Between Donald Trump’s unexpected surge to Socialist Bernie Sanders’ (I laughed as two black racist fat women seized the microphone from Sanders and proceed to cuss out the all white socialist crowd as racists, while Sanders cringed in the background, it was his own rally too in commie invested Seattle) surprising poll lead in New Hampshire, the politics of the 2016 U.S. presidential election are proving to be nothing like what we were told to expect. The dynastic Clinton versus Bush (its no surprise that they are close friends with the same objectives) contest that was preordained by traditional media and the establishment wings of the major parties (actually one party, there is not a dime's worth of difference between them) is looking anything but certain. This can be explained, at least partially, by Internet-powered disruption of traditional political kingmakers (i.e., media and party elders); e.g. the Oligarchy-controlled minority-parasite ESTABLISHMENT. May they
All Posts (29178)
Sort by
By Craig Andresen – The National Patriot and Right Side Patriots on cprworldwidemedia.net
For the past month, and with few signs of letting up…Trumpers, some of them Conservatives…most of them Trump trolls…shills for the liberal/socialist machine…continue to try and sway voters to vote Trump or NOTHING in November 2016.
Trump, they claim, is THE Conservative answer we need.
I will say this much right here at the top of this article…should Trump either secure or purchase the Republican nomination, he will have my vote because I…unlike Trump himself…WILL support whoever the republican nominee happens to be.
However…
Trump is not the answer we, as Conservatives, have been seeking all these years.
As Conservatives, we have held, for years, to a certain set of standards we have wanted in a candidate. We want a solid Conservative. ..someone who has exhibited solid Conservative practices over a considerable time span from which we can see the candidate’s true motives, true agenda and voting record.
Is Donald Trump a fit regarding that standard?
In response to my article, “Please Tell Black Lives Matter to Shut Up and Go Away”, a sincere black activist emailed asking me with what would I replace it? I asked him to explain. The bottom line of his lengthy passionate reply is “Negroes” are still not free in America. He says America has reneged on its promise of liberty and justice for all.
I am black. I asked my beautiful white wife of 39 years a rhetorical question. “Am I an Uncle Tom? Is there something wrong with me? Because for the life of me, I do not have a clue what he is talking about. What is America suppose to do for blacks that it has not done?”
Mary replied, “You're normal. They're wrong, stuck in a mindset.”
Black unemployment, particularly under Obama, is extremely high. While many blacks have achieved their American dream, many have not. It is not white America's fault. Behavioral issues are laying waste in the black community. Over 70% fatherless households and 70% school dropouts leads to gangs, drugs, blacks murdering blacks and incarceration; all resulting in poverty.
So what is Obama's solution to fixing these problems plaguing blacks? He lets drug dealers who prey on urban youths out of jail, claiming their crime is non-violent. He has his DOJ bully police across America to back off urban thugs. Obama minion Baltimore mayor said, “Let them loot. It's only property.” Violent crime is up big-time in Chicago, New York and Baltimore.
Despite claims otherwise, America has not failed its poor. We have welfare and entitlement programs out the ying-yang; a huge chunk of America's national debt. Also, there is nothing saintly about being poor. Don't beat me up for saying that. I have been poor.
Then there is the claim that America “systematically” and “institutionally” hinders opportunities for blacks. Hogwash! A black college professor friend heads a program offering blacks free college tuition. He has trouble finding applicants. This is a guy who worked his way through college and grad school. He was stunned when students thought having to pay their cell phone bill was a legitimate excuse for not purchasing the book and materials for his course.
Back in my late twenties, Christ delivered me from my wild and crazy drug-filled life. I wanted others to experience my joy. I spoke at youth detention centers and prisons. I remember weeping with a young guy who had attempted suicide. It was shocking seeing so many bright, talented and gifted young black men in prison. The two things they had in common was negative attitudes and victim mindsets. Thank you Democrat Party.
I fought the urge to grab them by the collar, slap them and yell, “Snap out of it! You were blessed to be born in America, the greatest land of opportunity on the planet! Stop this nonsense and go for your dreams!”
For crying out loud, people around the world are risking everything crossing shark infested waters in cardboard boats held together with duct tape, desperate to get to America.
Like formerly fat people who continue to see an obese person in the mirror, Democrats have ingrained in blacks that they are victims of an “eternally” racist America; despite glaring evidence proving otherwise.
With sadness in his voice, a black conservative friend phoned me. “Have you heard? Another unarmed young black man was shot.” The cop was a white rookie. Regardless of the facts, the MSM is married to its cops-murder-blacks narrative. Upon investigation, I learned that the black youth was armed and pointed his gun at police. Still, I sensed that even my conservative buddy was infected with the Left's America mistreats blacks mindset.
In hindsight, when my friend asked if had I heard about another shooting of a black youth, I should have said are you talking about the 40 shot in Chicago over the Memorial Day weekend or the 29 shot in Baltimore by fellow blacks? Oh, you must be talking about the 7 year old just shot in a drive-by. The grieving boy's mom tearfully said, “He had plans. He was going to be somebody.”
Sadly, there are a large number of black Americans whose brains are entombed in a victim mindset; impenetrable by the truth. A prime example are the disgusting comments made by a black woman during a TV interview, expressing her support of a black youth. “He didn't do no wrong. He just shot a cop.” This hateful woman is the equivalent of the KKK justifying killing blacks.
Like the deranged black woman, the MSM, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Democrats refuse to hold blacks accountable for anything. AA calls those who make it comfortable for an alcoholic to continue behaving irresponsibly, “enablers”. Not holding blacks accountable severely undermines black empowerment. Surrendering your success or failure into the hands of someone (white America) other than you weakens you.
To my sincere black activist friend, I say we replace “Black Lives Matter” with “Tough Love.” Tell blacks to stop blaming whitey, seeking more doomed-to-fail government programs and voting for Democrats. Generations of black dreams have been stolen due to Democrats addicting blacks to government dependency. While Planned Parenthood/Democrats push blacks to abort themselves into extinction, Democrats are replacing black voters with millions of unskilled, uneducated and poor illegals; taking jobs from blacks.
Today, liberals excuse irresponsible behavior, defending it with fancy intellectual sounding language. My late mom would simply say, “Stop acting stupid.”
Stop acting stupid black America. Stop acting stupid.
Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American
Chairman, Conservative Campaign Committee
By: Juan Reynoso, WTP Activist - clearglobal2016@gmail.com
Americas must realize that self-scrutiny is not treason. Self-examination is not disloyalty.
Truth and knowledge diffused among the people are necessary for the reclamation and preservation of our Democracy, rights, freedom and liberties.
http://www.sanders-warren2016.com/my-view/ http://sanders.enews.senate.gov/mail/util.cfm?returnmsg=subscribe
Fellow Americans, now is the time to give thanks to our Lord Jesus, for given us “BERNIE SANDERS”; a Presidential candidate, a real statesman, a believer of Democracy, freedom and social justice that will fight for the average American and make a reality “Equal opportunity for every American”. Americans do not want handouts, what we want is, real equal opportunities, so we can be the best we can be.
It is a shame that our government has billions of Dollars to expend in the wars and hundreds of military installations all over the world to protect the interest of the American’s corporations but do not have the money to give the citizens of our country a free college education that will contribute to our country’s prosperity. 700,000 college girls turn into prostitution so they can pay for their college education. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKiN87SGnG0
Bernie Sanders, will stop this, the establishment propagandized the idea that college degree will insure a bright future and success in life. This is a lie, no everyone has to go to college; free college education will give Americans a choice to go to college without the burden of becoming an economic slave. http://aun-tv.com/2014/09/debt-slavery-via-the-college-education-bubblescam/
We are the future of our country, we must support Bernie Sanders; join the political revolution.
Spread the word. To share this please clicks here Share
http://www.thenation.com/article/bernies-burlington-city-sustainable-future/
http://www.sanders-warren2016.com/my-view/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/12/15/929059/-Revisiting-Reaganomics
Bernie Sanders will work for American’s self-determination; our government should be the facilitator so people can be the best they can be, not the controller or dictators of the people’s future.
Free College
Get Money out of Politics
Break Up Too Big To Fail Banks
Fight Climate Disaster
Fight Income Inequality
Healthcare is a Right
Defeat the Oligarchs
Tax the Billionaires
Tax Wall Street.
TOO ALL WHO CARE, CAN, THINK ,ACT , AND DO WHAT IS RIGHT. I HAVE BEEN AROUND A WHILE BEING 84, DONT KNOW MUCH BUT I DO KNOW THIS, ITS TIME IF TIME IS NOT TO LATE.. DON 'T GIVE UP ON TRUMP. HE REMINDS ME OF MY DRILL SARGENT IN, THE MARINE CORP. DONT MESS WITH ME YOU WANT TO BE A WINNER, FOLLOW HIM, HE IS A BAD ASS, BUT HE IS RIGHT, WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE ELSE, HE SPEAKS FOR ME, AND MANY AMERICANS, MOST OF THEM, WHO DIED FOR YOU TO HAVE THE PRIVILEDGE TO SOUND LIKE AN IDIOT. COME ON TEA PARTY, HE IS YOUR SOUND BASE, FOR FREEDOM, AND THE TRAIL YOU MUST TAKE ,FOR YOU AND AND YOUR CHILDRENS CHILDREN. GOD BLESS ALL YOU WHO HAVE THE GUTS TO STAND UP, AND BE COUNTED, TEA PARTY DO YOUR THING THE RIGHT THING, NOW, BEFORE ITS TOO LATE. ROBERT HOYING UNITED STATES MARINE CORP. SEMPER FI
By Craig Andresen – The National Patriot and Right Side Patriots on cprworldwidemedia.net
Considering some of the treasonous utterances spewed forth by our current Secretary of the State of Denial…one John Swiftboat Kerry, friend to the North Vietnamese while others wearing the same uniform as Kerry were fighting, being held as prisoners of war, tortured and dying…
I’m not really sure what to say regarding his reported latest pie-hole emanations.
Oh wait…yes I am..
It was reported last Friday, by Ayatollah Alam al-Hoda during an ass in the air and forehead on the floor session in Iran, that during the “negotiations” over just how Kerry would concede on each and every point and allow Iran to have unfettered capability to build a nuclear arsenal, Kerry told his counterpart…that he wished…”the U.S. had a leader like Iran’s supreme leader.”
Ummmmm…
Before you all go getting mad at Kerry…for the wrong reasons…allow me to point out a few things…
I agree with TRUMP, They got to GO, The answer is that every True American Citizen should volunteer to HELP with Deportation. I can take a car load in my car to the boarder every Tuesday, I would pay for gas and food and drive NON STOP till I got them safely delivered to the boarder, Let's everybody (USA Citizen) volunteer to sign up to help with the deportation. Thank You Four Your Support. TEM
Would you feed your dog chopped up babies? Geraldo Rivera would.
The ’stache-sporting commentator clashed last week with Fox News’s Greg Gutfeld concerning the recent Center for Medical Progress (CFP) tapes which revealed top-level Planned Parenthood officials negotiating prices for harvested fetal organs. Geraldo didn’t find the tapes particularly shocking and quickly became indignant that anyone would.
The exchange began when Geraldo asked Gutfeld, “Are you saying that women should not have the ability to consent whether or not their aborted fetus will be used for research?” Gutfeld said they shouldn’t, to which Geraldo replied, “That’s crazy.” After much talking over each other, Geraldo asked “What if I want to make it dog food?”
Yes, dog food. He actually said that.
I think what Geraldo meant is that it’s nobody’s business what a woman wants to do with her aborted child. I don’t think that it’s a misrepresentation of Geraldo’s views to use the word “child” either, as several comments he made in the course of the debate seem to imply that he believes the thing being ripped from a woman’s womb is in fact a child. So Geraldo concedes that we’re discussing baby corpses here, he’s just not bothered by it.
Like a lot of people, I reeled in disgust at Geraldo’s callous remark but I also found myself wondering why. We’re now so far down the slippery slope that the peripheral issue of how to use the byproducts of abortion moves front and center. The rest has all been decided.
Is it any wonder that Planned Parenthood’s phalanx of defenders have argued that the CFP videos are much ado about nothing? Its organ harvesting is always conducted with the woman’s consent, they claim, and is always done on a not-for-profit basis. Leaving aside for a moment the fact that neither of these two assertions is even true, that’s still a pretty shoddy defense. The Nazis didn’t make money on their organ harvesting either but that didn’t make it right.
But alas, there is a great gulf in this country between what is right and what is legal. In America you can legally kill an unborn child and legally sell her liver, brain, and heart; but if you charge one penny more than the costs of procurement and shipping, that’s a crime! What a silly point to quibble about—Planned Parenthood says that they don’t charge more for butchered baby parts than what it costs them, and it’s on the rest of us to prove they’re lying. (Watch the videos—it’s all about the money.) Lost in the shouting and cross-talk is the fact that they kill children.
Which makes Geraldo’s indifference almost understandable. Who cares what we do with the “products of conception” once we’re done sucking them out with a shop vac? Now is not time to get squeamish. We have to do something with our truckloads of mashed baby, so why not sell it to Alpo? It’s better than keeping it in jars in Kermit Gosnell’s refrigerator.
But people tend to get themselves in a tizzy when we creatively repurpose dead baby parts. Here’s a small example that I think illustrates the public’s unease with using aborted children for the betterment of humanity—last year, it was reported that Britain’s National Health Service (NHS) was using fetuses to heat hospitals across the UK. The 15,000 incinerated fetuses were part of a “Waste-to-Energy” plan that used medical refuse and ordinary trash as a fuel. And who could be against that, except perhaps some sadist who delights in people dying of hypothermia? As it turned out, some people got their knickers all in a bunch and the NHS quickly put a stop to the practice—not the killing of babies, mind you, but the burning of their corpses for heat.
The NHS’s Chief Inspector of Hospitals, Sir Mike Richards, seemed oddly fixated on the wrong issue, namely that no one asked the mothers for permission. Said Sir Richards, “I am disappointed trusts may not be informing or consulting women and their families. This breaches our standard on respecting and involving people who use services…”
So there’s the real scandal—women didn’t consent to burning their children like firewood. But why should anyone ask them? To even pose the question implies that dead babies are somehow different from other kinds of medical waste.
Dead babies have also been used to generate electricity. The Covanta Waste-to-Energy facility in Oregon discovered in 2014 that it too was burning “products of conception” purchased from British Columbia. The hacked-up children were mixed in with ordinary trash and were thus unknown to the plant officials who bought garbage en masse from Canada.
Like the NHS, Covanta also acted swiftly to halt the burning of unborn children, though I don’t understand why. Who are they to deprive us of an abundant renewable resource? We could even construct a baby sludge pipeline from Canada directly to trash-burning reactors here in the States. Think of it like Keystone XL, only Obama wouldn’t veto it. Energy independence is national security!
What if dead babies could make those wrinkles around your eyes vanish? Surely that be a worthy use for something that’s just going to be thrown away anyway. The Swiss cosmetics manufacturer Neocutis admits that it used an aborted fourteen week fetus in the development of one of its rejuvenating skin creams. From its website: “A small biopsy of fetal skin was donated following a one-time medical termination and a dedicated cell bank was established for developing new skin treatments. Originally established for wound healing and burn treatments, today this same cell bank also provides a lasting supply of cells for producing Neocutis’ proprietary skin care ingredient Processed Skin Cell Proteins.”
Well that’s a relief. So they only used one dead baby to get the project started. No more dead babies will be necessary. I’m at a loss to explain why it’s morally acceptable to use one dead baby to look young and beautiful but not a pile of them.
Geraldo's dog food proposal isn’t that much different than what we already do with the unwanted waste of our copulations. We don’t yet feed aborted kids to Fido but we do use them to keep warm, to pamper our skin, and to keep the lights on. And why shouldn’t we? It’s pretty gross, for sure, but that argument is rather anemic. No compelling reason remains why we shouldn’t go full Swiftian and put our abortion byproducts to use as fertilizers, lubricants, soaps, and in any number of yet unfathomed applications. If we can go about our daily lives without thinking about the abortion clinic we drive past every day, we can also choose not think about the dead babies keeping us warm through the winter months.
A society that kills the unborn has already conceded the moral argument against abortion. If killing the unborn is not immoral, then who can find fault with feeding their corpses to dogs? Certainly not us.
Read more at http://patriotupdate.com/who-are-we-to-say-that-aborted-children-dont-belong-in-dog-food/
Talk of "Enforcement" is a Red Herring
It's code for amnesty
Gov. Walker:
"Any discussion that goes beyond securing the border and enforcing the laws are things that should be a red flag to voters out there, who for years have heard lip service from politicians and are understandably angry because those politicians haven't been committed to following through on those promises."
Walker, here, is basically telling us he isn't his own man any more, if he ever was, when it comes to immigration reform. He is, in fact, simply mouthing U.S. Chamber Crypto-Fascist, Crony Capitalist propaganda.
Be wary of presidential candidates promising "enforcement" rather than a change in policy, when talking real, comprehensive immigration reform. They all know, or should know by now, there is no political will in Congress to enforce any immigration laws. Both political parties see it as an advantage to not only not enforce any laws somebody might be foolish enough to pass, but illegal immigration must continue in order to keep the supply of cheap labor and cheap votes coming
While on an aerobic machine at the gym, I caught Trump on TV. It occurred to me that Trump's high poll numbers really represent the American people vs the America hating Left. Trump's campaign slogan is “Make America Great Again.” Them's fightin' words to the Left.
For decades the Left has used its domination of the media and public education to indoctrinate our kids into believing that it is racist and mean to think of America as great. The Left says such pride and patriotism is an insult to the rest of the world.
You think I am crazy? Public elementary schools banned Lee Greenwood's “Proud to be An American/God Bless the USA” in NY and Florida, thus far.
A Brooklyn elementary school principal blocked patriotism from teachers' plans for a school assembly. Students were going to march in carrying US flags while singing a patriotic song. Here is one of the offensive lyrics. “I'll always do my part, I love my land that's free.”
The Ninth Circuit court upheld a San Francisco school district's ban on wearing American flag t-shirts to school on a Mexican holiday.
Professors at the University of California, Irvine join students in trying to ban the America flag on campus because they say it contributes to racism.
Years ago a white friend told me her son came home from middle school a tearful basket case. He was filled with guilt about the evils his white forefathers thrust upon minorities. Today, my friend's son is an America hating Communist. He also believes white males are the greatest source of evil in the world.
A product of public education, a millennial relative said she would be traveling near South Dakota. I suggested she visit Mt Rushmore. Her reply was venomous, “I wouldn't travel across the street to see those guys.”
Trump saying such things as wanting to “make America a winner” and “make our military strong” is extremely crass to the Left; repulsive as showing Dracula the cross.
Despite being drilled by the Left to hate their country, I believe American youths instinctively desire to love their homeland. Trump is making it okay to say it out loud.
Even some Republicans are uncomfortable with Trump boldly advocating for America; vowing to make decisions in our best interest. Well trained by the Left, most professional politicians cringe hearing Trump say take the oil, make Mexico pay for the wall and stop giving money to countries that hate us. Talk of putting America first infuriates liberals; deeming it racist and insensitive to the global community.
Ann Coulter is a rare voice on the big stage clamoring for an immigration policy rooted in America's best interest rather than people to whom we owe nothing. Most pundits fear Leftists branding them racist, heartless and cruel. Consequently, Coulter's unapologetic common sense is rare.
Not only do Leftists support Obama governing against America's best interest, they have been cheerleaders for his long list of decisions designed to tear down our country. Obama's latest betrayal is his insane Iran nuke deal.
Displaying off-the-chain condescension, Obama repeatedly tells us, issue after issue, we are not seeing what we are obviously seeing. For example. Obama says his deal prevents Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. Meanwhile, it is obvious to the world that Obama is green-lighting Iran acquiring a nuclear bomb. Obama's ego is boundless. For crying out loud, Iran is already breaking the deal.
Despite this Administrations' pattern of telling us we are not seeing what we are obviously seeing, Admiral Lyons says Obama's strategy is simple for any thinking American to see. “It's anti-American; anti-western. It's pro-Islamic. It's pro-Iranian and pro-Muslim Brotherhood.”
Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry know Americans would reject dethroning us as the world super power and making citizens subservient to government. Insidiously, this Administration masks its betrayals with lofty words like fairness, compassion and patriotism. Obama's definition of patriotism includes opening our borders to illegals – taking our guns – taxing businesses out-of-business – repealing Constitutional freedoms and addicting as many able-body Americans to government assistance as possible.
Then along comes this outsider untamed by PC. Fearlessly, he speaks the truth. Wait a minute. This is a crazy way to run a country. I'm gonna make America great again! The people heard and responded positively. The Left is outraged.
This is not an endorsement of Trump for president. I am simply saying the Left's hatred of Trump's message reflects their hatred of America and those who love her.
Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American
Chairman, Conservative Campaign Committee
Why Hillary Is Rooting For Jeb
There is an obvious subtext to the panicked effort to purge the GOP of Donald Trump: to allow the party’s true hero to emerge to vanquish Hillary Clinton and restore peace and justice throughout the land. To most GOP elites, of course, the savior is Jeb Bush, complete with the Clark Kent glasses and aw-shucks good guy demeanor. ("demeanor"? More like dementia) The Chamber of Commerce crowd is so convinced that Jeb is the man that it (so far) has placed a bet of more than $100 million on that proposition. (Jeb has been bought and paid for. That's for sure!)
There’s just one problem—the Clintons want Jeb Bush to be the GOP nominee, too.
It was Trump himself who picked up on this fact when Hillary Clinton singled out Bush for criticism over his remark that “I’m not sure we need a half a billion dollars for women’s health issues.” Bush later said he “misspoke.” ("Oh, gee! I'm sorry! I really am a nice guy! I'll behave. I PROMISE! ")
By going after Jeb directly, and far from the first time, the Clintons want to “elevate” him, Trump charged, because they know they can beat him.
And I fully agree! Jeb, like Romney before him, and McCain before him, are like accordions to democrats. Collapsible and easily plays their tune!
"whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. " Declaration of Independence
I couldn't imagine even attempting to explain to Madison, Jefferson or Franklin that we NEED to vote straight-party. Because we MUST side w/ the lesser-of-the-two-EVILS!
I WON'T DO IT!!!
Principles Over Parties
Luis
Anyone else would be behind bars for what she has done! She is a criminal and thinks she is above the law! God help us!
People that are citizens and worked to support this country are being denied Medicaid because of a few dollars and I betcha that the illegals are getting all they want! I like Trump and what he has to say! We need a President that is not politically correct, I am not!
VERY GREAT EVIL AND IMMORALITY THAT HAS COME UPON AMERICAN HISTORY FOR EVER REMEMBER US AS THE GENERATION THAT LET AMERICA DIE! PLEASE SHARE THE AWARENESS ON EVERY WEB SITE YOU CAN AND ALL YOUR CONNECTIONS , FAMILY, NEIGHBORS, AND FRIENDS THANK YOU PRINCIPLES FOR FREE SOCIETY
THE WATCHMAN ON THE WALL SOUNDING THE ALARM
Daily Digest
THE FOUNDATION
“How could a readiness for war in time of peace be safely prohibited, unless we could prohibit, in like manner, the preparations and establishments of every hostile nation?” —James Madison, Federalist No. 41, 1788
TOP RIGHT HOOKS
Slain Ferguson Girl Was A Life That Mattered
Jamyla is on the left; Photo courtesy of Eric KayneAnother life was lost in Ferguson this week, and hers was indisputably innocent. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports, “A 9-year-old girl doing homework on her mother’s bed was killed when someone fired shots into a Ferguson home Tuesday night, according to police and family. Jamyla Bolden’s grandmother said she ran into the bedroom after someone opened fire about 9:30 p.m. Jamyla’s mother was hit in the leg. Jamyla was fatally wounded. ‘I was holding her the whole time,’ the grandmother said of the child Wednesday. She did not want her name used because she feared for her safety. ‘I kept holding and holding her,’ the grandmother told the Post-Dispatch. ‘I still have her blood on my hands. She was still breathing. I was telling her to just breathe.’” Such senseless acts of violence are all too common in the St. Louis suburb where the radical group “Black Lives Matter” was born. Yet they’d rather protest and riot over the death of another man killed by police — after he pointed a gun at them. Just one man is marching for Jamyla. The police aren’t always blameless, of course, but the real blame lies with thugs who are young, male, urban and all too often black. To these killers, black lives don’t matter at all — not even the life of a nine-year-old girl. But there is a bit of good news: Ira DeWitt, wife of St. Louis Cardinals owner Bill DeWitt, is going to pay for the funeral. Rest in peace, Jamyla.
EPA’s McCarthy Admits Clean Power Plan Hits Minorities Hardest
In June 2014, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said the Clean Power Plan, which the Obama administration finalized earlier this month, “is about environmental justice … because lower-income families and communities of color are hardest hit.” Why, then, is the EPA enacting standards that adversely affect minorities? Last week, McCarthy similarly remarked, “We know that low-income minority communities would be hardest hit.” But there was one important distinction: She wasn’t referring to environmental hazards but the plan itself. In other words, the EPA’s massive power grab, which ostensibly “is about environmental justice,” instead hurts those it’s supposedly intended to protect. That’s not the surprising part — independent studies have already warned about the consequences. What’s surprising is hearing the head of Barack Obama’s EPA admit it.
McCarthy counters by arguing that consumers will see substantial savings by 2030 and that the government intends to help minorities neutralize the initial impacts by giving states that invest in new and upcoming energy efficiency programs a 2-for-1 federal credit. But as The Daily Signal’s Nicolas Loris writes, existing energy efficiency programs have failed to live up to expectations. And just because the government wants to make purchasing decisions for you doesn’t mean consumers are better off: “Arguing that increasing energy prices with regulations will save money by forcing energy-efficient product purchases is equivalent to cutting employees' salaries and telling them that they will save money by shopping at Target. Just as the option to save money at Target existed before the pay cut, families and businesses already have an incentive to purchase energy-efficient products. When the government mandates efficiency, it removes that choice and makes consumers worse off.” No one is against energy efficiency, but that’s best attained through innovation in the free market. When the government gets involved, the results are bad for everyone.
Los Angeles VA Found Shredding Unprocessed Claims
Working off a tip, the VA’s inspector general in February sprung a surprise inspection on the VA Regional Office in Los Angeles. He found that employees were about to shred nine unprocessed claims that veterans filed with the agency. Of those claims, two of them were from homeless veterans who were seeking disability compensation, The Washington Times reports. Another was from a veteran who said he could not be employed because of the severity of his PTSD. In short, the VA’s action would have entrapped those veterans in a bureaucratic morass. The IG’s report could not verify that VA supervisors had ordered the paperwork destroyed, nor could it determine how many unprocessed claims passed through the shredder. In response to its findings, the IG made surprise inspections in 10 other VA offices to see if the paperwork problem is systematic. Secret wait lists are one thing. Document destruction and the resulting denial of care is another.
FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS
About That Reset With Russia…
By Patriot Post Staff
Barack Obama famously made resetting relations with Russia one of his very first foreign policy initiatives, even deploying then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for a ridiculous photo-op with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. (Lavrov can be seen in the photo above laughing in what could fairly be interpreted as genuine amusement that any U.S. president could be so naïve). Now, six years later, it’s apparent that we have indeed reset relations with Russia — to about 1977. From snapping up Crimea to fomenting insurrection in Ukraine to propping up Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, Vladimir Putin hasn’t missed an opportunity to poke us in the eye.
And now the latest such poke. This week, Russia and Iran announced the completion of a deal for the S-300 surface-to-air missile, one of the most capable such missiles in the world. Iran had originally attempted to acquire the S-300 in 2009, but Russia eventually backed out of the deal in the face of international pressure during the ongoing UN sanctions process over Iran’s nuclear program. But with sanctions now conveniently lifted thanks to Obama’s Iran deal, that same Sergei Lavrov has just wrapped up meetings with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif in which the S-300 deal was confirmed.
The S-300 is a very low- to very high-altitude missile, able to intercept aircraft, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles out to nearly 200 miles. Iran has reportedly contracted for four battalions' worth at a cost of just under $1 billion, out of an annual defense budget estimated between $11-14 billion. Both Iran and Russia say the system will be delivered before the end of the year.
And we’re essentially paying for it with the $100 to $150 billion in sanctions relief through the deal.
Iran will almost certainly deploy two of the four battalions to cover its nuclear sites in central Iran and one battalion to protect Tehran. Each battalion comprises six launchers and a total of 24 missiles, plus a targeting radar, all of which are mobile. The S-300 will complicate enormously any attempt to fly into Iran’s airspace and attack its nuclear sites, which is Russia’s goal as well as Iran’s.
Why is Russia going through with this sale to a pariah nation like Iran? Partly because military systems are one of the very few Russian export items anyone wants to buy, but mainly because propping up those nations opposed to the United States has been Russian policy since 1945. As we said in 2009, Russian national interests were not going to change suddenly just because a neophyte in the Oval Office wished it were so — especially with a former KGB goon holding the reins of power in Russia. Anywhere Putin can cause headaches for the U.S. he will do so, which was obvious to everyone in 2009except the community organizer and his secretary of state. The S-300 deal is just the latest such move, but it won’t be the last. Reset, indeed.
MORE ORIGINAL PERSPECTIVE
- ANALYSIS: The Walking Dead Wisconsin Witch Hunt
- The Science Is… Oh, Never Mind
- Manufacturing Struggling to Get to Pre-Recession Levels
- Krauthammer: Iran Self-Inspections Are ‘Scandalous’
- Another ‘Black’ Guy Outed as White
- 50 Years Ago, Jonathan Daniels Died for Civil Rights
BEST OF RIGHT OPINION
- Charles Krauthammer: The Immigration Swamp
- Terence Jeffrey: Our Politicians Are Broken, Not Our Immigration System
- David Harsanyi: The Beginning of the End of Religious Freedom
For more, visit Right Opinion.
TOP HEADLINES
- Three Million Could Lose Their ObamaCare Subsidies Next Year
- North Korea Warns of War After Exchange of Fire With South
- Christian Bakers Shock Same-Sex Advocates: ‘We Really Do Love You’
OPINION IN BRIEF
Charles Krauthammer: “Birthright citizenship is a symptom, not a cause. If you regain control of the border, the number of birthright babies fades to insignificance. The time and energy it would take to amend the Constitution are far more usefully deployed securing the border. Moreover, the real issue is not the birthright babies themselves, but the chain migration that follows. It turns one baby into an imported village. Chain migration, however, is not a constitutional right. It’s a result of statutes and regulations. These can be readily changed. That should be the focus, not a quixotic constitutional battle. … [I]t is estimated by the conservative American Action Forum that mass deportation would take about 20 years and cost about $500 billion for all the police, judges, lawyers and enforcement agents — and bus drivers! — needed to expel 11 million people. … [O]f course, it won’t ever happen. But because it’s the view of the Republican front-runner, every other candidate is now required to react. So instead of debating border security, guest-worker programs and sanctuary cities … they are forced into a debate about a repulsive fantasy. Which, for the Republican Party, is also political poison. Mitt Romney lost the Hispanic vote by 44 points and he was advocating only self-deportation. Now the party is discussing forced deportation. … Yes, I understand. The anger, the frustration, etc., etc., that Trump is channeling. But how are these alleviated by yelling ‘I’m mad as hell’ — and proceeding to elect Hillary Clinton?”
SHORT CUTS
Insight: “The ordinary man is passive. Within a narrow circle, home life, and perhaps the trade unions or local politics, he feels himself master of his fate. But otherwise he simply lies down and lets things happen to him.” —George Orwell
Upright: “Some laws that regulate legal immigration may need adjustment. But our immigration system is not broken. The politicians charged with enforcing it are. It is illegal to sneak across the border. It is illegal to overstay a visa. It is illegal to work in the United States unless you are a citizen, a legal permanent resident or have a visa that authorizes you to work. It is illegal to use a false or stolen Social Security Number, and it is illegal to use fraudulent documents to obtain work. But the laws that immigrants here illegally routinely violate are not routinely enforced — even in Washington, D.C., and its immediate surroundings.” —Terence Jeffrey
Amending the Constitution is unconstitutional? “It turns out that an amendment aiming to change the Constitution to end birthright citizenship for the children of immigrants — a move that squarely targets Latinos — could theoretically be found unconstitutional long before it could make it into the document in the first place.” —Huffington Post legal affairs writer Cristian Farias
Non Compos Mentis: “Britain built an empire on the slave trade. Germany perpetrated the greatest genocide in human history. Who says the Islamic State won’t be a U.S. ally someday? … [I]f Western history is any guide, the Islamic State could well be on its way to global legitimacy.” —former State Department advisor Rosa Brooks
Circling the wagons: “[Y]ou want me to indict and damn Hillary Clinton? I’m not going to do that.” —New York Times' Jeremy Peters
Late-night humor: “Hillary Clinton released an ad that emphasizes her humble economic background. In the ad she says, ‘Just 15 years ago, my family and I were evicted from our house.’” —Conan O'Brien
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis!
Managing Editor Nate Jackson
Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform — Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen — standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families.
P/C is a term used to criticize language,actions or policies of others. It generally means to restrict a freedom in that area of criticism. Some recent efforts to advance P/C are for affirmative action, hate speech, changes to school curriculum and discrimination. If left to the majority of the population to decide about these issues then it might have developed not offending the very people who would decide issues. But the people that push hard on P/C issues have become,themselves, the very onerous group that want control over a group or the populace in general. If they go too far they become true Fascists.
By Craig Andresen – The National Patriot and Right Side Patriots on cprworldwidemedia.net
Now that we know the truth regarding one of the Iran deal’s side deals…that the U.N. and the IAEA will allow the 7th century barbarians of the Iranian regime to inspect their own Parchin nuclear site and use their own equipment to gather samples before submitting their own reports showing there is nothing at Parchin to worry about…it’s time to look a little deeper into this new development…or should we call it a new scandal?
For weeks, since word of side deals between Iran and the IAEA went public, concern has grown regarding the contents of those side deals.
Obama told us all that it was no big thing…routine was the language he used. He said “If Iran cheats, we’ll know it,” and that the safeguards were all in place.
Obama sock-puppet, John Kerry called the side deals…routine…and said that nothing in the deals was based on trust. In fact, his direct quote was…“Nothing in this deal is built on trust. Nothing.”
No great surprise…Obama was lying…again and also no great surprise…
We've all heard or read the stats: currently, only the United States grants birthright citizenship to illegal aliens and 8% of babies born in the US are so-called "anchor babies" born of illegal aliens. In and of itself, this doesn't constitute a crisis, but, for many of us, it does illustrate how far we've strayed from the Constitution.
Like all babies, “anchor babies” too are sweet and cuddly, and deserving of mother’s love and society’s protection. But automatically conferring citizenship on babies of illegal aliens is an ideologically-motivated perversion not only of internationally accepted legal norms, but, much more importantly, of both the Constitution and the 14th Amendment as well.
By nimbly mischaracterizing the motives of birthright citizenship opponents, many in the media and blogosphere—to include attorneys who should know better-- have irresponsibly misrepresented the framers’ intent and have reduced the level of discourse on this legitimate constitutional issue to that of ad hominem, race-baiting, specious legal citations, contrived legal justifications, and mindless pandering. Shamelessly seeking ideological and political supremacy, to these people the Constitution and the rule of law mean absolutely nothing. And for a nation which once prided itself as being a “nation of laws”, that is inexcusable.
During an interview with Mr. Trump last night, what annoyed me greatly was Bill O'Reilly's characteristically bombastic--and wholly erroneous--claim that "the 14th Amendment says that any person born on US soil is a US Citizen. Period". Poppycock! He couldn't have read the amendment at all to reach this specious conclusion. And the fact that even Judge Napolitano, a Libertarian jurist, a few days earlier asserted this revisionist and ignorant view is nothing short of bewildering and scary. But, this does underscore just how flawed and fallible jurists and seemingly bright, well-informed talking heads can really be.
That said, for my own edification I decided to take the time to again review the actual words of the 14th’s framers, pertinent case law and the opinions of jurists and legal scholars on both sides of the question to determine the truth in this matter.
Here are my findings and conclusions:
First, while researching pertinent materials, I soon discovered that understanding the clear intent and meaning of the 14th Amendment was much simpler than anticipated. In fact, the meaning of the 14th was surprisingly straightforward. Lesson learned: if one simply abandons one’s ideological blinders for a moment and commit to an honest effort to objectively review a constitutional issue, clarity is nearly always one’s reward.
It also became apparent that from a strictly Constitutional standpoint, and despite many assertions to the contrary from both the left and the right, a constitutional amendment is NOT needed to deny anchor babies citizenship. In short, I was unable to find convincing constitutional evidence that so-called anchor babies can legitimately and automatically acquire U.S citizenship. Thus, a simple act of Congress--and most certainly NOT an amendment to the Constitution—in order to clarify the original intent and meaning of the 14th Amendment is all that is really needed.
Toward that end, introduced on April 2nd, 2009, and co-sponsored by 93 congressmen, inclusive of one lonely Democratic supporter, Mississippi’s Gene Taylor, HR 1868 (Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009) intended to amend section 301 of the Immigration & Nationality Act to provide that a person born in the US is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US for citizenship purposes if the person is born in the US of parents, one of whom is: 1) a US citizen or national; 2) a lawful permanent resident alien who resides in the US; or 3) an alien performing military service in the US Armed Forces.” And if one simply reviews the original meaning of the 14th Amendment one can easily see that there is absolutely nothing at all revolutionary about this bill's language. In any event, the bill failed.
Intended to protect the rights of emancipated Negroes, the 14th Amendment specifically provided that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”
And as I very quickly learned, of central importance in this statement is the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, something birthright citizenship proponents have consistently and very conveniently ignored.
To begin, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, co-author of the 14th Amendment, expressly asserted that “this will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” And it is in this plain-spoken construction birthright proponents somehow discover ambiguity or a totally different meaning. Amazing!
.
Under Section 1992 of the US Revised Statutes, the same Congress which adopted the 14th Amendment confirmed that “all persons born in the United States who are not aliens, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”
In 1873, the US Atty Gen ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean “the absolute and complete jurisdiction. Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the US but only to a limited extent. Political and military rights do not pertain to them.”
Sen. Trumbell noted during the drafting of the 14th Amendment that it was the amendment’s goal to “make citizens of everybody born in the US who owe allegiance to the US,” and if “the negro or white man belonged to a foreign government he would not be a citizen.”
On March 1, 1866, Rep. James Wilson of Iowa, House Judiciary Committee, added that “we must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to conclude that every person born in the US is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil (jus soli) to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign governments.” This statement served to nicely clarify Sen. Howard’s construction above.
John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment’s first section, stated that Sec. 1992 of the Revised Statutes meant “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the US of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”
And if we reach way back to our founders in search of a definition of citizens of a foreign power, Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.”
To a man, among the framers the premise behind “within the jurisdiction thereof” was that all children born to parents who owed no foreign allegiance were to be citizens of the US; thus, not only must a child be born on US soil (jus soli) but born of parents whose complete allegiance was to the US.
Subsequently, Sen. Howard further explained that “only thru expatriation, which could be accomplished thru law alone, and not thru any immigrant acting on his own outside the law—and certainly not by any act of birth alone—could an alien become a citizen.” This, of course, would mean that the alien/sojourner would need to affirmatively renounce his allegiance to his/her country of origin before s/he could be considered completely within the jurisdiction of the US.
Sen. Howard also stated the following: “…the word 'jurisdiction', as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the US, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the US, whether exercised by Congress, the executive, or the judiciary; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the US now.” In effect, he was saying that an alien may, by treaty arrangements with his country of origin, avail himself of the protection of the US, much as sojourning US citizens in the alien’s country of origin would avail themselves of that country’s protection, but that an alien's physical presence in the US would not render him/her under the "complete jurisdiction" of the US. Simple enough.
The rationale behind not granting automatic citizenship can be illustrated by the fact that American Indians could not be subject to the jurisdiction of the US because the US dealt with them through treaties. By logical extension, aliens sojourning in the US are extended privileges and protections by virtue of treaties in force with their countries of origin, much as American citizens are granted similar rights and privileges—but not citizenship--when sojourning in those countries. Logically, therefore, only if an alien voluntarily and affirmatively renounces his citizenship and expresses an intent to swear allegiance to the US may the alien, through operation of law (a formal naturalization process), be granted US citizenship. Thus, in a nutshell, since neither children of tourists/sojourners nor of diplomats born in the US can be US citizens, children of illegal entrants cannot be lawfully granted the privilege of US citizenship.
In 1867, George Yeaman, American Minister to Denmark, in his highly respected treatise on allegiance and citizenship and for whom the framers had great respect, asserted that “the idea of a double allegiance and citizenship united in the same person, and having reference to two separate, independent, and sovereign nations or governments, is simply an impossibility.” Thus, dual citizenship was also a no-no. (Take note, BHO.)
P. A. Madison, a modern day master of constitutional analysis, points out that “since illegal aliens are unlawfully in the US, their native country has a proper and primary claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the US is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.” Slam dunk obvious, I’d say.
Also, Rep. Aaron Sargent, a representative from California during the Naturalization Act of 1870 debates, said the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause was not a de-facto right for aliens to obtain citizenship. Significantly, none of his contemporaries disputed that assertion.
Adding to this mix, here is a little case law since the 14th’s ratification.
In the Slaughterhouse Cases(1873), the Supreme Court observed that the 14th Amendment overturned the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction, citizens of the US; the ruling went on to point out “that [the 14th Amendment’s] main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the Negro” and that “the phrase ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, AND citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States", thus reinforcing Sen. Howard’s construction above. So, since they cannot be subject to US jurisdiction, children of citizens of foreign sovereignities and children of foreign ministers/consuls/ambassadors cannot be lawfully considered US Citizens. Makes perfect sense.
Then, in Elk v Wilkins (1884), the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not even confer citizenship on Indians—because they were subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction. In effect, the court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child, and not merely the fortuitous birth of that child on American soil. (Note: not until the Citizens Act of 1924 was U S citizenship granted to American Indians. As with many whimsical court rulings over the years, I was unable to understand the legal grounding for this reversal. Thus, it would seem that judicial arbitrariness is not an affliction peculiar to modern day American courts alone.)
In US v Wong Kim Ark (1889), the courts held that children born in the US of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child’s birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the US and are carrying on business in the US, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of US territory, become a citizen of the US at the time of birth. As expressed in the minority opinion, this decision violated the 14th Amendment. But, in any case, how many new illegal aliens have permanent domiciles in the US and how many of them are carrying on business in the US at the moment of their child's birth on US soil? I suspect precious few. But note that in this case the parents were, unlike illegal entrants, legally present.
In Steel v Citizens for a Better Environment (1998), the court stated that “jurisdiction is a word of many, too many, meanings.” However, and as can be clearly seen above, Sen. Trumbell and, yes, Sen. Howard, 14th Amendment co-authors, had long ago provided a clear, unambiguous definition by declaring that “the provision is, that all persons born in the United States, and ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’’, are citizens. That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof. What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof'? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” And this from the framers' themselves! (Clearly, majority jurists in the Steel v Citizens court didn’t bother to research the framers’ clear intent and meaning. And one must wonder if a neophyte, such as I, can easily deduce original meaning, why can't trained jurists? Could it be incompetence or do political agendas get in the way of constitutional law?)
Despite the clear meaning and intent of the 14th's framers, we fast forward to the somewhat enigmatic ruling in US ex rel. Hintopoulis v Shaughnessy (1982), which some bloggers have used to justify birthright citizenship. In that case, and out of whole cloth, somewhere in the ruling it asserted, almost unconciously, that although a child born in the US to two illegal aliens was a US Citizen (????) that, nonetheless, “suspending the alien parents’ deportation based upon “the accident of birth in the US of their son would be to deprive others, who are patiently awaiting visas…” Thus, since the glancing allusion to the legality of birthright citizenship, though gratuitous—and erroneous—appeared in this suspension of deportation decision, birthright proponents often blithely and excitedly cite this case to substantiate the legality of birthright citizenship. Grabbing at straws, I'd say.
Then, true to activist form, in Plyler v Doe (1982) the court, apparently without access to the 14th framers’ erudition and written words, mysteriously ruled 5-4 that there is “no plausible distinction” with respect to “jurisdiction” between resident aliens who entered the country lawfully and those resident aliens who entered unlawfully. Wowee! Clearly a yawning divergence from the framers’ clear meaning and intent. Seems judicial activism was as alive and well in 1982 as it is today.
To me, these two rulings which capriciously and arrogantly turned Thomas Jefferson and the framers of the 14th on their heads are clearly unlawful at worst, convenient contrivances at best.
When I explained all this on-line to an attorney who is also a strong proponent of birthright citizenship, this was her reply: “I disagree with your interpretation of the phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof'. The first rule of statutory construction is that we don’t look to the drafters’ intent if the words are plain and unambiguous…If the drafters meant to include some allegiance test, they would have. They didn’t.” That sort of revisionism, gobbledegook, willful ignorance and dishonesty is, folks, what this country is up against. My rejoinder was civil, but to the point: “It wasn’t MY lowly interpretation. It was the framers’ interpretation. But, ignore original intent and meaning? A living constitution is like having no constitution at all. We can merely make it up as we go along and continue to hand-off an increasingly irrelevant document to the next generation. While I sincerely hope this isn’t what you have in mind, at this juncture I can see there’s really nothing more to discuss with you on this or any other constitutional issues. How very sad.”
Finally, based upon what I now understand, we must be faithful to the 14th Amendment framers’ clear intent and meaning—surely a tall order with so many activists and social engineers infesting our courts these days. In the case of "birthright citizenship", Congress is constitutionally empowered to re-assert the original meaning of the the 14th Amendment, and that's precisely what it should do.
"What Does Your Bug Out Bag Look Like ?"
READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE AT... http://blackroberegimentpastor.blogspot.com/2015/08/what-does-your-bug-out-bag-look-like.html
My wife and I were a very nervous and excited young couple purchasing our first home. Our home builder was a dear friend of my parents. Upon going to closing, there were numerous odds and ends the builder had not completed. He vowed to complete my home asap and asked that I sign a paper for the bank stating that he completed all the work on my home.
My mom cautioned me not to sign the paper. Mom said, “Eaten bread is soon forgotten.” I ignored Mom's counsel. Sure enough, after my builder received his check from the bank, I had to chase him for over a year to complete my home.
Just like my builder said whatever necessary to get paid, politicians make voter-pleasing promises on the campaign trail. After they are elected, they forget their promises. Therefore, the final Jeopardy question is – Which GOP presidential contender will keep their word if elected? Having been burnt so many times, trustworthiness, character and backbone must be paramount in selecting our nominee.
In this primary season, we have witnessed honorable conservative candidates dialing back their original comments or apologizing due to pressure from the mainstream media and the candidate's handlers. This raises concerns in me about how these candidates will holdup under world class attacks once they are in the WH.
Leftists (mainstream media, Democrats and liberals) viciously insulted and accused president Ronald Reagan of every nasty thing imaginable. It takes a rare human being to stand firm in the midst of 24/7 relentless character assassination. Thus, my question. Which GOP contender will follow through with their conservative promises?
At the top of my list is Senator Ted Cruz. On several issues, Cruz seems to always end up on the opposite side of the GOP establishment and Leftist Democrats; in-sync with We the People. Cruz never follows the crowd. Eagles fly alone.
Remember Cruz getting hammered by Democrats and Republicans for fighting to defund Obamacare? Win or lose, We the People desperately needed to see someone on our side not simply rolling over and playing dead in surrender to Obama as he transforms our great country.
Cruz boldly says he is a Christian. During the GOP debate, I was struck by how naturally Cruz shared his dad's testimony; transformed from an alcoholic abandoning his wife and three year old Ted to giving his heart to Jesus and reuniting with his family. Politicians do not speak that freely about God and Jesus these days in the political public square. Obviously, Ted Cruz rejected the Left and MSM's memo banning God. As I said, eagles fly alone.
Some GOP contenders are wishy-washy on illegal immigration, even joining the liberal mainstream media in calling Trump racist for addressing it. Imagine how easily such a president's position could be swayed when he or she is trashed by the media.
Another GOP contender hopes to win black votes by exempting them from having to show a photo ID to vote. We do not want a president who is willing to surrender to the absurd Democrat party lie that it is too challenging for blacks to find their way to the DMV to acquire a photo ID. Americans do not want another president pandering to various voting blocs and selectively enforcing our laws.
While any of our GOP 17 are far superior to another socialist in the WH, a few are GOP establishment, big donor and Chamber of Commerce Trojan horses. They talk a good conservative game before the election. But once in the WH, they will prove to be a Manchurian candidate of the Washington cartel.
The Bible repulses the MSM like showing Dracula the cross. Still, Cruz quoted scripture, “you shall know them by their fruit.” Cruz said we see lots of “campaign conservatives.” He added that to win in 2016, we need a consistent fiscal, social and national security conservative. Cruz also touted that he has been a defender of life his entire career. This guy paints in bold colors folks.
Cruz looked America squarely in the eye and made bold promises during the GOP debate causing him to surge in the polls. On his first day as president, Cruz vows to rescind every illegal and unconstitutional executive action taken by Obama. He will instruct the DOJ to investigate the shocking videos and prosecute Planned Parenthood for any criminal violations. He will defend religious liberty, cancel the Iran deal and move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.
Cruz also vows to repeal Obamacare.
Again, as I stated, while all of our contenders know how to say what We the People want to hear, the $64,000 Question (1950s TV game show) is which one is “for real?” Who will keep their word?
Here is Cruz's last statement of the GOP debate. “I will keep my word. My father fled Cuba, and I will fight to defend liberty because my family knows what it's like to lose it.”
I believe him, folks. I believe him.
Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American
Chairman, Conservative Campaign Committee
