In one of the most ignored (by the media) campaign events so far, this little gem from a Bush campaign stop in New Hampshire.
There’s never been a need for an applause sign in a presidential campaign. Until now. This is pathetic. Watch Jeb ending a key point about defending the country fall so flat that those in attendance must have been asleep.
If you have to tell your supporters “please clap.” The message is that they are more curious about him than they are supporters of him. This should be the time to re-think staying in the race.
So a Cruz campaign supporter, based on a “breaking story” on CNN that said nothing more than Carson’s itinerary, suggested Carson supporters vote for Cruz, in a tweet, has become the latest in the soap opera coverage of the 2016 presidential primary.
CNN’s “breaking story” was that Carson was going home, then to Washington, instead of going right to New Hampshire. They said Carson was “taking a break.” This was characterized as “unusual news.” Wolf Blitzer followed with “very unusual news.”
Excuse me, but if you’re going to claim that you lost a position or two in the Iowa caucuses because of a tweet that happened 15 minutes before the voting begins, then you’re not saying very much about the smarts of your supporters. Supporters who would not bother to verify the assumption that Carson ended his campaign, which the tweet never claimed he did.
CNN’s senior political reporter, Chris Moody, merely said this. It didn’t say Carson quit. But the way CNN’s on-air talent put it, video above, it was full of speculation that it was over. Yet, they never said it was over.
Carson won’t go to NH/SC, but instead will head home to Florida for some R&R. He’ll be in DC Thursday for the National Prayer Breakfast.
Doesn’t say much about Trump either who, because of that tweet, says he wants a do-over.
Gee, can we get on with the issues of why we need to toss the Democrats out of The White House already, and stop this BS soap opera?
Republicans are losing valuable time, and focus, on this. All of which benefits Democrats and the Obama administration. Why? Because no one is talking about what a mess Obama created and how much more of a mess either Democrat candidate has in store for the country. Instead, they are feeding the media soap opera that is covering back and forth tweets about nonsense.
What’s up with National Review coming out against Trump with a chorus of “he’s hurting conservatism” and “he’s not a conservative?”
Trump never said he was politically “conservative” in the sense that National Review understands conservatism to be. From day one, Trump has only said he wants what most everybody wants. He wants to turn this ship around. He set the brand for his campaign, to ‘Make America Great Again.” That’s about all he is guilty of and, it is resonating across the country, and across party lines.
The fact that “National Review” did not endorse someone, but only attacks Trump for something he never claimed to be, makes them look a little silly. ‘Petty’ is probably a better fit. Like the kid in the back of the room who keeps interrupting the class calling for attention, they’re getting too full of themselves.
It’s not Donald Trump who is hurting conservative beliefs. The GOP is doing that.
Does the Democratic Party own misery? The answer to this question lies in how Democrats get their power base. It’s called identity politics. They play and prey on victimhood. And there’s no better example how that has worked than a look of Baltimore, MD.
Stunning statistics. You might think that Baltimore is a utopia of some measure. But, it’s not. Baltimore has not had a Republican mayor since 1967. Other Democrat-run cities join Baltimore with surging gun crime. Using the logic of the Left and President Obama, seems like banning Democrats would be “doing something, anything to prevent gun violence.”
During the racially tumultuous 1950’s and 60’s, more and more Black Americans began to migrate to the Republican Party. President Lyndon B. Johnson set out to change that with his ‘War on Poverty.’ Johnson set out to get Blacks voting for Democrats by, essentially, paying them off with welfare.
In the decades that followed, the demographics of large cities changed. For two reasons. “The greatest generation” (not all White) experienced the American Dream they created. Good economic conditions enabled them to make the move to the suburbs to raise their family with space and a yard. Two comforts not found in a big city. The whole Ozzie and Harriet thing. At the same time, Johnson’s War on Poverty created a migration of Americans (not all Black) from small towns in the country into these cities. Because that’s where the welfare money is. The perceived ‘victims’ went to where the ‘help’ was. That help, led to the dissolving of family values and the family unit itself. It led to a condition where the government supplanted the family values and personal responsibility that existed before the War on Poverty.
The same cities, at the same time, saw the growth of suburbs. Something President Obama is waging his own war against. Race pimp that he is, he and the left/media call this migration ‘White flight,’ even though Blacks are moving out too. Labeling the population migration by race serves to support the victimhood status of Blacks, and ‘justifies’ even more welfare and dependency on government.
Lyndon Johnson’s plan worked beyond his wildest dreams. Black Americans consistently vote Democrat by over 90%. The latest incarnation of the War on Poverty is “Social Justice.” No one believes the war on poverty is intended to end poverty or help the poor, but to perpetuate it for political gain. That’s what Social Justice, the latest incarnation, is intended to do.
As the graphic on Baltimore shows, the only winner here is the Democrat Party. The losers are the people in those cities who vote for them.
As more of the (shrinking) working and middle class and (expanding) poor people are coming to realize, the solution to ending the misery is to try something different. It’s not about what the politicians in Washington are going to do specifically for your segment of the population, but what they can do for everybody.
The long knives are out for Donald J. Trump, now that his polling numbers continue to grow, or at the very least, show no signs of falling. A great example of this is this impish article about him by George Will. News Flash George. There is no conservative party. And never was. There was a conservative president, Ronaldus Magnus (as Rush Limbaugh affectionately calls Reagan), but not a Party. In fact, the Republican Party was attacking him like the current party elite (and George Will) are attacking Trump today.
I see it differently than Will. I see it as the beginning of the end of the Republican Party, the RNC, as we know it. I see it as the beginning of a huge housecleaning that needs to be done in the House, the Senate, and the RNC. And Trump, Ted Cruz, or Dr. Ben Carson are poised to do just that.
Will is in total denial if he believes what he is saying, that there even is a conservative party called Republican. The way I see it, if Trump wins, it could mean the beginning of the conservative party.
When all the media, ABC included, opine how Donald Trump has brought the country to focus on issues important to most Americans, wouldn’t you have liked to hear the three Democrats running for president weigh in? Didn’t happen.
Democrat Debate Missing Words: Border Security, Illegal Immigration. Media shield: ON. Not one question about what is important to 70 percent of Americans. There was no mention of the words, let alone questions about either.
After the cage matches (the Republican debates), in response to the meme of the media,’s provocative and leading questions, their answer was, well, if you can’t handle (insert debate moderator), how can you handle the Democrat nominee in the general? Or, how can you handle Putin?
It’s not just media bias and hypocrisy. This is what circling the wagons looks like.
Did you see CNN’s “Fact Check” say FALSE to the Republican candidates statements about DHS failing to vet immigrants, refugees, and terrorists? Of course, they’re wrong. It’s like, it depends on what the definition of ‘vet’ is.
Here is DHS’s guidelines on “Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Training. It says, don’t see what you see, and don’t conclude what you conclude about terrorists, or where they come from, or what they believe. But if you see them with a bomb in their hand, then you can do something. Basically, it is the terrorist protection act as practiced by the Department of Homeland Security and directed by the Obama administration.
I call your attention to the Don’ts in section C under Goals. Projecting our Constitution to the global war on terror is not a winning strategy. Our Constitution is not a suicide pact.
Who is being protected here? Us, or the terrorists?
Big in the national and local news as well as on the campaign trail is the plight of, among others, the Syrian refugees seeking asylum in this country. Only, they’re not seeking refuge in this country. This administration is hell-bent on bringing them to the United States instead of supporting/protecting them in and around Syria. Some are coming here to Northwest Florida.
When asked if they would rather be home or here, they prefer to be home, or close enough to home so they can return after the civil war is over and ISIS is destroyed.
NGO’s are bringing the “refugees” and embedded terrorists here, financed with grants from the federal government. Attempts to speak to Catholic Charities CEO Christopher Root have fallen on deaf ears. Neither phone calls or in-person requests for a meeting on the subject of the refugees have been returned or acknowledged.
Mr. Root is hold up in a secure office building on Garden Street, just what you might expect for a non-profit Catholic charity. What?
In an attempt to get some transparency, and for Mr. Root to justify why, in spite of administration officials (and the terrorists themselves) saying that there will be terrorists among them, why he feels sacrificing our national security is necessary? I think the reason can be summed up in money. As in grant money. National security? Not the Catholic Charity’s problem.
Below is a letter-to-the editor submitted Dec 1, 2015. It has not been published yet. Meanwhile, there have been plenty of articles and other letters published that are sympathetic to bringing the refugees here. And, at the same time, disparaging those, like many in the country, who want no part of them coming here. Only the leading Republican candidates are talking about helping them in and around their own country in safe zones. People like President Obama are quick to say, “that’s not who we are.” Sorry, but importing terrorists to do us harm is not who we are. Democrats are all-in for bringing them here. After all, Muslims tend to vote 80% Democrat. What he means is, just like illegals flooding our borders on foot, building a permanent voting block is who he is. But that’s not who America is.
It is not just Christopher Root, but the talking heads at UWF who must justify why Syrians must come here, knowing of the high risk of terrorist embeds, and also how plucking them out of their country, continent, culture, and language will be more beneficial, for the refugees.
Letter to the editor follows.
For the U.S. to participate in helping refugees from anywhere when they come here is one thing. But to take them out of their country, continent, culture, and language, to bring them here is not only presumptuous of us to know what’s best for them, but is endangering ourselves in the process.
They need help there, in safe zones, so they can return home when their civil war is over and the dust settles. We had our civil war and no-one left the country. For the Syrians to leave their own country would be taking the opposition to ISIL away. Taking Syria’s future away. That’s not compassion.
What the media and academe won’t tell you is, it’s not the U.S. government bringing them here. It is NGO’s (Non-Governmental Organizations) who are getting government grants who are bringing them here. Money talks. And money tends to change focus and re-arrange priorities from more important factors like our homeland security from the terrorist hotbed, Syria.
How about someone from an NGO like Catholic Charities, or a university like UWF, make their case that Syrian refugees are better helped with a one-way ticket here, instead of in and around their homeland?
This law was written in 1952. It was passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress, House and Senate, and signed by a Democrat president… Everybody in the establishment in the political class, Republican, Democrat, media, you name it, is all claiming that what Trump said is dumb, stupid, reckless, dangerous, unconstitutional, while it is the law of the land. And it was utilized by Jimmy Carter, no less, in 1979 to keep Iranians out.
In November the 1979 United States attorney general had given all Iranian students one month to report to the local immigration office. Seven thousand were found in violation of their visas, 15,000 Iranians were forced to leave the United States, 1979.
A direct quote from the law:
(f)Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
Below is the background to the political propaganda surrounding the media meme that Republicans don’t have a problem with people on the terrorist watch list buying guns. I’m sure you’ve heard it already. But, like everything that comes out of this administration, they are not telling “the rest of the story.” (Thank you Paul Harvey.)
What follows, is what Democrats and the head carnival barker, Barack O, have up their sleeve to circumvent the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment. It has noting to do with terrorists. If it did, they wouldn’t be wanting to import them, or in the case of GITMO, free them.
Suffice it to say, with the proposed “common sense” gun safety legislation, any of the folks at the Tea Party rally in Washington (above picture) could be quietly and secretly be put on that list. And they wouldn’t know it until they tried to buy a weapon. Or to put it another way, they wouldn’t know it until they tried to exercise their 2nd Amendment Right.
Written by Mike Bates, member of the Escambia River Gun Club and General Manager of WEBY-AM news talk radio.
As you hear the Democrats and the media (my apologies for being redundant) complaining about how the evil Republicans “refuse to prevent gun sales to people on the terrorist watch list”, you must know the rest of the story that they are not telling.
The process by which someone gets put on the list is classified. The list itself is classified. There is no appeal process to get your name removed (if you even know you are on it at all).
Do you really want a law that allows the federal government to secretly deny Constitutional Rights to anyone it wants without due process of law?
Senator Ted Kennedy was once on the “Do Not Fly List”. It took him six weeks to get his name removed. And he was a sitting U.S. Senator! Now, I could make a convincing argument that Ted Kennedy has done more harm to this country than any terrorist has, but that’s not the point. If he was somehow put on the list and had trouble getting his name removed, how would you get your name removed if you were ever put on that list?
And don’t forget who the Obama Administration stated in a leaked 2009 DHS memo were potential terrorists:
“Rightwing extremists” who “perceive” a “lack of government action on illegal immigration.”
“Rightwing extremists” who “perceive recent gun control legislation as a threat to their right to bear arms.”
“Rightwing extremists” who “make bulk purchases of ammunition.”
“Rightwing extremists” who “bemoan the decline of U.S. stature” and “the loss of U.S. manufacturing capability to China and India.”
“Rightwing extremists” who oppose “gun control efforts.”
“Rightwing extremists” who “stockpile food, ammunition, and weapons.”
“Rightwing extremists” who oppose “government infringement on civil liberties.”
“Rightwing extremists” who oppose abortion.
“Rightwing extremists” who oppose same-sex marriage.
“Returning veterans” with “their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat” who are “disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war.”
In other words ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH BARACK OBAMA IS A POTENTIAL TERRORIST!
So THAT is why all decent Americans should oppose the Democrats’ and the media’s demand for what they call “common sense gun safety legislation”.