious candidate, one thing is plain: these politics wonks have no idea what that is.
“Serious” in the sense it’s being used by the establishment types is not only a weasel word, but also akin to the tactic of calling an Internet commenter who utters uncomfortable truths a “troll”; the water-muddying message is, “Oh, you don’t have to pay attention to that; he’s not serious.”
But what is a “serious candidate,” anyway?
Does it reflect seriousness when a politician says, as Jeb Bush has, that violating our borders and invading our nation is an “act of love”? How about Carly Fiorina saying, two weeks after 9/11, that Muslim civilization was once “the greatest in the world” and “was driven more than anything, by invention”? What about when a brain-frozen Hillary Clinton blurted out, “Don’t let anybody…tell you that, ah, you know, it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs”? Or what about when, subject to normal oversight as any public official should be, she petulantly exclaimed about Benghazi, “What difference at this point does it make?!”
Then there’s the supposed savior of Democrat electoral fortunes, Joe Biden. When he said that Franklin Roosevelt got on TV to address the 1929 stock market crash, not realizing it predated the television age and Roosevelt’s presidency, was it suggestive of a serious candidate? And how about his boss, Barack? He thought “Austrian” was spoken in Austria, pronounced “corpsman” “corpse-man” three times in one speech and called the “transcontinental” railroad the “intercontinental” one (you know, the intercontinental ballistic railroad developed during the Cold War). Would a serious politician have such a poor knowledge base?
We could also mention Senator Marco Rubio, a.k.a. Aquaman, who promised conservatives he’d never support an immigration bill whose first priority wasn’t enforcement, but then told Spanish language station Univision (in Spanish) “First comes the legalization. Then come the measures to secure the border.” If such a shameless liar and panderer can be considered a serious candidate because he has a pretty face, we need to reevaluate our priorities.
Again, though, what is a “serious” candidate? Well, imagine a doctor refuses to render a correct diagnosis, but instead tells the patient what he wants to hear, because he thinks the truth will be unwelcome. Or imagine he’s a witch doctor who doesn’t know the truth in the first place. Would you consider him a serious physician? If “serious” has any meaningful significance in the context of politics at all — as opposed to just “serious about conning you” or “serious about attaining power by any means necessary” — integral to it is knowing the truth and being willing to speak it. Otherwise the person is as serious as Joe Isuzu.
Now, one quality characterizing almost all our candidates, to at least an extent, is political correctness (PC). But what is PC? It can accurately be defined as “the suppression of truth for the purposes of advancing a left-wing agenda.” Conclusion?
It can roughly be said that a candidate can only be serious insofar as his pronouncements are not politically correct.
And, question: who is the most politically incorrect candidate running this election cycle?
Answer: Donald Trump.
Thus, Trump in this sense is not just a serious candidate — he’s perhaps the most serious candidate in the race.
Punctuating this point is that he has talked the most, and the most seriously, about one of the most serious issues of our time: the invasion of our nation euphemistically called “illegal immigration” (hint: illegal entry isn’t any kind of immigration).
This isn’t to say that any candidate, including Trump, is as “serious” as I might like (hey, I’m not running). Everyone has his deficits and his “filters.” For starters, none of the presidential aspirants seem to grasp — or are willing to say — that our legal immigration regime is a far, far bigger problem than illegal migration. Nonetheless, there are lessons in the Trump phenomenon that must be understood.
First, any one of the other GOP candidates could have tapped into what Trump has capitalized upon. But they either
But what exactly is Trump capitalizing upon? To begin with, there’s a certain truth that his rise illustrates:
Tens of millions of Americans fear being politically incorrect.
But relatively few Americans actually embrace political correctness.
In this our nation is a bit like the old Soviet Union: the man on the street didn’t believe in the state ideology, but everyone feared the ideological machinery of the state. Trump is saying (to an extent) what countless Americans want to but fear to; he is the champion striking a blow against an unpopular social code enforced by a minority via fear and intimidation.
This isn’t to say there aren’t millions of useful idiots who subscribe to PC. But what percentage of Americans supported the forced resignation of marriage advocate and former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich or the firing of the Miami school principal who merely voiced support for the McKinney, Texas, police officer? PC is largely a phenomenon of the pseudo-elite, not the street. And it has its sting — Trump himself has lost major business deals (and is the rare person who can afford to) because of his immigration stance — but the privacy of the voting booth is one place where Americans don’t yet have to fear being politically incorrect.
The second thing Trump has tapped into is related to the first, and it was brilliantly articulated by one Julius Krein in a September Weekly Standard article. He wrote of Trump:
[W]hat defines him as a candidate and forms the essence of his appeal, is that he seeks to speak for America. He speaks, that is, not for America as an abstraction but for real, living Americans and for their interests as distinct from those of people in other places. He does not apologize for having interests as an American, and he does not apologize for demanding that the American government vigorously prosecute those interests. … His slogan is “Make America Great Again,” and he is not ashamed of the fact that this means making it better than other places, perhaps even at their expense.
In other words, Trump is tapping into what is the historical norm and has only been dispensed with, quite recently, by the suicidal West: a “tangible…nationalism,” as Krein put it. The makes him stand out in a time when an European Union insider can self-righteously say “sovereignty is an absolute illusion that has to be put behind us,” home-owner association officials can fine residents for flying the American flag, and an establishment-choice presidential candidate can call an invasion an act of love — and not be tarred and feathered and “warned out of town.” Trump talks like a patriot in a bizarro world where treason has become the norm.
Of course, a lack of seriousness does bedevil us. But understanding that PC is the antithesis of seriousness puts this in perspective. The arenas claiming to be able to identify “serious candidates” — the media and academia — are themselves the most PC of all and thus wholly unserious. And since they, along with PC entertainment, drive the culture and help shape opinion, they are partially responsible for what is the root cause of our problems: unserious voters.
Whatever our candidates may or may not be, they just reflect us, an unserious civilization in serious and unstable condition.
RELATED ARTICLE: Twitter Debate Between Brit Hume and David Limbaugh Mirrors Battle Within the GOP
EDITORS NOTE: Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com.
AUSTIN, Texas, /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Brad O’Leary, publisher of TheOLearyReport.com, former NBC News Radio/Westwood One talk show host, author of the The United States Citizens’ Handbook and former feature writer for USA Today Weekend magazine, is bringing light to the current rise stemming from longstanding historical roots in conservatism within the Black community in his latest Op-Ed piece, listed below and on TheOLearyReport.com:
How much of the Black population will support Republicans on the three major issues in the 2016 Presidential election?
When George Bush ran for president he got 8% of the Black population’s vote. There was a time when Republican candidates could only count for 8% of the Irish population’s vote. It is perhaps time for the Black voters to feel just as the Irish did, that the Democratic Party deserted them.
According to CNN’s most recent poll, the three major issues that American voters will focus on will be immigration, abortion and guns.
Now, who am I to say that CNN’s liberal bias, if correct may be a danger for the Democratic Party?
CNN will tell you that according to the polls, that the Democrats will be favored. However if you look at that result and the results from other polls in judging Black population responses, it may explain one of the reasons that Donald Trump seems to have the support of 20% of the Black population.
In addition to political polls there is an incredible amount of consumer polling that has been done on the Black population. That polling should frighten the Chairman of the Democratic Party.
First let’s take the Second Amendment and gun ownership. There is no question that gun control was historically a major political effort started at the beginning of the Civil War and was principally designed by the leadership of the Ku Klux Klan, who did not want Black people, especially in the South, to own guns, not even for hunting.
In some places in the South, if a Black person wanted to hunt and keep in mind that most families were fed that way, they had to get permission from the sheriff for a twenty-four hour period for hunting. We have heard stories from many people about that era, including from Condoleezza Rice, who has always supported the 2nd Amendment because her family historically owned guns namely to protect themselves from the Ku Klux Klan.
Today we have many significant Black leaders like Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke and Detroit Police Chief James Craig, who both urged people to buy guns to protect themselves.
We have seen a number of consumer polls indicate that a majority of the Black community, following recent riots, does not fear the police. Instead they fear the drug dealers and the hoodlums who are trying to stir up division and hatred making Black neighborhoods and streets unsafe. It is no wonder that the percentage of the Black population that supports the Second Amendment has increased in the last few years. Recently during the Miss Universe contest, one of the contestants, Miss South Carolina USA, Meagan Pinckney was asked about gun ownership, presumptuous but possibly by a judge, who might have believed that since she was Black and from the South she would give a gun control answer. Contestant Pinckney stunned the television audience by showing her knowledge and support of firearm ownership. Her opinion is not just from her but it is from her peers as well.
Hillary Clinton has made her position clear. She would make it difficult for anyone who is White, Asian or Black to buy a gun, particularly in the cities. At the same time Donald Trump and all the other candidates for president are the strongest group of 2nd Amendment supporters that this country has ever seen.
The second issue CNN touts is such a clearly a Democratic majority supported issue. This issue is abortion.
Now there is no question that a majority of voters believe in a woman’s right to choose. But in a paradox of thinking, a greater majority of Americans think that abortion is either manslaughter or morally unacceptable in today’s society. That doesn’t include the rather substantial number of Americans who believe that 3rd term abortions where a fetus can be seen as moving, breathing and is deemed capable of life outside the womb, is acceptable in massive numbers.
The number of people in the Black population who believe that abortion is morally unacceptable is greater than anyone has ever believed. The reason that Proposition 9, a heated topic of its own, which would allow gays to marry in California, was defeated at the ballot box largely due to the rallying of Black Christian voters who voted against it in massive numbers. This supports the concept that the Black population is actually quite conservative.
If you do not believe me, do your own test. In New York, five Black fetuses are aborted for every one White fetus. So go to the Black churches in a very liberal city like New York and ask the pastor and congregation what they think of abortion?
Frankly every time Hillary fights for more abortions and protecting the bargain basement selling of fetuses by Planned Parenthood she is also turning off church going Black women. Now that is an issue that no one can claim any of the Republican presidential candidates, including Trump, doesn’t have a clear opinion on. That opinion is there needs to be a stop to aborting Black babies.
Now we get to the third issue that CNN is so excited about, the issue of immigration, which clearly makes Trump and most Republicans extremists. Once again let’s consider how the Black population views immigration and some of the other effects that come from immigration. A rapper by the name of Azealia Banks unexpectedly reflected the conservative outlook of the Black population with her recent pro-Trump comments,
“Do you think it’s bad that I sort of agree with Trump’s stance on immigration? Not for any reason other than black Americans still not having been paid reparations for slavery and the influx [of] INTERNATIONAL immigrants (not just Mexicans), are sucking up state aid, and government money, space in schools, quality of life etc.?? It’s selfish, but America has been really good at convincing me that everyone else’s problems are more important than my own. I want my f*****g money!!…Me first!!!…Thoughts?”
Two areas of life that are directly impacted by immigration are job creation and drivers licenses.
Let me be clear about what the Black population thinks about immigration. For the most part they think the same as Whites and Asians. They think it favors Wall Street, it boosts corporate profit and it increases the value of many stocks. And no one polled is aware of how big immigration is every year. Only 10% of all Americans select the correct immigration numbers.
The Black population is opposed to Hillary’s immigration policy and they are opposed to the attempt by states to let illegals (“Sorry Mr. President that is my word.”) have driver’s licenses without automobile insurance. There is such a law that was just passed in California and the governors in other red states are completely supportive of giving illegals documentation. Now if anybody out there would like to see the polling that proves that this is true, I would be happy to send it to you. 65% of Hispanic citizens of the United States also opposed driver’s licenses without insurance. No surprise because illegal Hispanics hiding from “White” justice aren’t hiding in White neighborhoods.
The Black population believes and correctly so, that Hispanics take jobs away from them, particularly Hispanic teenagers versus Black teenagers.
EDITORS NOTE: For more analysis and commentary from pollster Brad O’Leary, please contact: Radio/TV Show Bookings: grassrootsbehavioral@gmail.com or (737) 704-1578. Readers may download The United States Citizens’ Handbook at no cost: www.USCH.us . Please visit: www.TheOLearyReport.com.
The debt ceiling.
The Obama income tax hike.
The Obamacare fight.
The sequester caps.
The Cromnibus.
President Obama’s executive amnesty.
Now, Planned Parenthood.
When does the GOP start winning? Here’s a better question, more appropriate to the times, when does GOP leadership even begin fighting? The GOP leadership has forfeited every one of the above battles without much more than a token, ex-post-facto, response, long after the outcome of the battles were determined.
While the GOP leadership continues to view its own base as problematic and unreasonable, the base is in full revolt, viewing the GOP leadership as deceitful and ineffective.
While the GOP leadership continues to view its own base as problematic and unreasonable, the base is in full revolt, viewing the GOP leadership as deceitful and ineffective. Many in the grassroots community are leaning towards non-politicians in the early presidential selection process as a result of the continued failures of Party leadership. Most unfortunate is that the GOP leadership has made little effort to understand the frustrations of the base, or course correct itself and win back those who have knocked on the doors, waved the campaign signs, manned the polls, and donated their hard earned money. It is my sincere hope to be able to explain to them, in the simplest terms possible, why we have lost faith in their ability to do anything other than make flowery campaign promises.
First, what the heck is their strategy? Do they even have one?
They have forfeited nearly all of the important fights with nothing to show for it. Having campaigned for office myself I have found even the most passionate grassroots conservatives to be very reasonable when it involves using the political machinery to achieve conservative goals. Conservatives largely understand that not every legislative battle will be won but that principles matter and over time, principled votes, even if they fall short, will demonstrate to America that the GOP stands for something.
Being consistently on the right side of the debates on taxes, the debt, healthcare, defense, abortion, immigration, school choice and other issues important to conservatives would have earned GOP leadership a tremendous amount of “trust capital” with the base that would have afforded them some leeway in implementing a strategic legislative strategy. Stated simply, a history of principled leadership would have allowed them to lose a couple of short-term battles without significant consequences from the base because most of us would have understood that these short-term losses were critical towards marshalling resources for long-term, and lasting, Conservative victories.
Sadly, GOP leadership has no such political capital with the base because that’s not their strategy. Their strategy appears to be to forfeit the short-term battles, forfeit the long-term battles, and to do whatever it takes, and to say whatever it takes, to maintain power while ignoring most of what the Party actually stands for. How long do they think this can continue?
This is a fight with such a clear and distinct, right and wrong side that it’s hard to believe even the insulated GOP leadership team is having a tough time picking a side.
After punting on the debt ceiling, we wound up with the sequester spending caps which they then proceeded to punt on as well. After telling the base they would repeal Obamacare they forfeited that fight for a series of show votes, and many in GOP leadership have since moved on. Now we have the Planned Parenthood fight. This is a fight with such a clear and distinct, right and wrong side that it’s hard to believe even the insulated GOP leadership team is having a tough time picking a side. Then, doubling down on silly, they parrot the Left and the media’s ridiculous arguments about government shutdowns insisting, preemptively, that the shutdown would be the GOP’s own fault.
Yes, this is the utter fecklessness of this failed leadership team. A first-grader could follow, logically, that the GOP leadership CAN’T shut down the government. How can they shut down the government if they pass a proper budget, without funding for the organ traffickers at Planned Parenthood, using all of their assigned constitutional duties, and put that budget on the President’s desk? If the President refuses to sign that budget, knowing that his refusal to sign the budget will shut down the government, then the responsibility lies with him. Is this really that difficult for the allegedly bright people elected to GOP leadership on Capitol Hill to comprehend? Or, are they so afraid of the media, the Left, academia, the blogosphere, and just about anyone else with a platform, that they are afraid to take this common sense message to the American people?
If, as a Party, we are going to forfeit the short game, and the long game, because we are afraid to stand on principle, then what’s the point of the Party? If the constitutional power of the purse delegated to the congress is irrelevant, then why not just forfeit away the constitutional republic for a monarchy? Why continue to waste America’s time? Look no further for an explanation as to why there is a rebellion brewing in the ranks of the GOP. We are tired of being tired. We want our Party back and we refuse to waste another dollar, or another bead of sweat, on GOP leaders who are leading us across the eventual horizon of a political black hole.
EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Conservative Review. The featured image of Senator Mitch McConnell is by Douglas Graham | AP Photo.
