Thursday, January 14, 2016

Days Before the Two Candidates Are Known! (Part 1)

MichelleI Malkin, Donald Trump and Eminent Domain
By NWV Senior Political News Writer, Jim Kouri
February 11, 2016
© 2015
Portland Oregon -- While the Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire Primaries were widely covered by the national news media, a number of conservative groups under the umbrella movement -- the Oregon Liberty Alliance -- held a moving political rally in Portland, Oregon, on Saturday, February 6.
The group's 2016 Freedom Rally boasted a guest list of some of the nation's top conservative voices including blogger extraordinaire and immigration activist Michelle Malkin, author and filmmaker Dinesh D'Souza, and Fox News contributor Todd Starnes. The non-profit groups represented were the Oregon Women's League, Oregon Anti-Crime Alliance, Oregon Right to Life, Taxpayer Defense Project, Oregon Family Council and others. [Link]
More than 1,700 people attended Saturday’s 2016 Freedom Rally for conservative values at the Oregon Convention Center in Portland. The rally, put on by the Oregon Liberty Alliance, was to support fiscal responsibility, life, public safety, family values, and religious liberty.
This was the third year for the rally, and attendance has continued to grow. There were more than 750 people at the first rally in 2014, over 1,500 at last year’s rally and more than 1,700 at this year’s rally.
Rally attendees heard energizing and inspiring talks from Starnes, Malkin, Oregon Republican Congressman Greg Walden and D’Souza. Attendees could also visit booths at the rally and learn more about numerous conservative causes, groups and candidates.
Also attending the political rally were members of the management at the top news and commentary web site Unfortunately, some of the speakers were not enthralled with the leading Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.
As Michelle Malkin was speaking and paused for a few seconds, the editor of used the opportunity to shout out 'God Bless Donald Trump.'
"Upon hearing that, she started attacking Mr. Trump: Malkin said, 'He believes in Eminent Domain' and will take people's property.' She was downright nasty and negative towards Mr. Trump," said the editor-in-chief of
Senior Editor Paul Walter said, "It was disheartening for me to hear that because I know it's a total fabricated lie. I love Trump, who I believe is a decent man with a heart of gold. I know without a shadow of a doubt that he is the only one who can save what's left of my beloved America." Mr. Walter, who attended the rally with his film actress wife Yutte Stensgaard, noted that out of all the speakers participating in the rally, Ms. Malkin was the only one trashing Mr. Trump. She did however, give Mr. Trump credit on the open border issue. said Walter.
"I find that surprising because out of all the candidates, Trump is the only candidate taking a tough stance on illegal immigration and our national sovereignty. Michelle Malkin gained national attention as a result of her tough immigration stance and her call for tighter border security and immigration enforcement," said political strategist.
The Republican Party's neo-cons are using Eminent Domain strategy against Trump because it works -- it scares conservatives and libertarians. Mr. Walter and other political observers believe they are stooping to the use of a strategy employed by Adolph Hitler's Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels: If you repeat a lie often enough people will eventually come to believe it.
"The Democratic Party uses that tactic frequently. For example, ask people who started the Ku Klux Klan, a large number of them will say the Republicans. The truth is, the Ku Klux Klan was created by Democrats. But the Democrats lied about that fact for decades until now college kids believe the KKK is a part of the GOP," said former attorney and political consultant Joshua Tannenbaum. (read Kelleigh Nelson's article "Voter Fraud? Thank Howard Baker")
"The neo-cons are going on the offensive with this lie in the hope of putting Mr. Trump on the defensive," added Paul Walter.
Mr. Walter also advises that will soon release an article researched by Kelleigh Nelson that accuses Jeb Bush, when he served as Florida's governor of being the real Eminent Domain villain. The article will reveal that on his watch the State of Florida wanted to confiscate Jesse Hardy's 160 acres using the Eminent Domain strategy. Stalin said: "Accuse others of what you do"
Yet, the neo-con hypocrites are taking the advice of Barack Obama's and Hillary Clinton's mentor, Saul Alinsky: "Accuse others of what you do," claims a former New York police detective and prosecuting attorney Rafael Menendez. "The neo-cons are accusing Trump of what they do [regarding Eminent Domain]. They know that people are gullible and the only way to stop Trump is with outright lies, dirty tricks and voter fraud."
After the rally, NWV's editor-in-chief spoke briefly with Mr. D'Souza. "He told us that he has a new documentary film being released this summer -- the week before the Democratic Convention -- in 1,500 theaters across the nation in order to expose the lies, dishonesty and criminal acts of Bill and Hillary Clinton," he said.
"This will defiantly help the Republican nominee. Mr. D'Souza was extremely polite and friendly. He encouraged us to see his new documentary movie the first weekend of the release because it will help launch it in more theaters across the nation," said Mr. Walter.
Unfortunately only Dr. Ben Carson and Marco Rubio were GOP candidates with booths staffed by campaign workers passing out campaign flyers. There were upwards of 1,700 people in attendance. But no one was officially representing Mr. Trump.
We at NWV's are doing all we can to expose corruption and help Mr. Trump. We need to increase our hits to reach more people. If you readers have any ideas, please let us know. NWV's own Paul Walter believes that Trump deserves his support based on his honesty, his refusal to be "bought" and his clearly stated agenda: to "Make America Great Again."
© 2016 NWV - All Rights Reserved
Forget 'We'll Remember In November' - It's The Primaries
By: Devvy Kidd
January 31, 2016
"Nature gave man two ends - one to sit on and one to think with. Ever since then, man's success or failure has been dependent on the one he used most." —George R. Kirkpatrick (1867-1937) Lecturer
'We'll remember in November' has been the rallying cry every two years by millions of Americans. Of course, too many don't understand by November it's too late.
Rewarding Crooks and Incompetents, May 11, 2009
"The Republican Party wants to 'reinvent' itself. What hogwash and it's all for public consumption to fool voters into reelecting incumbents or ousting a few Democrats.
"Americans have been committing national suicide for decades. They vote the same incumbents back into office over one issue: More money for education! Save social security! Save Medicare! which is now $30 TRILLION in the hole. Protect abortion! Save sodomy! Save the whales! The list goes on and on. I've seen the insanity repeat itself over and over and over. People will "forgive" their House member or Senator because "the other side" is worse. They still can't see the truth because of blind loyalty to their party."
Americans Love the IRS & The Income Tax, April 7, 2012
"But, none of this seems to matter to the nearly 100 million Americans who continue to reelect the same liars for hire to the U.S. Congress. For the past few months enthusiastic supporters of incumbents have been out there working to get their Congress critter reelected. The same miscreants who steal from us, lie to us and cheat us out of our pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. The same incumbents who have and continue to lie to those enthusiastic supporters about the nature of the "income" tax. Roughly 100 million Americans working for their own destruction while thinking it's a good idea. Classic Sun Tzu's Art of War."
Are Americans Really This Stupid? June 27, 2012:
"Americans got angry. They said we will hold you responsible in November 2010! Sure, they did. With an approval rating of 11% for the gangsters in the Outlaw Congress, a whopping 86% of incumbents were sent back to Washington, DC., after the 2010 elections to continue stealing us blind and passing more and more unconstitutional laws while allowing alphabet soup agencies like the FDA, EPA and USDA to continue running amok. I suppose one could say it was an improvement over the usual 96% reelection stats for incumbents....
"Don't look to any change come this November as far as the U.S. Congress. The same outlaws will get reelected after winning their primaries and it will be back to business as usual come January. Remember that Rassmussen poll I cited above? 78% of the American people believe the outlaws in the U.S. Congress are governing without their consent, yet they have gone to the polls and voted to reelect the same parasites in dozens of primaries. You hire someone to do a job, they do just the opposite and you turn right around and give them your vote - again."
Four Important Bills Languishing in Congress, March 10, 2014
"Those bills are important issues that should have been solved a long time ago. Where has your congress critter been? Why hasn't he/she pushed to get them passed? Do people expect change and problems solved by reelecting the same incumbents who never got the job done in all the years they've been in Congress?
Fox News poll: 67 percent would vote out all current lawmakers - March 6, 2014
"By a 67-26 percent margin, voters would kick everybody on Capitol Hill to the curb and replace them with new people. That includes two-thirds of Democrats, Republicans and independents. The result is perhaps not so surprising, given how voters feel about lawmakers these days: just 12 percent approve of the job Congress is doing, while 78 percent disapprove."
But, voters said almost the same thing in 2010 and still reelected 92% of congressional incumbents and expected change: Fox News Poll: 68% Say Vote Out All Incumbents -March 19, 2010
"If American voters only had the following two choices on the Congressional ballot -- keep all current lawmakers in office, or get rid of all incumbents in Congress -- what would they do? A new Fox News poll asked that question, and the answer could be bad news for incumbents this fall. Sixty-eight percent of voters would oust all incumbents, while 20 percent would keep all lawmakers in office."
"Not here in Texas. Our primary was March 4th and what did ignorant voters do? Why, they voted against qualified challengers for Congress. They voted to reelect the same incumbents who have destroyed this country. That's right. Conservatives ignorant on the issues allowed themselves to be herded in the right direction by organizations like The Conservative Republicans of Texas who sent out a sample ballot to registered Republicans telling them to reelect every incumbent. So-called leadership leading the flock straight to the slaughterhouse."
Ft. Hood: Official Response More Meaningless Rhetoric, April 6, 2014
"Not if people reelect the same incumbents back to Congress starting with those upcoming primaries. If incumbents in the Outlaw Congress haven't fixed the problem for active duty soldiers with mental health issues and the VA in all the years they've been in Congress, what makes you think they will do it if people vote to reelect them in the primaries? Why do Americans keep expecting things to change by voting for the same failures in the Outlaw Congress who didn't get the job done?"
Rape & Betrayal By The GOP: Let Me Count The Ways, December 16, 2014 one month after Americans gave Republicans the majority again. That column has very important information in it, i.e, "How much will this cost you, me our children and grand children in DEBT? $720.9 MILLION in 2015. Here is the web site to see how those "conservatives" everyone helped win their primaries on the way back to Washington, DC to screw us are going to steal from us in 2015. The list of countries is endless while our financial future is dead. There is ZERO constitutional authority for the bandits in the Outlaw Congress to steal from we the people for any of it." My column:
GOP Incumbents Will Betray America End of Year by yours truly, February 10, 2014
"Johnny boy and other pimps with pull power in the House and Senate have every intention of selling us out. As pointed out in this piece, 'White House giving Boehner room on immigration', it likely will come during the 'lame duck' session, Nov - Dec. 2014...
"What all incumbents in the U.S. House and 1/3 rd of the unlawfully seated U.S. Senate want is you to vote for them in the upcoming primaries so they can go on to win in November and go right back to destroying this country. John Boehner, if not defeated in the May 6, 2014 primary will return to the Outlaw Congress and sell us out, right along with most incumbent Republicans for back room deals.
"Mark my words that's EXACTLY what will happen. Republicans will use the same cowardly argument about "family values" to legalize 25-30 MILLION liars, cheats and thieves (some family values) because that's what illegal aliens are..."I've got news for Republicans who want to keep the destroyers in office - incumbents lie."
"I told you so: Boehner Ally Admits Omnibus Bill Was Crafted in Literal Cigar Smoke-Filled Back Room. "The bill funds Obama’s amnesty, funds Obamacare, provides funds for controversial pro-abortion measures, and is packed to the hilt with pork--like money to save rhinoceroses from poaching; a reauthorization of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s casino crony kickback, the Travel Promotion Act; and more.
"And, what did those incumbents who won their primaries and got reelected to the U.S. House do on December 11, 2014? The U.S. House of Whores voted to pass a $1.1 TRILLION dollar bill which will finance the government through September 2015 - including amnesty, all the programs underway to keep illegals here and Obamacare."
Voters, Again, Choose Their Own Destruction (Primaries), May 11, 2014
"Do people expect change and problems solved by reelecting the same incumbents who never got the job done in all the years they've been in Congress? Apparently, they do. But, since tens of millions of voters are completely ignorant about the issues, how could they know their congress critter is a failure who keeps promoting Band Aids instead of constitutional solutions? The herding technique is very effective every election cycle: keep blaming the other party, not your incumbent...
"Here in Texas, millions of voters who've "had enough" stayed home and didn't vote on March 4th. A paltry 13.3% of all registered voters in this state bothered to get to the ballot box. 'Don't Mess With Texas' is a meaningless motto. Our state legislature is also just as corrupt as others. They continue to ignore the only real solutions as the clock ticks. Tragically for Texans, rotten GOP state incumbents also won their primaries."
One Thing Donald Trump Can't Do For The Economy, December 21, 2015
"If your member of Congress has done nothing to kill the cancer and continuing down the same road, what makes you think re-electing the same incumbent next year will get the job done? Abolishing the unconstitutional "Fed", getting us out of all "free" trade treaties, abolishing Obamacare, get us out of the UN once and for all, abolishing unconstitutional cabinets - the most critical issues have been completely ignored by your incumbent and mine, who is retiring, thank God. Tragically, we the people are going to pay dearly in the near future."
If Americans once again vote for their congressional incumbents in the upcoming primaries NOTHING will change.
• Uninformed, disinterested, brainwashed & special interest voters (2006)
• Re-electing the Band Aid Brigade (May 2010)
• Electing new Band Aid Pushers (May 2012)
Every two years qualified constitutional candidates run for the state houses and Congress and every two years incumbents wipe them out. Go look at this chart which shows the percentage of incumbents who continue to get reelected election after election. On the House of Representative side the average is always above 90%. On the Senate side, consistently in the 80% and above.
Besides vote fraud which kept me out of Congress, candidates challenging an incumbent are squashed like a bug by the GOP machine AND because those challengers don't get the ground support they need to win a primary.
At this point in time, tens of millions of Americans are angry. VERY angry. If they go to the polls in the next few months and vote for an incumbent instead of a qualified challenger NOTHING will change. The incumbents - either party - then goes on to win in November because they always vote straight party line. Despite polling which shows incumbents (every two years) with an approval rating of 11% - 15%, still the people vote back those incumbents. Why? Because (1) the GOP and Democratic/Communist Party USA throw their weight to crush challengers, (2) because too damn many Americans still believe it's not their incumbent, it's the other party's, and (3) They believe the BS about an incumbent having so much experience and being on important committees. They sure do and are destroying us and this country.
Well, how's that working out for YOU?
The crook who has never represented me in my congressional district, Randy Neugebauer, is finally retiring. Here Are Four Texas U.S. House Races to Keep an Eye on
"Nine Republicans filed to run for retiring U.S. Rep. Randy Neugebauer’s strongly Republican seat: former Texas Tech Vice Chancellor Jodey Arrington, farmer Jason Corley, bank president Greg Garrett, veterinarian John C. Key, retired ophthalmologist Donald R. May, farmer Don Parrish, Lubbock Mayor Glen Robertson, retired U.S. Air Force officer Michael Bob Starr and health care administrator DeRenda Warren.
Donald May, who I voted for, ran two years ago but lost the primary because he's from Lubbock two hours from where I live. There was barely a peep about his run. He simply did not have the critical grass roots organization to beat Neugebauer. The others are new names to me so I looked at each of their web sites. For your district just type in the person's name + for Congress into a search engine to get to their web site.
Arrington has the standard boiler plate stuff, but as far as any constitutional solution to get rid of unconstitutional cabinets and agencies like the Federal Department of Dumbing Down Education, he is sorely lacking. Corley only has a Facebook page. I've never logged on to any Facebook page nor will I. Mark Zuckerberg who hates American workers is worth nearly a half trillions bux. He owns Facebook and he will never get a penny of my money. While his heart is in the right place, Corley needs a web site that gives his position on the issues, clearly and succinctly.
Garrett has no clue about the income tax fraud. Nor does he address any of the critical issues I dissect in the columns above, Band Aid Brigade and Electing New Band Aid Pushers. John Key also recognizes many of the cancers killing this country, but again, nothing about the disabilities of our monetary system and actually going for the jugular in reducing the size of the federal monster. Mr. Parrish has the worst web site that virtually tells you nothing about constitutional solutions. M. Warren is highly educated but she's the typical fluff out there. No constitutional solutions; doesn't even list critical issues besides Obamacare.
Michael Bob Starr recently retired as a full colonel in the Air Force; highly decorated veteran. Same old, same old one hears from 'conservatives' running for Congress. Unfortunately, he just doesn't get it regarding the national debt, no mention of the FED and so on. Glen Robertson 'gets it' on many of the issues just like Donald May. However, I will vote for Dr. May again because he is keen on the Tenth Amendment as well as having a good understanding of constitutional government.
I bring this up for a reason. Find out who is challenging your congressional incumbent (same thing for your state rep and senator) in the upcoming primaries. Then you have to do like I did - which is time consuming - look up their 'for Congress' web site and go through them one by one. Get out there and help beat rotten congressional incumbents.
ALIPAC Endorses Maria Espinoza for Congress Against Rep. Culberson - She gets my personal endorsement. Culberson has money behind him, but he needs to be booted out of Congress. If you live in his district, get out there and vote for Maria in the primary, March 1st. Spread the word in that district.
Here is a list of 150 incumbents Republicans, House and Senate, who betrayed YOU, your children and grand children on amnesty - they all need to get thrown out of Congress. The only way to get that done is to get out on primary day in your state and vote. There's still time to sign up and volunteer for a good challenger because they don't have the kind of money (well, most don't) incumbents do and if they don't have volunteers to walk the district getting the candidate's message to voters, there's no chance.
I guarantee you if the same congressional incumbents win their primaries odds are heavily in favor for that incumbent in November and NOTHING will change. Republican or Democrat, NOTHING will change except for the worse. I'll say it again as I have said so many times: Do people expect change and problems solved by reelecting the same incumbents who never got the job done in all the years they've been in Congress?
Right now the major focus is on Iowa and the presidential candidates, but primaries are also for congressional seats, your state capitol and any other offices like city council, sheriff or judges. If you don't know who is running for a particular office, use a search engine. Example: Texas primary candidates secretary of state. That took me to this page which gives you all candidates on your primary ballot.
In 2014 our primary here in Texas was just sickening. Out of 13.6 million registered voters only 1.9 million got out and voted for their future. 11.7 million voters here in Texas stayed home. They couldn't even make the effort to kick out every incumbent, Republican or Democrat, who have been destroying this country and their future, never mind their children and grand children. It's not about one issue as I wrote about in my columns on Band Aid pushers. It's about violating their oath of office every day they're in office.
It isn't the other party's incumbent. It's YOURS and MINE from both parties. 'Conservative' means nothing as I wrote about in my column last week. We need constitutionalists, not more phony conservatives who have been conserving nothing but our destruction.
Please, click on "Mass E-mailing" below and send this article it to all your friends.
A few items you might find helpful:
1 - Ted Cruz's Closest Counselors Are Neocons - Warning
2 - Ted Cruz's Federal Education "Choice" Kills The American Dream
 Remember: Congress has ZERO authority to legislate education
3 - How Huckabee Deceived Iowa 8 Years Ago
4 - America 2016: We're mad as hell and not going to take it anymore
5 - Film will make viewers jury in 'Hillary trial'
 Buried among scandals is 'biggest-ever case of campaign-finance fraud'
6 - Hillary Project on track 'to take her out' - The goal? Prosecution, not presidency
7 - Reminder: Why Trump Battles The Fox News Machine
 How can he run as a Democrat when he's not registered with that party?
8 - Bernie Sanders: ‘We will raise taxes. Yes, we will’
[Just a short note about 9/11 and Smart Electric Meeters. The cost of America's undeclared "war" (invasion) in Afghanistan has now reached $1 trillion borrowed dollars - massive debt heaped on us all based on what happened on 9/11. Regular readers of my column know I continue to press for the truth about the events of 9/11. Military grade nanothermite is not a conspiracy theory. It was found and tested from the rubble at the twin towers. A new, powerful film has been released: The Anatomy of a Great Deception. For full disclosure I receive no compensation, but I want you to get a copy (or a few) and share it with others or give a copy as a present. I've purchased half a dozen copies and given them to individuals I believe seek the truth. It's very powerful simply because it's one 'ordinary' man's story who ask a simple question that led him to a not so simple journey. There is factual information in this film that many have never heard about but everyone should. Just a suggestion, order more than one and give one to a friend. Also, must see video on the dangers of Smart Meeters on your home, titled: Take Back Your Power.]
© 2016 - and Devvy - All Rights Reserved
Devvy Kidd authored the booklets, Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty; 2 million copies sold. Devvy appears on radio shows all over the country. She left the Republican Party in 1996 and has been an independent voter ever since. Devvy isn't left, right or in the middle; she is a constitutionalist who believes in the supreme law of the land, not some political party. Devvy is a member of the Society of Professional Journalists.
Devvy's regularly posted new columns are on her site at: You can also sign up for her free email alerts.
E-mail is:
The Party of the People
By Pastor Roger Anghis
January 31, 2016

This election cycle has brought a lot of things out into the open that most people knew nothing about concerning the state of our political system. This is rampant in both political parties but it is only beginning to show blatantly in the Republican Party this cycle. I watched a video of a behind doors meeting of the political elites of the Republican Party and they were complaining about some ‘candidates’ that are coming against people of certain religions and some people of certain ethnic backgrounds.[1]

This was a direct attack on Donald Trump’s opposition to the unconstitutionally unbridled immigration from Mexico and his opposition to the unfettered immigration of muslims from terrorist nations specifically Syria. In this video the speaker stated that the Republican Party was their Party and then he made the statement that it was the Party of the people. He is 100% wrong about that. He, along with the rest of the elites in both parties, have forgotten that we have a representative government and that the people elect the people that THEY want to represent them. This Republican Party demands that we elect the people the PARTY wants. They are ignoring ‘the people’ they are supposed to be representing. 
In the debate that was scheduled for last Thursday night on Fox News some interesting information came out a couple days before the debate that Fox News, at the approval of the RNC, were going to have a pro-muslim and pro-hispanic round of questions for Trump via YouTube. I have been involved in politics for quite some time and I have never seen a political Party attack its front runner from every side as they have Donald Trump. One really has to ask the question ‘Why are they so afraid of Trump?’ In virtually every poll Trump is the people’s favorite by double digits![2]
Yet the Republican elite are behind closed doors doing everything they can to bring him down. There has to be a reason for this and I believe that it is because he can’t be bought. He can’t be manipulated. He is exposing a lot of dirty laundry within the entire political system. His attention to the ‘natural born’ aspect of the Constitution concerning Ted Cruz is nothing more than upholding the demands of the Constitution concerning the position of President. This aspect was ignored in the last two elections and we have an ineligible man in the White House because of that. In short Trump is 100% right that Cruz is not eligible. The term ‘natural born’ was understood at the time of the writing of the Constitution to be a child born to two parents that were citizens of a country. This is discussed in detail in an article written by my friend JB Williams.[3]
This definition, which we have followed up until 2008, makes not only Obama ineligible but Cruz and Rubio. My question is why does the Republican Party literally demand that this be ignored. Because this is part of the Constitutional requirements to be eligible to hold the office of the President any changes to that requirement would require an amendment to change it. There is no amendment to that article of the Constitution and as such that requirement still stands. Cruz’s father did not become a US citizen until 2005. When Ted Cruz was running for the Senate in 2012, he stated to supporters at a Texas 912 campaign event that he was “NOT ELIGIBLE for the White House because his father was never a US citizen until 2005, in addition to being born in Canada.”[4]
With the Republican elite attacking Trump on illegal immigration from Mexico it is nothing but a slap in the face to the citizens of America. These illegals are keeping the wages artificially low because they are willing to work for much less than the American worker. They are like leaches on our welfare system. Our country is going through an immense immigration crisis that will not be able to endure for much longer.
It turns out a new report from the U.S. Census Bureau shows that nearly all immigrant families with four or more children in the house are on some type of government welfare program.
Census reports that with every child, immigrants access taxpayer-funded welfare programs more and more. Some 70 percent of those with one child are on welfare, 71.3 percent for those with two children, and 87.8 percent for immigrant families with three kids in the house.[5] We, as a nation, can no longer continue on this path and Trump has the ability to make some significant changes in how this is done.
Our spending under Obama has escalated beyond belief. He has spent more than the previous 43 presidents combined and he had promised to cut the debt in half his first term! In an article from 2011: When Obama was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009, according to the Treasury Department, the total national debt stood at $10,626,877,048,913.08. As of Monday, Obama had been in office 986 days—or about 32 and a half months. During that time, the debt increased at an average pace of $4.27 billion per day. Were that rate to continue until Obama’s term ends on Jan. 20, 2013, the debt would then stand at about $16.86534 trillion—an increase of more than $6.2 trillion for Obama’s four years.
That would equal nearly $53,000 for each American household or more than $66,00 for each full-time private-sector worker.[6] How can we continue on this road to bankruptcy? Obama has about 6% of his cabinet that has any business savvy. Ronald Reagan had 68% of his cabinet that were successful businessmen. Trump has openly ridicules this administration on the ‘deals’ that it has made with other nations that seem to benefit only the other nations at the cost to the American taxpayer! I believe that Trump will have many in his cabinet that will know what needs to be done to get our economy going again. One of the things we have to do is curb the illegal immigration and neither Party is willing to address this and the American people are getting tired of our government ignoring the major concerns of not just the people but the health of the nation itself.
The national security is a top concern for most citizens and allowing immigration from terrorist nations to continue without a viable vetting process is almost suicide. But the Republican elite continue to bash Trump for saying something needs to be done. Jimmy Carter banned immigration from Iran during the hostage situation and even deported over 15,000 Iranian students, nobody said a word. FDR put Japanese US citizens in internment camps, nobody said anything. Trump suggests that we stop immigration from terrorist nations until we can get a hold of a better more reliable vetting process and the world goes nuts including the Republican elite! 
Is there more to this than we can see on the surface? I have no doubt that there is. Will it be exposed in this election? I think a lot of it will and it will be exposed by Trump and that is what both Party elites are afraid of. Trump may not be a perfect candidate but then none are. Trump is willing to take a stand. His refusal to attend the debate I think is a good one. It is just a set up to attack him and ignore the issues. He want to talk issues. But he is shedding a light on many of the things that are wrong with our current system. I think that light needs to be brighter. We may not like what we see but at least it will give us what we need to make the changes that need to be made. God uses the foolish thing of the world to confound the wise. We are seeing this manifest before our eyes.
© 2016 Roger Anghis - All Rights Reserved
1. Leaked Video: RNC Meets Behind Closed Doors To Destroy Trump From Within.
2. Polls: 2016 Republican Presidential Nomination
3. True Facts About the Endless Natural Born Debate
4. True Facts About the Endless Natural Born Debate
5. Over 90% of Immigrant Families With 4 Kids Are on Welfare.
6. Obama Has Now Increased Debt More than All Presidents from George Washington Through George H.W. Bush Combined.
Pastor Roger Anghis is the Founder of and, organizations designed to draw attention to the need of not just free speech for churches but disseminating correct information through responsible journalism.
Pastor Roger also has a weekly radio program on, The American Intelligence Briefing Hour, at 5:00 p.m. MST every Tuesday. Pastor Roger also has published for 12 years the American Intelligence Briefing an internet newsletter for keeping up on the news most agencies don't report.
Web site:
How To Identify True Principled Candidates
By Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall
January 31, 2016
“Ted Cruz idolizes Ronald Reagan…” “To his credit, Barack Obama has done the same thing. There are some in the political world that vilify Barack Obama. Personally, I’ve never been one of them. I think he is deeply committed to his principles and demonstrated real courage in fighting for them.” —Senator Ted Cruz, The Guardian, December 2013
Ted Cruz idolizes Ronald Reagan and the real courage of Barack Obama, —Raw Story
I do not believe Megyn Kelly was the reason Donald J. Trump did not show up for the Fox News debate last Thursday. Though Kelly appears to view herself as an elephant in the Donald’s campaign, I think she is more of a flea on the elephant’s butt.
Two days before the debate, Breitbart filed a good article which proved to be totally true. Fox had two “sleepers” recruited to make Trump look radical in his lawful views about immigration – and that was the intent. It appears Fox has become Marco Rubio’s champion. Those who are impressed by Rubio need to consider that his first major speech after announcing his candidacy was to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a New World Order group.
In a later article out Saturday, Breitbart discovered that Fox News was trying to push Trump into a corner during the debate... a corner where he would either have to be badly embarrassed or would have to violate debate rules to defend himself. The debate organizers believed he would violate debate rules and put a plan in place to escort him from the stage. Trump's instincts are good and he made precisely the right decision to stay away from the Fox debate. [Fox News Moderators Planned to Escort Donald Trump Off Debate Stage If He ‘Broke Rules’]
The “sleepers” submitted questions via Google and they were selected as among the best questions. Each would ask their question, on camera, during the debate. If you believe these questions were the best of the hundreds of thousands submitted, I sympathize with your lack of knowledge regarding the numerous survival issues facing our nation, from economics and jobs to terrorism. These women and their questions were selected to cost Donald Trump votes in the Iowa caucus scheduled to take place about 90 hours after the debate. His responses would have been easily explainable – and justifiable – but it would take longer than 90 hours to reach caucus voters.
If you watched the debate Thursday night, you saw the two women selected by Fox News and Google. One was an illegal alien Mexican who had overcome poverty and become a successful entrepreneur in Los Angeles... obviously a slam against Trump’s stated desire to lawfully return illegal aliens back to Mexico. Her question focused on how the American economy would lose if illegals like her were all sent home to Mexico. Trump has said if they want to return lawfully, they can get in line and do so. He respects the Rule of Law. Since every dollar illegals contribute to the economy is countered with a $3 cost for social services, it would not be a difficult question to answer.
The second person selected to ask a question was a Muslim woman. She was born in America. She questioned plans to deport all Muslim refugees who cannot be properly vetted. How could the government remove her friends who had done no wrong, she asked, wailing? Again, it was an obvious slam at Donald Trump’s statements that until Muslims can be safely vetted, they should not enter America and those who had entered unlawfully should be sent home.
My answer to her would have been: “Ms. Noor, you say you are a moderate Muslim and that you were born in America. The problem is this: You are evidence of the statement that not all Muslims are terrorists. Unfortunately, another equally true statement is that all terrorist acts around the world are being committed by Muslims – not just in America but in Paris where what you tell me are peaceful Muslims killed 130 innocent victims, Sweden where they are exporting 80,000 violent Muslims, Finland which is exporting 40,000 Muslim refugees, Germany where at the Cologne rail station Muslim men who appear to have no respect for women raped several German women. Since no one from your peaceful moderate Muslim community is willing to oppose the violence you say does not represent your faith, people around the world are doing what is necessary to ensure their safety. I’m sorry if that emotionally distresses you, but whether you awaken each day a happy woman because you are surrounded by friends and family is of less importance to me than having innocent Americans killed by Islamic terrorists because America's ‘moderate Muslim community' cannot or will not reject terrorism.”
Jeb Bush sympathized with her (as one would expect Jeb to do) and there was little discussion of the matter by other candidates. I would also say that Jeb’s solutions do not comply with America’s immigration laws... a lack of respect for the Rule of Law. He forgets that the primary responsibility of the President of the United States is to protect the citizens of this country. To read the immigration law Donald Trump supports and which applies to any group that rejects the Rule of Law that flows from our Constitution, go to this link and scroll down to Chapter 2, Section 212.
It amazes me that the “professional journalists” who run these debates do not ask even the most basic question. Every Republican candidate states he or she is a conservative. I have yet to hear any of them ask any candidate: “You say you are a conservative. How do you define that word... what does it mean when you say you are a conservative?”
Generally speaking, most of the candidates will respond with an answer like “I believe in smaller government,” or “I oppose abortion and same sex marriages” or “We need a strong military” or “I believe in lowering the debt” or “I do not believe in socialized medicine.” These are all issues of concern to conservatives, but issues do not define conservatism. Principles that come from conservative philosophy define conservatives. If you do not know what those principles are, read on... but ask yourself: If you don’t know what conservative principles are, how can you be sure the person you support in political races is really conservative?
Every voter who thinks of him/herself as a conservative should be able to answer that question. How do you define “conservative?” Conservatism is a philosophy that supports very specific principles. It is not about issues – like gun control, abortion, trade, privacy, taxation, the size of government, etc, etc., etc. Principles and issues are not the same thing. If you do not realize that, you are likely part of the reason we keep electing people who say they are conservative but, once elected, prove to be anything but.
Most people confuse principles with issues. Because I am pro-life does not make me conservative. Being an Evangelical Christian does not make me a conservative. Because I believe in the Second Amendment and gun rights doesn’t make me conservative. It means I have conservative views on these specific issues.
Believing in the total Constitution is a conservative principle. Believing in the Rule of Law that flows from the Constitution is a conservative principle. Believing in truth (facts) is a conservative principle. These three things are the primary principles of conservative philosophy. Candidates who do not understand and accept the Constitution in total cannot be conservative. Those who do not believe in the Rule of Law that flows from the Constitution (and practice it) are not conservatives. Those who lie to make their “truth” more believable are not conservatives. How do we know when someone is lying to us? We don’t. We must take the time to look at candidate history: We find facts not in what they say, but in what they do.
Any candidate who opposes the right to bear arms cannot be a conservative because he or she rejects the Constitution. A person who supports the Second Amendment but not other portions of our Constitution is not a conservative. To enter America unlawfully violates the Constitution and any candidate who opposes upholding the dictates of the Constitution as it relates to immigration is not a conservative. To support the legalization of or amnesty for the millions of illegal aliens currently in America is unconstitutional... and anyone who violates the Constitution is not a conservative because it violates conservative philosophy. If they will violate the Constitution in one way, they will violate it whenever they wish.
If you do not know the contents of America’s Constitution, then you cannot say with certainty that you are conservative. If you don’t know the contents of our Constitution, how can you select a conservative candidate? Answer: You cannot.
And that is how all of these cretins who currently serve as elected officials got into office. It is how they fooled so many Republicans who consider themselves conservative. They got elected because millions of people who call themselves “conservative” really don’t know what the word means, don’t understand the very basis of the philosophy – the Constitution – and thus cannot ask candidates questions designed to determine if they are just neo-conservative (pro world government via fascism) or a liberal (pro world government via socialism).
Because someone is a Christian doesn’t make them a conservative. It makes them a person who prefers a Christian view when government policies are legislated. The things Christians have accepted as constitutional for years have nothing to do with the Constitution. Christians have allowed themselves to be bullied into accepting things like the removal of religious Christmas displays from in front of public buildings... that can be found nowhere in the Constitution of the United States.
The Constitution says there shall be freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Because Christians are too mentally lazy to take a week and study the laws of the land contained in America’s Constitution, they have allowed Christianity to largely be removed from our society. Indeed, they have allowed the Constitution to be removed from our society.
Because too many Christians would rather spend money on Smart TVs and iPhones rather than banding together to pay the costs of fighting the “remove Christianity from public life” activities of their Godless opponents, we have lost much of our Christian culture. Any atheist or agnostic who is a Constitution-believing conservative strongly opposes these efforts to remove Christianity from our schools and public buildings. Why? Because they are conservative constitutionalists and these things have no constitutional jurisdiction.
You do not get to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution you support. It’s an all or nothing deal. You may disagree with it and you have every right to try and do what’s necessary to Amend the Constitution... that’s quite constitutional. But until the Constitution is Amended, you support what it says in plain English whether or not you agree with it. It is the law of the land and conservatives believe strongly in the Rule of Law. You do not apply “updated” or “worldly” definitions or personal opinions (like Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg) of what the founding fathers might have meant had they been writing that document in 2016 rather than the late 1700s. If you cannot do that, you are probably not a conservative.
When I vote for someone, I am as sure as I can be that person is a conservative because if I listen closely to what they say a problem's solution is, it is either a constitutional answer or it is not. If they hold elected office, I can check their record to see if their deeds match their words. I would have a whole lot more faith in the judgment of American voters if I believed they had read the Constitution before voting for someone who claims to be conservative but who, in reality, is just another politician looking for access to the purse strings of the nation.
Is saving your nation worth a few evenings of your life? This is the most important election of your lifetime and whether you are willing to take a tiny amount of time to be able to identify those who want to enslave you versus those who are truly conservative and dedicated to freedom may make the difference in whether you live your life as a free person or in slavery.
As Kelleigh Nelson said in her recent article, Trump is neither Republican or Democrat, neither liberal or conservative. He's just an American who loves his country. He's the best chance we've got of turning the corrupt establishment of Republicans and Democrats upside-down -- and that's why they're working so hard to discredit him.
© 2016 Marilyn M. Barnewall - All Rights Reserved
Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall began her career in 1956 as a journalist with the Wyoming Eagle in Cheyenne. During her 20 years (plus) as a banker and bank consultant, she wrote extensively for The American Banker, Bank Marketing Magazine, Trust Marketing Magazine, was U.S. Consulting Editor for Private Banker International (London/Dublin), and other major banking industry publications. She has written seven non-fiction books about banking and taught private banking at Colorado University for the American Bankers Association. She has authored seven banking books, one dog book, and two works of fiction (about banking, of course). She has served on numerous Boards in her community.
Barnewall is the former editor of The National Peace Officer Magazine and as a journalist has written guest editorials for the Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News and Newsweek, among others. On the Internet, she has written for News With Views, World Net Daily, Canada Free Press, Christian Business Daily, Business Reform, and others. She has been quoted in Time, Forbes, Wall Street Journal and other national and international publications. She can be found in Who's Who in America, Who's Who of American Women, Who's Who in Finance and Business, and Who's Who in the World.
Vice Prez Obama?
It’s high time to send the periscope up to make sure there’s no way possible for Obama to get back in when his time in office is over
By Judi McLeod -- Bio and Archives 
January 25, 2016
While all others have failed during the past eight years, business dynamo Donald J. Trump says he’s the only one who can make deals with the Democrats on the way to making America great again.
Trump has already proved himself triumphant in delivering the art of the impossible.  He’s publicly slapped down Obama’s running dog media, changing their barks to whimpers,  and has left the hideous corpse of that blatant hypocrisy known as the politically correct struggling to get back out of the mud.
Not a bad record for a presidential hopeful selling himself to long suffering voters as a deal maker.
But what if other deals, hidden ones schemed out long before Trump arrived on the political scene, are also at play?
In the backbiting and bickering between Trump and Senator Ted Cruz, some are holding out hope they will not have to kiss Goodbye to a Trump/Cruz presidency and vice presidency.
That hope’s fast fading because not only are the dueling duo duking it out,  their fans continue to hurl insults at each other on social media and in the comment sections of publications like Canada Free Press (CFP).
Here’s hoping, like the naval commanders of submarines, they send up the periscope every once in awhile to see what else is out there.
At the risk of losing readers their lunch and dinner, what if Obama doesn’t have to rely on imposing martial law to cancel the 2016 presidential election?
Fundamental Transformation of America-OBSESSED Barack Obama
What if he gets around the two-term president law on the books by being appointed vice president by a president Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, or Michael Bloomberg?
Folks who naively cling to the technicolor dream that Hillary will be in jail before the presidential race runs out, or that Obama is about to be impeached, won’t want to believe in this nightmarish possibility.
After seven years under a president who has spent any time he’s not been vacationing or golfing, deliberately trying to destroy America, no one wants to believe in this horror.
But these are the possibilities of a 2-term president serving as a vice president within the Constitution as laid out in a 2000 article by James R. Whitson, entitled, ‘Can a two-term president be vice-president?’
CNN Interactive recently ran an article on whether Bill Clinton could constitutionally serve as Al Gore’s vice president titled “Why the Constitution permits a Gore-Clinton ticket”. It was written by Michael C. Dorf, vice dean and professor of law at Columbia University, where he teaches a class on constitutional law. He is also a contributor to the web site FindLaw and a co-author of a book titled “On Reading the Constitution”. As an amateur presidential historian and a constitutional law enthusiast, I was very interested in reading his opinion. I disagreed with his interpretation and was going to write it off as just a difference of opinion. Surely a professor who teaches constitutional law wouldn’t let his personal political views cloud his professional judgement! Unfortunately, when I read the last four paragraphs of the piece, I had to concede the possibility. After spending the entire article explaining the legal reasons he believes Clinton could serve as Gore’s VP, he then tells us Clinton SHOULD be Gore’s VP! His reasoning: because “we, as a people, thrive on [Clinton]”.  Ignoring Mr. Dorf’s blatant partisan justification, I’d like to explain why I believe he is wrong and why the Supreme Court would not allow a two-term president to serve as vice president.
First, here are the relevant passages of the Constitution:
Article II, Section 1 (5th paragraph)
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
12th Amendment (last sentence)
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
22nd Amendment (first sentence)
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
The general consensus has always been that after you’ve been president twice, you’re no longer eligible to be president, and therefore you’re also ineligible to be the vice president. Mr. Dorf’s position that Clinton could be vice president (or even president again if something were to befall Gore) relies on the literal wording of three key phrases.
•Article II says who is eligible to be president
•The 12th Amendment says anyone constitutionally ineligible to be president can not be vice president.
•The 22nd Amendment says no on can be elected president more than twice.
Mr. Dorf’s says that the language of the 12th Amendment “only bars from the vice-presidency those persons who are ‘ineligible to the office’ of President. Clinton is not ineligible to the office of president” because he meets the three eligibility requirements set out in Article II. “He is only disqualified (by the 22nd Amendment) from being elected to that office”. According to Mr. Dorf “the 22nd Amendment’s prohibition on running for a third presidential term is not a condition of the office of president….[it] does not set conditions on what the 12th Amendment calls eligibility to the office of president”.
In plain English, since the 12th Amendment says anyone eligible to be the president can be the vice president, and since Clinton meets the eligibility requirements in Article II (he’s a natural born citizen, he’s over 35, and he’s been a resident for at least 14 years), and since the 22nd Amendment only says you can’t be elected to more than two terms, it is perfectly OK for Clinton to be Gore’s VP and then ascend to the presidency if necessary.
There are three reasons why I believe this reasoning wouldn’t convince the Supreme Court.
1. Depends to much on semantics, a literal reading, or what Mr. Dorf himself calls “textualism”.  If the Supreme Court were to take every word of the Constitution at its most literal, we would lose a lot of freedom. For instance, the 1st Amendment guarantees “freedom of speech”. Using that literal phrasing, symbolic speech, such as wearing a black armband at school or burning a U.S. flag, could be banned because it isn’t literal speech.
Article II, written in 1787, uses the phrase “no person…shall be eligible to the office of the President…”. The 22nd Amendment, written 164 years later, uses the phrase “no person shall be elected to the office of the President…”. Language is not a constant; it is fluid. We can’t expect that people in Eisenhower’s day would write or speak the same way they did in Washington’s. It could be credibly argued that the 1951 phrase “elected to the office” and the 1787 phrase “eligible to the office” are equal.
2. Ignores the intent and spirit of the amendment.  I think it’s safe to say that the writers of the 22nd Amendment did not want anyone being president more than twice. The Supreme Court often takes the intent of the author into account when making its rulings.
Mr. Dorf says that the 22nd Amendment ” places no limits whatsoever on how many terms someone may serve as president, only how many times he can be elected”, and that it would be ” perfectly permissible” for a two term president to get a third term by ascending to the office from the vice presidency. If the authors of the amendment were only concerned with how many times someone was elected president and didn’t care how many times someone assumed the presidency, why would they have added that little known second part that specifically limits the later election of someone who assumes the office? The authors clearly did not want someone who assumed a large part of someone else’s presidential term to be able to have another eight years at the helm. (Italics: CFP)
The spirit of the amendment prevents any one person from becoming too powerful. Mr. Dorf’s assertion that “Clinton would hardly be bidding for dictatorial powers” since the VP has no real powers is not sound. A popular two-term president finding someone else to be president and then having himself made vice president has the making of a puppet presidency all over it.
3. Assumes no new eligibility requirement. Mr. Dorf explicitly assumes that the 22nd Amendment puts no new conditions on presidential eligibility. But it could be argued that the 22nd Amendment is not just a disqualification of those elected to two terms, but a new eligibility requirement for the office: to be eligible to the office of president you must be a natural born citizen, at least 35 years old, a resident for 14 years, and not have been elected to the office of the President more than twice.
Mr. Dorf, politically motivated as he may be, makes a case for his opinion. And if the Constitution were a rigid, inflexible document, he might be right. Fortunately, the Supreme Court is more concerned with making sure the Constitution does what it was meant to do, than it is with semantics and word games.
UPDATE (10/1/2007): On the Late Show with David Letterman, Bill Clinton discussed this scenario in regards to his running as VP for his wife.
Letterman: Now there was a discussion last week, and there is I guess a greater discussion, and there’s some confusion, and maybe I’m the only one confused about the eligibility of a man who has been elected twice as President to possibly be named later on the ticket as Vice President. Constitutionally speaking, can that happen?”
Clinton: I don’t believe so. There are some people who believe it can, and they have contorted readings of the amendment, the 22nd Amendment. But I believe as a matter of general interpretation, you’re supposed to read all the Constitution including all the Amendments as if they were written almost on the same day at the same moment, so they’re consistent with one another. And the Constitution says the qualifications for Vice President are the same as those for President. Now you can read that to mean ‘to serve,’ not ‘to run for.’ But I just don’t believe it’s consistent with the spirit of the Constitution for someone who’s been President twice to be elected Vice President. I just don’t think it’s Constitutional. I don’t think it’s right and I wouldn’t want to do that. I’d want to do whatever I could do to be of highest and best use for her, but there are lots of wonderful people out there, including all the people that are running this time would be good Vice Presidents. And, that’s just not in the cards.
Eligibility detractors will undoubtedly make the argument that Obama cannot be vice president because he was ineligible to be president in the first place.
But the reality is he has remained in the Oval office for more than seven long years, and no one has done diddly-squat about it.
This is an election where folk can’t take anything for granted.
But given all that America’s been through and is still going through, can there really be any doubt that anyone other than Clinton would be better for the future of America’s children and grandchildren than the Fundamental Transformation of America-OBSESSED Barack Obama?
Politics has become the ‘profession’  where people go to get rich.  With voter fraud now a depressing reality,  once a candidate gets elected there’s no way of keeping them away from the public trough.
It’s high time to send the periscope up to make sure there’s no way possible for Obama to get back in when his time in office is over
Copyright © Canada Free Press
Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years’ experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard. Her work has appeared on Rush Limbaugh,, Drudge Report,, and Glenn Beck.
Judi can be emailed at:
Lies My RINO Told Me
There are other lies that are endlessly repeated, but these are the top five. We hear them every two years, and frankly, they are getting stale.
By Timothy Birdnow -- Bio and Archives
January 19, 2016
Every election cycle we hear the same arguments from the RINO/Establishment class. These claims cannot be justified in any way, and yet they are articles of faith, venerated words of wisdom, absolutes in the political world, and the Establishment asks us, nay demands, we follow their prescribed political program lest disaster overtake us. These overarching truths have little to no evidence to support them, and at this point, given the utter failure of their employment in the real world of electoral politics, can be classified as outright lies. Their purpose is to anesthetize the Conservative base, to lull us back into our collective intellectual coma, to force us off the field so that the elites can continue to run the show. What, pray tell, are these lies?
Lie #1 - There is a Conservative Litmus test for candidates and we refuse to accept any but the most pure of heart.
This particular error was recently promoted at American Thinker by Mark Griswald who stated:
“And Republicans, or should I say a subset of Republicans, engage in a quadrennial event referred to by some as the conservative litmus test, or the circular firing squad, in which they enjoy comparing their chosen Republican presidential candidate to Ronald Reagan and comparing every other Republican candidate to Karl Marx (or possibly Groucho Marx).  The length of this festival of futility usually runs from late November in the year preceding a presidential election and can end as late as the first Wednesday in November of the following year if the Democrat ends up winning the general election.”
This is demonstrably false. At this very moment in the political season Donald Trump is well in the lead of the Republican field. Trump is in no way Ronald Reagan; he doesn’t even play him on TV. Trump has never been a staunch Conservative, and yet he is wildly popular among many of these benighted litmus test shooters. The reasons for Trump’s popularity are outside the scope of this essay, but suffice it to say it is largely because he is not Jeb Bush, or any subset thereof. And he stands for something, rather than offering the same content-free kumbaya speeches we have come to expect from our betters in the GOP. People will overlook a lot for some refreshing honesty. (I personally don’t see it with Trump, but that just illustrates how wrong the claim of a litmus test really is.)
Those who make this “purity” claim ignore the many Conservative supporters of George W. Bush in 2000, ignore the fact that the very same Conservatives supported his father - a proven RINO. Apparently not letting the Establishment choose the candidate is somehow, in the eyes of the RINO wing, a type of treason, as though Conservatives have no right to ask for someone who mirrors their ideals.
And given the fact that Conservatives have been betrayed over and over by
people who have been our best friends until they get into office, is it any wonder we seek someone who appears honest? Take John Boehner; he was a lion of Conservatism, a man who railed against his own party for being squishy and weak. In the end Boehner morphed into Gerald R. Ford with a tan. He is not alone in this; Eric Cantor did the same. John Kasich used to be a staunch Conservative and now he bashes our side. So did Newt Gingrich. Pat Toomey. In point of fact, we have a dreary history of Washington swallowing our best and brightest (Nikki Haley being the most recent example of a turncoat Tea Party member, but there are plenty of others.)  Since we cannot trust politicians to keep faith, we must find a candidate we believe will at least be honest and not just use us to get elected.
Traitors used to be executed by firing squad. If there is a circular firing squad it is a citizen’s duty.
Reagan himself was once a Democrat, by the way, and he never stopped being one. As The Gipper himself put it, the Party left him. And Reagan made some huge errors, such as signing Simpson Simpson. But we forgave him because his heart was in the right place; he wasn’t just lying to us then turning his colors.
Lie #2 - An Angry Candidate turns off voters and is unelectable.
Is that so?  What evidence is there to support this claim, at least at the Presidential level.
We just don’t know because the GOP has not run an angry candidate. Was Romney angry? McCain was an angry man - angry at the GOP base, but lovey-dovey with the media and the Democrats. Bush Jr.? Bob Dole? Bush Sr.?  All of these candidates eschewed anger for reasonableness, for clear-headed policy wonkishness and comity. People have forgotten, but Ronald Reagan actually WAS an angry man in many ways; Reagan coined the term “liberal” as an insult, for example. Reagan called the Soviet Union an “Evil Empire” and mocked Jimmy Carter with “there you go again!”.
What RINOs fail to grasp is there is a huge difference between being angry and being nasty. Reagan was righteously angry. He saw America being destroyed by the Left and by the petty power dreams of Democrats and fellow traveler-Republicans. He would never have been elected had he NOT been angry. But he was not nasty, and he balanced his anger with his optimism. Sadly, we are told to not be angry and to hold a false sense of optimism. These things are evident to voters, who can smell b.s. A Republican who is NOT angry comes across as a smarmy politician, someone who doesn’t believe in what he says but is simply trying to win votes for his political fortunes. Barack Obama has wrecked the country; that must make one angry.
And Reagan proves the point that there is no Conservative Litmus test.
Richard Nixon was seen as an angry man, and yet he was elected to office. Only Barry Goldwater could be defined as an angry GOP loser.
So there really is no evidence that being angry means you are going to lose.
American Thinker’s local Establishmentarian James Arlandson thinks so. In his AT piece he states:
“Trump: He was much smoother this time – getting better each time.  His bluntness appeals to certain voters.  Was Nikki Haley right about loudest voices and anger from some in the GOP?  Yes, Trump says.  “I am angry!”  Then he gave a rundown of the country’s mess, saying our country is run by incompetent people”
“The selfie voters and forty-two percent see, I believe, exactly what he says: an angry man.  Will this appeal to them?  Highly doubtful.”
And yet Trump is the epitome of a crossover candidate, one who is appealing to new demographics.
#3 - Republican candidates must appeal to the center to win the general election.
Arlandson also argues that point in his piece:
“What do the selfie- voters and the forty-two percent see?  A confident man.  But is he too conservative for them?  The primary voters need to take that into consideration.  They also see someone who, in my view, is not that appealing in the externals.  He seems a little too scary, as if he would move too fast as president.”
What does James Arlandson base this determination on?  In the usual RINO fashion he is saying we cannot win with bold colors, but must rather offer soft pastels. Conservatism is not a popular thing, we are told, and we must move to the center, be all things to all people, and coax the voters with likeable personalities and content-free campaigns.
How well has that worked out for us?  Since 1984 the GOP has offered this same campaign stratagem, and it has been at its absolute best a recipe for a photo finish. Bush Sr. won only because he claimed the mantle of Reagan. Bush Jr. actually lost the first election and won by a slim margin his re-election - at a time of war when Americans are loathe to change horses midstream. We’ve had a parade of “bum of the month” candidates; Romney, McCain, Dole. Prior to Reagan we had milquetoast candidates such as Gerald Ford. The GOP has offered only three actual Conservatives since the Roaring ‘20’s and Calvin Coolidge, and only one of them lost. But we are told with absolute confidence that Conservatism is a loser.
Where is the evidence?
(By the way, what does “move to fast as President” mean?  Has Mr. Arlandson missed the fact that Barack Hussein Obama moved faster than a jackrabbit in love and was re-elected by a solid majority?)
#4 We have to choose our candidate based on “electability”.
Robert Morrison appeals to this RINO argument at AT as well:
“But we cannot discount likeability. George W. Bush doubtless owes his two squeaker elections to things like Al Gore’s impatient sighs in the 2000 debates and blueblood John Kerry’s haughty disdain for his opponent four years later.
Ted Cruz has made a point of his willingness to buck the Establishment in Washington. That’s certainly positive. But he has seemingly bucked everyone else, too. There are virtually no endorsements of Cruz from any of his congressional colleagues. He also seems not to know how far to take his criticisms. He called his own Majority Leader a liar on the floor of the U.S. Senate. That conduct used to get a senator censured. Question: If he cannot get along with his own party members, how likely is he to get along with any of the Opposition?”
Who exactly decides the “likeability” factor? It is generally the news media, the Democratic Party, and the Establishment wing of the GOP.
Mr. Morrison seems to think that being unpopular with his colleagues makes Ted Cruz “unlikable” but isn’t that rather a testament to his honorable nature?  During the election of 2008 we were told about how John McCain’s “maverick” status was such a boon, and yet now Ted Cruz’s same status is “unlikeability”. McCain WAS unlikable; a testy old codger who would have been yelling at children on his lawn had he not been running for President. And McCain’s most unlikable feature was his tendency to knife his own friends in the back. McCain’s “maverick” status was conferred on him because he bucked his conservative base on numerous issues. Cruz bucks his RINO colleagues in the Senate to fulfill his campaign promises. Who is the more likable?
So often the RINOs cite William F. Buckley’s polemic about supporting the most conservative candidate who can win. I would suggest we modify that adage to say we should support the most delectable Conservative who won’t betray us. Recent history has been most unkind in that regard, and as a result far too often we end up with a Progressive instead of a Conservative. America has continues its long, horrible slide into the abyss precisely because we keep nominating candidates who are great lions until they get into office then move to the left. We cannot make any headway in rolling back any of the things the Left has shoved down our throats because our side is afraid to fight. Even if we are going to lose, better to die as brave men, with one swift stroke of the sword, than cowering in our beds, hemorrhaging from a thousand paper cuts.
Morrison also argues that we must be immigration friendly to a fault, which brings us to RINO lie #5:
#5 “We cannot restrict immigration - either legal or illegal - or we will suffer political catastrophe”.
Morrison argues at the end of his piece that a desire to restrict immigration is a
political loser and the Party will suffer. He claims Eisenhower and Reagan prove that being immigration friendly is critical to success.
Interesting; Ike kicked nearly two million people out of the country with Operation Wetback. Reagan tried to tighten border security after the Simpson Rizzoli Simpson amnesty, and he always called that his biggest blunder. Calvin Coolidge signed the Immigration Act of 1924, shutting immigration down completely.
The “Know Nothing” Party opposing immigration in a nation with a large frontier that is labor starved is a world of difference to a reasonable desire to stop millions of people from pouring in illegally at a time when our nation is heavily populated and unemployment or underemployment is rampant; when America is threatened by terrorists who can walk across the border; where political correctness and multiculturalism guarantees that the new immigrants are unassimilatable. America is the third most populous nation on Earth, yet we take in the highest number of immigrants of any country by far. Any reasonable person asked believes we should restrict people from breaking and entering. Nobody is asking for restricted LEGAL immigration (which, frankly, we need to restrict at this point and is popular with the American people). But that isn’t good enough for the RINO class, the whores to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce who want foreign labor because it is cheap. Closing the border is popular with the public, no matter what the GOP elites would have us believe. Even legal immigrants like the idea.
And nobody except Muslims and politicians worry about pausing immigration from ISIS controlled territory. This is entirely common sense, yet the GOP Establishment argues we have no right to stop anyone from coming here.
But the RINO position is that we must not stop people from coming here - period.
And this is justified by the argument that we must have the Latino vote to win elections. Well, first off, what does that actually accomplish? Our purpose is to unify the country. Pandering to a Balkanized voting block does nothing but feed the current crisis. Also, it is not true that we need Hispanics to win; Mitt Romney would still have lost had he garnered a majority of Hispanic votes. He would have had to win the whole enchilada; he was too weak with his traditional base for Hispanic votes to matter. The GOP can win without the Latinos.
There are other lies that are endlessly repeated, but these are the top five. We hear them every two years, and frankly, they are getting stale. I wish the RINO community would at least try to update their arguments, give us something fresh for a change.
Better yet, go away. We’ve had enough of your condescension.
Timothy Birdnow is a conservative writer and blogger and lives in St. Louis Missouri. His work has appeared in many popular conservative publications including but not limited to The American Thinker, Pajamas Media, Intellectual Conservative and Orthodoxy Today. Tim is a featured contributor to American Daily Review and has appeared as a Guest Host on the Heading Right Radio Network. Tim’s website is Timothy can be reached at:
American Politics Items
Bernie Sanders and the Threat to the Left’s Aspirational Brand
By Daniel Greenfield 
Thursday, January 14, 2016
A big part of how the left won was by transforming its image.
Go back a hundred years and the left had much the same makeup as it does now. But the image of a typical leftist was ragged, angry and unstable. A ranting bomb thrower at best. A ridiculous leaf letter at worst. One step away from a criminal. Not at all the sort of person you wanted to be.
And the “sort of person you want to be” is how the left makes over the country in its image.
One of the things this season of South Park has been good at is capturing how people unthinkingly embrace left-wing ideas and attitudes because they are aspirational. They know very little of the theory of the political correctness they embrace. All they know is that they represent the values and attitudes of a higher social class. A social class that shops for organic fair trade stuff at Whole Foods.
It’s a class issue.
The left originally wanted to be seen as associated with the lower class, even though it actually came out of the upper classes. Political activism requires leisure. It’s not really for working people. This created the image of a “dirty” leftist dressed in working clothes.
But without being able to actually organize enough workers as canon fodder in a violent revolution, the way they had in Russia, this image was a dead end. So the left embraced its upper class roots. It became a movement of the glittering people. A moneyed class choked with its own compassion.
And the conservatives were depicted as fat Walmart shoppers, bible-thumpers, gun-lovers, ignorant, inbred, dirty… you’ve heard the list. Conservatives were lower class. Not aspirational at all.
The left was New York and Los Angeles. The right was flyover country. The left was spending more to buy less food and clothes. The right shopped in bulk and got value for its money. The left was always getting a higher education without actually working. The right worked without the education.
This was the new liberal brand. It made liberalism seem like a leisure class with the money and time to pursue its pleasures and its goals while conservatives lived a lower class lifestyle.
Liberalism had become a movement of upper class elites violently hostile to the working class and openly contemptuous of it. That contempt was returned leading to the political disasters of the Democratic Party among white voters, particularly in the south. But at the same time it made the liberal into an aspirational figure.
Colleges became finishing schools for teaching youth the manners and attitudes of a new elite. The political emphasis of the curriculum was the point. If you wanted to move up the ladder, you needed to embrace the left’s way of thinking and living. If you didn’t, you were part of the dirty lower class.
The message was unstated and insidious. It’s embedded as an attitude that the younger generation quickly picks up on from popular culture and then from their education. The path upward lies through the left. The left is the movement of the beautiful and successful people. It’s the future.
That’s the power of a brand. A brand can make a product seem like it’s associated with an elite until in a cargo cult response people will buy that product to seem like members of the elite.
But the left isn’t a brand. It’s an ideology. And the ideology looks a lot more like
Bernie Sanders or Jeremy Corbyn than the Hollywood stars and starlets who are used as window dressing or even Obama, who did an invaluable service for the left’s brand by making it seem cool.
To thrive the left has to seem cool. It has to seem like the movement of the people who have money, who have fun, who have the lifestyle that you want.
The moment it becomes obvious that it’s actually a movement of old, bitter angry people like Bernie Sanders who want to destroy everything worthwhile in life because it runs afoul of their ideology, the brand is torched and the left goes back to being a pack of surly outsiders handing out leaflets.
And that’s where Bernie Sanders and Corbyn threaten the left’s aspirational brand.
Nobody outside the left aspires to be Bernie Sanders. Just like they don’t aspire to be Ralph Nader or Jeremy Corbyn or Vladimir Lenin. Even Hillary Clinton is a shaky proposition. Nobody really wants to be her or spend time with her. (The same couldn’t be said of Bill Clinton or Barack Obama.)
Much of the population has a poor grasp of politics and little knowledge of the issues. And even less interest in both those things. Its responses are common sense, but lack any depth. It is correct in the broad strokes, but often very wrong in the details.
It understands quite well that there is an elite social and economic class with special access to opportunities of all sorts. It has little understanding of who makes up that class, but it can point to a person and recognize that he belongs to that class. Its attitude toward the values of that class are a mixture of mockery, resentment and aspiration. That is how the left seeds its values nationally.
But take away the sense of a superior class partying forever with JFK, Bill and Barack, a glittering set of golden boys who enjoy the good life, and the left is reduced to its ridiculous ideas.
And yet the left must be reduced to those ideas.
The left is intolerant of compromise and uses every victory as proof that the time for compromise is past. It is convinced of its absolute rightness and that the people can and must embrace its ideas once the fog has been cleared away. And so the left can’t help exposing itself for what it is. No matter how good its disguises are, the moment comes when it announces what it really stands for.
And eventually it announces it so baldly that everyone has to understand that this is what it is.
The left’s political strategy in the West has depended on delaying that day for as long as possible,
compromising their way to power, building elaborate networks of front groups, taking control of a wide variety of institutions, undermining their opponents and making their identity aspirational.
But within the left, there’s a tension over the slowness and delays of such a project.
Much like the conflict between Al Qaeda, ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood, the left is caught between those who want to follow a long-range plan, those who want to speed it up and those who want to bring it all down now. And just as the Arab Spring rewarded the most violent factions, political instability and left-wing victories encourage the most extreme forces on the left.
The left presents itself to Americans as an intangible, an attitude rather than a movement, a value rather than a set of ideas, an aspirational lifestyle of clothes, food and trendy activism, a fun way of life rather than a fanatical ideology that seeks to control and dominate every area of life.
The ruptures on the left threaten that disguise. And without that disguise, the left reverts back to what it was a hundred years ago.
Daniel Greenfield -- Bio and Archives
Daniel Greenfield is a New York City writer and columnist. He is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and his articles appears at its Front Page Magazine site.
Daniel can be reached at:
Scared: Hillary sends her secret weapon - Chelsea - to attack Bernie for his ‘single-payer’ desires
False attack from a frightened, failing, candidate.

By Robert Laurie -- Bio and Archives 
January 13, 2016
As Hillary Clinton’s campaign continues to shake apart, it’s becoming clear that the confidence she displays in public is slipping away behind the scenes. With New Hampshire polling showing her trailing crazy coot Bernie Sanders in every major demographic, she’s shifting into attack mode.  Every attack needs a weapon, so she’s calling out the big guns. No it’s not Bill.
It’s her daughter, Chelsea.
Apparently, Hillary’s people are living under the delusion that, somewhere, there exist people who care what Chelsea Clinton thinks about ...anything.  Or maybe they’ve decided that the best way to prop-up an achievement-free candidate is to sic her achievement-free daughter on the opposition.  Whatever the reasoning, Chelsea has come out swinging against Bernie Sanders.
Clinton was campaigning in New Hampshire on behalf of her mother, Hillary Clinton, ostensibly to tout the campaign’s early childhood education plan. But she took sharp aim at Sanders, who advocates for a single-payer system that would place control of health care in the hands of the federal government.
“I never thought we would be arguing about the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, in the Democratic primary,” Clinton told Democrats in Manchester, one of three stops she made during her swing.
She said Sanders would “dismantle” Obamacare, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and Medicare—along with private insurance programs.
According to Chelsea, Bernie would allow Republican Governors to strip healthcare from millions. Since this is coming from a Clinton, it’s not surprising that it’s an outright lie. Bernie is a staunch supporter of single-payer healthcare. I don’t agree with government-run medicine, and I’m not going to waste too much time defending Sanders, but to suggest that his plan would leave millions without insurance is patently false.
As the Huffington Post reports:
For the last few weeks, Clinton has been attacking Sanders over his longtime advocacy for single-payer health care. That’s a system in which everybody, or almost everybody, gets insurance directly from a government-run program.
Countries like Taiwan, Sweden and Canada have single-payer. The U.S. has a version of it in Medicare, which serves the elderly and disabled. Many progressives have long dreamed of extending it to everybody else. Some even call it “Medicare for all.”
During his Senate career, Sanders has repeatedly introduced single-payer legislation—most recently in 2013, when he introduced the American Health Security Act. And while Sanders has also voted for less ambitious measures, including the Affordable Care Act, he has always envisioned those initiatives as incremental steps toward a single-payer system.
The really fun part of this is that, prior to 2008, Hillary had long argued in favor of pretty much exactly what Bernie wants.
As Hillary said in 1994:
“I think the momentum for a single payer system will sweep the country. And regardless of the referendum outcome in California, it will be such a huge popular issue in the sense of populist issue that even if it’s not successful the first time, it will eventually be. So for those who think that building on the existing public-private system with an employer mandate is radical, I think they are extremely short-sighted, but that is their choice.
...The market cannot deliver universal coverage in the foreseeable future, and any compromise that people try to suggest that would permit the market to have a few years to try to deliver universal coverage without a mandate that would take effect to actually finish the job will guarantee a single payer heath care system.”
So what does all of this mean?
It means Hillary and her DNC-elite allies are genuinely scared. Bernie’s primary performance has been better than anyone expected and, while Hillary’s still the odds-on favorite, embarrassing losses in Iowa and New Hampshire could spell real trouble.  If internal polling showed Hillary with a commanding lead, she’d have no reason to launch such a transparent attack.
Since they’ve chosen this path, the Clinton campaign must be looking at some truly terrible numbers.
Even Axelrod is calling them out….

Axelrod on Chelsea Clinton Sanders Attack
Uploaded on Jan 12, 2016

Robert Laurie’s column is distributed by CainTV, which can be found at
Be sure to “like” Robert Laurie over on Facebook and follow him on Twitter. You’ll be glad you did.
Stymieing of Trump’s Uprising formally known as the State of the Union address
A response to the Republican Establishment response
By Mike Henkins -- Bio and Archives 
January 13, 2016
On Tuesday night President Obama delivered the yearly State of the Union address to the nation.  This is an event where the President speaks to how well the nation is doing under his management. It is also an event in which the opposition party stages politically motivated gestures to gain some much needed publicity and the Washington D.C. pundit class spends hours analyzing it all.
The “opposition” party this year was the Republican Party. This year the Republican Establishment chose the Governor of South Carolina, Nikki Haley, to deliver their response to the President Obama’s State of the Union (S.O.T.U.) address. But that is not what Gov. Haley delivered. She was tasked to deliver the Stymieing of Trump’s Uprising (e.S.O.T.U.).
In this, which she has admitted, was talking directly about Mr. Trump  which by default means his supporters of which I am.
That being said, I have chosen myself to deliver the response to the Republican Establishment response to the Stymieing of Trump’s Uprising formally known as the State of the Union address.
Gov. Haley, the Republican Establishment, Washington D.C. Establishment, Washington D.C. Punditry, friends, colleagues and pets. I am honored to have chosen myself to deliver the response to the Republican Establishment response to the Stymieing of Trump’s Uprising formally known as the State of the Union address.  Many issues were discussed in the S.O.T.U. but the real message was that Mr. Trump and the citizens who are flocking to support him from both parties are a dangerous mob of racists, immigrant bashing, uncouth rabble rousers who are a fanatics threatening the status quo and the Washington D.C. Establishment.  You are trying to project the vision of the movie “Gangs of New York” with chaos in the streets, poor innocent illegal immigrants hanging from lamp posts, and vengeful mobs hunting down anyone with brown or black skin. All of this being the result of Mr. Trump usurping the kingmakers and becoming President of the United States on a wave of uneducated anger and rage.
You are very much mistaken and personally, and what I would like to think is also the feelings of millions of others Americans, I am not only offended, I am angrier than I was before this misguided attempt to slyly condemn Mr. Trump and those who are supporting him. But just how I and many others will express our rage is not going to be the vision of hell you would like the nation to believe.
We will be expressing our rage by becoming even more educated on the true facts of immigration, the true repercussions of the Omnibus spending bill, and we will truly be even more resolved in doing whatever we can do to see that Mr. Trump gets elected.
Mr. Trump is not everyone’s perfect candidate, we realize no one ever is, but he is willing to fight the continuous dereliction of Washington D.C. Establishment fulfilling their sworn Oaths of Office, the negligence of reporting false truths or the twisting of the facts that would reveal the true nature and state of our union. Mr. Trump represents the change many have been begging for, have been promised before, but never happened.
The reason that Mr. Trump is leading in the polls should be obvious by now, and maybe the Washington D.C. Establishment has figured it out but wishes to ignore its message. Gov. Haley’s e.S.O.T.U. proved this without a doubt.  Now more than ever Mr. Trump represents the one true message that millions can finally send with the effect it deserves. It is this:
We no longer trust you, what you say, and what you say you will do. We no longer will be supporting the status quo and the lies that keep it in place.  We will fight back against the smears and misconceptions being perpetuated by you and the political pundits who deliver it.
We are done with you.
In closing, I would like to thank Mr. Trump for delivering this message for us. You are the best red white and blue bad comb over YUGE middle finger one could hope for. We pray for your safety and your hair.
Thank you.
M.A. Meddybemps
Mike Henkins
I am just an ordinary fat guy living in Maine who has been following and commentating on politics for over 20 years. I work in sales and enjoy life with my girls, Shannon my wonderful wife and our daughter Lily the best little girl ever.
Jeb's Potty Mouth
His divisive attacks hurt his cause
By Matthew Vadum Bio and Archives 
January 12, 2016
As his sputtering presidential campaign remains on political life support, the typically polite and demure Jeb Bush is desperately lashing out at GOP frontrunner Donald Trump and others in the Republican field.
During the campaign Bush has called Trump a “buffoon,” “clown,” “jerk,” “bully,” a “chaos candidate” with “crazy” ideas about foreign policy, and not “a serious candidate.” Establishment Republicans like Bush are savaging Trump with a ferocity they rarely deploy against Democrats.
These increasingly vicious attacks are coming from the Bush family scion because this is his last chance in the 2016 primary race. Without strong showings in early voting states he faces electoral oblivion.
Trump has long been crushing Bush in the polls and around 20 percent of Democratic voters polled say they would abandon their own party and vote for Trump in the general election should he become the GOP nominee. (Only 14 percent of Republican voters say they would vote for Hillary Clinton should Trump secure his party’s nomination.)
So Bush is attacking Trump, accusing him of being an interloper in the Republican Party. This is a curious approach because Trump’s image as a sincere albeit abrasive political outsider who can’t be bought or controlled by elites is precisely what makes him so attractive as a candidate among Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. Outsiders are in; partisan yes men are out.
Although Trump has successfully tapped into voters’ anger, he remains a “buddy of the Clintons” and is not a true conservative, Bush said on the viewer-less MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program.
“He’s the only person on the stage that’s given money to Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton’s campaign and their foundation,” Bush said.
“I think he’s probably the only guy that invited Hillary Clinton to one of his weddings. His views are closer aligned to Hillary Clinton’s than that of a conservative,” said the most aggressively pro-open borders candidate in the Republican field.
 “How can he beat Hillary Clinton when we get into the general election? He’ll get crushed.”
Bush’s claim that Trump is still the Clintons’ “buddy” seems particularly ludicrous given that the real estate investor is the only candidate who has gone for Hillary’s jugular.
Trump aggressively mocks Hillary. He called her extended bathroom break during the Democrats’ pre-Christmas debate “disgusting,” said she lacks “the strength or the stamina” to be president, and ridiculed her for getting “schlonged” by Barack Obama in the 2008 primaries that had been hers to lose. Even more significantly he is the only Republican with the political guts to go after her disgraceful complicity in her husband’s serial abuses of women.
And Bush, like so many Republican elites, is personally cozy with former Secretary of State Clinton. The politically tone-deaf Bush presented the Liberty Medal to Clinton on Sept. 10, 2013—the eve of the first anniversary of the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya—when he was chairman of the board of trustees of the National Constitution Center, a Philadelphia-based nonprofit. (U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty could not be reached for comment.)
Of course, Hillary, the progressive, Alinskyite former senator and first lady who has long been at war with the Constitution, seems an unlikely recipient of a medal from an organization chartered by Congress to “disseminate information about the United States Constitution on a non-partisan basis.” The Center indicated she was given the honor “in recognition of her lifelong career in public service and for her ongoing advocacy efforts on behalf of women and girls around the globe.”
Presumably Hillary’s efforts to smear and silence the women victimized by her sexual-predator husband were not taken into account in medal deliberations.
During last month candidates’ debate, Bush labeled Trump “a chaos candidate” who’d be “a chaos president,” and not “the commander-in-chief we need to keep our country safe.”
Trump shot back saying “Jeb doesn’t really believe I’m unhinged. He said that very simply because he has failed in this campaign. It’s been a total disaster. Nobody cares. And frankly, I’m the most solid person up here. I built a tremendous company and all I want to do is make America great again.”
It’s hard to argue with Trump’s assessment of Bush’s motives.
Bush’s attacks on other candidates are relatively mild, restrained in tone, and often fact-based.
After describing himself as “a reform-minded conservative that got to do big things,” Jeb criticized New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie last month, accusing him of poor management. Florida was “AAA bond-rated” but New Jersey has “had credit downgrades,” Bush said. “We led the nation in job growth. New Jersey hasn’t done as well.”
An ad by the pro-Jeb super PAC, Right to Rise, implied Bush was a better governor than Christie and Ohio Gov. John Kasich because Bush, unlike his two rivals, opposed Medicaid expansion in 2013 in his state. (Bush had already left office in Florida but he reportedly worked behind the scene to fight the expansion.)
Bush campaign adviser April Ponnuru attacked Carly Fiorina this past September for “[a]s recently as 2013” supporting “Obamacare’s most hated feature: the individual mandate.” Fiorina acknowledged her past support for the mandate but said she longer does.
Bush smeared Cruz and Rubio in October 2013 for trying to defund Obamacare, a move that led to a partial government shutdown. “Tactically it was a mistake to focus on something that couldn’t be achieved,” Bush said. Republican senators’ tactics, which helped reinvigorate opposition to Obamacare and cleared the way for the GOP landslide in 2014, were “embarrassing,” Jeb said at the time.
In a petty move, Bush has criticized Rubio for missing Senate votes and hearings. Right to Rise echoed Bush in attack ads. On NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Nov. 1, Bush mocked the three sitting U.S. senators in the GOP race—Cruz, Rubio, and Rand Paul—for not being governors. Jeb said that, unlike that trio, he “got to be governor of a state and accomplish[ed] big things.”
Bush who, despite having been regarded as having a fairly conservative track record in Florida, has lurched to the left since leaving the governor’s mansion.
Bush pretends to be conservative but has made it clear in other ways that he’s not. In 2013 he said in the Oval Office he would emulate “War on Poverty” Democrat icon Lyndon Johnson. In 2014 Bush said he might have to “lose the primary to win the general [election]” in 2016.  By this he meant he’d pursue centrist voters during primary season so he wouldn’t have to lurch from the right to the center after winning the nomination.
Bush’s stratagem isn’t working.
At time of writing, Trump was leading the Republican pack nationally. According to RealClearPolitics averages, Trump is at 34 percent, followed by Ted Cruz (20.7 percent), Marco Rubio (11.7 percent), Ben Carson (10.0 percent), Chris Christie (4.3 percent), and Jeb Bush (3.7 percent). Bush peaked nationally at 17.8 percent on July 13 last year.
In New Hampshire, Trump is polling 31 percent, followed by Rubio (13.3 percent), Cruz (10.5 percent), and Bush in fourth place at 10 percent. Bush peaked in that state at 17 percent on April 11 last year. In Iowa, Trump has (27.4 percent) trailing Cruz (30.2 percent). Bush is far behind in fifth place at 4.8 percent). Bush peaked at 14 percent from April 14 through April 23 last year.
Bush can’t even catch a break in his home state of Florida where he was governor from 1999 to 2007. In the Sunshine State, Trump is polling at 33 percent, followed by Cruz (21 percent), Rubio (16 percent), and with Bush far behind at 11 percent.
Bush’s net favorable rating among Republicans has collapsed since he launched his campaign last summer. Bush began the cycle with a net favorable rating of +27 (54 percent favorable, 27 percent unfavorable). But as of Jan. 5 it was below water, falling to -1 (44 percent favorable, 45 percent unfavorable), absolute rock bottom among Republican candidates, according to Gallup.
If Jeb Bush thinks he can secure the GOP nomination by insulting Donald Trump, he’s got another thing coming.
Matthew Vadum,, is an investigative reporter at a watchdog group in Washington, D.C.
His new book Subversion Inc. can be bought at (US), (Canada), and as an e-book at Kobo (Canada).
Visit the Subversion Inc. Facebook page. Follow me on Twitter.
Matthew can be reached at:
Also See:
Will Donald Trump be the Next President?
(Part 1)
06 June 2015