A lot has been written and said about Rep. Charlie Dent’s heated exchange with his colleague Rep. Dave Brat (both Republicans) on Meet the Press Sunday. The two men were taking each other to task over who the new House speaker should be.
Dent made clear that he had no patience for someone like Brat: an actual principled conservative who wants to stop President Obama’s horrendous leftist policies. No, Dent is only interested in one thing: power. And if that means he and his Republican colleagues have to throw all their principles in the dustbin, so be it.
The one thing that struck me most about Dent’s irrational rant was his comment that he considers himself to be part of the “governing wing.”
Read that again: the “governing wing.” As my PJM colleague David Steinberg writes on Twitter, this one phrase proves that Dent should never govern anything:
— David Steinberg (@DavidSPJM) October 12, 2015
What amazing arrogance. He’s part of the “governing wing” of the Republican Party, while principled conservatives are — apparently — just loons, fruitcakes, and clowns? Because we all know that conservatism isn’t actually meant to be implemented, right? Nope: real statesmen compromise their principles on every possible occasion and hold those with deeply held beliefs in contempt. Can I get an amen?
I’d love it if I was exaggerating or spinning Dent’s views, but I’m not. See, it isn’t exactly the first time that he has used the phrase. He must be fond of it.
On his radio show yesterday, Mark ‘The Great One’ Levin said that Republicans “have to grow a set” and go after the imperial president, also known as President Barack Obama. He said this in response to a question from a listener who wondered whether it was time for Republicans to throw around the “I-word”: impeachment.
I’m going to tell you, Obama is going to use an executive order again to change the Second Amendment, and I’ve had enough of this. We need to use the I-Word, we need to say it’s an impeachable offense, and we need to start laying down barriers now. Enough is enough. The IRS is out of control, every department of this government, the EPA, the Justice Department – they’re all on the loose, they’re all rogue. It starts from the top, it’s getting worse. Hillary Clinton is running around saying, “I’m going to out-do Obama, I’ll govern by more executive orders and fiats.”
We’ve lost the country. Is it too much to ask for the Republican Party to grow a set?!
Undoubtedly, the Republican and Democrat elites and their friends in the mainstream media will pretend that Levin is going too far. I can hear them scream now — “It’s insane, he’s a radical, an extremist!” — but that’s not even almost true. There’s a reason the Constitution was set up the way it is, with a procedure to impeach a sitting president: it’s supposed to be used when a president is out of control, has gone rogue, and wipes his behind with the Constitution — the very document he has sworn to uphold. If he doesn’t do it, it’s up to Congress to step in and do whatever is necessary to prevent the country from going down the drain.
On the very day Obama first became president he started to side-step the Constitution. Ever since, he has ruled by executive fiat. That’s not how America is supposed to be governed. Every branch of the U.S. government is limited by the Constitution — a branch that oversteps its authority has to be stopped. This is not “extreme”; it’s the very path the Constitution says should be taken when a president behaves like a king — or worse, an emperor.
And yes, that’s exactly what Obama is doing… and what Hillary promises to do if she’s elected next year. If Republicans are worth anything, they have to step up to the plate and make sure that the United States will once again become a nation ruled by the law, rather than the whims of a radical leftist taking his country hostage.
Earlier today, a road junction in the center of the Turkish capital go Ankara was hit by two blasts. Turkey’s Interior Ministry reports that at least 86 people have died in the terror attacks; 186 people are reported wounded.
The attacks — probably carried out by suicide bombers — took place at a rally where all civil society was present: members of the Confederation of Public Sector Trade Unions (KESK), Confederation of Progressive Trade Unions (DİSK), Turkish Union of Engineers and Architects’ Chambers (TMMOB), The Turkish Doctor’s Association (TTB) and — last but not least — the Kurdish HDP party. Many ethnic Turks and Kurds were present. They came to the rally to promote peace and to voice their opposition to the Turkish government’s bombing of PKK targets in Syria and the southeast of Turkey.
As the video above shows, the bombs exploded at the moment the protesters were singing and dancing. They joined hands and were trying to make it a day of celebration; a day of unity.
HDP leader Selahattin Demirtaş rightfully said immediately after the attack that it reminded him of terror attacks in the cities of Diyarbakir and Suruç earlier this year. In those attacks, respectively, 2 and 32 people were killed.
Although nothing is known about the identity of the terrorists responsible for today’s attack many believe it’s likely that ISIS or another radical Islamic terrorist group is behind it. ISIS carried out the bombing of Suruç which targeted Kurdish protesters and activists — just like today’s attack.
Hundreds of thousands of self-proclaimed refugees from the Middle East (many of them are actually gold diggers who are coming to Europa in order to live off the government’s dime) have arrived in Europe in recent months. This mass exodus out of especially Syria has been partially fueled by German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s promise that her country would take in all the refugees it had to take in.
The only problem? She got more than she bargained for. Much more. And the same goes for the rest of Europe.
In fact, so many “refugees” have made their way to the Old Continent that West European governments are having a hard time dealing with them. In the Netherlands alone, refugee centers are overwhelmed. As a result, the Dutch government has now announced that many refugees with a residence permit will be moved into normal homes. This means that these newly arrived immigrants will live in houses originally meant for Dutch citizens. The latter may have been waiting on waiting lists for years, but to no avail; refugees are given priority.
As a result of the exponential growth of refugee centers and the housing issues, the normally complacent Dutch citizens have started to riot. And no, I don’t mean that figuratively: they’re literally blocking roads and even attacking government officials, as happened a few days ago in the small town of Oranje. Undersecretary of Asylum Klaas Dijkhoff visited the town last Tuesday to explain why the local refugee center had to take in 700 extra asylum seekers. The result? Inhabitants of Oranje blocked highways leading into their town, and even attacked the undersecretary’s car. The woman in the picture below threw herself in front of his car when he tried to leave — which made her famous.
What’s most remarkable about this is that the protesters are normal people, not diehard activists with a long history of anti-immigrant activities. The reason, of course, is that the average Dutchman is fed up. This is no fringe movement; the protesters gave voice to the worries and anger of ordinary Dutch voters. They’ve had enough. They’re no longer willing to sit and be quiet while their neighborhoods, villages and cities are transformed beyond all recognition because of mass immigration.
Earlier this morning a Palestinian woman stabbed an Israeli civilian in the back. Luckily, the victim was armed. He was able to save his own life by shooting his attacker.
The terrorist attack was carried out at Jerusalem’s Lions’ Gate in the Old City. Although some details remain unclear, police say the victim of the stabbing was a 36-year-old man. The perpetrator, an 18-year–old Palestinian woman, lightly wounded the man. Thankfully, the intended victim was armed. He turned around and shot the terrorist trying to kill him.
United Hatzalah paramedic Haim Attias was one of the first people on the scene of the terrorist attack. He explains:
When I arrived to the scene, I saw a man that was stabbed on his upper body at the same site where a previous terrorist attack occurred during Succot.
Although you wouldn’t know it if your news consumption is limited to CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post and even Fox News, anti-Israeli violence is on the rise. Increasingly more Palestinians are carrying out attacks against random victims, whose only “sins” are their religion (Judaism) and nationality (Israeli). On Saturday, Rabbi Nehemia Lavie and Aharon Benita were stabbed to death by another radical Islamic terrorist. The rabbi’s two-year-old son (2!) was wounded.
That terrorist too was shot: police gunned him down after he opened fire at a crowd of tourists.
In the not-too-distant past these attacks would have been major news at most news outlets. Strangely, that’s no longer the case. If you didn’t know any better, you’d almost think that the mainstream media are determined to bury these attacks out of fear that reporting on them will cause Americans to sympathize with Israeli’s plight. Apparently, that’s such a nightmare scenario to these liberal hacks posing as journalists that they’re not even willing to touch it.
And things are escalating rather quickly in Israel and the Palestinian territories. The 19-year-old Palestinian who carried out Saturday’s murder, Mohannad Shafik Halabi, is a member of Islamic Jihad: a terrorist organization that quickly claimed responsibility for the attack and declared that it marked the start of “the third intifada.”
In other words, Israelis are less safe than, while Western media look the other way, pretending nothing is happening.
Was America’s first billionaire, John D. Rockefeller, a greedy robber baron, a generous philanthropist, or both? And did the oil tycoon exploit America’s poor or give them access to much-needed energy?
Hillsdale College’s Burt Folsom answers those questions in a new Prager University video. The answer may surprise you – especially if you’re one of those who are completely indoctrinated by modern day high schools and universities who try to convince us that material success always comes at the expense of the poor.
As Folsom explains, the truth about Rockefeller is simple yet counter-cultural: America wouldn’t have been what it is without him. He created millions of jobs — literally — and gave away $515 million to charity; that’s more than any other American had ever possessed before him. The reason he isn’t give credit for it?
America’s horrendous education system that teaches students that one can only be successful by exploiting others.
As Rockefeller’s life proved, the opposite is true: real (financial) success is the result of serving others — not enslaving them.
Earlier today we reported that Mark Levin had high praise for Ted Cruz on his radio show yesterday. “The Great One,” as he’s nicknamed, said Ted is by far “the most consistently conservative candidate running.” He then blasted Mitch McConnell and Cruz’s rival for the Republican nomination, Rand Paul, for working against the senator from Texas.
Levin isn’t the only popular conservative radio talker who sang Cruz’s praises yesterday: Rush Limbaugh did the same. When a caller asked him who “the most anti-liberal candidate” running was, the radio show host couldn’t have been more clear.
Who – among our candidates – is the most is most anti-liberal? Is the most opposed to liberalism as part of its existence, policy and everything else? And there’s one clear answer. Put your hand up if you know who it is.
Ted Cruz is the answer to your question, Roberto. If you’re looking for the Republican candidate who is the most steadfastly opposed to liberalism, whose agenda is oriented towards stopping it and thwarting it, and defeating it – it’s Ted Cruz.
Like Levin, Limbaugh didn’t go so far as to actually endorse Cruz, but both conservative talkers are obviously impressed by the junior senator from Texas and his no holds barred attitude.
We all know that Hillary Clinton supporters are the biggest useful idiots out there, but it’s always nice when they confirm it for all the world to see. Just watch the video below, in which Jimmy Kimmel tricks Clintonistas into believing that a certain tax plan is hers. When they fully endorse it he drops the hammer: it isn’t Clinton’s, it’s Donald Trump’s.
The interviewer asks: “Would you support Hillary Clinton’s plan to cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent?”
“I think that’s a good idea,” a naive man who’s all in for Hillary answers. Yep, just great! This is why we need Democrats to be in control of the government. After all, no Republican candidate would ever dream up a plan like that, would he?
Another Hillary voter, a woman this time, wholly agrees with “Hillary’s” (read: Trump’s) plan to get rid of the real estate tax. Awesome! What a great idea! We need more of that! H-I-L-L-A-R-Y!
Umh, or Trump.
When these voters are told that the plans are actually Trump’s, some have a life-changing moment: one man says he’ll “support Donald Trump then.” Of course, not everybody’s convinced. Another woman, who was also pleased with the plan, immediately dismissed everything once she found out it’s Trump who’s pressing for these changes.
“I would say that’s shocking, but, I mean, if it is, I’m still not voting for Donald Trump, he’s a caricature.”
A caricature of who, dear liberal hack? Of Hillary?
The response of one Hillary voter says it all:
“I feel stupid.”
I bet he does.
Ted Cruz is the most consistently conservative candidate running.
The conservative talker also blasted Mitch McConnell, the Republican majority leader in the Senate, who recently shut down Ted Cruz when he used his time on the Senate floor to educate voters about the deceptive games McConnell and his ilk play.
“Today we have a guy by the name of Mitch McConnell [...]. He’s got no class whatsoever. And he gets this really sick joy in trying to control the Senate floor within his own caucus. Harry Reid can do whatever he wants, Chuck Schumer can say and do whatever he wants, and all the rest of that [group] of leftwing cooks can do and say whatever they want. Barack Obama runs circles around Mitch McConnell and Republicans in the Senate. But he literally spends hours organizing the Republican caucus to shut down Ted Cruz. Because for Mitch McConnell it’s not about the country, it’s not about the Constitution, it’s personal.
“And Cruz has done more to expose that man and expose the cronyism and corruption of the United States Senate and that process than anybody else in the United States Senate.”
And so, Levin explained, McConnell has decided to take Cruz down… or — if he’s unable to — at least to block each and every single attempt of the senator from Texas to get anything worthwhile done.
Levin went on to say that Cruz “comes under attack” for the simple reason that he’s actually a principled conservative.
“Kasich won’t come under attack, because he’s a go-along. Bush won’t come under attack, he’s a go-along. We don’t want a go-along, we need leaders, we need the Churchills and the Thatchers and the Reagans.”
And, clearly, the Cruzes of this world.
Earlier in the show, Levin also went after Rand Paul, who endorsed McConnell when he was up for reelection and who recently attacked Cruz by saying he was “done here” — just because the Texan isn’t a “go along to get along” kind of guy. “The Great One” has little patience with such talking points pushed by the establishment and rightfully put Rand in his place. He concluded:
“I like Ted Cruz a lot…. Ted Cruz is the most conservative candidate running. He’s the most consistent conservative candidate running.”
“It doesn’t get much better than that!”
Although he stressed that he wasn’t endorsing anyone yet, Levin made clear that Cruz is one of the (few) Republicans in the Senate he greatly respects. Quite impressive considering this praise is coming from a guy who used to work for Ronald Reagan and who is now one of the most influential conservative commentators in the nation. Rand and McConnell can put that in their pipes and smoke it.
A new combat patch worn by U.S. soldiers fighting against ISIS in Iraq is drawing flak from service members because it closely resembles logos of the very same jihadists they’re fighting:
Soldiers serving in Operation Inherent Resolve have worn the patch since April of this year. There is even a medal version that soldiers can wear on their Army Service Uniform, Military.com reports.
On its Facebook page, Army Times explains that the patch is “meant to symbolize the twin goals of the U.S.-led coalition: to defeat the militant group and to restore stability in the region, according to Army documents.” However, many soldiers with experience fighting radical Islamists say the patch closely resembles the patches and logos of their enemies. As Army veteran Michael Daunais explains:
Will these be issued to Iraqi troops so they can desert again and leave these patches for ISIS?
David Clay, a former Army chief warrant officer, adds:
You can keep that ISIS patch featuring swords that chop off our heads.
Here are some other reactions that show that soldiers (and supporters of the military) are shocked beyond belief by this rather unAmerican patch:
To compare, here is Hamas’ official logo:
Amazingly, the only thing missing from the U.S. Army’s logo is the mosque. Other than that, you’d be forgiven for thinking it’s the logo of the Palestinian terrorist organization who has sworn to destroy Israel.
And look at this: below is the official logo of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist organization dedicated to bringing Sharia to Egypt and other Muslim-majority countries and one of the prime initiators of terrorism:
The swords used in the patch also remind soldiers of ISIS, the radical Islamic organization that has become infamous for the the brutal way in which it deals with captives. Their favorite murder weapon is a long knife or a sword, used to behead innocent victims whose only “crime” is that they don’t share ISIS’ radical Islamic beliefs.
Here’s the U.S. Army patch next to ISIS’ logo. Notice any similarities?
It’s no wonder that U.S. Army personnel aren’t exactly thrilled with the new patch. What’s next? A motto in Arabic below it, saying “in Allah we trust”?
The video below is of Ted Cruz on the Senate floor two days ago. The senator from Texas (and Republican presidential candidate) exposed the way Washington works: the games that are played, by both parties, and the lack of principles among Republicans. As Mark Levin puts it on Twitter: it’s a real “must watch.”
You won’t see many senators taking on their own party like this, but Cruz isn’t your average politician. He has made a name for himself because of his willingness to stand alone: “Fiat justitia ruat caelum” (“Let justice be done though the heavens fall”).
This speech is a great example of that principled attitude: he’s taking on President Obama, the Democrats and — perhaps even mostly — the GOP’s leadership, who are more interested in playing games than doing what they promised voters they’d do. Note how he exposes John Boehner’s strategy to announce his resignation but to use his remaining weeks in Congress (he’ll be gone in a month) “in order to fund President Obama’s priorities.”
Dallas Morning News Reporter Uses Clockboy’s Story to Further Leftist Agenda, Smear Conservative Mayor
On Sept. 14, teachers and police in Irving, Texas, detained and questioned Mohamed about a box and wiring he brought into his High School.
The boy’s device was a commercial 120-volt alarm clock, first dismantled and then placed in a case where the screen could not be seen by any users. The boy also left the clock’s innards exposed, so when the power-cord was plugged in, the clock could electrocute anyone who reached inside the case to turn the alarm on or off. The device’s intended purpose was so obscure, in fact, that puzzled police and teachers thought it was a hoax-bomb.
To any sensible person that thought sounds quite logical, but not so to the (local and national) mainstream media. They defended Ahmed from day one, portraying him as a hero who was unfairly treated by his teachers, the police and city officials such as Irving’s conservative mayor Beth Van Duyne. These media sources pretend that the boy was only singled out because he happens to be a Muslim.
Recently, the young Ahmed met Ahmet Davutoglu, Turkey’s Islamist prime minister who works hard to undermine his own country’s secular system. During that meeting Ahmed made clear what he hopes to accomplish with his grand tour that has taken him to the White House, the United Nations, and now Turkey’s PM. As Turkish daily Today’s Zaman explains:
Speaking to reporters ahead of the meeting with Davutoğlu, Mohamed said he was excited to meet the Turkish prime minister [and] said he wanted to raise awareness against racism and discrimination.
Hürriyet Daily News quotes the boy:
My dream is to raise consciousness against racism and discrimination.
In other words, the boy is determined portray his home town of Irving and his own state (Texas) as “racist” and Islamophobic. An agenda that’s pushed rather relentlessly by some of his backers in the media, most notoriously by Dallas Morning News‘ Avi Selk.
In Irving, Selk is known to be anti-conservative — and especially anti-Beth Van Duyne. Van Duyne is a conservative mayor who has cleaned up the mess that was Irving before she came to office. For instance, after she became mayor, Van Duyne stopped the property-tax increases, balanced the budget by cutting spending, passed a modern ethics code which Irving desperately needed, increased property values by double digits, and helped Irving become the 5th safest city according to the FBI’s ranking. Not exactly small accomplishments — which of course means that liberals absolutely hate her.
Mayor Van Duyne has also made a name for herself nationally by speaking out against plans of Muslim fundamentalists in her city to create so-called Sharia councils. These councils, the fundamentalists said, would base their decisions (or “mediation”) on Islamic law: a law that’s often in conflict with American law. Mayor Van Duyne had the courage to stand against these plans, explaining that American laws should trump any other laws — religious and foreign. Or, as she and her allies put it: American law for American courts.
Sadly, but not surprisingly, her brave opposition to the clearly unAmerican Sharia councils meant that Van Duyne quickly became enemy number one in the eyes of Muslim fundamentalists and their enablers in Texas… and in the rest of the nation. Day after day, the mayor who simply stood for American principles and values was portrayed as an Islamophobic racist who “hated” Muslims. These smears weren’t based on any actual facts — indeed, the mayor is very inclusive and open minded — but that didn’t stop her detractors from repeating them over and over again.
The attacks were relentless. It was a prime example of character assassination carried out by both fundamentalist Muslims and liberal journalists. The name of the “reporter” most aggressively attacking her by implying all kinds of ulterior motives to her behavior?
A lot has been said and written about this week’s presidential debate hosted by CNN. Many people have focused on exchanges between Carly Fiorina and Donald Trump, or between Rand Paul and The Donald, and between Chris Christie and the two “outsiders.” Of course there was also the confrontation between Trump and Jeb Bush. Great: all good, interesting exchanges.
One exchange that hasn’t nearly received the attention it deserves though, is a debate between Ohio Governor John Kasich and Texas Senator Ted Cruz. The subject: the nuclear deal with Iran.
This deal is perhaps the most horrific deal ever made with any authoritarian regime, but Kasich stood on the podium and defended it nonetheless. He admitted that it’s likely that the mad ayatollahs don’t keep their part of the agreement, but that didn’t matter much to him; he believes it’s much more important to get “the international community” (whatever that may be) to support any action the United States takes. If that means that there first has to be an agreement with the terrorism-supporting radical thugs in Tehran, so be it.
Let me make clear, let me make clear, if we think they get close to developing a nuclear weapon and we get that information, you better believe that I would do everything in my power as the Commander-in-Chief to stop them having a nuclear weapon.
Of course, the problem with that is that it’ll be too little, too late. When that happens, Iran will have material already to produce a bomb in little to no time — faster than anyone can act. It’s the North Korean nuclear story all over again.
Ted Cruz responded masterfully to Kasich’s horrendous arguments in favor of Obama’s disastrous deal. Here’s the video:
There is no more important topic in 2016 than this topic right here. And I’ve listened to several folks saying ‘Well gosh, if they cheat, we’ll act.’ We won’t know. Under this agreement there are several facilities they designate as military facilities that are off-limit altogether. Beyond that, the other facilities, we give them 24 days notice before inspecting them. That is designed to allow them to hide the evidence and, most astonishingly, this agreement trusts the Iranians to inspect themselves.
That makes no sense whatsoever.
It once again proves that executive experience is tremendously overrated. Knowledge, understanding, wisdom and principles are far more important qualities in a future president. This exchange proved that Kasich lacks them all.
During this week’s CNN debate, Donald Trump once again proved he’s most likely the rudest, crudest and — frankly — most pathetic candidate ever to vie for the Republican presidential nomination. Here’s what he said in a debate with Rand Paul, the senator from Kentucky:
Now, I’m not a Paul-guy, but this is ridiculous. You’re running for the highest office in America — and want to become the most powerful guy on earth — and what do you do? You make fun of your rival because he isn’t a photo model.
We’re supposed to take Trump seriously — woe be on the blogger or columnist who doesn’t, he’ll be attacked relentlessly by Trump’s supporters — but that’s very hard to do when it’s clear he doesn’t take himself, his rivals, or the voters seriously. He’s not just pretending to be in “junior high,” as Rand said, he’s behaving like a three year old with a perpetual temper tantrum.
And we’re supposed to treat a man like that with respect?
No, thank you. He just doesn’t deserve it.
Donald Trump is at it again. He recently criticized Carly Fiorina — who’s rising in the polls in Iowa — because of her looks. He wondered out loud — when surrounded by yes-men — how anyone could ever vote for her. “Just look at that face,” he said, adding that she’s a woman and he’s not supposed to talk about it, but “come on.” He later pretended he was talking about her “demeanor,” but no sane person accepts that explanation.
No, Donald, you were criticizing yet another woman because you think she’s ugly. That’s all there is to it.
And that brings me to one of the biggest problems I have with Trump: his obvious lack of respect for every single one of his rivals and even for critical journalists, especially those who regularly have “blood coming out of their whatever.” It isn’t merely that it’s anything but presidential, but that it’s anything but civil. This is not how anyone should behave — be they politicians, plumbers, lawyers or construction workers.
Amy Holmes said something very profound yesterday at The Blaze. Donald Trump should take it to heart:
A leader should lead with respect for others and maybe the example of Jesus, and showing love.
There’s a lot for Trump to learn from that. Having good manners isn’t the same as being politically correct. And no, being politically correct doesn’t always mean that a person had good manners. In fact, we often see the most “politically correct” people say the worst possible things. Just look at how the average liberal behaves on Twitter or Facebook when he reads something he disagrees with. If you thought only 3 year olds can throw pamper tantrums, you’ll soon know better.
Sadly, The Donald is often behaving in the same way. His views are actually remarkably politically correct on a large array of issues (he criticized Pamela Geller for holding a Mohammed cartoon contuest, he says the U.S. should take in adventurers from Syria even though it’s widely believed that ISIS is smuggling jihadis into the West dressed as refugees, and on and on), but he combines those views with behavior that’s downright aggressive and insulting.
That’s always problematic, but especially so when the person with these behavioral issues wants to become the leader of the free world. Presidents have impact; their moral values become part of America’s (and the wider West’s) culture. If the president can talk about women in an incredibly disparaging way, why can’t little Johnny? And if the president can call everybody who disagrees with him “losers,” why shouldn’t little Betty do likewise?
UPDATE: On his radio show this morning Beck apologized for calling Sarah Palin a clown, but added that he just can’t understand her apparent support for Donald Trump, a candidate he passionately opposes.
Glenn Beck is fed up with Sarah Palin, one of the Tea Party’s real heroes. On his radio show on The Blaze yesterday, Beck lashed out at Palin over her apparent support for billionaire businessman Donald Trump. He called John McCain’s former running mate a “clown,” adding: “I’m embarrassed I once supported her.”
I didn’t listen to her speech. Yeah, I’m going to say it. I don’t care what Sarah Palin says any more. Sarah Palin has become a clown. I’m embarrassed that I was once for Sarah Palin. Honestly, I’m embarrassed.
That’s strong and powerful, but it becomes even worse (or better depending on your take on Palin):
Why do I say that about Sarah Palin? ‘How can you say that about Sarah Palin?’ Because I don’t know who she is any more, I don’t know what she stands for. I saw a clip of her talking to Donald Trump. What the hell is that? I don’t even know who she is any more. I don’t know what she stands for. I don’t know. She doesn’t know what I stand for. We had a falling out long ago because she listened to people who were lying to her about me. Fine. Don’t care. I don’t care.
Beck went on to say that he “doesn’t care” about politicians anymore. To him, this is about America’s future — or even the world’s future — not about scoring cheap political points with one (imagined) base or another. At the same time he believes that people like Palin and Trump only play political games.
It’s hard to disagree with Beck. Palin is clearly jumping on the bandwagon hoping it’ll give her a boost among Tea Partiers, while Trump used the rally to once again tell people to vote for him and to repeat that he is God’s biggest gift to America. E-vah. Buh-lieve me! He said a few things about Iran but mostly focused on his candidacy, telling people that if he’s nominated and eventually elected, people will be “bored of winning” all the time and more such nonsense. It was a pathetic display of megalomania and egotism at a rally meant to unite people against the Iran deal.
According to recent polls, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson has become Donald Trump’s main challenger in Iowa. The two are now tied with 23%. Trump and Carson need to win in Iowa if they want to stay in the race; they have no alternative path to the nomination. This is especially true because, from the looks of it, Ted Cruz is going to sweep the entire south. It could very well be that after a week into the primaries, the only people standing are Cruz, an establishment candidate (Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio) and the person who wins Iowa and possibly New Hampshire. That means: Carson or Trump.
That’s why it makes perfect sense for The Donald to go after Ben Carson now. In an interview with the Daily Caller, the billionaire businessman blasted the neurosurgeon for lacking the experience necessary to govern the country:
Asked by TheDC whether being a doctor provides the necessary experience to be president, Trump said while Carson is “a wonderful guy,” he thinks it would be “very tough” for someone who spent his life as a surgeon to handle the job.
The Donald explained:
I think it’s a very difficult situation that he’d be placed in. He’s really a friend of mine, I just think it’s a very difficult situation that he puts himself into, to have a doctor who wasn’t creating jobs and would have a nurse or maybe two nurses. It’s such a different world. I’ve created tens of thousands of jobs over the years.
Although Trump calls Carson his “friend,” this line attack is — of course — anything but friendly. He’s basically saying that Carson isn’t capable of being a good president. He has managed “a nurse, maybe two nurses,” which is a great insult, not in the least because Carson actually was his department’s head and therefore had far more people working below him. All doctors and all nurses were accountable to him. The Donald knows this as well, but such inconvenient facts don’t bother him; Carson is a threat and has to be taken out.
Remarkably, Trump still refuses to go after another possible challenger: Ted Cruz. In the past he suggested that Cruz might not be eligible because he was born in Canada, albeit to an American mother. He now does a u-turn and says that he no longer has such qualms:
It was never a big point for me, but I have watched other people question him, and the legal scholars have been satisfied.
The question, of course, is: why does Trump go after Carson, but not Cruz? Why does he leave Cruz alone? Better yet, why does he actually go to an anti-Iran deal rally organized by the senator from Texas, thereby basically endorsing him as a reliable conservative candidate?
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.