Tag Archive for: Republicans

The Illusion of Inclusion in the Republican Party

/in , , , /by

I want my readers to fully understand why I criticize my party when it comes to their total lack of engagement with the Black community.  I have stated ad nauseam that Blacks are begging Republicans to give them a reason to vote for them; but so far the party has failed to even acknowledge the existence of the Black community.

Fifty two years ago, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King made a profound statement that was just as true then as it is now, unfortunately.  On December 18, 1963 he was invited to speak to the students at Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo.  He was asked, “Don’t you feel that integration can only be started and realized in the Christian church, not in schools or by other means?”

King’s response in part was, “We must face the fact that in America, the church is still the most segregated major institution in America.  At 11:00 a.m. on Sunday morning when we stand and sing and Christ has no east or west, we stand at the most segregated hour in this nation.”

Borrowing from King, I would say the most segregated major institution in America is the Republican Party.  Republicans often confuse diversity and inclusion with having a Black on staff.

Blacks are nowhere to be found when policies and direction of the party or a presidential campaign is concerned.

During the work week, I literally spend half of my day fielding calls and meetings from prominent Black Republicans asking for my assistance in helping them navigate issues within the party as it pertains to them and the lack of diversity within the party.  They praise me for my columns challenging the party; but for various reasons, they are totally afraid to join me publically in this fight to make our party more representative of America.

Many of these people are fearful of being blacklisted (pun intended) from jobs or consulting opportunities within the party so they much rather someone like me remain the point person for pushing my party to do what’s in its own best interest.  Mind you that Blacks are not getting any work from the party anyway, so the fear of being blacklisted is a bit ridiculous—we are already blacklisted de facto.

I am a businessman and yes, I am always interested in more business; but not at the expense of my integrity.  I can always get more money; but I can’t get more integrity.

Last week I had lunch with a major leader within our party (he is white).  To my astonishment, he actually encouraged me to continue challenging the party.  He indicated that people at the highest levels of the party follow and read my columns, but they don’t quite know how to respond to my writings.  I interrupted this person and told him that was total BS.  I told this person to allow me to interpret what his colleagues were saying to him.

“Republicans want Blacks that make them feel good, Blacks they are “comfortable” with, or Blacks that will just do what they are told.  There is a difference between hiring Blacks and hiring Blacks with credibility who know what the hell they are doing.”

There are fewer than ten Black Republicans in the country that has the skill set to get the party where it needs to be within the Black community.

I am referring to Blacks who have “earned” credibility within our community, not those deemed by the party to be credible; Blacks who have the professional competence in PR and communications; Blacks that have the political instincts and experience to engage with the Black community; and most importantly, Blacks who understand that all of the above skills must be brought together simultaneously.

Republicans confuse hiring a Black(s) with having the right Black(s).  Rarely have I seen Republicans hire the right Black(s) for a job and then empower them to get the job done.  Far too many in our leadership still believe if they focus too much on the Black community, they will alienate those on the far right of our party.  I ran into this roadblock as recently as last month.

Just last week, I had another in a lifelong series of bizarre experiences within my party.  I am frequently asked by Roland Martin to host his national radio show.  Between his radio and TV shows, many Blacks get their news from Martin.

So when I was asked to host for Roland last week, I sent an email to one of the top tiered presidential campaigns asking if they wanted to have their candidate call into the show for an interview with me.  None of the Republican campaigns has engaged with Black media to this point.  Here is his response, “Hey Raynard – Fully booked on hurricane [Katrina] stuff tomorrow. Thanks for reaching out though. “

Please tell me this is a joke.  This is what happens when you have an all-white staff—they are totally incapable of connecting the dots.  You are doing Hurricane Katrina related media, which disproportionately impacted the Black community; you have a chance to speak directly to the Black community on Roland’s show; you have a “friendly” doing the hosting; but yet they were unable to connect the dots.  This is exhibit A in how to continue to lose elections.

EDITORS NOTE: Please watch the below video of Raynard Jackson debating the Voting Rights Act. Raynard shows how you can’t have a logical conversation with liberals on this issue (notice how Raynard’s name was conveniently left off of the closing credits when they listed the guests for the show):

VIDEO: Donald Trump ‘Is The Country’s Collective Middle Finger To Washington’

/in , , /by

Here is my recap of the top headlines and breaking news stories. The lead story is titled, “Donald Trump is the Middle Finger of the Republican Base’.”

Here is what is hot and what is not:

RELATED ARTICLE: Donald Trump’s Soaring Popularity “Is The Country’s Collective Middle Finger To Washington”

How About a little Compassion for We the People

/in , , , , /by

Nothing ignited my late mom’s Baltimore living-in-the-hood anger more than someone “messing” with one of her “nine months” (her kids). I have a similar protective reaction to attacks on the Tea Party/We the People.

Not only have We the People had to endure mainstream media, Democrat and GOP establishment attacks, some on our side are attacking us for not being “smart enough” to reject Donald Trump. I say, have a little compassion for us. We are witnessing our beloved once great nation becoming a banana republic (dishonest and lawless government) right before our eyes. As patriots, we have faithfully done all the right things. And yet, the wrong things keep happening.

On Fox News Brit Hume called us (the Tea Party) the far right. Senator John McCain called patriots who attended an anti-illegal immigration rally “crazies.” House Majority leader John Boehner called us the far right. Will somebody please tell me what is “crazy” and “far right” about expecting government to function according to our laws and the Constitution?

And then, these arrogant (language I will not use as a Christian) have the audacity to call us stupid for rallying behind Donald Trump.

Where is the compassion for We the people? Yes, my heart goes out for the people. Political Action Committees and GOP candidates raised funds, promising to git-r-done only to leave patriots suffering a string of broken promises. Adding insult to injury, betrayers in the GOP which we gave the House and the Senate call us names; even launching a war on conservatives and the Tea Party. For crying out loud, how much more are We the People expected to take?

To date, my favorite presidential contender is Ted Cruz. Cruz gets it. He sympathizes with all We the People have gone through and vows to fight to make things right, when given the chance.

In essence, both parties said, screw you to We the People. Our Washington cartel is going to further its agenda and there “ain’t” nothing you Tea Party yahoos can do about it. The GOP took us (We the People) out to sea and threw us overboard. Trump threw us a lifeline. Do not attack us for accepting it.

Imagine a fire is raging out-of-control consuming my home. A gang of Hells Angels bikers approaches from over the horizon. They jump off their bikes and begin helping me extinguish the fire. Do I throw up my hands yelling, “Stop! I don’t approve of your lifestyle”? Or, do I simply say thank you?

Please do not conclude I am comparing Trump to the Hells Angels. I am simply saying while you may not agree or even like everything about Trump, the man has unquestionably positively impacted the political landscape. For one thing, illegal immigration would not be on the table if Trump had not made it an issue; standing firm, while bombarded by both parties and the MSM.

Also, the way Trump has dealt with the liberal bias mainstream media has influenced others not to be so easily pushed around by these bullies. With the Left obsessed with forcing conservatives/Republicans to apologize, Trump refuses to go there. It drives the Left crazy. I love it!

The Left regard apologies as blood in the water to totally destroy, devour and end the campaign of a conservative/Republican.

The Fox News strategy to “get Trump” during the GOP debate was extremely unfortunate. I agree with Mark Levin who said Fox blew a major opportunity. Twenty-four million Americans tuned in to the debate greeted with soap opera questions rather than exposing the horrors Obama has released upon our country and how the GOP contenders plan to fix it.

For example: Seventy percent of the population is unaware of the butchery and black marketing of baby body parts happening behind the walls of Planned Parenthood which is still praised by the Democrats. Why on earth was the debate moderators focused on a feud between Trump and Rosie O’Donnell? Truly unfortunate.

By the way, Bill Clinton was surrounded by affairs and scandals including allegations of rape; none of which came up during past debates.

Ted Cruz understands Trump’s popularity and thinks it is unwise for the GOP to “smack Donald Trump with a stick.” Rather than joining the chorus of those calling patriots idiots for liking Trump, Cruz understands and sympathizes with We the People. Cruz’s message is make me your president and I vow to champion your cause.

Cruz was short-changed during the GOP debate receiving very little time on camera. Still, Cruz’s closing comments caused him to soar in the polls; direct, strong and sincere. I am confident Cruz’s numbers will continue to grow.

I will not judge or be upset with my brother and sister patriots who are high on Trump. Any of our 17 contenders are far superior to a Democrat who will surely continue Obama’s evil transformation of America. My gut tells me Ted Cruz will break the tape finishing first.

The Importance of Right Thinking

/in , , /by

For fifty years liberals, progressives, socialists, those of the left or whatever they call themselves have been chipping away at every vestige of morality, right thinking, correct actions they could target.  So it is pretty darn pathetic and humorous when one of the opponents of personal responsibility suddenly decry destructive behavior.

Unless you have been in a coma, are deaf, blind or just dead, odds are you are acutely aware of the Ferguson disaster.  You are also familiar with how legions of thugs went to nutsville and tried to burn Baltimore to a crisp after their fallen thug brother Michael Brown assumed atmospheric temperature because he forgot that it is not nice to try and grab a police officer’s gun, after whacking him a few times.

I will probably never forget how Baltimore Mayor, Rawlings-Blake was at first OK with allowing the criminal rioters to wreak havoc, to let off a little steam.  Since that gruesome time of riotous woe followed by Baltimore government policies which have enormously inhibited the ability of Baltimore’s finest to effectively fight crime, things have gone more awry than usual.

So it was almost humorous to read in a CNS News report that Baltimore Mayor Rawlings-Blake stated that “the level of violence in Baltimore is unacceptable.”  Here we are a little over a year after the lunacy in Ferguson and Baltimore.  In recent months, Baltimore and other cities like Chicago have experienced record numbers of black on black murders.  One of the major reasons, amongst others is a refusal to teach individuals about right and wrong as well as personal responsibility.

Even the Mayor herself was obviously not taught about personal responsibility and property rights.  Remember her famous “they need to give the protesters room to destroy statement?  That verbiage alone opened the floodgates of destruction upon that historic city.  Unfortunately, Baltimore and increasingly throughout America society is reaping the intellectual garbage that has been sewn for decades.  When hate and blacks are victims are both taught and endorsed through the racism of low expectations what we have witnessed in Baltimore has become the fashion of the day in certain circles.

The racism of low expectations and victimization has not only damaged those who have been brainwashed by such hoopla, but the republic as a whole is negatively affected.  The burdensome cost of mad-uncivilized and enraged so-called victims is costing billions of dollars in property damage and medical costs.  More importantly, the needless loss of life at the hands of dummied downed so-called victims is costing fa

milies throughout the republic, the needless heartache of losing family members who became the real victims of so-called victims.

The black lives matter crowd is often a collection of either criminals or losers who should be considered criminals when conducting criminal acts.  If they die in the process of being criminals, then sovereign citizens should be smart enough to recognize it.  You cannot raise generations of American hating “victims” and then expect them to behave like rational human beings. It’s just not going to happen. Sorry!

If black lives matter activists and anyone else for that matter want a better life for people, they must first be willing to learn what entails a better life.

One cannot build a business, get a job or properly educate themselves if they are not first correctly instructed on the reality and importance of striving to be morally good.  Without the concept of common decency, Americans will continue to degenerate into vicious balkanized society of disunited countrymen out to hurt their fellow citizens and their property, just because they believe they can get away with it, like they did in Baltimore and Ferguson.

The time has come or some real concrete decisions to be made.  One of them is not to allow the continuation of the racist low expectation directives to poison the minds of young black Americans.  In addition, the evil choice of countless liberal educators and others to convince black Americans that they are nothing more than victims must be stopped NOW!

America was and can be great again, if “We the People” first choose to be great, victorious and through God’s grace, morally good.

The Koch Challenge

/in , , /by

Last week, to my amazement, I read an article about Charles Koch in The Washington Post newspaper.  The amazing part was that it was a positive article about Koch.

For those who don’t live in D.C., The Washington Post is one of the most liberal newspapers in the country and rarely has anything positive to say about Republicans, especially those who are conservative or libertarian.

The Koch brothers get a bad rap in the media, especially when it comes to the Black community.  I tend to agree with them on many of the issues they are tackling:  shrinking the size of the government, reducing the federal deficit, criminal justice reform, school choice, lower taxes, etc.

When it comes to their interactions with the Black community, like most conservatives, they are trying to do the right thing; but are doing it the wrong way.

During their annual donor’s conference last week in Dana Point, California, Koch explained why his focus is now on the “disenfranchised” and “lower class.”  According to The Washington Post, Koch invoked the names of civil rights icons like Frederick Douglas and Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Koch stated, “Look at the American revolution, the anti-slavery movement, the women’s suffrage movement, the civil rights movement.  All of these struck a moral chord with the American people.  They all sought to overcome an injustice.  And we, too, are seeking to right injustices that are holding our country back.”

The article reports that helping the lower class was echoed throughout the donor’s conference and they have plans to spend upwards of $ 800 million by the end of 2016 on issue advocacy, higher-education grants and political activity.

This is all well and good, but if they want to see positive results; they first must do a “forensic assessment” of their targeted audience—in this case the Black community.

It doesn’t appear to me that they have any relevant Blacks around them on the political side of the house who can help them properly navigate within the Black community.

For example, when you say “conservative” to a Black audience, we hear Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms.  When you say “libertarian” we think of someone who supports Jim Crow and segregation.  Former U.S. senator and linguist S.I. Hayakawa said, “Meanings are in people, not in words.”

Because of the liberal media, the Koch brothers, conservatism, and libertarianism all have a bad name in the Black community; and before you can begin to discuss the merits of their issues, the brand must be repaired.

As a student at Oral Roberts University, I had the fortune of working for Oral; and one of the things he would always say was, “Go into every man’s world and meet them at the point of their need.”

Too often, conservatives go into the Black community and tell us what they think is important to us, as opposed to asking us to tell them what is important to us.

A case in point is criminal justice reform.  Conservatives have the crazy notion that this issue is the gateway into the Black community.  In reality this is nowhere near the top of the priority list within the Black community.

The top three issues within the Black community are:  small business/entrepreneurship, education/school choice, and values/morals.  The logic is very simple.

Small business is the economic engine of our country; always has been and always will be.  Fortune 500 companies are steadily laying off workers, whereas entrepreneurs are creating all of the new jobs and doing all of the new hiring.

These small businesses need a labor pool that has basic skill sets like reading, writing, and arithmetic to fill various job openings.

Promoting “traditional values” within the Black community is part of our historical heritage going all the way back to Africa.  Liberalism is anathema to the Black community; but liberals have been effective in disguising it to the detriment of the Black community.

I totally agree with what Koch said in the article, “[we need] to be much more effective in articulating their [Koch] message.”  The first thing they must change is their verbiage.

If the Koch brothers are serious about engaging with the Black community, they must have a media strategy to push back on the liberal lies that are being constantly pushed within the Black community.  Conservatives cede too much to liberals in this regard.

The Koch brothers also need to have a strategic media plan for them (Charles and his brother David) to engage directly with the Black media to “demystify” who they are and their agenda.  Again, the liberal media has portrayed them as racist boogeymen to the Black community and they must begin to push back on this narrative.

A lie repeated enough becomes the truth.

Conservatives tend to surround themselves with Blacks they are “comfortable” with versus Blacks who can deliver results.  This is the major reason you don’t have more Blacks in the movement and I am not optimistic that this will change anytime soon.

If the Koch brothers are truly serious about engagement with the Black community, they must redirect their spending to the priorities that are important to Blacks, not the ones that are important to them; and they must begin to think and look outside of the box.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Charles Koch.

The Trump Offensive

/in , , , /by

Finally someone is shaking up the corrupt politics of Washington, D.C.

Flipboard Launches 2016 Election Central: All the News and Perspectives on the Campaigns in One Place

/in , , /by

flipboard election 2016 appPALO ALTO, CA /PRNewswire/ — Today, in time for the first presidential debate, Flipboard launched 2016 Election Central, a destination where anyone can get all of the news and perspectives — left, right and center— around the 2016 U.S. presidential election on a mobile device. Flipboard, along with leading publishers CNN and The Washington Post, created custom political packages for Flipboard’s 2016 Election Central that help voters go deep on the people, issues and politics of this campaign season.

In addition to working with top media sources, the Flipboard editorial team has selected Flipboard Magazines, created by enthusiasts and political organizations, that reflect the diverse points of views among the millions of people on Flipboard.

A Single Destination for Mobile Readers
Nearly 70 percent of Americans use their mobile devices to follow news events, according the Pew Research Center*. But, with an increasing field of candidates and the debates kicking off this week, keeping up with the presidential election is more challenging than ever. For those who want to stay connected to the issues and candidates, Flipboard’s 2016 Election Central is a single place for smartphone owners to get all the best election coverage.

“Mobile devices are how millions of people keep up with the news every day. But information is still spread across websites and social networks, and it’s hard to get the full picture or different points of view,” saidGabriella Schwarz, News Editor at Flipboard. “We built Election Central to bring insightful political coverage and the best campaign moments together, but more importantly we also want it to be a very personal place, where the reader can go deep on just what interests them.”

Flipboard’s Election Central organizes all the coverage into five core areas of interest: The Issues, The Candidates, The Politics, Top Stories, and Flipboard’s Political Rundown, the top 10 stories of the week. For mobile or desktop, Flipboard users can find 2016 Election Central in the “Explore tab.”

Leading Publishers Powering Politics
In the Candidates section, the Washington Post is curating Flipboard Magazines on each of the leading candidates, covering White House hopefuls in their “Contenders Revealed” series. In addition to the Washington Post’s custom candidate packages, readers can browse all the latest stories on a candidate by tapping on his or her “topic tag” (a news feed specifically dedicated to a particular candidate).

For the Politics section, CNN is covering the polling and debates of this election cycle in its Flipboard Magazine, “CNN Politics: 2016 on Tap.” Flipboard will interview a member of the CNN Politics team after each debate for a “2016 on Tap: CNN Politics Debate Recap” blog post. This unique content will only be available to Flipboard Election Central readers.

In addition, the Politics section will tell the story of the political maneuvering and advertising surrounding the race to the White House with coverage from leading news sources and Flipboard Magazines from NBC’s “Meet the Press,” CNN’s Inside Politics and the Des Moines Register.

2016 Election Central is the first destination site Flipboard has launched. It will be available until December 2016.

ABOUT FLIPBOARD
Flipboard gives people a single place to keep up on the topics, news, and events they care about. People use Flipboard to follow their favorite sources from around the world and then collect stories, images, and videos into their own Flipboard magazines—sharing items that reflect their interests, express their perspectives, or are simply things they want to read later. Download Flipboard in any app store or visit www.flipboard.com.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Here Are 21 Policy Highlights From the First 2016 Republican Debate

Highlights of the Happy Hour Debate

Analysis of President Obama’s Partisan American University Speech

/in , , , /by

Yesterday, President Obama used the venue of American University’s new Center of International Service in our nation’s capital to present a 55 minute partisan speech directed at wavering Democrat Senators and Representatives in Congress. He suggested that the nuclear pact with Iran was better than the alternative, war. He chose the campus located in northwest Washington, because it was there on June 10, 1963, that President Kennedy gave a Commencement address announcing an important Cold War initiative; a joint effort with Chairman Khrushchev of the Soviet Union and Britain’s Harold Macmillan seeking a comprehensive nuclear weapons test ban treaty and unilaterally ending atmospheric testing.

This was the first substantive developments among these antagonists following the October 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, when the world teetered on the brink of a possible nuclear exchange. In his speech, Kennedy asked the graduates to re-examine their attitudes towards peace, the Soviet Union, and the Cold War, famously remarking, “If we cannot end now our differences, at least we can make the world safe for diversity.” Kennedy unlike Obama gave a masterful and succinct presentation in less than 27 minutes to get his points across. Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu took 24 minutes to outline his opposition to the Iran nuclear deal, inclusive of his response to questions from  a large U.S. and Canadian audience via webcast.

Watch President Kennedy’s 1963 American University Commencement address:

The Wall Street Journal noted the hortatory and accusatory rhetoric of the President Obama’s remarks:

Congressional rejection of this deal leaves any U.S. administration that is absolutely committed to preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon with one option: another war in the Middle East.  So let’s not mince words. The choice we face is ultimately between diplomacy or some form of war.

Following the President’s speech, Senate Foreign Relations Chairman, Bob Corker (R-TN) told reporters:

 The president is trying to turn this into a partisan issue, but there is bipartisan concern.

He went out of his way lambasting the opposing Republican majorities in Congress as the party of war mongers. He tied them to the legacy of the Bush II Wars in Iraq suggesting the outcome was the morphing of Al Qaeda in Iraq into the Islamic State or ISIL. He said the cost was thousands killed, tens of thousands injured at a price of a trillion dollars. To divided American Jews, he told them that he had improved the Jewish nation’s Qualitative Military Edge with commitment of billions in conventional military aid. He implied that support would enable Israel to overcome the Islamic Regime’s existential threats of “Death to America, Death to Israel, Death to Jews,” notwithstanding Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei’s holocaust denial and Antisemitism. Obama criticized Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s opposition to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) for Iran’s nuclear program. He suggested that Netanyahu’s alternative of simply “squeezing” Iran’s theocratic leadership was not a better solution, and might lead to war. Netanyahu argues that the current Iran nuclear deal actually provides multiple pathways for Iran to achieve nuclear breakout leading to possible war.

In a post speech dialogue with Washington pundits, the President deepened his partisan criticism of Republican opponents to the Iran nuclear deal. Gerald Seib, who writes a dailyCapitol Column for The Wall Street Journal reported the President saying:

There is a particular mindset that was on display in the run-up to the Iraq war that continues to this day. Some of the folks that were involved in that decision either don’t remember what they said or are entirely unapologetic about the results. This mindset views the Middle East as a place where force and intimidation will deliver on the security interests that we have, and that it is not possible for us to at least test the possibility of diplomacy. Those views are prominent now in the Republican Party.

Both Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) found that criticism “galling,” as Mr. Obama “presided over the collapse of our hard-won gains in Iraq.”

Watch  the Washington Post video of President Obama’s 2015 American University speech:

While Obama’s speech was being delivered at American University there was a hearing before the Senate Banking Committee, chaired by Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) focused on sanctions relief under the terms of the Iran nuclear deal. Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman appeared saying “that I didn’t see the final documents. I saw the provisional documents, as did my experts.” Thus, suggesting that the IAEA side deals were not going to unearth prior military developments at Parchin and other known locations.

An appearance by Director General of the UN IAEA, Ukiya Amano in a separate Capitol Hill briefing Wednesday lent the distinct impression that the UN nuclear watchdog agency was not going to disclose the so-called side agreements with Iran, nor would it have the suggested “robust” verification regime that the President has touted. That gave rise to skepticism by Senate opponents, that no base line would be established for prior military developments at Parchin, an alleged center for nuclear warhead development. The Wall Street Journal reported Mr. Amano saying that IAEA inspectors had been denied access to key scientists and military officials for interviews.   Following his closed door briefing to a bi-partisan group of Senators, Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Corker commented, “I would say most members left with greater concerns about the inspection regime than we came in with.”  Senator John Barroso (R-WY) concluded, “My impression listening to him was the promises the President made were not verifiable.” Democrat supporters of the Iran deal like Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) followed the White House line that “it didn’t matter as we already knew what Iran had developed.”

At yesterday’s Senate Banking, Housing and Community Affairs  hearing, a panel of experts spoke about the lifting of sanctions and if there was a better deal. The panel included former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Crimes, Juan C.  Zarate, Mark Dubowitz executive director of the Washington, DC based Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and former State Department official Nicholas Burns of Harvard’s Kennedy School. Dubowitz in his testimony suggested that the deal should be amended, eliminating the sunset provisions and the so-called snap back sanctions. As precedent for possible amendment of the JCPOA, he noted more than “250 bi-lateral and multi-lateral agreements and treaties from the Cold War Era.”

Watch this C-span video excerpt of FDD’s Dubowitz’s testimony:

Last night, the PBS News Hour host Gwen Ifill had a segment with Burns and Ray Takeyh a former Obama adviser on Iran during his first term now a Senior Fellow with the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR), Is Obama’s Iran deal rhetoric working?  Burns, who is an adviser to Secretary Kerry, said:

I think, as Americans, we ought to have the self-confidence to try diplomacy first, rather than war. I will say this, Gwen, in answer to your specific question. I think the President ought to have a big tent policy here. To say that if the deal is turned down, if Congress defeats the President and overrides his veto in December, then that leads to war, I think, is a little stark.

Takeyh commented:

Jack Kennedy’s speech was lofty, idealistic. I think, if I quote it right, he said we shouldn’t wave the finger of accusation or issue indictments.

I think the President was unyielding. He was passionate, but his tone was at times truculent. And he didn’t make a successful pitch to his critics. This is a technologically flawed agreement, and the President should have attempted to broaden the parameters of the conversation about this agreement. I think, in that sense, the president missed his mark, and I think it was unwise.

Takeyh, who is also an adviser to FFD’s Iran Project, buttressed Dubowitz’s Senate testimony saying:

The history of arms controls suggest, when there’s Congressional objections, as was the case in SALT-I and SALT-II, and the President mentioned those, there is an attempt to go back and renegotiate aspects of this. And I think that’s what the President should have done when he met the criticism, as opposed to just dismiss it.

There are aspects of this agreement that are very problematic, such as the sunset clause, where, after essentially 10 years, Iran gets to embark on an industrial-sized nuclear program. And when you have an industrial-sized nuclear program, there is no inspection modality that can detect a sneak-out to a weapon option.

The President essentially, even now, after the rejection of the deal, should there be one, has a chance to go back, renegotiate some aspect of the deal, and therefore strengthen it. And as he strengthens that deal, I think he can broaden the bipartisan support for it.

I would be very concerned if I was a supporter of this deal that this deal is based on such a narrow margin of public support on the Hill. I think the longevity of this deal is seriously questioned by its absence of bipartisan support.

When questioned by Burns about reopening negotiations, Takeyh drew attention to other issues in the Iran nuclear pact that could be rectified through amendment:

I think it will be very difficult, but not impossible, because some of these provisions are so glaringly flawed that I think other countries would welcome negotiations.

I mentioned the sunset clause. Iran’s development of IR-8 centrifuges, which essentially produce uranium 17 times faster, and that gives Iran enrichment capacity that is quite substantial — the verification on this deal is extraordinarily imperfect.

The president keeps talking about that this is the most intrusive verification system, and the only other verification system that was more intrusive resulted from the Iraq War and the armistice. That’s just not true.

South Africa, under Nelson Mandela, agreed to anytime/anywhere inspection, which, in practice, you had access to military facilities within one day. So we can go back and renegotiate four, five, six aspects of this agreement. The history of arms controls is replete with such exercises.

And I think if you do that, this agreement would be strengthened. It will be based on a bipartisan anchor; it would ensure its longevity.  It would ensure that proliferation cascade in the Middle East will not take place, and it will ensure that Iran will not sneak out to a bomb.

Watch the PBS News Hour segment with Burns and Takeyh:

Takeyh’s colleague and long term President of the CFR, Dr. Richard N. Haass in testimony on August 4th before the Senate Armed Services Committee suggested:

That any vote by Congress to approve the pact should be linked to legislation or a White House statement that makes clear what the United States would do if there were Iranian non-compliance, what would be intolerable in the way of Iran’s long-term nuclear growth, and what the US was prepared to do to counter Iranian threats to US interests and friends in the region.

With each Senate and House Hearing on the Iran nuclear pact, more is revealed about why this is a bad deal. However, as witnessed by the Congressional testimony of experts like Dubowitz of the FDD, Takeyh and Haass of the CFR, it appears that Obama and Kerry didn’t follow the experience garnered from Cold War era arms control negotiations. Congress should be the veritable “bad cop” to fend off and reign in the concession demands of the Islamic regime’s negotiators in Lausanne and Vienna. We understand that several Republican Senators and House Members are drafting resolutions for rejection of the Iran nuclear pact. Perhaps they might include recommendations for amendment of the JCPOA endeavoring to make it a better deal. However, the President has chosen a partisan path that does not welcome bi-partisan deliberation. Perhaps the option is for the resolutions to reject the pact and schedule a vote as a treaty, assuming the President may have the votes to override a veto. As we have discussed there is also possible litigation that might achieve the same end.

It is going to be a long hot summer recess for Members of Congress in their states and districts holding town hall hearings to gauge the pulse of constituents on the President’s nuclear deal with Iran.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.

A Golden Nugget Hidden in the Trump Spectacle

/in , , , /by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Republican Presidential Candidates Lack Diversity

/in , , /by

Once again, Republican presidential candidates are proving that they are either truly colorblind or just blind to people of color.

What is it that all these declared Republican presidential candidates all have in common: Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee, George Pataki, Rand Paul, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal and Donald Trump?

The answer is none of them have any paid Black staffers or consultants. Let me be perfectly clear when I say staffers or consultants; I am referring to people who can get meetings on the calendar with the candidate, call the candidate on his private cell phone, or get the candidate to show up somewhere.

In other words, staffers or consultants who have power and influence to make things happen.

How can you run for president of the United States in the 21st century and have absolutely no diversity on your staff?

Lawdy, lawdy, I can hear their responses now. We are focusing on Iowa and New Hampshire; and then if we become the nominee we will look to hire Blacks they will say. So, in their minds, a Black staffer or consultant can only operate in states that have Blacks? Oh really?

To be a Black Republican, we must be able to operate in a White environment as well as a Black environment simultaneously.

Republicans have absolutely no understanding of this dynamic. So, if you are dealing with limited funds and you have to hire staffers or consultants; you are better off hiring a Black simply because you get a twofer.

You can’t take a White staffer and put him in the Black community and expect success because this staffer does not have an understanding of the various nuances within the Black community. Conversely, you can send a Black to deal with the White community if they have the right skill set.

For example, as a graduate of Oral Roberts University, I have deep relationships within the White Evangelical community second to none; but I also have deep personal ties with the heads of almost every major Black professional organization in the country (journalists, accountants, lawyers, physicians, M.B.A.s, etc.).

So, just on the fiscal issue alone, there is an immediate return on investment for having a policy of diversity at the highest levels of a presidential campaign since you get a twofer by hiring the “right” type of Black.

The other issue is that of optics. You have yet to see a Black person get off a plane or out of a car with any of these candidates. The sad part is the candidate nor his staff is even cognizant of this situation.

The candidate is ultimately to blame for this; but it is also the fault of their pollsters. I know most of the Republican pollsters very well, and with the exception of one, they all tell Republicans to ignore the Black vote.

On several occasions I have nearly come to blows with these pollsters over this issue. They are propagating this myth of the Hispanic voter and Republicans are buying into it. Blacks far outnumber Hispanics in voting age population (VAP); Blacks vote in far higher numbers than Hispanics; and Blacks have a far higher turnout percentage than Hispanics.

Isn’t it amazing that some of these candidates are courting Hispanics in Spanish; but refuse to speak to Blacks in a language that they understand?

Blacks understand the language of entrepreneurship. Under Obama, Black businesses have been decimated. Blacks have gone from receiving 8% of S.B.A. loans under Bush to 1.8% under Obama (their own numbers).

Blacks understand the language of education. Under Obama, the Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) have been decimated because of the policies coming out of the Department of Education.

These are two issues that play to the Republican’s strength; but yet they refuse to go into the Black community with this message. Instead, they foolishly go into the Black community talking about prison reform issues. H-E-L-L-O! These are not major issues within the Black community.

This is a typical case of Republicans trying to do the right thing; but doing it the wrong way. Too many Republicans think they and their White staffers know more about the Black community than a Black person from the community.

Message to Republicans: you can’t run on a platform to represent all of America when America is not represented on your campaign staff.
As the old folks used to say, “Your actions speak so loud I can’t hear a damn thing you are saying.”

The Left Will Always Blame the GOP on Obamacare

/in , , , /by

With the 2016 elections right around the corner, conservatives must begin immediately preparing to rebut the massive Democratic Party/mainstream media, symbiotic messaging operation. I read a piece this week by the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent that summarizes the far Left’s new Obamacare messaging strategy in the event of a Supreme Court loss in the King v. Burwell (Obamacare subsidies) case.

Here is a short summary of where we are. The far Left is terrified that the Supreme Court is going to rule against the Obama administration in King v. Burwell, essentially voiding the Obamacare subsidies in the states using the federal exchange even though the legislative language in the law regarding the “subsidies” was written this way to punish states for failing to set up state exchanges. The far Left and the Obama administration are disputing this point despite clear, videotaped evidence of Professor Jonathan Gruber, one of Obamacare’s lead architects, stating otherwise.

Now, the Obama administration has never let videotaped evidence of their prior contradicting statements dissuade them from continuing to lie to the American people (i.e. “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. Period.”) but, in this case, their lies are especially egregious because their plan to withhold subsidies from states that refused to set up a state exchange was designed to punish the citizens of that state for not complying with Obamacare. When the punishment backfired because of public opposition to Obamacare, and support for the governors and legislators who refused to comply with its exchange language only increased, they went with plan B: lie. As usual, after their strategic miscalculation they are desperately trying to find a way to blame Republicans for this disaster, although not one Republican in the House or Senate voted for the final version of Obamacare.

The far Left’s messaging strategy to avert political disaster because of their tactical miscalculation regarding the Obamacare subsidies is to say that the Republicans have “taken away” the subsidies and pin the blame on Republicans if the court rules against the Obama administration. But, here’s the catch; the Dems destroyed our already-troubled healthcare system all by themselves by unilaterally supporting Obamacare. The reason the Obamacare “subsidies” (which are your tax payer dollars given back to you after the government takes a cut) are necessary is because insurance costs are exploding because Obamacare forces Americans to buy expensive insurance they do not want and do not need. And the reason these “subsidies” may be taken away is because the Democrats unilaterally wrote and passed the law this way to punish Americans for resisting this legislative debacle.

Unsurprisingly, when you combine the mandate to purchase health insurance policies, which included multiple unwanted and unneeded services with the community rating and guaranteed issue provisions designed to redistribute costs according to government edicts, you have a recipe for explosive healthcare cost growth. Of course, none of this was a mystery to the Republican Party when they warned America about the coming storm of healthcare premium hikes, a warning the mainstream media largely downplayed to ensure the “wizard” stayed well-hidden behind the curtain.

So here it is in a nutshell: Obamacare was shoved down your throats using parliamentary trickery. Obamacare forced you to buy expensive insurance you don’t want or need at dramatically inflated costs to compensate for the redistributive, big-government, effort to price-control the health insurance market. Obamacare taxed you to gather a honey pot of money. Obamacare then used this honey pot of taxpayer money to “give back” to Americans to pay for their new, and more expensive insurance.

You will never fix this legislative disaster by doubling down on absurdity. The economics won’t work because they can’t work. The Republican Party must prepare their counter message right now to explain to the American people the horrible tsunami that Obamacare has created. If we allow the far Left to continue to distort markets, engage in massive income redistribution operations, and instill more big-government coercion schemes to force compliance on the American people by simply pledging to prolong the misery by “fixing” the subsidy system and continuing the misery, then we are no better than the president who lied to us to sell us this jalopy.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Conservative Review. The feature image of the Supreme Court building is by Tom Williams | AP Photo.

Some Republicans Are Cowards on Race

/in , , /by

Of February 18, 2009, then U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder gave a Black History Month speech to the employees at the Department of Justice.  He said in part, “Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.”

I think the same thing can and should be said about our Republican candidates for president.  These candidates are too busy listening to their all white staffs and all white pollsters who tell them not to come out and say remove the confederate flag from flying in South Carolina for fear of angering Southern white folk.  And they wonder why Blacks want nothing to do with this party or their candidacies?

I am thoroughly embarrassed by their total lack of conviction.  These same candidates that say flying the confederate flag is a state issue want states to have no say so on an issue like abortion.  Are they really for states’ rights or just when they don’t want to take a principled stand on an issue?

If someone refuses to support your candidacy because you are trying to move America beyond its racist past; should that not be a badge of honor for you?

But these candidates are giving all their attention to a shrinking base (white voters), versus giving some of their attention to a growing base (Black voters).

I am not personally bothered by the flying of the flag at all.  Support for the flag does not automatically equate to being a racist or supporting the enslavement of Blacks.

I think Blacks have more important issues to deal with, but the optics are horrible for Republicans simply because over the past 50 years Republicans have absolutely no standing within the Black community.

I am equally as embarrassed by Black Republicans on issues dealing with race.  Of the few Black staffers working throughout our party, most are totally incompetent in dealing with these issues. You rarely, if ever, see them in the media with anything meaningful to say.  They have no insight that would resonate with the Black community.  They are more interested in being patted on the head by whites within the party, as opposed to finding a way to bring some perspective to the issue.

Why is the party not utilizing people like Bob Brown, Bob Woodson, Shannon Reeves, Mike Gunning, Sean Moss, Allegra McCullough, and Greg Griffin?

I will tell you why.  Because most in the party have no idea who these people are.  These are the Blacks with standing and credibility within the Black community.  These are the Blacks who are media savvy and have institutional memory of the Black struggle and of the party.

These are the Blacks that will not just say what the party wants to hear; but will say what needs to be said.

The Republican Party has never had a real surrogate program for Blacks, but one is desperately needed with the above mentioned people.  Where are the Black entertainers and athletes?

Amazingly, some Republicans do actually get it.

Mitt Romney has been consistently opposed to the flying of the flag.  There is absolutely no ambiguity in his position.  Romney has a great deal to contribute to the discussion of race relations relative to the Black community and I hope he will engage more directly with the Black community so that his voice can be heard, unfiltered by the media.

Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, is another person who gets it.  Yesterday he unexpectedly flew to South Carolina to be with their governor, Nikki Haley and their two U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham and Tim Scott as she gave her support to removing the flag from being flown on the grounds of the state capitol.

Priebus reached out to me when the tragedy happened in South Carolina; but before he asked me my thoughts on how he should respond, he insisted on giving me his thoughts first.  What I find amazing about Priebus is that every time he has reached out to me on an issue specific to the Black community, we basically agree with each other.  We may disagree somewhat on tactics, but on substance, no.

I find his instinctual ability to pick up on many of the nuances of the Black community amazing for someone who grew up in a state like Wisconsin.  My only criticism of Priebus is in the area of not allowing this instinctual understanding to be seen in the media, especially the Black media.

The media has no idea of how Blacks respond to him and his message for the Black community.

I would love to see Republicans like Romney and Priebus engage more with the Black community on a more substantive level.

They both have great stories to tell relative to the Black community; they just need to have a media narrative created in a way that resonates with the Black community and advances the party.

Reasonable men can argue whether America is a nation of cowards when it comes to race; but there is absolutely no arguing that Republicans who are running for president are a bunch of cowards when it comes to race and the Black community.

Rep. Scott G. Perry (R-PA): It Takes ‘Moral Courage’ To Stand Against the GOP Leadership

/in , , /by

Yet another courageous lawmaker, endorsed and elected by the Combat Veterans For Congress, U.S. Representative Scott G. Perry (Colonel PA-ARNG) is opposing the SECRET 800 page unconstitutional Fast Track Trade legislation that no member of Congress has read, which will give President Obama the power to eliminate all Federal Immigration Laws and keep the wide open southern border permanently open for Radical Islamic Terrorists to continue to enter the United States. The SECRET bill that Boehner, McConnell and Obama refuses to let the American people see, before it is passed will erode the sovereignty of the United States.

Representative Perry was interviewed by the Daily Caller. Please watch and listen to his revealing statements:

The Republican leaders in Congress are saying it is necessary to pass this SECRET 800 page unconstitutional bill that no one has read be involved in “Free Trade” in Asia; this bill is not about “Free Trade.” Asia is desperate to trade with the U.S., and Oval Office currently has the ability to negotiate “Free Trade Treaties” with every country in Asia and the world without violating the U.S. Constitution, violating Federal Immigration Laws, and damaging the Free Enterprise System—that is exactly what this SECRET 800 page Unconstitutional legislation does—more importantly it is a nail in the coffin of the Free Enterprise System, and advances Obama’s Socialist policies with the willing and aggressive help of the Republican leadership in Congress.

When the current leadership of the Republican Congress didn’t have to, they intentionally funded Obama’s illegal immigration policies in violation of Federal Immigration Laws and the U.S. Constitution thru September 2015. Now by jamming Obama’s SECRET 800 page unconstitutional Fast Track Trade Legislation through the Congress, that no one has read, they will be responsible for effectively eliminating “all U.S. borders”. They learned their lesson well from Pelosi, when she said “we have to pass it to see what is in it.”

This SECRET 800 PAGE unconstitutional bill will allow millions of non-Christian illegal aliens from 12 Pacific Rim countries, including Mexico, to enter the United States, in order to have Obama give them work permits, and he will facilitate their ability to take very scarce jobs away from over 104 million unemployed Americans who couldn’t possibly work for such low wages; many of the U.S. unemployed are minority and low income workers. This SECRET 800 page Unconstitutional bill that no one has read is against the Free Enterprise System, and advances Obama’s Socialist Agenda.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Meet the 11 Republicans Punished by House GOP Leadership

Sean Hannity: ‘We Need a New Speaker’

Mark Meadows gets the boot from subcommittee chair after bucking leadership

Mark Meadows to Fight GOP House Leadership: ‘Sometimes You Have to Make Changes to the Coach’

Republicans and Election Reform

/in , , , , , , , /by

Now that Republicans have working majorities in both houses of Congress, the American people can once again enjoy the benefits of the constitutional republic that the Founders designed for us.  Right?  Well, not so fast.  To expect the current crop of congressional Republicans to do what is necessary to restore constitutional government and repair the damage done by Barack Obama… let alone know what must be done… is entirely problematic.

As a case in point, the recent battle over construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline demonstrates the complete fecklessness of congressional Republicans.  From the instant the last ballot was counted in November, it was clear that one of the first bills to pass in the 114th Congress would be a bill to approve construction of the pipeline… a bill that Barack Obama promised to veto if and when it reached his desk.  Does Obama care about the environment or the leftists who politicize it?  Of course not.  What he does care about are the many millions of dollars that pour into Democrat Party coffers from a handful of radical environmentalists.

What congressional Republicans apparently failed to recognize was the immense political gains to be made if the issue was properly handled.  By developing best estimates of the number of engineers, contractors, welders, heavy equipment operators, truck drivers, and laborers required to complete the project, along with the generous salaries, wages, and benefits that those workers would command, Republicans could have armed themselves with the most potent political weapon they’d ever been blessed to have.  By seeing to it that every Republican in Congress had that information at his/her fingertips, with instructions to repeated it in every radio, TV, and print media interview, and in every public appearance, Republicans could have driven a very large wedge either between the Democrat Party and radical environmentalist, or between Democrats and organized labor.

By signing the pipeline bill Obama would reap the anger of the radical environmentalists and win the approval of organized labor.  Conversely, by vetoing the bill he would win high praise from environmentalists, but organized labor would be angered enough to split the Democrat vote in many national and state elections.  For Republicans, it was a win-win proposition.  However, instead of using that opportunity to their advantage, making a veto override a real possibility, congressional Republicans treated that opportunity as if it were a sexually-transmitted disease.

While Democrats can be counted upon to always play hardball, Republicans seem intent upon playing political softball.  So, if congressional Republicans aren’t smart enough to recognize a political advantage when one falls into their laps, how can we expect them to recognize the political damage to be done if Obama is successful in giving Social Security numbers, drivers licenses, and voter registration cards to millions of illegals, none of whom are eligible to vote?

Even though they are seriously victimized by fraud, violence, and intimidation in every election, congressional Republicans appear to be blithely unaware of the problem as Democrats continue to liberalize the electoral process.  In fact, it is unlikely that election reform is even on their wish list.  Although election law is generally a matter of state law, a comprehensive election reform law targeting federal elections would supersede state law.  A comprehensive election reform bill… one that would put Obama and congressional Democrats in a tight box… would contain the following elements of reform:

  • Voter registration must be done only in person.  Fraud-friendly motor-voter, postcard, Internet, and same-day registration schemes must be either repealed or superseded.

In same-day registration states, Democrats have recruited teams of college students to travel from precinct to precinct, registering to vote and voting numerous times in the same day.  In a heavily-Democratic county in Minnesota, an undercover investigator visited a county election board to ask whether or not it was necessary for new voters to register in person, saying that he had two friends, Tom Brady and Tim Tebow, who were unable to appear in person.  The investigator was given twenty registration forms and was told that he could register twenty voters with the forms.

  • Registrations must be done only by full-time registrars, employees of counties and/or township government, and only in the state, county, and/or township in which the registrant maintains his/her primary residence.  Third party registrars, paid and unpaid, must be prohibited.

In 2012, a voter registration study showed that, in North Carolina alone, some 35,570 voters shared the same first names, last names, and dates of birth with individuals registered to vote in other states.  Another 765 North Carolinians had the same first names, last names, birthdays, and final four digits of a Social Security number as those who voted in other states.  As a requisite for voter registration, each voter should be required to show proof of citizenship (birth certificate or passport) and proof of residence (drivers license, residential deed, apartment lease, utility bills, etc.).

  1. Before voting, each voter must show an official government-issued photo ID (drivers license, passport, etc.), or an official state-issued voter registration card complete with telephone number, home address, Social Security number, and precinct number.  As an alternative, and as a means of preventing voters from voting more than once in a single day, states may require voters to dip a finger into a vial of indelible ink after voting.
  2. Court administrators must be required to furnish local election boards with name, address, date of birth, and Social Security number of every individual convicted of a felony.  Election boards must be required to purge voter registrations rolls of all felons at least ten days prior to any election.  County Coroners must be required to furnish election boards with copies of all death certificates.  All deceased persons must be removed from the voter rolls no later than ten days prior to any election.
  3. Registered voters who move from one state to another, from one county or township to another, or from one precinct to another, must be required to obtain voter registration transfer documents from their local election board.  This document must be presented, in person, to voter registrars of the voter’s new place of residence.
  4. Absentee ballots must be received no later than ten days prior to an election.  Absentee ballots, other than those of overseas military personnel, must be tallied no later than the day and hour that polls close in any election.  Absentee ballots completed by residents of hospitals, nursing homes, elder care, and mental health facilities must be completed only in the presence of representatives of both major political parties.
  5. Other than absentee ballots, voting must be done in person, only on the day of the election, and only in the precinct in which the voter maintains his/her primary place of residence.  Electronic voting and vote-by-mail schemes must be repealed or superseded.  Provisional ballots must be limited only to the most serious instances of clerical error by election board officials.
  6. The Voting Rights Act must be amended to provide fines and mandatory jail sentences for any individual who would, in any election in which the name of a candidate for federal office appears on the ballot, do any of the following:
    • Vote in the name of another person.
    • Vote or attempt to vote more than once in any election.
    • Vote in the name of a deceased or fictitious person.
    • Vote in more than one state or political subdivision.
    • Vote without benefit of U.S. citizenship.
    • Intimidate, interfere with, or cause injury to the person or property of any other person peaceably engaged in the political process, or cause any other person to do any of the foregoing.

In an April 10, 2014, speech before Al Sharpton’s National Action Network, Barack Obama attempted to rally his base by charging, falsely, that Republicans were attempting to suppress the black vote in the 2014 elections.  Demonstrating once again that he is either totally dishonest or ignorant of the facts, he said, “The principle of one person-one vote is the single greatest tool we have to redress an unjust status quo.  You would think there would not be an argument about this anymore.  But the stark, simple truth is this:  The right to vote is threatened today in a way that it has not been since the Voting Rights Act became law nearly five decades ago.”

In truth, what Obama would like to see is a system in which only Democrats and illegal aliens get to vote twice.  If Republicans had any courage at all they would insist on tightening the noose around vote fraud and stop ignoring Democrat efforts to create more fraud-friendly processes.  They might use comprehensive voting reform as yet another issue that would require Democrats to identify themselves for who and what they are.

As Obama has said, one would think that there would no longer be a question about holding open and honest elections in the United States, but that’s not the way things are.  Decent, honest, men and women will endorse the reforms outlined above.  Democrats, on the other hand, are certain to oppose them.

On the Road to Dictatorship

/in , , , /by

In a speech before the City Club of Cleveland on March 18, 2015, Barack Obama put into words what, until now, he has only allowed himself to dream about.  In his remarks, he launched into a diatribe on how he would choose to run U.S. elections… if only he could dictate his own terms.

According to the Associated Press, when he was asked about the “corrosive” influence of money in U.S. elections, he digressed into the related topic of voting rights, suggesting that “the U.S. should be making it easier… not harder… for people to vote.”

For those who may doubt the wisdom of mandatory voting, he suggested, “Just ask Australia, where citizens have no choice but to vote.  If everybody voted, then it would completely change the political map in this country.”  As Obama sees it, universal voting would counteract the evil influence of money in politics more than anything else.  This from a man who raised $750 million against John McCain in 2008 (much of it from illegal foreign sources), and $1.12 billion in his reelection bid against Mitt Romney in 2012.  So, if money in politics is “corrosive,” as Obama suggests, then he is the most thoroughly “corroded” politician in U.S. history.

He went on to note that, disproportionately, those who fail to vote on Election Day are younger, lower-income, and more likely to be immigrants or minorities.  Translated, what Obama yearns for is a nation in which the most ignorant and uninformed people (his base) are required to vote.

On Election Day 2008, in an attempt to learn how much Obama voters knew about politics and current affairs, Zogby International interviewed more than 500 Obama voters outside polling places across the country, asking the same fourteen questions in each location.  One of those interviews with self-proclaimed Obama voters was caught on film and circulated on the Internet.  They were asked:

  1. Which party currently controls Congress?
  2. Do you know who Barney Frank is?
  3. Do you know who Nancy Pelosi is?
  4. Do you know who Harry Reid is?
  5. What do you think of Bill Ayers?
  6. Which candidate was given $150,000 worth of clothes by a political party?
  7. Which candidate has a pregnant teenage daughter?
  8. Which candidate said they could see Russia from their home?
  9. Which candidate said they’d campaigned in all 57 states?
  10. Which candidate won their first political campaign by having all the other candidates of their own party kicked off the ballot on technicalities?
  11. Which candidate had to quit a previous campaign because of a plagiarized a speech?
  12. Which candidate said their policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and cause energy prices to skyrocket?
  13. Which candidate said that the government should redistribute wealth?
  14. Where do you get most of your news?

Those  interviewed were two white females, aged 20-25; three black females, aged 20-25; one black female, aged 40-45; two white males, aged 35-40; one white male, aged 55-60; and three black males, aged 40-45.

When asked which party controlled Congress in 2008, and what they thought of Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Bill Ayers, one black woman thought Pelosi was a “fair” woman, but none knew that Democrats controlled Congress or had any idea who Frank, Pelosi, Reid, or Ayers were.  However, when questioned about which candidate received a $150,000 clothing allowance from a political party, which candidate had a pregnant teenage daughter, and which candidate was charged (falsely) with having said that she could see Russia from her home, nearly all were able to name Sarah Palin.

When asked which candidate claimed to have campaigned “in all 57 states,” which candidate won their first political campaign by having all of their opponents kicked off the ballot, which candidate claimed that their policies would bankrupt the coal industry and cause energy prices to  skyrocket, and which candidate said that government should redistribute wealth, most of those interviewed attributed those statements to either Sarah Palin or John McCain… none named Barack Obama.  And when asked which candidate had to withdraw from a previous campaign because he had plagiarized a speech, none knew that it was Joe Biden.

Not surprisingly, when asked where they got all of their information, the respondents mentioned ABC, CBS, CBC, CNN, MSNBC, National Public Radio, the New York Times, Bill Moyers, Jon Stewart, and the Colbert Report.  So is it any wonder then that they knew nothing about current affairs but took yellow journalism from network news and yellow propaganda from Democrats and television comedy skits as fact?

If the Zogby poll tells us nothing else, it tells us that a lot of people are voting who shouldn’t be because they are not representative of the sort of informed voters necessary to the maintenance of a constitutional republic.  By relying on yellow journalism and yellow propaganda as their primary sources of political information, they cast themselves, in fact, as enemies of the republic.

In the best of all worlds, voter registration should be open only to those who could provide evidence of property ownership, and their immediate family members, while on Election Day prospective voters should be required to score at least 60% on a simple fourth or fifth grade level civics exam, with multiple choice questions drawn at random from a pool of questions.

Unfortunately, it is precisely the type of voter interviewed by Zogby that Obama and other Democrats are interested in herding into the voting booths.  They make up a large enough segment of the Democratic base to sway most elections.  Without them, Democrats could never win control of any legislative body, nor could they elect a president or a vice president.  Such voters are the life blood of the Democrat Party.

As matters now stand, the Democrat Party is totally dependent on the availability of a large pool of ignorant and uninformed voters, such as those produced by the public education system and our colleges and universities.  It represents a “devil’s bargain” between the teachers’ unions and the Democrat Party in which the teachers’ unions churn out millions of ignorant, uneducated, and uninformed voters in exchange for the right to dictate education policy and funding to Democrats in Congress and in the state legislatures.

In a series of widely circulated remarks, former Clinton operative James Carville is quoted as saying:

“Ideology isn’t all that important.  What’s important is psychology.  The Democratic constituency is like a herd of cows.  All you have to do is lay out enough silage and they come running.  That’s why I became an operative working with Democrats.  With Democrats, all you have to do is make a lot of noise, lay out the hay, and be ready to use the ole’ cattle prod in case a few want to bolt the herd.  Eighty percent of the people who call themselves Democrats don’t have a clue as to political reality.

“What amazes me is that you could take a group of people who are hard workers and convince them that they should support social programs that were the opposite of their own personal convictions.  Put a little fear here and there and you can get people to vote any way you want…

“Truth is relative.  Truth is what you can make the voter believe is the truth.  That’s why I’m a Democrat… I can make the Democratic voters think whatever I want them to.”

Although Carville’s remarks are unsubstantiated and may, in fact, be bogus, the truth of those sentiments are undeniable and represent what Republicans have always known about Democrats.  Put those sentiments together with an ethically-challenged politician, motivated by a foreign ideology, and what do you have?  We have the United States of America under Barack Obama.

In the March 22, 2015 edition of the New York Post, Michael Goodwin says of Barack Obama: “First he comes for the banks and health care, uses the IRS to go after critics, politicizes the Justice Department, spies on journalists, tries to curb religious freedom, slashes the military, throws open the borders, doubles the debt, and nationalizes the Internet.

“He lies to the public, ignores the Constitution, inflames race relations and urges Latinos to punish Republican ‘enemies.’  He abandons our ­allies, appeases tyrants, coddles ­adversaries, and uses the Crusades as an excuse for inaction as Islamist terrorists slaughter their way across the Mideast.  Now he’s coming for Israel…  Barack Obama’s promise to transform America was too modest.  He is transforming the whole world before our eyes…”

In a recent townhall meeting I suggested to our second term congressman that he ask those in attendance if they knew who Valerie Jarrett was and what role she plays in the Obama White House.  Only four of us in the room, all Republican activists, knew the answer to the question.

Barack Obama and Valerie Jarrett have put us well down the road to a fascist dictatorship.  What remains to be seen is whether or not rank-and-file Republicans will be concerned enough and wise enough to turn their backs on establishment Republican candidates in 2016, nominating, instead, conservative leaders with the backbone to lead us back from the abyss.