Businesswoman turned politician Carly Fiorina is angry with CNN. The reason? The network is likely to leave her out of its prime time debate because she’s supposedly not polling in the top 10.
The only problem with that? She clearly is.
As Howie Kurtz explained on Fox News, CNN, however, is using older polls — from before the first Fox News debate — to assemble its “top 10″ of candidates. It’s clear that this is extremely bad for Fiorina, since she barely had name recognition before that debate. After it, however, she quickly surged in the polls and suddenly become a top contender.
You’d think that CNN would understand that debates actually matter and that a few weeks (let alone a few months) are an eternity in politics, but they’re having none of it. From the looks of it, the cable channel will not change its selection process. This means that Fiorina will once again have to participate in the kids’ table debate, missing out on the big audience that the top 10 debate is sure to draw since they’re up in prime time.
Of course, CNN could change their system in the blink of an eye, but they’ll likely refuse to do so because they don’t want to “give in” to the demands of one of the candidates — says Kurtz. Well, of course they wouldn’t. To the networks, this entire primary process is — of course — not about the actual candidates, but about themselves. It’s about their ratings, their influence, their power and their reputation. Republican voters can lose, as long as the networks win.
This flies in the face of the interests of the Republican National Committee. The RNC has to learn from this debacle and make sure it — and nobody else — organizes future debates. Networks can air the debates – - obviously — but it’s not up to them to come up with the rules and to decide who can and can’t participate.
The apparent alliance between Senator Ted Cruz and businessman Donald Trump — both candidates for the Republican nomination for president — will be on full display soon: the two will hold an anti-Iran deal rally together. CNN reports:
Presidential hopefuls Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are planning to rally together on the grounds of the Capitol to “call on members of Congress to defeat the catastrophic” Iran nuclear deal, Cruz’s campaign said Thursday.
The Texas senator said in a tweet that he was “glad that @realDonaldTrump accepted my invitation,” an invitation confirmed by event organizers.
Cruz’s announcement came a few hours after Trump announced in a speech in South Carolina that he expected to do an Iran event with Cruz, predicting it would draw a “tremendous crowd.”
Although many Republicans have distanced themselves from Trump, Cruz has done the opposite. He has defended the eccentric billionaire throughout the campaign and even praised him for his outspokenness. He’s also a big fan of Trump’s willingness to make enemies in order to speak the truth about America’s failing immigration policies.
The two men have several things in common. One of them is that both are extremely critical of the deal Obama has struck with Iran. Cruz has vowed to “shred it to pieces” on the first day he becomes president. Trump hasn’t gone that far — he says he’ll just “strictly police” it — but it’s clear that he too believes that the White House has set a dangerous precedent by doing business with Iran’s radical mullahs who, on several occasions, have said they want to “wipe Israel off the map.”
It’s great to see that although Trump and Cruz are obviously rivals for the Republican nomination, they’re willing to join forces when circumstances demand it. Although they’re often accused by the establishment of not being team players, the opposite is true: they certainly are willing to form an alliance when it’s in America’s interest. Yes, even when it doesn’t make much sense from a campaign-perspective. Other Republicans, like John “Ted Cruz is a jackass” Boehner, can learn a little something from that.
Conservatism Is Alive and Well in America: Mark Levin’s ‘Plunder and Deceit’ Dominates the NYT Bestsellers List
As principled conservative readers know, Mark “The Great One” Levin has written a new book. Plunder and Deceit was published on August 4; that’s Barack Obama’s birthday. The radio talker says he wasn’t aware of this when the date for the publication was set, but it’s of course extremely ironic: he’s one of the most outspoken and effective Obama critics on radio. The reason he’s so effective? He’s not just condemning Obama for his far-left policies that’ll end up destroying America, but he explains (every single day!) a) why Obama’s policies are so bad and b) what the conservative alternatives are.
That’s exactly what he does in Plunder and Deceit, and that’s undoubtedly why it’s selling so well: it absolutely dominates the New York Times Best Sellers List. It’ll debut at number 1 on three lists: hardcover Non-Fiction, ebook Non-Fiction, and the combined list. Breitbart.com explains:
Levin’s widely anticipated book has been greeted with overflow crowds at book signings. The book, which covers everything from radical environmentalism to illegal immigration to national security, arrives as conservatism stands at a crossroads and seeks to inform and inspire America’s emerging generation of constitutional conservatives.
Levin said on his show yesterday that it’s not even close between his book and the number two (a book written by a progressive hack): he has sold 50,000 copies more.
And that in “the age of Obama”: a time in which many people believe the United States to be “radically transformed” from a capitalist, freedom-minded country into a socialist walhalla.
Guess what? Those self-proclaimed experts are dead wrong. If there’s anything Levin’s amazing success proves it is that there’s more hunger for a real, authentic conservative voice than ever before.
Although many commentators — and the Republican Party’s leadership — believe that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic Party’s nominee, I’m not so sure. The ultimate proof? Look no further:
Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his associates have begun to actively explore a possible presidential campaign, which would upend the Democratic field and deliver a direct threat to Hillary Rodham Clinton, several people who have spoken to Mr. Biden or his closest advisers say.
Biden and his buddies have started talking to Democratic leaders and donors because the latter are worried by Clinton’s “increasingly visible vulnerabilities as a candidate.” Biden was supposedly also influenced by the death of his son, Beau, who passionately wanted him to run. The vice president wouldn’t even consider doing so, however, if he believed this one was Hillary’s for the taking.
And that’s not at all. Polling also shows that Bernie Sanders — the outspoken socialist — is making some headway. Crowds are swelling at his gatherings; not because he’s such an inspiring figure, but because there are a lot of Democrats who simply don’t want to support Hillary. Although Joe Biden is quite an extraordinary gaffe-machine, he’s to be taken much more seriously than Sanders. After all, in contrast to the senator from Vermont, Biden has connections, a strong organization and a power base.
The result is that Democrats who are only interested in winning are slowly but surely warming up to a Biden campaign:
“It’s not that we dislike Hillary, it’s that we want to win the White House,” said Richard A. Harpootlian, a lawyer and Democratic donor in Columbia, S.C., who met with Mr. Ricchetti before Beau Biden died. “We have a better chance of doing that with somebody who is not going to have all the distractions of a Clinton campaign.”
Hillary is the frontrunner because her nomination is deemed inevitable. Once that notion is shattered, her poll numbers will undoubtedly fall — and fast.
Oh, and before you say anything: yes, I’m looking forward to a new Biden campaign. Just watch the video on the next page and you will too…
Is Dana Milbank — one of the Washington Compost’s many leftist columnists — really a girly man, or do you think he’s just pretending?
Finally, Senate Republicans are standing up to the bully who terrorized them the past two and a half years — and they’re finding out he isn’t so tough, after all. After Cruz on the Senate floor Friday called his fellow Republican, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), a liar, his GOP colleagues have moved swiftly to shut down his antics. They voted in large numbers to renew the Export-Import Bank (McConnell’s scheduling of the vote, opposed by Cruz, is what prompted Cruz to accuse McConnell of lying) and they thwarted Cruz and his sidekick, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), on poison-pill amendments to the highway bill that would have jettisoned Senate rules in order to defund Planned Parenthood, scuttle the Iran nuclear deal and repeal Obamacare.
A bully who “terrorized” Republicans? How did he do that, exactly? By threatening to wipe entire nations off the earth, like Iran has done — a country John Boehner et al. are more than willing to negotiate with? Or did he perhaps create a little army of radicals who are ready and willing to behead anyone who disagrees with the dear senator from Texas?
Why no. Of course not. All Cruz did was stand up for conservative principles. That’s it. He was elected by the people of Texas; they wanted him to actually behalve like a principled conservative… and that’s exactly what he has done.
Apparently, that’s enough nowadays to accuse someone of “terrorizing” and of being a “bully.” In the real world, where real men live, the entire notion is laughable, but Dana Milbank lives in the Washington bubble so he actually thinks that nagging and whining like a disgruntled little girl makes people sympathize with him and the only Republicans he likes: sellouts.
Donald Trump’s election platform summarized:
Illegals are rapists! Well, never mind that: the good ones can stay. But the bad ones are rapists! And the Republican Party sucks! They’re idiots! Fools. All of them! Let me donate to Democrats, because we all know they’re tough on immigration, aren’t they? Oh, and I’m very rich. Richer than rich! I’m the richest guy on the planet (except some others who are richer, but who cares? They’re stupid anyway)! Vote for me, because I’m rich!
Essentially, that’s all there is to it. While it’s shocking to me that there are some conservatives who apparently are impressed by it, we can’t afford to alienate those people too much. We just need to point out — time and again — that The Donald is an important Democrat donor and a fake. We need to get conservatives to start thinking, rather than acting on their gut feeling and emotions alone.
Oh, and a short message to Trump supporters: stop pretending that those who support other candidates aren’t “conservative.” There are some real, proven conservatives in the race. Let the hero worship stop. Please. It’s unbecoming of conservatism.
Like Jonathan S. Tobin at Commentary, I have little doubt that TrumpMania will soon fade away. There has always been a willingness among a part of the electorate to get behind an angry outsider, but when push comes to shove, even those voters opt for a candidate they can trust. Trump simply isn’t that guy. Tobin’s third argument, which I consider to be the most important one, is as follows:
Third, the assumption on the part of some that a public that has been watching Trump on TV for years already knows all it cares to learn about the man is equally unfounded. I doubt that most of those on the right applauding his outrageous act are aware of Trump’s long history of backing for liberal causes and even his financial support for Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaigns and their family charity that operates as a political slush fund for the former first couple. Will that matter? Trump thinks not, but he shouldn’t be so sure. Trump has been subjected to intense scrutiny as a celebrity, but he has yet to learn that the gossip page items that actually help a TV star will hurt a presidential wannabe.
Another good argument:
Fourth, as I noted last week, the basic culture of American democracy is something that is designed to trip up demagogues. This wouldn’t be the first case of populism run amuck in American history and there are some obvious examples of outlier figures having a major impact on the outcome of elections. A charismatic figure like William Jennings Bryan may not have offered any more of a coherent approach to governance than Trump in the 1890s, but the force of his rhetoric captured the Democratic Party for a generation. And, as John noted, Trump may turn out to be the second coming of Ross Perot with equally disastrous implications for Republicans as that Third Party candidate that effectively handed the country over to the Clintons. Americans many not always see through charlatans running for office, but underestimating their ability to smell a fraud is a sucker’s bet.
It’s very simple. When it boils down to it, Trump is not actually conservative. He has, all throughout his life, supported Democrats. Two of the most important recipients of his support (financial and otherwise) are Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. There’s no chance in hell that the conservative base will let him get away with that. Of course there are some who argue that Ronald Reagan “was originally a Democrat as well,” but that comparison doesn’t hold. Reagan broke quite visibly with the Democrats and attacked them ruthlessly. Trump has done no such thing — nor will he. The only people he’s attacking are fellow Republicans. For some reason or another, Democrats like Clinton have little to fear from him. This may be due to his past and continued support for liberal policies. Reagan had a “political conversion.” Trump hasn’t. That will be his undoing. That and his lack of knowledge and understanding of politics.
But something has me worried, as I’ll explain on the next page.
Sean Hannity says that three senators confirmed Ted Cruz’s account of a conversation he had with Senate Majority
Liar Leader Mitch McConnell about a possible deal with Democrats about the Export-Import Bank. You may recall that Cruz blasted McConnell on the Senate floor for saying there was no deal, while there clearly was one.
Although other Republicans have attacked Cruz for telling the truth — without denying his account of the conversation, by the way — a few have come out in support of him. Senator Mike Lee has been willing to go on record to confirm Cruz’s account.
Sadly, he’s the only one. Hannity says that two others confirmed the story, but they wish to remain anonymous. This is what he said when Cruz appeared on his radio show recently:
I got to be honest, I stood up and cheered when you did all this because I feel that the Republican Party in Congress, I think Republican governors have been far more bold, the Republican Congress has been weak, and timid and unwilling to fight on very key issues… Here’s the question that nobody in the media wants to ask but I’ve been asking and that is, did Mitch McConnell make you the promise that you said he made? Now, Mike Lee says he did, and two senators, two of your fellow senators told me privately that, in fact, yes they heard three times Mitch McConnell say that to you. That there was no deal made but they don’t want so say it publicly.
This leaves little doubt about the truth of Cruz’s statements. What’s more important, though, is the utter lack of courage from his colleagues in the U.S. Senate. Think about this: 50 senators don’t have the courage to speak out about this issue, and of the four (including Cruz) who do, two are so afraid of McConnell’s leadership team that they don’t dare do so publicly.
The Republican Party’s donors have a brand new idea: let’s boycott those we disagree with! Will they never learn?
I’m no fan of Donald Trump. Not because I think he’s a loudmouth (which he is), or because he’s extremely rude (ditto), but because he ain’t no conservative. Conservative hero Andrew Breitbart (one of my mentors and friends who, sadly, passed away at a very young age, leaving a beautiful family behind), said so years ago, and what he said back then is still true today. Trump is anti-illegal immigration… and that’s just about everything that’s “conservative” about him.
Having said that, the guy naturally has the right to try to win the Republican nomination. It’s up to the base to see through his act and support an actual and reliable conservative. I’m convinced that, in time, they’ll do just that. Yes, some sympathize with him, but they’ll support other candidates when they find out who Trump really is.
This means that those other candidates and the Republican Party’s leadership have to be smart about the way they deal with Trump. The best strategy is to … take him seriously. Yes, even when he’s bullying everybody else and saying outrageous things about them.
You see, Trump’s current popularity isn’t about him, but about conservative anger. Conservative voters are pissed beyond measure: they feel ignored by their party, they believe amnesty for illegal aliens is all but a done deal, and they’re angrier than heck about it. Who can blame them? I know I don’t.
One of the moderators in one of my favorite conservative communities on Google+ (yes, it still exists) recently published a post in which she praised Rick Perry’s response to Donald Trump’s statements on immigration and border security, while criticizing Ted Cruz for his. She’s not the only one who believes that Republicans have to distance themselves from the successful businessman, fearing they’ll alienate Hispanic voters if they don’t.
Moderator Leslie P. quotes from this article by Jon Gabriel:
Perry is setting himself up as the grown-up in the race. Along with his race speech a couple weeks back, it’s Perry, not Trump, who is the truth-teller of 2016.
Although it might seem wise to distance oneself from Trump because of the Hispanic vote, I believe Republican candidates are making a tragic mistake when they actually do so. I like to compare The Donald to Geert Wilders, who probably is the best known Dutch politician in the rest of the world, and especially in the United States.
The National Taxpayers Union Foundation reports that Senator Ted Cruz (from Texas) has, during his time in the U.S. Senate, supported measures that would reduce government spending by $169.4 billion a year.
Demian Brady, NTUF director of Research, is quoted by Breitbart as saying:
Senator Cruz supported significant spending reductions like repeal of the Affordable Care Act and abolishing the IRS and income tax in favor of a sales tax. Combined with very minimal spending increases, these make for a legislative slate big on savings.
And that’s not all. Cruz also wants to repeal ObamaCare which would reduce government spending by an additional $64 billion a year.
The contrast with Democratic presidential candidates is stark. Bernie Sanders — Hillary Clinton’s main rival at the moment — wanted to increase spending by $1 trillion a year. Frontrunner Hillary didn’t go that far, but she still proposed an increase of $226 billion.
It goes to show that the 2016 elections are of vital importance for America’s future. If a real conservative like Cruz is elected, chances are that government spending will be cut, meaning the Treasury’s finances may finally become somewhat healthy. If, on the other hand, one of the Democrats wins, the U.S. will file for bankruptcy in a decade if not sooner. Both Hillary and Sanders are determined to spend America into bankruptcy. The only thing that can stop them is a solid conservative.
Below is a part of Cruz’s speech in which he announced he’d be running for president and promised that he would repeal ObamaCare if he’s elected.
The United States was only training about 60 Syrian opposition fighters to battle Islamic State as of July 3, far below expectations, partly due to rigorous U.S. vetting of recruits, Defense Secretary Ash Carter told Congress on Tuesday.
“We are looking for ways to streamline our train and equip program’s vetting process to get more recruits into the training pipeline,” Carter told a Senate hearing in prepared remarks.
Even if you vet recruits “rigorously” you should at least be able to train, say, a few thousand of them in the amount of time the administration was given. It’s not that difficult to find out whether someone’s a secret radical or not. At least, not if you know what you’re doing and have good intelligence on the ground – either from yourself or from allies. And no, I don’t accept Hot Air’s Jazz Shaw’s view that it’s impossible to vet anyone. If that were the case, they wouldn’t be vetting 7.000 people right now.
Of course that’s a useless number – it could be that 6900 are deemed unreliable, then what? – but that’s beside the point. They’re checking out thousands of recruits, which means it’s possible to do so. All those with some experience in the Middle East know that even though it’s chaotic in Syria and Iraq, people on the ground tend to know which potential fighters are closet-extremists and which aren’t. You only need a somewhat acceptable intel effort to get that kind of information.
And that leads me to the following: if the Obama administration does use the excuse that it’s difficult to vet anyone thoroughly, it means that the entire strategy to train and arm a new group of fighters won’t work. ISIS needs to be destroyed. It doesn’t matter whether this mission is accomplished by Syrian fighters or by European and American troops. It’s the result that matters, how we get there is of secondary importance (or of no importance at all). If it’s impossible to recruit tens of thousands of local warriors (which will be necessary if ISIS is to be crushed), well, the administration just has to develop an entirely new strategy, one that’s actually possible to implement.
Senator Ted Cruz isn’t only the most talked about Republican presidential candidate of the entire field on social media, he’s also doing well fundraising-wise. The senator from Texas announced yesterday that his campaign and allied PACs raised more than $51 million in the second quarter. This means that he’s one of the few candidates who’s actually able to build a war chest necessary to beat a) progressive Republican Jeb Bush and, after that, b) progressive Democrat Hillary Clinton.
No wonder, then, that the campaign is elated:
The aggregate total of over $51 million means that, along with Cruz’s strong support from the conservative grassroots across the country, Cruz’s campaign will have the resources, the manpower, and the energy to compete vigorously in all early state contests, as well as nationally in the Super Tuesday states on March 1st.
Cruz himself explained:
The grassroots energy and support we are seeing is overwhelming. In Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina – and all across the country – we are seeing courageous conservatives coming together for real change. We’re reassembling the Reagan coalition – from conservatives to libertarians to people of Faith – and with the help of so many supporters, we will be able to deliver our optimistic message all across the country.
Jeb Bush’s allies said earlier this year that they hoped to raise $100 million in the same period. Hillary Clinton will undoubtedly do the same. That’s a difference of $50 million, but it’s good news for Cruz nonetheless: he’s likely the best-funded conservative candidate out there and may, with these results, convince the conservative base to rally behind him. If they do, it’ll be for the first time in several election cycles that conservatives have a well-funded candidate of their own… which means they may actually win this time around.
Of course, this does mean that conservative voters have to turn their backs on other candidates that they may like, but who are less well-funded. A Rick Santorum comes to mind. Will conservatives be smart and choose sides early on, or will they let the establishment divide them, which will undoubtedly result in a victory for Jeb?
According to a new CNN poll, majorities support both SCOTUS’ ObamaCare and its gay marriage decision:
According to a new CNN/ORC poll, 63% support the Court’s ruling upholding government assistance for lower-income Americans buying health insurance through both state-operated and federally-run health insurance exchanges. Slightly fewer, 59%, say they back the ruling which made same-sex marriages legal in all 50 states.
It’s not surprising that a majority of voters like free money — which is undoubtedly what they think about ObamaCare subsidies — or that they support legalizing gay marriage. Previous polls showed that already. No, what’s shocking here is that they’re apparently willing to throw federalism in the dust bin to achieve these goals. Because that’s what happened here — in both cases. With regards to ObamaCare Congress was basically circumvented and “the state” suddenly means “Washington, D.C.” And, while many people might be happy that same-sex marriage is now legal everywhere, the Supreme Court was only able to do this by taking away the power of individual states to define marriage — an issue clearly left to them according to the Constitution.
In other words, Americans are a-okay with power grabs as long as they support the issues the judicial coups are meant to defend.
Or not? Hot Air explains that the average voter may not even realize what just happened — and CNN, of course, conveniently forgot to explain it to them. Especially the question about ObamaCare was questionable if not downright deceptive:
The question in King v. Burwell wasn’t whether giving subsidies to poorer Americans to pay their health insurance is legal in the abstract, as that question seems to imply. The question was whether the text of the ObamaCare statute itself authorized those subsidies for consumers on the federal exchange. You could have rephrased this question to ask, “If a law passed by Congress authorizing health-care subsidies is unclear, should clarifying it be a job for Congress or the Supreme Court?” Imagine the numbers you’d have gotten for that one. But then, that question’s not really fair either. The core issue in King for 99 percent of the public is, “Should the government keep the free money flowing to people who’ve come to depend on it?” The legal niceties of that, whether subsidies are legal or illegal given the way the law was drafted and which branch of government should be responsible for cleaning up this mess, are probably just that — niceties.
In other words, the poll results can be interpreted in two different ways: the first one is that Americans no longer support federalism; the second option is that they’re too uneducated to understand what’s going on.
Whichever may be the case the result is the same: a Supreme Court or a president run amok will get away with it as long as they hold positions a majority of Americans support. This means that while federalism has been stabbed in its heart by SCOTUS, the American people are the ones who have officially declared it dead.
Breitbart reports that, according to a new NBC/WSJ poll released yesterday, Jeb Bush is the current leader in the crowded field of Republican presidential candidates. According to the poll, Bush is supported by 22% of primary voters. Scott Walker is second with 17%, and Marco Rubio is third with 14%. Everybody else comes behind (this includes Ben Carson and Ted Cruz).
Although I saw many conservatives on Facebook explode at this news, I’m not worried at all. You see, Bush has only two strengths:
1. He’s a Bush. This is a strength because it means instant name recognition. Additionally, although the media pretend Americans don’t like dynasties, I couldn’t disagree more. They love ‘em. Heck, they’re even obsessed with them.
2. He’ll probably have a boat load of money to spend in the primaries.
The first point will always be a major strength of Jeb’s, but with regards to number two, well, not so much. Firstly, money can’t buy you conservative credentials and, secondly, other Republicans have also proved themselves to be extremely well-funded. Rubio and Walker are raising a lot of money, and the same can be said for Ted, who impressed everybody — both foes and friends — when he released his fundraising totals of the first quarter of this year.
In other words, only the “Bush” part is truly an advantage Jeb has. That’s great for him, but conservatives shouldn’t worry: he’s got some serious weaknesses that his conservative rivals can and will exploit:
1. Voters don’t know Jeb, other than he’s a Bush.
2. The debates have yet to start. They’ll show Jeb for what he is: a progressive. Republican voters will run away from him en masse.
3. Jeb is a progressive Republican and has, because of it, very limited appeal. He may be able to get something like 25/27% of the GOP’s base. That’s his ceiling.
4. There are many conservative candidates who, at this moment, split the vote. During and after the debates, that’ll change: one or two will jump to the fore. They’ll close the gap with Jeb in no time.
5. The “ceiling” of those conservatives is much higher than Jeb’s.
In short, there’s no chance in hell that Jeb’s going to become the Republican Party’s nominee. He’ll give more conservative candidates a run for their money — sure — but that’s all.
Defenders of the Confederate flag (of whom I’m not one) have a new and unexpected ally: MSNBC’s Ed Schultz.
You know, I understand the effort to remove the Confederate flag from state capitols in the South and anywhere else in this country. There’s no doubt about it that it sends the wrong message. But at this point, I asked the question, is it overboard? And I don’t understand the attempt to erase American history as if it’s going to change our course as a nation. It’s not.
Strong words, but it gets even worse (or better, depending on your perspective):
The desecration of our nation’s history, I think, is dangerous and I think it’s unproductive. American history and our roots as a nation needs (sic) to be, number one, understood. It needs to be properly interpreted. It needs to be taught. And at a level, I think, it needs to be respected to be put in its proper context to the recognition of what has developed our great nation and how we have moved forward.
Now, we could debate the pros and cons of Schultz’s arguments, but that’s not the real issue here. As far as I’m concerned, there’s just one question that needs to be answered: why does Ed Schultz hate blacks?
Oh yes, that’s right, I did it: I turned the tables on our liberal friends.
Why does Ed Schultz despise African-Americans? Where does this hatred towards all blacks come from? Does he, perhaps, suffer from unconscious racism (as Justice Kennedy argued in the majority opinion about housing in Texas)? It certainly seems like it. Why else would he defend the Confederate flag?
On the next page is an older clip from Ed Schultz’s show in which he attacks Obama. Many people were surprised by this, but we now know the answer: he hates Obama because the president is black. Anyone care to debate that?
My colleague right here at PJ Media, Scott Ott, wrote an article yesterday in which he argues that conservatives should “rejoice at the Supreme Court same-sex marriage ruling.” His argument is quite simple: the Bible shouldn’t be legislated. In the end, government should withdraw from the marriage business altogether, and this ruling allows conservatives to call for that.
Although I agree with Scott that neither the federal government nor individual states should issue marriage licenses — marriage is something between people and possibly between two people and their God, not between them and their government — that doesn’t mean conservatives should “rejoice” at the illegal SCOTUS decision.
The opposite is true, even. This case wasn’t about same-sex marriage, but about federalism. The idea behind federalism is that the individual states gave the federal government certain powers. The 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution then says that all those powers not delegated to the federal government are left to the states.
Nowhere in the Constitution did the states give the federal government any power over marriage; not to define it, and not to forbid states from doing so. This means that the 50 states can do whatever they want. If they don’t want to define marriage they can do so; if they do want to do so, that’s perfectly fine too.
SCOTUS’ decision isn’t problematic because it allows gays to marriage as such. It’s controversial and extremely troubling because it destroys federalism — the system America is built on.
I’ve argued for a long time that conservatives and libertarians have to choose a different approach to marriage: argue for completely pulling the government out of people’s personal relationships. No more subsidies or what not for married people, only for individuals. If they are married, fine, to the government they’re still individuals. This also means that individual states have to stop giving marriage licenses to married couples. Those who want to marry can do so in a private setting, in church, a synagogue or a mosque. However, if they get anything from the state government it should, at most, be a civil union contract. Churches that want to “marry” gay couples can do so, those who don’t want to do that are also free to follow their conscience. In either case, no government has anything to do with it.
None of that, however, means that SCOTUS’ ruling should be celebrated by anyone. If the court respected the Constitution it should have said that this issue is left to individual states, and that they can do whatever they want. Like Justice Roberts, his colleagues could’ve argued that they’re in favor of legalizing gay marriage on a state level, but that it’s none of the federal government’s business.
Senator Marco Rubio and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush have responded to SCOTUS’ illegal same-sex marriage ruling by saying that it’s now time to move on. Here’s the senator from Florida:
“While I disagree with this decision, we live in a republic and must abide by the law. As we look ahead, it must be a priority of the next president to nominate judges and justices committed to applying the Constitution as written and originally understood…
“I firmly believe the question of same sex marriage is a question of the definition of an institution, not the dignity of a human being. Every American has the right to pursue happiness as they see fit. Not every American has to agree on every issue, but all of us do have to share our country. A large number of Americans will continue to believe in traditional marriage, and a large number of Americans will be pleased with the Court’s decision today. In the years ahead, it is my hope that each side will respect the dignity of the other.”
“Guided by my faith, I believe in traditional marriage. I believe the Supreme Court should have allowed the states to make this decision. I also believe that we should love our neighbor and respect others, including those making lifetime commitments. In a country as diverse as ours, good people who have opposing views should be able to live side by side. It is now crucial that as a country we protect religious freedom and the right of conscience and also not discriminate.”
In other words: Jeb says he’s personally against gay marriage, and believes it should be left to states to define the concept of marriage, but now that SCOTUS has issued its ridiculously illegal ruling, it’s time to move on and start talking about other issues. Or, as Hot Air summarizes it:
Both Floridians seem to concede that the fight against gay marriage is over and that the party should focus on protecting religious liberty from antidiscrimination challenges going forward. No more empty chatter about marriage amendments, no Huckabee-esque bluster about how the Supreme Court can’t make law or whatever. The closest either of them get to suggesting that gay marriage might yet be undone is Rubio hinting, very vaguely, about future Supreme Court appointments, but that’s pie in the sky. It’s unlikely in the extreme that even a conservative Court will revisit today’s ruling anytime soon. He and Bush are waving the white flag here and nudging the party to pivot to defending religious Americans’ right of freedom of association.
This is an easy copout by two men who are so afraid to alienate the donor class that they’re willing to throw all their principles in the dustbin. How is it possible that these two so-called conservatives refuse to understand that this ruling isn’t about same-sex marriage, but about federalism?
Conservatives can’t let SCOTUS get away with this decision, not because they hate gays (they don’t by the way), but because the 10th Amendment has just been nullified. Whether you support or oppose the legalization of gay marriage, that should worry you and be reason to declare war on the Supreme Court.
While American liberals were celebrating SCOTUS’ illegal decision forcing gay marriage upon all 50 states – and thereby nullifying the 10th Amendment – ISIS threw 4 gays from the roof of a building.
As always, a crowd had gathered to watch the brutal mass murder:
— الرقة تذبح بصمت (@Raqqa_Sl) June 26, 2015
Now, I’ve got a question for my liberal friends: why is it that you pretend that gays are persecuted in the United States (which isn’t and wasn’t true at all, they’re able to live together, have relationships, and do whatever they please), while you – at the same time – ignore what’s going on in ISIS’ self-declared radical-Islamic caliphate where homosexuals are literally thrown from buildings?
Ah, never mind, I know the answer: because that would be “intolerant.” Right. Sorry, I forgot for a moment that killing gays is perfectly fine if you’re a Muslim extremist, but refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding is discriminatory if you’re Christian.
The Supreme Court has just ruled that gay marriage has to be legal in all 50 states. Although I personally support the right of gays to marry, this is an incredibly bad decision.
The “right” of gays to marry has never existed. It isn’t protected by the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In fact, because of the 10th Amendment this issue (marriage) is completely left to the individual states. In other words, marriage is none of the federal government’s business; it’s up to individual states to decide whether to legalize it or not.
Combined with yesterday’s ruling on ObamaCare (read my article on that one here), we can only conclude that federalism is no more. America is now a centralized country, comparable to individual European states.
Federalism is dead. And that’s all because of the robed Houdinis who have taken America hostage. These men and women in black have decided that text of laws and the Constitution no longer matter.
Shortly after the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the text of the ObamaCare law didn’t really matter and that it means whatever the anti-constitutionalists want it to mean, senator Ted Cruz made an epic speech on the Senate floor in which he blasted these “robed Houdinis.”
“Today’s decision in King v. Burwell,” Cruz said, “is judicial activism. For the second time in just a few years, a handful of unelected judges has rewritten the text of ObamaCare in order to force that failed law upon millions of Americans. The first time, the court ignored federal law and magically transformed a statutory penalty into a tax. Today these robed Houdinis have transmogrified a federal exchange into an exchange, quote, ‘established by the state.’ This is lawless.”
Strong words, but he wasn’t done yet. He quoted Justice Scalia — one of the few reliably conservatives on the bench — who said that “words no longer have meaning if an exchange that is not established by a state, is established by the state.” Justice Scalia continued, as quoted by Cruz: “We should call this law SCOTUSCare.” Cruz: “I agree. If this were a bankruptcy case or any other case of ordinary statutory interpretation, the result would have been 9-0, with the court unanimously reversing the Obama administration’s illegal actions. But instead, politics intervened.”
The senator from Texas and candidate for president added:
“If those justices want to become legislators, I invite them to resign and run for office.”
In recent months, some conservatives had put their hopes on the Supreme Court, hoping the nine justices there (or at least a majority) would uphold the law and the Constitution. Radio show host Mark Levin warned against that from day one. He said, time and again, that the Supreme Court — or any other court for that matter — couldn’t be trusted. These “men in black” have done more to destroy the Constitution than any other branch of government, the presidency included. After all, it’s SCOTUS’ job to intervene when a president goes too far. Instead, these political activists have done their best to uphold every single unconstitutional act by the president and Congress.
That’s why it’s time to promote a book: Men in Black, How the Supreme Court is Destroying America. You can find the book on Amazon and the audio version on the Apple Store.
My advice to you: buy it. It’s a great book by Levin. In it, he explains that SCOTUS has worked to destroy the Constitution for decades already. Yesterday’s ruling is just one of many examples of such illegal behavior.
As our own Rick Moran reported yesterday, liberal media have used a new study by the New America Foundation to pretend that white Americans pose a bigger threat to national security than Muslim radicals. Rick explains that this conclusion can’t be drawn from the report at all: it’s only possible to say so when one ignores the failed terrorist attacks by Islamic extremists. If those are included, Islamists are far more dangerous than “white Americans.”
However, that didn’t stop Mediaite from publishing an article blasting white Americans (as I wrote two days ago, white self-hate is now officially politically correct). The same can be said for the New York Times with its recent headline: “Right-wing extremists more deadly than Muslim radicals in U.S.”
Like Rick, Islamic reformer M. Zuhdi Jasser — who has decided his life to fighting radical Islam — is having none of it. He writes on Facebook:
When the New York Times becomes indistinguishable from Qatari government Islamist media at Al Jazeera:
“Right-wing extremists more deadly than Muslim radicals in U.S.”
(All the Islamism that’s fit to print)
The idiocy of this story and its data will be verified by its reproduction in every Islamist venue around the planet… all the while ISIS and the global jihad spread at home and abroad exponentially.
Of course it’s also rather ironic that the liberal media only started counting after 9/11. If those attacks are included, it isn’t even close. But hey, why would you include the single biggest terrorist attack in U.S. history when trying to determine what kind of extremists are more deadly than others?
Jasser is right: the New York Times has become as pro-Islamist as Al Jazeera, the official news outlet of Muslim radicals worldwide. “Sickening” is too weak a word to describe the current state of the liberal media in America. And they’re getting worse every single day.
Ali Michael is a young writer for the Huffington Post. That’s bad enough in itself, but it gets even worse. You see, she’s a white lady who hates… whites. Herself included. As she explains in a recent piece about her views on race:
I definitely experienced this. There was a time in my 20s when everything I learned about the history of racism made me hate myself, my Whiteness, my ancestors… and my descendants. I remember deciding that I couldn’t have biological children because I didn’t want to propagate my privilege biologically.
If I was going to pass on my privilege, I wanted to pass it on to someone who doesn’t have racial privilege; so I planned to adopt. I disliked my Whiteness, but I disliked the Whiteness of other White people more. I felt like the way to really end racism was to feel guilty for it, and to make other White people feel guilty for it too. And then, like Dolezal, I wanted to take on Africanness. Living in South Africa during my junior year abroad, I lived with a Black family, wore my hair in head wraps, shaved my head. I didn’t want to be White, but if I had to be, I wanted to be White in a way that was different from other White people I knew. I wanted to be a special, different White person.
The nut extraordinaire goes on to explain that, after this period of intense hate, she concluded that it’s OK to be white… as long as you’re “the right sort of white.” What this means exactly isn’t clear, but it probably means you have to be a self-hating liberal WASP who feels guilty all day long about everything your ancestors may have done wrong — or not, since the majority of whites didn’t own slaves, of course, only a very small minority did. But hey, they could have had slaves, so that’s enough for little miss Ali.
Of course she conveniently forgets that many African slaves were sold to white slavers by their fellow Africans, but, you know, who cares about cold hard facts like that? Whiteness = evil. Black = good. Pure and simple.
All of that having been said, I won’t argue with her on her unwillingness to have children. One Ali Michael and one Rachel Dolezal are enough for the whole of mankind — whether they’d be black, yellow, red, or white.
A Pakistani Christian, who has fled to the Netherlands, has made a video of life in a refugee center and uploaded it to YouTube. The video has received national attention in the Netherlands because the refugee says he’s regularly bullied and threatened by other refugees, most of whom are Muslim.
I am a refugee and live in the refugee center at Gilze en Rijen. There are a lot of Syrian Muslims here who fled the war in their own country. These Muslims have made life impossible for us [red.: for Christian refugees]. I fled from my own country because I thought I’d be safe and welcome here. But I still have to hide here. I contacted the government agency that deals with refugees, but they refuse to intervene. I’ve arrived at a point at which I don’t know what to do.
ChristianUnion MP Joël Voordewind commented after watching the video that this isn’t the first time Christian refugees have complained about Muslim refugees. It happens very often, he says, that radical Muslims take over refugee centers and bully all those who hold different religious beliefs. At the same time, however, they appeal to the Dutch government to get residence permits, saying they aren’t safe in their own countries because of… wait for it: radical Islamic violence.
Although part of the video is in Dutch, the individual fragments are not. The video starts with a short introduction, after which refugee N. Bashir shares scenes he secretly shot when people didn’t know he was filming. In one such scene, the Islamic call for prayer is heard, after which Muslim refugees take over the kitchen to pray. Non-Muslims aren’t allowed to enter the kitchen during prayer times; they have to wait until the Muslims are done with their ritual prayer.
In another scene, one of Bashir’s roommates is seen praying. The man is Muslim, while Bashir and the other roommate are Christian. When Bashir prays (which he does five times a day), the Muslim roommate forces the others to be quiet. If they make a sound, he gets angry with them and starts shouting. As a result, the two Christians don’t dare say or do anything until the other “refugee” is done.
Ted Cruz: Now That Erdogan Has Lost the Elections, Perhaps We Can Do Business with Turkey Against ISIS
Although Senator Ted Cruz is generally seen as a guy who’s mostly into domestic policies, he proved with an op-ed for Time that he’s very well aware of what’s happening in the world. In his piece, Cruz explains that Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s defeat in the elections on Sunday paves the way towards a better relationship between the U.S. and Turkey — at least with regards to the war on terror:
This is good news for Turkey, and it should be good news for the United States as well. Turkey has been a long-standing friend to our nation, and is an important NATO ally. But Mr. Erdogan’s increasingly autocratic, Islamist and anti-American policies, largely un-rebuked by the Obama administration, have threatened this relationship. Under his rule, Turkey has become a leader in Internet censorship and the persecution of journalists. Mr. Erdogan’s administration has been aggressively hostile to our ally Israel, further inflaming regional tensions. By withholding access to the NATO air base at Incirlik, Turkey has further jeopardized our already anemic campaign against the spread of ISIS along Turkey’s borders with Syria and Iraq.
Erdogan’s islamist AKP is still the biggest party in Parliament, but it lost almost 10% of its votes. What’s more, because of the rise of the Kurdish HDP party the Islamists cannot form a majority government by themselves. They either have to join forces with an opposition party (who already said they’re not going to work with Erdogan), establish a minority government (which is very weak), call for new elections soon — or a combination of these possible scenarios. In theory it’s even possible that the AKP will lose its hold on power altogether: if all three opposition parties join forces, they can form a government without them.
The AKP isn’t only Islamist, the party also supports Islamic terrorists. Many believe that the current Turkish government has shipped weapons and money to ISIS and other terrorist organizations in Syria and Iraq. Even though Erdogan disputes that, he can’t possibly deny his embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist organization bent on destroying Israel. Until now, Erdogan has refused to help the United States in the war on terror, especially with regards to ISIS. In fact, the Turkish army watched and did nothing while the Muslim extremists slaughtered innocent Kurdish civilians. Sad as that may be, they were simply following orders: Erdogan’s orders.
As Cruz also points out, Erdogan remains in power for now, but the United States should demand loudly that Turkey help out in Syria and Iraq. Turkey has to take “aggressive action against the ISIS fighters moving across its borders ” and it has to give the U.S. “access to our air base at Incirlik so we can see how ISIS reacts to a serious, concerted air campaign.” It’s likely that Erdogan won’t agree to those requests, but now that they’re slowly turning against him and his Islamist party “the Turkish people might be open to partnering with America against the vicious scourge of terrorism that threatens both our nations.” Obama has to use that window of opportunity.
As a journalist and blogger who resides in Turkey, I can only applaud Cruz’s op-ed and strategic (foreign policy) insight. Let’s hope that the president will, for once, listen to those who actually understand foreign policy and put Cruz’s advice into action. Even if he doesn’t, though, Ted Cruz has proved himself to be far more than just a domestic policy expert.
The famous (and in some circles infamous) former CIA infrastructure analyst Edward Snowden has written an op-ed for the New York Times about what he calls “a post-terror generation” that’s ”finally standing up for the right to privacy.”
Snowden first explains that when he sounded the alarm about the NSA’s ridiculously broad spying program he was persecuted and deemed a traitor (which is why he had to flee to Russia). In the years since, though, a lot has changed:
Two years on, the difference is profound. In a single month, the N.S.A.’s invasive call-tracking program was declared unlawful by the courts and disowned by Congress. After a White House-appointed oversight board investigation found that this program had not stopped a single terrorist attack, even the president who once defended its propriety and criticized its disclosure has now ordered it terminated.
This is the power of an informed public.
Ending the mass surveillance of private phone calls under the Patriot Act is a historic victory for the rights of every citizen, but it is only the latest product of a change in global awareness. Since 2013, institutions across Europe have ruled similar laws and operations illegal and imposed new restrictions on future activities.
The reason that Congress turned against the original Patriot Act is, of course, the fact that the public demanded new rules. American voters would never have done so if they hadn’t known about it – which is why the entire world should be grateful to Snowden for what he has done.
Many conservative blogs called Snowden a traitor from day one, but the opposite is true: he’s a modern day hero who had the courage to destroy his own career in the United States in order to expose a highly secretive and unconstitutional government program run amok. He could’ve played it safe by keeping his mouth shut, but instead decided to risk his own liberty in order to inform the American (and foreign) public about what was going on.
In return he had the entire power of the state turned against him. He was literally forced to flee and still risks arrest if he travels to a different country (that is willing to cooperate with America).
It’s rather ironic that he continues to be treated as a traitor since, by reforming the original Patriot Act, Congress has basically admitted he was right. Remember: many members of the Senate and the House of Representatives wouldn’t even have known the details of the NSA’s spying program if Snowden hadn’t intervened.
That’s why it’s time for America to stop treating Snowden as the biggest enemy of the state the world has ever seen. He isn’t a second Benedict Arnold, but a hero who did what had to be done, even though it could and eventually would cost him dearly.
FreedomWorks’ Matt Kibbe appeared on Glenn Beck’s radio show to talk about the Republican nomination process. He explained that there are, in his eyes, only four viable candidates.
I’ve narrowed my field down. I’ve taken a long look at Scott Walker. And I think the last time I was on the show, I said Scott Walker would be on my short list. He is not impressing me with a spine of steel more recently. And I think we should look at that. But I think the four most viable candidates for better or worse are people we helped put there. Scott Walker would be one of them. Scott Walker wouldn’t exist without Tea Party support in his state.
He added that, “for better or worse,” Walker definitely is one of the four. The other three are Ted Cruz and Rand Paul (Glenn’s favorites) and, finally, Marco Rubio. About the latter, Kibbe said that he, like Walker, only became a senator because of Tea Party support, although he has difficulty retaining that support because of his views on illegal immigration. “The Republican Party didn’t want him,” he said, explaining the establishment went for former Florida Governor Charlie Crist.
Those four candidates — I predict one of them emerges.
He went on to blast candidate like Jeb Bush whom he dubbed “recycled candidates from last elections.”
Our guys are looking for someone who authentically stands for something.
Clearly, Bush and other moderates don’t do that. Well, in Jeb’s case, that’s not entirely true. He does stand for something: unlimited immigration. Sadly for him, most conservatives won’t rally behind that.
New GOP Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum Blasts Obama’s Strategy Against ISIS: ‘A PR-War, Not A Real War!’
Rick Santorum kicked off his campaign for president by blasting President Obama’s horrendous strategy to fight ISIS. On MSNBC’s Morning Joe, the former senator said that Obama is more interested in fighting a “public relations war than a real war.”
“This is a public relations war that the president is fighting, he’s not fighting a real war. We’re not doing any substantial damage on the air against ISIS.”
His solution is based on a little thing Obama’s sorely missing: common sense.
“We have to step up the bombing campaign, and you can’t do that unless you have more boots on the ground so you have an understanding of the targeting, you have an understanding of the coordination of troops. That’s a whole combination of things.”
Before MSNBC ran off with that and pretended Santorum called for World War III he added:
“I’m not calling for a major invasion force, but many of the generals who have been commenting on this have suggested we have to double or triple the 3,000 that we have there on the ground right now to provide effective support for those who are fighting.”
As regular readers of PJ Media know, I’m a Ted Cruz guy, but Santorum deserves major props for saying what has to be said on Obama’s failing ISIS-strategy… and for suggesting an alternate approach that could actually work. Imagine that: a presidential candidate who actually understands the threat ISIS poses to the region and the rest of the world, and who’s determined to wipe these genocidal islamist maniacs from the face of the earth.
On Wednesday, PJ Media’s Patrick Poole wrote a breakthrough report about the shocking rise in domestic terror arrests this year. As he explained, 40 (wannabe) terrorists have been arrested in the first five months of 2015 alone.
Later in the day, Poole had to update that to 41 as news broke of the arrest of Asher Abid Khan.
How steep has the rise in terror activity been this year? Writes Poole:
At the current pace, by the end of June — halfway through 2015 — the number of cases will exceed the number from the past two years combined (48).
The single best conservative talker in America — I’m talking about Mark Levin, of course — read Patrick’s article on the air Wednesday evening, explaining that these numbers prove the U.S. has a growing extremism problem. There are increasingly more Muslim extremists in the country, and they’re more than willing to put their hate-filled ideas into practice. That’s bad, but it gets even worse. Levin:
Forty — and we’re not even at the half-year mark. Forty. And it’s actually worse. Because Obama wants to bring individuals from the Middle East into this country by the tens of thousands, and he’s being urged to do so by his party.
Levin then mentioned a report from the Washington Free Beacon saying that at least 638 supposed “asylum seekers” from the Middle East have been found to have ties to terror groups. Yes, you read that right: 638 so-called refugees who tried to get into America were likely terrorists. And these were just the ones who got caught.
Any sane government would be so shocked by these facts that it would limit the amount of asylum-seekers it lets into the country, but regrettably, the Obama administration is crazy. These radical leftists literally play with American lives, and they couldn’t care less.
What’s a terror attack or two if you can bring thousands of new voters who’ll support the Democratic Party? Isn’t that what foreign policy and immigration are really all about?
Turkey’s President Erdogan is up to his usual Islamist antics. He said yesterday that he will ask the Turkish government to give the head of the country’s religious directorate, the Diyanet, a private jet.
The pope has one, so Turkey’s religious leader deserves one too. After all, he’s just as important as the pope, isn’t he?
“[Religious Affairs Directorate President] Mr. Mehmet Görmez is not only the religious leader of Turkey. In fact, he is the respected religious leader of this geographical area in the Islamic world,” Erdoğan said.
The president also stressed that Görmez is a respected Islamic religious leader who deserved the same conveniences as the pope. Slamming critics while comparing the situation to that in Christian parts of the world, Erdoğan claimed the pope “has a private jet, private cars and armored vehicles.” “That’s the situation at the Vatican and our religious leader will take scheduled [commercial] flights?” he asked.
Of course there’s one minor difference. The head of the Diyanet is not supposed to be the official leader of Sunni Islam. In fact, the religious directorate was created by Turkey’s founder, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, to make sure that there would never be a new caliph. He wanted to separate religion from politics and push it back to where it belongs; in people’s private lives, not in public life.
Erdogan has dedicated his life to undoing everything Atatürk has done – he created the Republic of Turkey out of the ashes of the Islamist Ottoman Empire – so it’s no surprise that he wants to build up the position of Mr. Görmez, but the timing is shocking nonetheless. He’s taking quite a risk: the elections for parliament are coming up in Turkey and if the polls are to be believed, Erdogan’s Islamist AK Parti is set to lose a significant amount of seats. Some experts even suggest a coalition government may have to be formed; quite a change from the current situation in which the AKP controls two-thirds of parliament.
Although this possibility scares the living daylights out of the AKP, everybody else can only hope (and, ironically, pray) that this is exactly what happens. If the AKP can go on governing Turkey by itself, next month’s elections may very well be the last free elections in Turkey, because Erdogan is determined to change the secular republic into an Islamic sultanate.
Our friends from Prager University have released another great video. The subject (for Memorial Day): is America the world’s policeman? And if so, is that a good thing, or a bad thing?
Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist and foreign affairs expert Bret Stephens weighs in:
Let me share my Dutch perspective on this matter: I thank God every day that the United States is the world’s only superpower and that it behaves like an international policeman.
Think about it: what’s the alternative? If the United States withdraws, Russia and China will immediately expand their sphere of influence. These countries are ruled by authoritarian regimes who literally torture and kill critics… and who want to dominate other countries by the use of force. Just look at what China has done in Tibet, and what Russia has done in the Krim and the country of Georgia, and what it’s trying to do in Eastern Ukraine. You want that to happen to the rest of the world? Great: just force the U.S. to withdraw within its borders and China and Russia will take over in no time.
That’s a troubling thought, but it becomes downright scary if you think about the many radical Islamic forces that are trying to turn earth into one big battle zone. If you’re concerned by what’s going on in the Middle East now, just wait until the U.S. goes isolationist again; the current situation will look downright utopian in comparison.
What’s more, historically, superpowers went to war to build an empire. They’d conquer entire nations and then subjugate them to slavery. When the U.S. goes to war, however, it does so to protect foreign peoples. It doesn’t occupy, it liberates. See World War II: America sent millions of soldiers overseas, some to Asia, many others to Europe. When they beat the Nazis, they could’ve done what the Soviets did: occupy the newly liberated countries and make them part of a new empire.
Instead, the United States withdrew most of its forces — and the ones that were left behind were only there to protect Europeans against Stalin. Next, the U.S. gave European (and Asian!) countries billions and billions in aid and helped them build up democratic institutions. Because of this, Europe is now — once again — one of the most prosperous regions on earth.
If that’s what all “international policemen” do, give us one or two more!
Sadly, America’s magnanimity is the exception, not the rule. And that’s precisely why not only Americans, but all non-Americans too should thank the almighty every single day that the U.S. is the most powerful country on earth and that it’s not afraid to use that power.
It’s clear that Jeb isn’t a conservative, but it’s mighty kind of him to be honest about it. He could also do what the Mitch McConnells of this world like to do: lie about it until they get elected, after which they “suddenly” become as progressive as Nancy Pelosi.
That’s what Senator Ted Cruz recently said on Megyn Kelly’s show on Fox News.
Well, OK, I admit I added the last part about Mitch McConnell myself, but I’m sure you get my drift.
I’m a fan of Jeb Bush. I’ll give him credit for candor and consistency. He is running based on his views, his views are different from an awful lot of Republican primary voters, but he’s honest about it and I think we’re going to have a clear straight-up debate about what’s the right direction for the Republican Party to go.
I think it’s important for someone to stand by what they believe.
He’s right, of course; this way, Republican voters can’t possibly say Bush deceived them if they nominate him and he suddenly seems to be as far to the left as Hillary on many issues. You know what you get if you vote for Jeb: more government spending, as well as more expansive government programs that increase the power of the federal government and that undermine the individual states.
I think we should repeal every single word of Common Core. The reason is I think education is far more important for it to be governed by unelected bureaucrats in Washington. It should be at the state level or better the local level…
Now, Bush and his ilk (I call them Theodore Roosevelt Republicans — they’re populist and decidedly progressive on many issues) pretend that individual states have the opportunity to bail out if they want to in theory, but sadly it’s an entirely different matter in practice:
Well sure they can, but there are a lot of dollars connected to it. The federal government, it’s sort of like the drug dealer that goes to junior high and gets the kid hooked saying “just try it once.” The federal government has offered the states these dollars and there’s so many strings attached.
Although Cruz is trailing Bush and candidates like Marco Rubio and Scott Walker in the polls at the moment, I can see the primaries boiling down to a horse race between Cruz and Jeb. The reason is simple: Bush is the most progressive Republican candidate (with an enormous amount of money to spend) while Cruz is the most conservative. Republican voters want to have a real choice; they’ll get that when these two take each other on.
If that happens, we can only hope (and pray) that Cruz pulls it off and becomes the Republican nominee. Jeb may be honest about his big-government ideology, but that’s also his only redeeming quality.
Ah. That’s just great: ISIS terrorists don’t have to “sneak” into the West, they’re able to move around freely. The reason? They’ve stolen passports and other ID-documents from average Westerners and are using them as travel documents.
When will President Obama take the threat these radical-Islamic butchers pose seriously and destroy them? If nothing is done, it’s only a matter of time before these genocidal maniacs commit a massive terrorist attack in the West. And by massive I mean a second 9/11.
On his increasingly popular radio show, Mark “The Great One” Levin lashed out at liberals yesterday for trying to politicize the Amtrak disaster. He played several audio files of Democratic politicians and pretend-journalists who didn’t even wait until the victims’ bodies were cold before they started playing their usual political games, and rightfully responded with great outrage:
Almost since last night, but since early this morning — while emergency personnel are at the crash scene trying to find bodies, trying to save people, trying to get them to the hospital — early this morning, within hours of the accident, the media, the Democrats, the liberals … in front of the microphones … all of a sudden it’s a spending issue. It’s a spending issue!
Levin then continued to play audio files from MSNBC and other leftist media proving his point. One after the other, liberals — journalists and politicians — said the disaster was caused by too little spending. If the government had just spent a bit more, this tragedy would never have occurred.
The only problem with that? There isn’t enough information out yet to conclude anything, except that the train was going 106 mph on a part of the track where the maximum speed was 50 mph.
But hey, we’re talking about liberals here; famous for “never let a good crisis go to waste.” And so they wasted no time putting blame on the shoulders of those darned Republicans, while the victims’ bodies were still warm and rescue workers were trying to save lives.
It’s all because of conservatives who hate to spend! If it was up to Democrats, this would never have happened! May those cold-hearted Republicans be damned for their willingness to put lives in jeopardy, just to save a few bucks.
Levin went on:
They want to spend more, so anyone who doesn’t is now against safety. In fact, they’re part of the problem with Amtrak.
Of course, “billions and billions of taxpayers’ dollars have been poured into Amtrak.” But it didn’t make the slightest difference. In fact, if anyone — at all — is to blame for possibly underfunding Amtrak, it’s Democrats, not Republicans:
Ladies and gentlemen, when Obama controlled the Senate and the House, and the entire Congress, they passed an over $800 billion stimulus program, and you may recall that when Paul Ryan came on this program — he doesn’t come on anymore — but a few years ago, he said $9 billion of the over $800 billion went to infrastructure.
So they stole that money, they were greasing palms, they were sending it to their community interests’ front groups. They didn’t use it for infrastructure, bridges and railroad tracks and all the rest. And so they’re pushing hard once more — once more! — they want massive spending; not for infrastructure — to spread the wealth yet again.
As usual, Democrats and their cronies in the media brush aside inconvenient facts. After all, much easier to blame everybody else and argue for spending increases, with money that simply doesn’t exist, at the same time.
Here’s the audio from the show:
Ah. It looks like Bill Clinton is in da house:
Bill Clinton hopes to be Hillary Clinton’s First Man in the White House, but there’s a big “if” … if she invites him to live at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. ”If she wins the election, the chances are 100 percent that I’ll move back,” the former president told David Letterman Tuesday night on “The Late Show.” ”By the way, if I’m asked!” he added with a smile.
Ha-ha! Cracking jokes about cheating on your wife (because that’s what this all refers to of course): hilarious! Oh man, I can’t stop laughing. Especially because people in their position should try to be great role models for young generations. It’s killing me! Great fun!
Morality and the Clintons. They just don’t go together, do they?
In any case, of course Hillary wants Bill to join her. After all, it’s not about love and faithfulness with the Clintons, but about politics. Americans want a First Couple, not just a president. The U.S. has its first black president now. If Hillary wins it’ll have the first woman president. But the first single mom president? No, I don’t see that one happening anytime soon — and neither does Hillary, which explains why she never divorced her lying, cheating husband.
Besides, the two are a born power couple. Bill pretends he only told his wife to “have fun” on the campaign trail, but anyone who knows anything about the Clintons also knows that they most certainly are loyal political allies. They have always supported each other politically (Hillary even stood by Bill when the Lewinsky scandal broke; of course not out of love for him but because she had great plans for her own career) and rely heavily on each other for strategic advice.
In other words, Bill is full of it and he proves himself to be a utterly and completely immoral.
What else is new?