Category: Republican Party


Democrats are now in real danger of becoming extinct in the South – The Washington Post 12/31/15, 9:35 AM

The Fix

Democrats are now in real danger of becoming extinct in the South

By Amber Phillips December 30 at 10:20 AM

Kentucky Democrats have a problem. They just lost the governor’s mansion last month and now there’s a very real chance that their control of the state House is slipping away. That’s significant not just in Kentucky but nationally too; if Democrats lose control of the Kentucky state House, they will control a total of zero legislative chamber in the entire south.

The latest bad news for Kentucky Democrats came this week when Democratic state Rep. Jim Gooch switched parties, the second Democrat to turn Republican since the GOP’s gains in November. Gooch follows his colleague, Rep. Denny Butler as party switchers; two Democratic state representatives have resigned to accept appointments from Kentucky’s new Republican governor, Matt Bevin.

That means when the state legislature convenes in January, there will be 50 Democrats and 46 Republicans in the House — with four vacancies to fill in special elections that could well go to Republicans.

In short, Kentucky is no longer Democrats’ last stronghold of electoral hope in the south. It’s now better described as one of the last states to realign with America’s decades-old north-south political reality: Republicans rule down South; Democrats up North.

The signs this was coming have been around for a while now, notes University of Louisville political science professor Jasmine Farrier. Even though Bill Clinton won the state twice, Mitt Romney won the state in the 2012 presidential election, and GOP candidates triumphed in the 2014 Senate election and the 2015 governor races — often by wide margins. Kentucky’s balance of power finally shifted in November’s statewide elections. Statewide offices, which until November were mostly held by Democrats, are now mostly held by Republicans. The GOP wave was led by Bevin, a businessman whose outside appeal and flare has been likened to GOP front-runner Donald Trump, came from behind to become only the second Republican to lead the state in four decades.

Kentucky’s House is now the lone holdout in a state that you could argue is no longer a holdout from the post- Civil Rights era political realignment. And it didn’t take long after November to watch Democrats’ control of the

Democrats are now in real danger of becoming extinct in the South – The Washington Post 12/31/15, 9:35 AM

House start to crumble as well.
“We used to be more of an outlier,” Farrier said. “Now we’re more normal.”

Inevitable realignment or not, there’s probably some blame for Democrats to go around. Farrier says she thinks all this should be a wake up call for the Democratic Party, which has struggled to bridge the urban-rural divide in heavily rural states like Kentucky and hasn’t really found a way to reach across the cultural divides that
separate former Southern Democrats with today’s Northern ones.

“What has the Democratic Party done for poor, conservative Evangelical white people?” Farrier said. “And the answer is not much. On God, guns and gays, poor, white Evangelical conservatives would say the Democratic Party walked away from them, and not the other way around.”

Democrats’ fading grip on Kentucky politics may be unique, but it probably didn’t help that Democrats are having trouble holding onto state offices across the country.

During President Obama’s tenure, Republicans clinched more and more control of statehouse and governor’s mansions to the point where The Fix’s Chris Cillizza writes they “an absolute stranglehold” on governor’s seats (64 percent).

After the November 2014 midterms, Republicans have control of an all-time high 68 of 98 state chambers.

Republicans say their dominance at the state level is a result of hard work. They’ve invested heavily in state legislative races this past decade as part of a strategy to control state chambers that will take on congressional redistricting in 2020. It certainly worked for them in 2010.

As a result of much of this, America is increasingly divided into two different countries that rarely touch each other, politically or geographically.

Yet another factor in Democrats’ struggles in the south: Obama’s unpopularity outside those East Coast Democratic enclaves. A Kentucky Democrat is no Massachusetts Democrat, and Obama isn’t particularly liked in some Kentucky Democratic circles.

In announcing his switch to the Republican Party, Rep. Gooch cited the president’s “radical agenda” on

Democrats are now in real danger of becoming extinct in the South – The Washington Post 12/31/15, 9:35 AM

environmental regulations and gun control as reason to leave.
The president is arguably in line with the rest of the Democratic Party on these issues, but for more conservative

Kentucky Democrats, it may have been a step too far.
“There is this hatred of the president,” Farrier said. “It is very real, and it’s hard to imagine that it will be easily

recoverable.”
One thing’s for certain: Democratic control of Kentucky won’t be easily recoverable, at least not until the next

major political realignment.

Amber Phillips writes about politics for The Fix. She was previously the one-woman D.C. bureau for the Las Vegas Sun and has reported from Boston and Taiwan.

What the Constitution Really Says About Race and Slavery

David Azerrad / December 28, 2015

One hundred and fifty years ago this month, the 13th Amendment officially was ratified, and with it, slavery finally was abolished in America. The New York World hailed it as “one of the most important reforms ever accomplished by voluntary human agency.”

The newspaper said the amendment “takes out of politics, and consigns to history, an institution incongruous to our political system, inconsistent with justice and repugnant to the humane sentiments fostered by Christian civilization.”

With the passage of the 13th Amendment—which states that “[n]either slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction”—the central contradiction at the heart of the Founding was resolved.

Eighty-nine years after the Declaration of Independence had proclaimed all men to be free and equal, race-based chattel slavery would be no more in the United States.

While all today recognize this momentous accomplishment, many remain confused about the status of slavery under the original Constitution. Textbooks and history books routinely dismiss the Constitution as racist and pro-slavery. The New York Times, among others, continues to casually assert that the Constitution affirmed African-Americans to be worth only three-fifths of a human being.

Ironically, many Americans who are resolutely opposed to racism unwittingly agree with Chief Justice Roger Taney’s claim in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) that the Founders’ Constitution regarded blacks as “so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.” In this view, the worst Supreme Court case decision in American history was actually correctly decided.

Such arguments have unsettling implications for the health of our republic. They teach citizens to despise their founding charter and to be ashamed of their country’s origins. They make the Constitution an object of contempt rather than reverence. And they foster alienation and resentment among African-American citizens by excluding them from our Constitution.

The received wisdom in this case is wrong. If we turn to the actual text of the Constitution and the debates that gave rise to it, a different picture emerges. The case for a racist, pro-slavery Constitution collapses under closer scrutiny.

Race and the Constitution

The argument that the Constitution is racist suffers from one fatal flaw: the concept of race does not exist in the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution—or in the Declaration of Independence, for that matter—are human beings classified according to race, skin color, or ethnicity (nor, one should add, sex, religion, or any other of the left’s favored groupings). Our founding principles are colorblind (although our history, regrettably, has not been).

The Constitution speaks of people, citizens, persons, other persons (a euphemism for slaves) and Indians not taxed (in which case, it is their tax-exempt status, and not their skin color, that matters). The first references to “race” and “color” occur in the 15th Amendment’s guarantee of the right to vote, ratified in 1870.

A newly freed African American group of men and a few children posing by a canal against the ruins of Richmond, Va. Photo made after Richmond was taken by Union troops on April 3, 1865. (Photo: Everett Collection/Newscom)
A newly freed group of black men and a few children pose by a canal against the ruins of Richmond, Va., after Union troops took the city on April 3, 1865. (Photo: Everett Collection/Newscom)

The infamous three-fifths clause, which more nonsense has been written than any other clause, does not declare that a black person is worth 60 percent of a white person. It says that for purposes of determining the number of representatives for each state in the House (and direct taxes), the government would count only three-fifths of the slaves, and not all of them, as the Southern states, who wanted to gain more seats, had insisted. The 60,000 or so free blacks in the North and the South were counted on par with whites.

Contrary to a popular misconception, the Constitution also does not say that only white males who owned property could vote. The Constitution defers to the states to determine who shall be eligible to vote (Article I, Section 2, Clause 1). It is a little known fact of American history that black citizens were voting in perhaps as many as 10 states at the time of the founding (the precise number is unclear, but only Georgia, South Carolina, and Virginia explicitly restricted suffrage to whites).

Slavery and the Constitution

Not only does the Constitution not mention blacks or whites, but it also doesn’t mention slaves or slavery. Throughout the document, slaves are referred to as persons to underscore their humanity. As James Madison remarked during the constitutional convention, it was “wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men.”

The Constitution refers to slaves using three different formulations: “other persons” (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3), “such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit” (Article I, Section 9, Clause 1), and a “person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof” (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3).

Although these circumlocutions may not have done much to improve the lot of slaves, they are important, as they denied constitutional legitimacy to the institution of slavery. The practice remained legal, but slaveholders could not invoke the supreme law of the land to defend its legitimacy. These formulations make clear that slavery is a state institution that is tolerated—but not sanctioned—by the national government and the Constitution.

Reading the original Constitution, a visitor from a foreign land would simply have no way of knowing that race-based slavery existed in America. As Abraham Lincoln would later explain:

Thus, the thing is hid away, in the Constitution, just as an afflicted man hides away a wen or a cancer, which he dares not cut out at once, lest he bleed to death.

One could go even further and argue, as Frederick Douglass did in the lead-up to the Civil War, that none of the clauses of the Constitution should be interpreted as applying to slaves. The “language of the law must be construed strictly in favor of justice and liberty,” he argued.

Because the Constitution does not explicitly recognize slavery and does not therefore admit that slaves were property, all the protections it affords to persons could be applied to slaves. “Anyone of these provisions in the hands of abolition statesmen, and backed up by a right moral sentiment, would put an end to slavery in America,” Douglass concluded.

Those who want to see what a racist and pro-slavery Constitution would look like should turn to the Confederate Constitution of 1861. Though it largely mimics the Constitution, it is replete with references to “the institution of negro slavery,” “negroes of the African race,” and “negro slaves.” It specifically forbids the Confederate Congress from passing any “law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves.”

One can readily imagine any number of clauses that could have been added to our Constitution to enshrine slavery. The manumission of slaves could have been prohibited. A national right to bring one’s slaves to any state could have been recognized. Congress could have been barred from interfering in any way with the transatlantic slave trade.

It is true that the Constitution of 1787 failed to abolish slavery. The constitutional convention was convened not to free the slaves, but to amend the Articles of Confederation. The slave-holding states would have never consented to a new Constitution that struck a blow at their peculiar institution. The Constitution did, however, empower Congress to prevent its spread and set it on a course of extinction, while leaving the states free to abolish it within their own territory at any time.

Regrettably, early Congresses did not pursue a consistent anti-slavery policy. This, however, is not an indictment of the Constitution itself. As Frederick Douglass explained: “A chart is one thing, the course of a vessel is another. The Constitution may be right, the government wrong.”

Congress and the Slave Trade

In his original draft of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson called the African slave trade an “execrable commerce” and an affront “against human nature itself.” Because of a concession to slave-holding interests, the Constitution stipulates that it may not be abolished “prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight” (Article I, Section 9, Clause 1).

(Photo: Everett Collection/Newscom)
Before the Civil War, Frederick Douglass said that nothing in the Constitution should be interpreted as applying to slaves. The “language of the law must be construed strictly in favor of justice and liberty,” he argued. (Photo: Everett Collection/Newscom)

In the meantime, Congress could discourage the importation of slaves from abroad by imposing a duty “not exceeding 10 dollars on each person” (Article I, Section 9, Clause 1). Although early Congresses considered such measures, they were never enacted.

Early Congresses did, however, regulate the transatlantic slave trade, pursuant to their power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations” (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). In 1794, 1800, and 1803, statutes were passed that severely restricted American participation in it. No American shipyard could be used to build ships that would engage in the slave trade, nor could any ship sailing from an American port traffic in slaves abroad. Americans were also prohibited from investing in the slave trade.

Finally, on the very first day on which it was constitutionally permissible to do so—Jan. 1, 1808—the slave trade was abolished by law.

The law, which President Thomas Jefferson signed, stipulated stiff penalties for any American convicted of participating in the slave trade: up to $10,000 in fines and five to 10 years in prison. In 1823, a new law was passed that punished slave-trading with death.

Congress and the Expansion of Slavery

Banning the importation of slaves would not by itself put an end to slavery in the United States. Slavery would grow naturally even if no new slaves were brought into the country.

Although Congress could not prevent this, it could prevent slavery from spreading geographically to the territories from which new states would eventually be created.

Congress has the power “to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States” (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2), to forbid the migration of slaves into the new territories (Article I, Section 9, Clause 1), and to stipulate conditions for statehood (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2).

Regrettably, early Congresses did not prevent the spread of slavery. Between 1798 and 1822, Congress enacted 10 territorial acts. Only half excluded slavery.

As a result, seven slaveholding states and five free states were admitted into the union. The seeds of what Abraham Lincoln would later call the crisis of the house divided were sown.

Slavery in the Existing States

As for the existing slaveholding states that had ratified the Constitution, what could Congress do to restrict the growth of slavery within their borders? Here Congress had more limited options. After 1808, “the migration” of slaves across state lines could have been prohibited (Article I, Section 9, Clause 1). This was never done.

In principle, slavery could have been taxed out of existence. However, the requirement that direct taxes be apportioned among the states made it impossible to exclusively target slaveholders. A capitation or head tax, for example, even though it would have been more costly for Southerners, would also impose a heavy burden on Northerners.

While one could perhaps have circumvented the apportionment requirement by calling for an indirect tax on slaves—as Sen. Charles Sumner, R-Mass., would later do during the Civil War—such arguments were not made in the early republic.

There was one clause in the original Constitution that required cooperation with slaveholders and protected the institution of slavery. Slaves who escaped to freedom were to “be delivered up” to their masters (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3). The motion to include a fugitive slave clause at the constitutional convention passed unanimously and without debate. This would seem to indicate that all knew it would be futile to try to oppose such a measure.

The debate instead focused on the wording. Whereas the original draft had referred to a “person legally held to service or labor in one state,” the final version instead refers to a “person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof.” This change, Madison explains in his notes, was to comply “with the wish of some who thought the term legal equivocal,” as it gave the impression “that slavery was legal in a moral view,” rather than merely permissible under the law.

This remark by Madison captures the Constitution’s stance vis-à-vis slavery: permissible, but not moral. Legal, but not legitimate.

In no way can the Constitution be said to be pro-slavery. The principles of natural right undergirding it are resolutely anti-slavery. Its language conveys disapproval of slavery. And it contains within it several provisions that could have been and were at times used to prevent the spread of slavery.

This may not make it an anti-slavery Constitution. But even before the 13th Amendment, it was a Constitution that, if placed in the right hands, could be made to serve the cause of freedom.

 

THE UNBELIEVABLE STATEMENTS BY PUPLIC OFFICIALS
By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
December 28, 2015
NewsWithViews.com

In this century, it seems that the number of unbelievable things said by high profile people has increased. First, after American forces quickly sped from Kuwait to Baghdad in the 2003 Iraq war, President George W. Bush said “Mission Accomplished.” I could not believe he did not realize that is what Saddam Hussein wanted us to do, because only then would we change from battle formation to smaller patrols more easily hit by RPGs (rocket-propelled grenades) and IEDs (improvised explosive devices). A few years later, I could not believe Congress passed Obamacare after Democratis House leader Nancy Pelosi said members of Congress should pass the legislation before seeing all that was in it!

During the current political campaign when Dr. Ben arson was rising in the polls, he spoke at radical Rev. Al Sharpton’s National Action Network’s convention and said “Al Sharpton and I have the same goal, just different ideas on how to get there,” and in Dr. Carson’s book AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL on page 102 he said it is “the moral low road” to “deport many individuals (illegal aliens) who are simply seeking a better life for themselves and their families.” Csarly Fiorina, who also temporarily rose in the polls, had touted President Obama’s “Race to the Top” education program, and last August said “I’ve been very clear I don’t support deportation (of illegal aliens).” Conservative talk show gurus Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and others have extolled the virtues of Sen. Ted Cruz, even though he has spoken positively about his Council on Foreign Relations member wife, Heidi, in her globalist book BUILDING A NORTH AMERICAN UNION.

The unbelievable statements of President Obama are too numerous to mention here, but the morning of the recent ISIS-inspired attack in San Bernardino, he declared: “ISIL is not going to pose an existential threat to us….Our homeland has never been more protected….” How could he say that shortly after the Russian airline was brought down by an ISIS improvised explosive device only perhaps the size of a soda can on board the plane? Can he guarantee that ISIS-inspired sleeper cells (like the couple in San Bernardino) cannot put soda cans filled with C-4 or other explosives on drones and from far away fly them into large crowds of people, perhaps during cities’ New Year’s Eve celebrations (e.g., at New York City’s Times Square)?

Perhaps the most egregious examples of unbelievable statements come from (Queen) Hillary Clinton herself. Remember when she claimed she was running from sniper fire when landing in Bosnia in 1996? This turned out to be completely false. Also remember when she repeatedly publicly said the Benghazi attack were spontaneously caused by an anti-Muslim video, even though she was privately telling others it was a previously planned terrorist attack. Well, her latest unbelievable claim is that ISIS is using a video of Donald Trump, saying he would temporarily ban Muslims from immigrating to the United States, as a recruitment tool. The problem is that when the media questioned the veracity of her claim, she could not produce any such video. Think about it. Hillary and her political twin President Obama have been claiming that Islam is a religion of peace, and that jihad is simply an individual’s pursuit of spiritual betterment. They claim ISIS has nothing to do with Islam, even though they refer to ISIS as ISIL, the first letter of which stands for “Islamic.” They say ISIL is simply a group of thugs who are misrepresenting Islam.

All right, let’s see how this works. We are supposed to believe brutal ISIS members have recruited new members by bribing or threatening them or their families, perhaps saying something like “Join us or we will behead your mother and rape your sisters.” We are then supposed to believe that these peaceful prospective recruits reject these threats regardless of what ISIL does to their mothers and sisters, but then decide to join the ISIL thugs just because Donald Trump said he temporarily wants to halt Muslim immigration to the United States! Really?

But Trump does not get a pass on unbelievable statements either. One has to be careful when making blanket statements such as he wants to ban “all” Muslim immigrants. That would even include banning a one-year-old Muslim child from joining his grandparents in the United States after his Shiite parents were killed by ISIL Sunnis in Syria.
And religious leaders are not immune from making unbelievable remarks as well. According to a NATIONAL REPORT article posted about 6 months ago, Pope Francis in an hour-long speech told Vatican guests that the Koran, and the spiritual teachings therein, are just as valid as THE HOLY BIBLE. He also told them: “We can accomplish miraculous things in the world by merging our faiths.” He has even kissed the Koran, just as Pope John Paul II did, even though in Islamic teaching, Jesus is secondary to Mohamed!
Dennis Laurence Cuddy, historian and political analyst, received a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (major in American History, minor in political science). Dr. Cuddy has taught at the university level, has been a political and economic risk analyst for an international consulting firm, and has been a Senior Associate with the U.S. Department of Education.

Cuddy has also testified before members of Congress on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice. Dr. Cuddy has authored or edited twenty books and booklets, and has written hundreds of articles appearing in newspapers around the nation, including The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and USA Today. He has been a guest on numerous radio talk shows in various parts of the country, such as ABC Radio in New York City, and he has also been a guest on the national television programs USA Today and CBS’s Nightwatch.

E-Mail: Not Available
Home

SOCIETYNEWS
Why Franklin Graham Is Leaving the GOP
Kelsey Harkness

Angry at Republicans for failing to defund Planned Parenthood in 2015, Franklin Graham announces he’s cutting ties with the GOP. (Photo: EPA/Nell Redmond/Newscom)
Less than one week after Congress passed a massive year-end spending bill that failed to strip Planned Parenthood of its taxpayer dollars, evangelist Franklin Graham announced he is leaving the Republican Party.

“Shame on the Republicans and the Democrats for passing such a wasteful spending bill last week,” Graham wrote Monday on Facebook. “And to top it off, funding Planned Parenthood!”

Graham, CEO of Samaritan’s Purse and the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, said Republicans’ failure to defund Planned Parenthood is an “example” of why he is declaring himself an independent.

“This is an example of why I have resigned from the Republican Party and declared myself independent,” Graham wrote. “I have no hope in the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, or Tea Party to do what is best for America.”

In declaring his separation from the Republican party, Graham referenced a string of undercover videos that came out this year showing Planned Parenthood employees discussing the sale of body parts from aborted babies. Graham compared the actions in those videos—which some claim were highly manipulated—to Nazi concentration camps.

“Seeing and hearing Planned Parenthood talk nonchalantly about selling baby parts from aborted fetuses with utter disregard for human life is reminiscent of Joseph Mengele and the Nazi concentration camps!” he said.

The undercover videos, produced by the Center for Medical Progress, sparked calls by conservatives to defund Planned Parenthood of the more than $528 million it receives in taxpayer dollars. The majority of that money comes from federal reimbursements it receives through Medicaid contracts.

Planned Parenthood has denied any wrongdoing, calling the videos “heavily edited” and “secretly recorded.”

Conservatives made stripping Planned Parenthood of its taxpayer dollars a top priority this congressional year yet failed to include any defund provisions in the year-end spending bill.

>>> Read More: How Your Senators Voted on the Government Spending Bill

Democrats praised the $1.1 trillion omnibus spending as a “good compromise,” highlighting the more than 150 conservative policy riders that they were able to “nix” from the final agreement.

“In addition to nixing more than 150 GOP riders, the final agreement will secure major progressive policy successes,” wrote Adam Jentleson, Minority Leader Harry Reid’s deputy chief of staff, on Twitter.

After the spending bill passed, Planned Parenthood touted in a press release that the budget deal included “no new harmful policy riders on women’s health.”

At the end of his post declaring his separation from the Republican party, Graham called on Christians “across the country to pray about running for office where they can have an impact.”

Read Graham’s full Facebook post here:

‘If an abortion [provider] is complaining, the easiest thing to do is get the pro-life people to shut up,’ Matt Bowman, a lawyer defending carolers, says.

 

PAY-PER-VIEW PRESIDENTIAL RACE

By Donna Wasson
November 19, 2015
NewsWithViews.com

The race for the presidency is taking on a hilarious, side-show quality worthy of a theatrical pay-per-view professional wrestling match! I’m surprised the networks aren’t charging the general public $29.50 a household to watch the debates. Politics hasn’t been this much fun in years! And it’s all due to Mr. Donald Trump.

I’ve written about the shadow government for years, pointing out that our supposed two-party system of Republicans vs. Democrats is a complete and utter sham. They are simply two sides of the same Globalist elite controlled coin. There is NO difference between them whatsoever, and this has never been more apparent than it is right this very moment.

Let me make it clear that I do not endorse any particular candidate. But I can’t help but make some observations here.

The White House administration and mainstream media, as well as the Republican and Democratic candidates for president are so beside themselves, incredulous and disbelieving of The Donald’s rising poll numbers, that some of them are likely to develop stress related physical manifestations such as eye-twitching, occasional barking or foaming-at-the-mouth.

The establishment players don’t know what to make of this guy. They can’t control him! There’s obviously nothing in his background with which they can blackmail him into silence, or we’d have heard about it by now.

He isn’t beholden to any Super PAC or mysterious foreign campaign donations, as is usually the custom. He doesn’t need their money, which has probably caused some in the political establishment to develop a serious case of chafing due to chronic knicker twisting.

He speaks his mind, and to heck with the consequences. And every time he opens his mouth, he seems to say the very thing the average American on Main Street is feeling and thinking, resulting in a soul crushing rise in his poll numbers. I’m actually beginning to feel slightly sorry for his opponents. It’s like watching a slow-motion train wreck. It’s fascinating!

Trump sort of presents the same conundrum as your average jihadist; the same way they’re unafraid to die in the quest to spread their religion, Donald Trump has no fear of the political consequences of what he blurts out. He really doesn’t care what the establishment in Washington thinks! It’s like he goes verbal commando every day.

In the early days of Trump’s candidacy, the political players and media thought the whole concept of his running was a farce. No one took him seriously until his poll numbers started defying their expectations. As the talking heads continued to mock him, the dogs were unleashed and directed to find dirt on him. They came up empty. Even his ex-wives stand solidly behind him, stating he would make an excellent president.

His children are all exceptionally well educated, productive young men and women who have a loving, devoted, close relationship with their father. Those in the business world have great respect for him, as his creativity and negotiating skills are legendary. Apparently, he must play fair because NO ONE in the business world has stepped forward to accuse him of ripping them off or betraying a deal. It’s remarkable, really.

Despite the increasingly desperate attempt by his political enemies to spin one of his statements in order to turn the public against him, he takes a lickin’ and keeps on tickin’. The latest unforgiveable sin was his statement that the United States should temporarily suspend all muslim immigration until the government figures out how to properly vet those who worship allah, and want to enter this country.

By the volume of feigned outrage from the beltway pundits and his fellow presidential candidates, you’d think he suggested Homeland Security set all muslim immigrants on fire! What exactly did he say to engender a response of such hysteria?

On 12/7/15, he released a statement that called for a “total and complete shutdown of muslims entering the United States.” He cited polling data that he says shows “there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the muslim population. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in jihad, and have no sense or reason or respect for human life.”

Allow me to pause for a moment to give you a quote from one of our Founding Fathers. “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” -John Adams.

The FACT is folks, islam IS at war with the West. The ideology of islam is diametrically opposed to our way of life and the Judeo/Christian values upon which this nation was founded.

It might not be politically correct to point that out and call for a halt in allowing even more muslims into the country, but we’re down to a matter of life and death now. Quite frankly, screw political correctness!

Let’s look at some of the GOP reactions to Trump’s suggestion. My comments follow in italics.

“Donald Trump always plays on everyone’s worst instincts and fears and saying we’re not going to let a single muslim into this country is a dangerous overreaction.” Carly Fiorina—Hey Carly, our open borders have allowed thousands of muslims to enter, many of which undoubtedly plan to do us harm. It ain’t islamophobia when they really ARE trying to kill us!

“This is the kind of thing that people say when they have no experience and don’t know what they’re talking about. That’s a ridiculous position.” Chris Christie—Yes Chris, I’m sure you have a plethora of experience dealing with homicidal muslims there at the Jersey shore.

“Every candidate for president needs to do the right thing and condemn Trump’s comments.” -Lindsey Graham—If they do so, their poll numbers are gonna tank!

“Everyone visiting our country should register and be monitored during their stay as is done in many countries. We do not and would not advocate being selective on one’s religion.” Ben Carson—Why the heck not? Besides, it isn’t a ‘religion.’ It’s a political ideology with a religious component.

Ted Cruz simply stated “that is not my policy.”—A rather classy way of disagreeing.

On the Democratic side White House spokesman, Josh Earnest, stated “It’s entirely inconsistent with the kinds of values that were central to the founding of this country.”—Shut up, Josh. You’re a putz. Nobody asked your opinion.

“This is reprehensible, prejudiced and divisive. @ReadDonaldTrump, you don’t get it. This makes us less safe.” The Hildabeast—YOU, Madam, are partially responsible for this islamic mess with your lame Secretary of State policies! Why aren’t you in prison yet??

“Demagogues throughout our history have attempted to divide us based on race, gender, sexual orientation or country of origin. Now Donald Trump and others want us to hate all muslims.” Bernie Sanders—Uh no Bernie, you’re confused. We’re not talking about Obama here.

All of these people, with the exception of Cruz, are giving the American people a load of worthless sentimentality which will do little except set us up for more attacks. Many are saying what Trump is proposing is “unconstitutional.” Oh really? Are we now exempt from following the rule of law? Oh yeah…OObamadinajad is still president.

However, one of the most frightening aspects of this whole, manufactured debate is that these people who want to hold the most powerful office on earth; those reputed to be the smartest, best and brightest, don’t even know what our own law and history holds.

Introducing The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, otherwise known as 8 U.S. Code 1182, Inadmissible Aliens, passed by a Democrat controlled House and Senate, and signed into law by a Democrat president. This law states:

“Suspension of entry of imposition or restrictions by president. Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may, by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

Well now. Isn’t THAT special! Read it again if you need to. This is the law of the land, people. Given to us by the Democratic Party back in 1952. All immigration into the United States was shut down from 1924-1965. So why did the government pass such a law?

Because of illegal immigrants sneaking into this country! It was written to allow the president to not only bar but remove undesirables from American soil.

Interestingly, Jimmy Carter, the 2nd most deplorable excuse for a president this country has ever known, invoked and used this law back in 1979 to keep Iranians out of the United States.

Remember the Iranian hostage nightmare? In November 1979, the U. S. Attorney General gave all Iranian students one month to report to their local immigration office. Seven thousand were found to be in violation of their visas and a total of 15,000 Iranians were forced to leave the United States.

Yes, Jimmy Carter proudly stood before the TV cameras and publically announced his plan to ban Iranian immigration into America.

Fast forward 36 years, when the Marxist tool of political correctness has brought this country to her knees in supplication to a wide assortment of the most asinine policies imaginable, and Donald Trump dares suggest the very plan the elder wuss-extraordinaire, Jimmy Carter applied, the hounds of hell are loosed on him.

I’m not sure what bothers me more…The blatant hypocrisy of the political playerss and media, or the fact that those running for the most powerful position on the planet are so ignorant of the laws of the nation they want to rule! God help us.

Once again, I have to hand it to you straight up. If you’re trusting this next presidential election will restore America to what she was before the Bush, Clinton and Obama cartels darkened the doors of the White House then you’re in for a VERY big disappointment! I highly doubt there will even be another election.

 

The ONLY hope we have at this point is Jesus Christ. If you haven’t asked Him to forgive your sins and surrendered your heart to Him, I strongly suggest you not waste another second. What are you waiting for anyway? The evil and violence on this earth will only grow stronger each day. You can’t change it and you can’t fight it, politically, militarily, or otherwise.

Today is the day of salvation, so don’t put it off any longer. Like those unfortunate souls in San Bernardino found out, you never know when your number will be up.

© 2015 Donna Wasson – All Rights Reserved

Donna, a sinner saved by grace, awaiting her Bridegroom. A married mom, Hospice RN and owner of 2 dogs, 1 obese cat and a bearded dragon. Beware! She is unabashedly politically INcorrect and unafraid to speak the truth!

E-Mail: bensmomi99@gmail.com

HOW THE REPUBLICANS PLAN TO LOSE TO HILLARY

By Cliff Kincaid
July 17, 2015
NewsWithViews.com

A new survey from Univision, the pro-Mexico television network, demonstrates the utter folly of Republicans appealing to Hispanic voters. It finds that 68 percent have a favorable view of Hillary Clinton despite the scandals swirling around her. By contrast, only 36 percent have a favorable view of former Republican Governor Jeb Bush, who is married to a Mexican and speaks Spanish.

Bush “was the highest-rated of all the Republican candidates,” Univision reports, with Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), a one-time proponent of amnesty for illegals, coming in second with only a 35 percent approval rate.

What the poll demonstrates is that Hispanics are basically owned by the Democratic Party. The Democrats’ power grab for the Latino vote has been successful. However, ultimately the Democratic Party’s success in the presidential election depends on convincing Republicans to fruitlessly continue to appeal to Hispanics, while abandoning the GOP voter base of whites, conservatives and Christians.

Overall, in terms of political party affiliation, 57 percent of Hispanics identified themselves as Democrats and only 18 percent said they are Republicans. A total of 25 percent called themselves independent.

In another finding, 59 percent of Hispanic voters said they were satisfied with Barack Obama’s presidency after his six years in office. Clearly, most Hispanics have drunk the Kool-Aid. For them, it appears that federal benefits and legalization of border crossers are what matters. Most of them don’t bat an eye in regard to Obama’s lawless and traitorous conduct of domestic and foreign policy.

What the Republicans have left is to try to appeal to white, conservative and Christian voters. But that strategy, of course, runs the obvious risk of being depicted by the liberal media as racist. After all, whites are not supposed to have a “white identity,” as Jared Taylor’s book by that name describes.

Whites cannot have a racial identity, but Hispanics and blacks can. This is one aspect of political correctness. As communists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, who are themselves white, put it in their book, it is a “race course against white supremacy.”

If Republicans pander to Hispanics, they will alienate their voter base, which has shown in their reaction to the Donald Trump candidacy that they want more—not less—action taken to control the border with Mexico. Republican Senator John McCain (AZ) calls the Trump supporters “crazies,” an indication that the GOP establishment would rather jettison these people than bring them into the Republican camp. Like McCain, former GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney has also attacked Trump, saying his remarks about criminal aliens are hurting the GOP. It’s amazing how a loser like Romney, who also threw in the towel on gay marriage when he was governor of Massachusetts, continues to generate press. What he is saying is what the liberal media want to hear.

Of course, the political correctness which dominates the national dialogue and debate also means that Republicans like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio are likely to continue to demonize Trump, thereby alienating many whites. As a result, the Republicans will get less of the conservative and Christian vote, further diminishing their chances of winning the White House. It will be a replay of the losing campaigns of John McCain and Mitt Romney. Republicans have already alienated many Christian voters by giving up the fight for traditional marriage. They had planned to abandon border control as an issue until Trump and “El Chapo” got in the way.

Meanwhile, in another amazing turnaround, Republicans on Capitol Hill are backing Obama’s call for “sentencing reform,” a strategy that will empty the prisons and increase the crime rate, thereby alienating GOP voters in favor of law and order.

As this scenario plays out, Mrs. Clinton is coming across on the Democratic side looking like a moderate, by virtue of the fact that an open socialist, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), is running “to her left” for the Democratic nomination.

The Clinton-Sanders show has all the earmarks of a carefully staged demonstration of the Marxist dialectic, an exercise designed to create the appearance of conflict in order to force even more radical change on the American people through Democratic Party rule.

Anybody who knows anything about Hillary, a student of Saul Alinsky, understands that her “moderation” is only a façade. Her thesis on Alinsky for Wellesley College was titled “There Is Only the Fight…” That is the Marxist strategy. It is the Alinsky version of the Marxist dialectic. It was also adopted by Obama, who was trained by Alinsky disciples working with the Catholic Church in Chicago.

In my column, “Study Marxism to Understand Hillary,” I noted that Barbara Olson had come to the conclusion while researching her book on Hillary that “she has a political ideology that has its roots in Marxism.” Olson noted, “In her formative years, Marxism was a very important part of her ideology…”

This means that Mrs. Clinton understands that the Sanders candidacy actually supports and does not undermine her own candidacy. It makes Hillary look like a moderate while she moves further to the left, a place she wants to be, in response to the left-wing Democratic base. Only the Marxist insiders seem to understand what is happening.

Some uninformed commentators refer to something called “Clintonism,” a supposed moderate brand of Democratic Party politics. If that ever existed, it applied to Bill Clinton and not Hillary.

The fact is that Sanders and Mrs. Clinton have associated with the same gang of communists and fellow travelers for many years. Sanders was an active collaborator with the Communist Party-sponsored U.S. Peace Council.

As for Hillary, Barbara Olson reported in her book Hell to Pay that Robert Borosage, who served as director of the Marxist Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), was “a colleague and close acquaintance” of Clinton. Olson wrote that Mrs. Clinton operated in the “reaches of the left including Robert Treuhaft and Jessica Mitford,” who had been “committed Communists” and “Stalinists.” Olson said that Hillary worked for Treuhaft and paved the way for Mitford to lobby then-Governor Bill Clinton on the death penalty issue.

Olson described Hillary as a “budding Leninist” who understood the Leninist concept of acquiring, accumulating and maintaining political power at any cost. She wrote that “Hillary has never repudiated her connection with the Communist movement in America or explained her relationship with two of its leading adherents. Of course, no one has pursued these questions with Hillary. She has shown that she will not answer hard questions about her past, and she has learned that she does not need to—remarkable in an age when political figures are allowed such little privacy.”

Researcher Carl Teichrib has provided me with a photo of a Hillary meeting with Cora Weiss from the May 2000 edition of “Peace Matters,” the newsletter of the Hague Appeal for Peace. Weiss, a major figure in the Institute for Policy Studies, gained notoriety for organizing anti-Vietnam War demonstrations and traveling to Hanoi to meet with communist leaders. In the photo, Hillary is shown fawning over a Hague Appeal for Peace gold logo pin that Weiss is wearing.

Teichrib, editor of Forcing Change, recalls being an observer at the 1999 World Federalist Association (WFA) conference, held in association with the Hague Appeal for Peace, during which everyone in attendance was given an honorary membership into the WFA. In addition to collaborating with the pro-Hanoi Hague Appeal for Peace, the WFA staged a “Mission to Moscow” and held several meetings with the Soviet Peace Committee for the purpose of “discussing the goal of general and complete disarmament” and “the strengthening of the United Nations.” Mrs. Clinton spoke to a WFA conference in a tribute to veteran newsman Walter Cronkite, a supporter of world government.

In the WFA booklet, “The Genius of Federation: Why World Federation is the Answer to Global Problems,” the group described how a “world federation,” a euphemism for world government, could be achieved by advancing “step by step toward global governance,” mostly by enhancing the power and authority of U.N. agencies.

Subscribe to NewsWithViews Daily Email Alerts
Obama’s Iran deal continues this strategy by placing enormous power in the hands of the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency.

At this stage in the campaign, even before the first Republican presidential debate, we can already see how the race is playing out. Hillary is counting on the Republicans nominating another loser with a losing strategy while she moves to the left and looks like a moderate.

Alinsky would be proud.

© 2015 Cliff Kincaid – All Rights Reserved

Obama and Rep. Mike McCaul Say You Could Be A “Violent Extremist”
CAIR countering violent extremism CVE Islamism Radical Islam Rep. Mike McCaul
George Rasley, CHQ Editor | 7/20/2015
House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mike McCaul

Who are these “violent extremists” President Obama and his Republican allies on Capitol Hill, such as House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mike McCaul of Texas, keep talking about?

Are they actually Islamists, such as Yemeni native Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez who killed the four Marines in Chattanooga, Tennessee? Or are they Americans who support the right-to-life movement, Fourth Amendment property rights, the Second Amendment and strict constitutional limits on the size and scope of the federal government?

If you are President Obama and Congressman McCaul you apparently believe either or both are equal threats to constitutional government and need to be “countered” with new legislation that passed out of McCaul’s Homeland Security Committee on a voice vote no less.

McCaul’s bill would create a “countering violent extremism” office at the Department of Homeland Security, but who or what would be “countered” is not just undefined, Obama administration policy would make defining it in terms most Americans would deem appropriate to the threat of Islamism almost impossible.

And that’s the way Democrats on McCaul’s Committee and Muslim apologists want it.

Seamus Hughes, who recently left Obama’s National Counterterrorism Center, and is now deputy director of the Program on Extremism at George Washington University’s Center for Cyber and Homeland Security, “Islamist extremism is hardly the only form of extremism that poses a threat.” Non-Islamist extremism needs to be aggressively addressed too, Hughes told ABC News’ James Gordon Meek.

Of course Meek doesn’t really need Seamus Hughes to tell him that; the Left-leaning Mr. Meek used to work for McCaul’s committee and knows well the Committee for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other Islamist front groups operating in America.

Their goal is to make our counter terrorism strategy not one of countering Islam ad Islamism, but countering anyone who objects to Obama administration policy.

These are the same guys at the Department of Homeland Security who classified returning veterans of the Middle East wars potential “rightwing violent extremists.”

Last year in the wake of President Obama’s speech about his belated plan to confront the national security threat posed by the rise of the Islamic State, then-Attorney General Eric Holder announced a new program “to bring together community representatives, public safety officials and religious leaders to counter violent extremism.”

Except nowhere in the announcement could you find the words Islamic, Islamist, Muslim, jihadi or any other term that might give you the slightest idea who these violent extremists might be.

To be fair, Holder did mention ISIL, Syria, Iraq and the 13th anniversary of 9/11, but nowhere was any word used that directly associates these events with radical Islam or Muslim culture as the proximate cause of the need for the program.

What’s more Holder said that the Department of Justice “will along with our interagency affiliates, we will work closely with community representatives to develop comprehensive local strategies, to raise awareness about important issues, to share information on best practices, and to expand and improve training in every area of the country.”

It is exactly these “community representatives,” such as the Council on American–Islamic Relations (CAIR), that have demanded that the American government scrub any mention or use of the words Islamic, Islamist, Muslim, jihadi or any other association with Islam from Pentagon and law enforcement training programs as “Islamophobic.”

Back in 2009 the Department of Homeland Security issued an “intelligence assessment”, really more of a political broadside, arguing that “rightwing extremism,” defined by then-Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano to include groups opposed to abortion and open immigration and infamously even returning veterans as among terrorist risks to the U.S.

The report was so outrageous that Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, then-chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee and the top House Democrat with oversight of the Department of Homeland Security said in a letter to Ms. Napolitano that he was “dumbfounded” that such a report would be issued. Mr. Thompson stood tall in 2009, but might be changing his tune now as he seemed to (at least according to ABC News) lump together Islamism and “white supremacy extremism” as equal threats.

Interestingly, the language used in McCaul’s recent hearing on his “countering violent extremism” bill was strikingly similar to that used in Holder’s 2014 announcement and the 2009 report that said the federal government “will be working with its state and local partners over the next several months” to gather information on “rightwing extremist activity in the United States.”

And now House Homeland Security Committee Chairman McCaul, and the rest of the Republicans on the Committee have taken this bait, hook, line and sinker.

Something is bizarrely wrong in our government, as it is being run by President Obama and Chairman McCaul if returning vets and groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority and citizens who oppose abortion can be named as terrorists, but the words Islamic, Islamist, Muslim, jihadi cannot be used in a program to “counter violent extremism.”

President Obama and Congressman McCaul have all too willingly embraced a foolish, perhaps fatal, politically correct description of who the enemy is in this war radical Islamists have declared on us; and it is not returning American veterans of the wars to defend their country against Islamism.

We urge CHQ readers to call Mike McCaul, Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Republican Whip Steve Scalise and tell them you oppose H.R. 2899, McCaul’s bill to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to authorize an Office for Countering Violent Extremism.

The Patriot Post · http://patriotpost.us/digests/36489
Daily Digest

Jul. 20, 2015

THE FOUNDATION

“We have therefore to resolve to conquer or die: Our won Country’s Honor, all call upon us for vigorous and manly exertion, and if we now shamefully fail, we shall become infamous to the whole world. Let us therefore rely upon the goodness of the Cause, and the aid of the supreme Being, in whose hands Victory is, to animate and encourage us to great and noble Actions.” —George Washington, General Orders, 1776

FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS

Chattanooga: Heroic Actions1

By Mark Alexander

The Leftmedia is still searching for a motive in the attack on military personnel here in Chattanooga last week — an Islamist assault we covered in “Obama: Happy Ramadan2.” First clue: Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez murdered four Marines and one Sailor on the last day of Ramadan. Second clue: The assailant blogged and texted about jihad3.

Thursday morning’s daily White House email4 — the day of the attack — was a message honoring Ramadan. Equally notable, Friday morning’s email made no mention of Thursday’s attack — it was a solicitation for DNC funds.

The attacks have generated a lot of national ranting about Muslims, but we caution that we should not marginalize all Muslims as suspect Islamists. That is precisely what Obama and his Leftists did after the recent murders in Charleston5 — marginalized all white Southerners interested in our heritage as racist and endeavored to remove any vestige of that heritage from public places, including National Military Parks6.

The actions of one do not reflect the beliefs of all, but clearly this assault was incited by Islamist hatred — and that should be the target of our outrage.

Additionally, there is little being said about the two reasons the casualty list was not much higher.

The media has largely ignored the fact that there were many other personnel at the Reserve Center that fateful morning. “Mike Battery” (Battery M, 3rd Battalion, 14th Regiment), had just completed annual training in California, and there were 22 Marines at the center cleaning and conditioning equipment, along with additional Navy staff.

The first reason that more were not murdered was explained by Marine spokesman Maj. Clark Carpenter: “There were heroic acts by our Marines on that day. They did exactly what we expect Marines to do. They got their Marines to safety. They took care of their Marines first, and then those Marine leaders went back into the fray to make sure that others were protected. They went back into the fight to try to stop him.”

Maj. Carpenter added that when the nation looked back on this incident, “It’s going to be a story of heroes, with both our Marines and our Sailors, and without question, the first responders from the police department.”

Indeed, the second reason there were not many more casualties is that as police arrived they engaged the assailant, which is to say those police officers diverted Abdulazeez’s fire away from the additional (unarmed) Marines and Navy personnel.

We grieve for the families of the five murdered Patriots: Sgt. Carson A. Holmquist (USMC), Staff Sgt. David A. Wyatt (USMC), Gunnery Sgt. Thomas Sullivan (USMC), Lance Cpl. Squire Wells (USMC) and Petty Officer 2nd Class Randall Smith (USN).

TOP RIGHT HOOKS

Obama Acts to Head Off Crime Spree of … the Elderly?7

If there’s a singular purpose for Barack Obama and his cadres its limiting access to guns in as many ways as possible. The latest attempt is a push to prohibit Social Security recipients from owning firearms if they are judged mentally incompetent. First let’s stipulate that nobody wants people who are mentally incompetent owning or using guns without at least some restrictions. But the question is the standard used. The Social Security Administration has never before participated in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, but, if the SSA begins using the same standards as the Department of Veterans Affairs, at least four million beneficiaries could see their gun rights eliminated by a bureaucrat. We don’t want the government defining or deciding mental competence with standards that have nothing to do with crime. And especially not this administration. Indeed, given the Obama administration’s track record of disdain for American veterans — both through the bureaucratic shenanigans at the VA8 and in targeting veterans in DHS reports about extremism9 — it won’t be long before veterans are barred from owning firearms, or, conversely, their benefits are restricted if they’re gun owners. Indeed, many veterans have already been judged “incompetent” when that’s clearly not the case. Now prohibitions could extend to the average Social Security recipient. We’re forced to ask what problem Obama thinks he’s trying to solve. Our nation has not been under assault by senior citizens or veterans. It has been under attack from Islamic jihadists, and that’s the one thing Obama seems most reticent to address.

Trump on McCain: A Barb Too Far10

At the 2015 Family Leadership Summit Friday, reality TV star and billionaire extraordinaire Donald Trump continued to attempt to rend the Republican Party by launching an attack against Sen. John McCain. “He’s not a war hero. He’s a war hero because he was captured,” Trump bloviated. “I like people that weren’t captured.” Trump is standing behind his comments, despite nearly the whole GOP field criticizing him11 for them. On Sunday, Trump doubled down, tweeting, “The Veterans Administration is in shambles and our veterans are suffering greatly. John McCain has done nothing to help them but talk.” Two different issues. McCain endured an ordeal that would break weaker men like Trump. What he did or did not do afterwards does not strip McCain from the title of “hero.”

Besides, while McCain12 was asking for more missions in Vietnam, Trump was weaseling out of the draft13. While McCain was experiencing debilitating torture as a prisoner of war, Trump caroused as a Manhattan playboy. When McCain returned, broken from the war, Trump was being hit with Fair Housing Act discrimination suit.

McCain responded14 brilliantly: “I think he may owe an apology to the families of those who have sacrificed in conflict and those who have undergone the prison experience in serving our country. … In the case of many of our veterans, when Mr. Trump said that he prefers to be with people who are not captured, well, the great honor of my life was to serve in the company of heroes. I’m not a hero. But those who were my senior ranking officers … those that have inspired us to do things that we otherwise wouldn’t have been capable of doing, those are the people that I think he owes an apology to.”

Obama ‘Recovery’ Slows Debt Reduction15

The White House has released a little-noticed but concerning bit of information on the economy and our nation’s debt. Known as the “Mid-Session Review,” the report16 “contains revised estimates of receipts, outlays, budget authority, and the budget deficit for fiscal years 2015 through 2025.” Barack Obama has long made a habit of boasting about reducing the deficit. (When reducing something, it helps to have quadrupled it first.) But The Wall Street Journal notes that the good times might not keep rolling17: “First, the good news: Short-term deficits are falling. The Obama administration now forecasts the annual deficit will reach $455 billion this year, down 22% from its forecast at the start of the year and around 6% below last year’s level. The level represents around 2.6% of the country’s total economic output, down from a forecast of 3.2% earlier this year. Moreover, the administration sees the deficit falling another 6% next year to $429 billion, or around 2.3% of gross domestic product. The bad news? Economic growth has continued to underperform expectations. And because the administration’s economists don’t see growth rebounding later to play catch up, the revenue that’s lost to lower growth isn’t going to be recouped in future periods.”

Whereas previous estimates were for 3% and higher economic growth, the new ones are in the 2% range. That’s the rub, isn’t it? Obama’s “stimulus,” regulations and tax hikes were supposed to lead us to the economic promised land. Instead, we got perpetual stagnation, and, compared to past recoveries, this one has no right to be called one.

 

OPINION IN BRIEF

Scott Powell: “The concern about sanctuary cities today should not focus only on the problem of alien criminals, exemplified by 8,145 offenders released from custody during just the last eight months. Sanctuary cities can also provide a safe haven for very bad actors intending to wreak mass havoc on America, such as Islamist terrorists and drug cartel kingpins. In addition to the need to plug the sanctuary city hole by enforcing existing federal law requiring local governments to cooperate with ICE, there are other gaps to fill. An important recommendation of the 9/11 Commission was to tighten up the student-visa program after it was determined that the hijacker who flew Flight 77 into the Pentagon, Hani Hanjour, had entered the U.S. on a student visa.”

SHORT CUTS

“Some people wonder all their lives if they’ve made a difference. The Marines don’t have that problem.” —The Gipper

Dezinformatsia: “Were guns a big part of activities — social or other activities? Did [Mohammad Youssuf Abdulazeez] hunt? Did he shoot? Was that just part of small-town Tennessee activity?” —NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, trying desperately to make guns and other conservative Southern culture a factor

Obama’s way or the highway: “If Congress says no to this deal, then there will be no restraints on Iran, there will be no sanctions left. … Our friends in this effort will desert us. We will be viewed as having killed the opportunity to stop [Iran] from having weapons. [Iran] will begin to enrich again, and the greater likelihood is what the president said the other day — you will have a war.” —Secretary of State John Kerry

But war’s not off the table, either: “One of the reasons this deal is a good one is that it does nothing to prevent the military option — the U.S. military option.” —Secretary of Defense Ash Carter

Demo-gogues: “We’ve got to do all we can over the next few months to make sure we elect Democrats who will fight for every single American at all stages of life.” —solicitation from Barack Obama to support entitlement programs, though clearly Obama does not support “every single American at all stages of life”

Heckled for getting it right: “Black lives matter. White lives matter. All lives matter.” —Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, who was booed and heckled at the Netroots Nation conference for suggesting other lives matter too

“Obama entered the El Reno federal penitentiary in Oklahoma Thursday and spoke to the prisoners there. He urged lawmakers to eliminate mandatory sentences for non-violent drug offenders. He was the first North American leader all week to be on the news for going into a prison.” —Argus Hamilton

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.

Links

http://patriotpost.us/articles/36487
http://patriotpost.us/alexander/36467
http://patriotpost.us/alexander/4051
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/07/16/statement-president-occasion-eid-ul-fitr
http://patriotpost.us/posts/35865
http://patriotpost.us/posts/36037
http://patriotpost.us/posts/36482
http://patriotpost.us/alexander/25991
http://patriotpost.us/alexander/3101
http://patriotpost.us/posts/36486
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/07/18/trump-slams-mccain-for-being-captured-in-vietnam/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/07/20/what-donald-trump-was-up-to-while-john-mccain-was-suffering-as-a-prisoner-of-war/
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/trump-draft-deferment?page=0
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/john-mccain-responds-donald-trump-121354692.html
http://patriotpost.us/posts/36470
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2016/assets/16msr.pdf
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/07/16/why-the-white-house-no-longer-projects-a-decline-in-debt/
http://patriotpost.us/articles/36485
http://patriotpost.us/articles/36481
http://patriotpost.us/posts/36469
http://patriotpost.us/posts/36462
http://patriotpost.us/posts/36460
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/36480
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/36479
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/36473
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/36474
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/36471
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/36476
http://patriotpost.us/opinion

Planned Parenthood video recharges Republicans’ anti-abortion campaign
Posted on July 20, 2015 by Tribune News Service Views: 274
(TNS) — In the undercover video of a Planned Parenthood official discussing in graphic detail how to preserve aborted fetal organs for medical research, anti-abortion Republicans hope they’ve finally found an opening to advance their agenda.

So far, they have a few things working in their favor.

Lawmakers know the video will evoke a strong emotional response. In it, anti-abortion activists posing as biomedical company representatives wore cameras to show Planned Parenthood’s senior medical services director sipping wine while discussing the terms of fetal tissue shipments.

More videos are on the way, according to the Center for Medical Progress, the anti-abortion group responsible for the clip released last week. House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) has directed committee chairmen to investigate the matter and hold hearings, More videos would keep the issue at the forefront.

Still, the past week has shown the challenges politicians — especially Republicans — face in maintaining solid footing in abortion debates. One misstep can derail legislation or a campaign.

In 2013, House Republicans thought they hit a gold mine with Kermit Gosnell, a Philadelphia doctor who sentenced to life in prison for killing three infants after their birth in late-term abortion procedures.

The GOP used the national outcry to push legislation to ban abortions after 20 weeks, the point at which some medical professionals argue a fetus can begin to feel pain. Then the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), said something about low rates of pregnancy resulting from rape as an explanation for why the bill didn’t include exceptions for rape victims.

Franks’ bill passed the House, but Franks’ remark led some Democrats to suggest that the GOP is out of touch.

In 2011, separate undercover videos of questionable practices at Planned Parenthood facilities fueled a House vote to defund the organization. But Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), who supports access to abortions, refocused the debate when she came to the floor and revealed that she had terminated a pregnancy out of medical necessity.

Controversy over the latest Planned Parenthood video shows early signs of similar derailments.

There are questions about whether the video was edited to create the impression that the Planned Parenthood official was negotiating an illegal sale of fetal tissue.

There’s also the issue of who knew what, when.

A House Republican acknowledged he was one of at least two members of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus shown the video nearly a month ago, but had no explanation for why he waited to speak out.

“I don’t know why,” said Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pa.).

Franks, the other member of the caucus who previewed the clip, said in an email that he waited because “the hope was to have as much information as possible so that the authorities could be notified effectively before the media.”

Planned Parenthood’s press office, however, seized on the report of the advanced brief and Murphy’s reluctance to comment, sending an email about it to the media.

David Daleiden, founder of the Center for Medical Progress, did not respond to requests for comment.

–Emma Dumain and Samar Khurshid
CQ-Roll Call

The Patriot Post · http://patriotpost.us/digests/36294
Daily Digest

Jul. 9, 2015

THE FOUNDATION

“No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty than that on which the objection is founded. The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” —James Madison, Federalist No. 47, 1788

TOP RIGHT HOOKS

Political Winds Shift Against Obama’s Immigration Policies1

The death of Kathryn Steinle2 has galvanized the political opposition to Barack Obama’s non-enforcement of the nation’s immigration laws. Congressional Republicans are heavily criticizing the Obama administration’s tolerance of sanctuary cities that protect illegal aliens from deportation. In going after these “safe” havens, GOP lawmakers are going after the culture in the upper levels of the administration. In March, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director Sarah Saldana was asked in congressional testimony if she would support a law requiring local governments to cooperate with ICE. “Thank you — amen,” was her reply. But she must have received a call from the White House, because the next day ICE released a statement3 “clarifying” her remarks to say she supported sanctuary cities.

Meanwhile, in the suit against the federal government over Obama’s executive actions on immigration, Judge Andrew Hanen ordered4 Obama’s bureaucrats to court Aug. 19. He wrote, “Each individual Defendant must attend and be prepared to show why he or she should not be held in contempt of Court. … The Government has conceded that it has directly violated this Court’s Order in its May 7, 2015 Advisory, yet, as of today, two months have passed since the Advisory and it has not remediated its own violative behavior.” Say, here’s a novel idea: What if there were sanctuary cities from the federal government?

Hillary: Check Your Subpoena Folder5

In her first interview on national television news since she announced her candidacy, Hillary Clinton told CNN6 Tuesday, “I think it’s kind of fun” that she’s releasing 50,000 pages of her emails. When interviewer Brianna Keilar pressed Clinton about Congress’ subpoena of her emails, Clinton responded by attacking the reporter and catching herself before she gave us a really juicy quote: “You’re starting with so many assumptions that are — I’ve never had a subpoena. There is no — Again, let’s take a deep breath here. Everything I did was permitted by law and regulation” There are two lies right there. In response to the interview, Benghazi Chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy wrote7, “[S]he was personally subpoenaed the moment the Benghazi Committee became aware of her exclusive use of personal email and a server, and that the State department was not the custodian of her official record. For more than two years, Clinton never availed herself of the opportunity, even in response to a direct congressional inquiry, to inform the public of her unusual email arrangement designed to evade public transparency.” Either Clinton doesn’t care when she’s caught in a lie, or her web of lies have become so complex that she can’t keep her story straight anymore.

Racist Republicans Hate Children8

“GOP has knives out for school lunch rules,” headlines The Hill9. “First lady Michelle Obama’s signature school lunch regulations are … a pillar of the first lady’s initiative to curb childhood obesity in the United States,” The Hill informs us. And who could be against healthy kids? Or the first lady? Evil Republicans, that’s who. Never mind that top-down regulation virtually never works, or that kids universally hate the new lunches10 to the point that schools are dropping them and/or demanding changes. The bottom line is that the 2010 Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act (HHFKA) expires on Sept. 30, and Republicans are holding hearings to determine if it’s worth more than the $3 billion already spent to dump unwanted food in the trash. In 2014, Michelle lectured, “The last thing that we can afford to do right now is play politics with our kids’ health.” But playing politics is the name of the game. The first lady — an honorary and not official position, by the way — can’t federalize school lunches and then insist it’s not political.

 

FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS     By Allyne Caan

Having spent years perfecting the art of inciting race warfare, Barack Obama and his administration released new housing rules that will define, qualify and categorize every community across the country by race, with the aim of forcing every neighborhood to comply with government race quotas.

It sounds ominous because it is. But it’s hardly surprising from the narcissist who pledged to “fundamentally transform” America.

Under the new Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule14 (AFFH), announced by Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Julian Castro this week, the federal government will amass and centralize nationwide public data on communities, including “patterns of integration and segregation, racially and ethically concentrated areas of poverty, disproportionate housing needs, and disparities in access to opportunity.” Big Brother doesn’t just want to look over your shoulder; he wants to move into your home.

HUD claims the rule will “equip communities that receive HUD funding with the data and tools that will help them to meet long-standing fair housing obligations.” In truth, however, AFFH is a stealth move to socially engineer every street in America and to force compliance with what Obama thinks communities should look like — namely, more “affordable” housing in affluent neighborhoods.

But as political analyst Marc Thiessen noted, “[W]e believe in diversifying communities, too, as conservatives. The way you do that is through economic opportunity. … It’s not by building more affordable housing in the affluent communities. It’s by helping more Americans afford housing in affluent communities. And right now the problem is that people at the bottom of the Obama economy can’t get ahead.”

Still, Washington wants to take over local zoning authority to impose racial quotas on communities. And as Ethics and Public Policy Center Senior Fellow Stanley Kurtz warns15, “Once HUD gets its hooks into a municipality, no policy area is safe. Zoning, transportation, education, all of it risks slipping into the control of the federal government and the new, unelected regional bodies the feds will empower.”

Nevertheless, Liberty aside, The Washington Post’s Emily Badger heralded16 the new rules as a way to “repair the [Fair Housing Act’s] unfulfilled promise and promote the kind of racially integrated neighborhoods that have long eluded deeply segregated cities like Chicago and Baltimore.” Funny she mentions those particular cities. While she points to Chicago’s “decades” of segregation as evidence that AFFH is needed, Badger fails to note those same decades were spent under solely Democrat leadership. Similarly, Baltimore has been led by the Left since Lyndon Johnson was president. Coincidence? We think not.

Also not coincidental is the way the government and media have remained largely mum on what the administration’s real plan is. Kurtz notes, “Obama has downplayed his policy goals in this area and delayed the finalization of AFFH for years, because he understands how politically explosive this rule is. Once the true implications of AFFH are understood, Americans will rebel.”

And rebel they should. As if Washington putting on a lab coat and stethoscope weren’t bad enough, now Obama wants to become zoning authority, landlord, realtor and public transportation chief combined. He’s is leaving no racist rock unturned in his quest to undermine Liberty.

Making matters worse, the Supreme Court’s recent ruling17 in the Texas Fair Housing case — in which a liberal majority said groups claiming housing discrimination no longer need to prove their case on the merits but only to claim “intent” to discriminate — means the real implications of AFFH will be a racially charged free-for all, with no gray areas and everything defined in black and white (pun intended).

Forget Martin Luther King’s noble notion of judging people by the content of their character. Obama wants to judge entire neighborhoods by the speciously calculated color of their skin. This is not the way of Liberty or of opportunity; it’s another giant leap down the road to statism, and it has no place in a nation that promises equal opportunity, not equal results, for all.

OPINION IN BRIEF

Victor Davis Hanson: “Barbarians at the gate usually don’t bring down once-successful civilizations. Nor does climate change. Even mass epidemics like the plague that decimated sixth-century Byzantium do not necessarily destroy a culture. Far more dangerous are institutionalized corruption, a lack of transparency and creeping neglect of existing laws. … Mexico is a much naturally richer country than Greece. It is blessed with oil, precious minerals, fertile soils, long coastlines and warm weather. Hundreds of thousands of Mexican citizens should not be voting with their feet to reject their homeland for the U.S. But Mexico also continues to be a mess because police expect bribes, property rights are iffy, and government works only for those who pay kickbacks. The result is that only north, not south, of the U.S.-Mexico border can people expect upward mobility, clean water, adequate public safety and reliable power. In much of the Middle East and Africa, tribalism and bribery, not meritocracy, determine who gets hired and fired, wins or loses a contract, or receives or goes without public services. Americans, too, should worry about these age-old symptoms of internal decay. … Ultimately, no nation can continue to thrive if its government refuses to enforce its own laws.”

SHORT CUTS

Insight: “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.” —Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

Politically correct national security: “Here in the United States we have seen all kinds of homegrown terrorism, and tragically, recent history reminds us how even a single individual motivated by a hateful ideology with access to dangerous weapons can inflict horrendous harm on Americans. So our efforts to counter violent extremism must not target any one community because of their faith or background.” —Barack Obama on the Islamic State (So he’ll just target Christians who oppose same-sex marriage.)

Braying Jenny: “When people diss the government, we’re really dissing ourselves and dissing our democracy.” —Hillary Clinton

The BIG Lie: “I didn’t have to turn over anything. I chose to turn over 55,000 pages because I wanted to go above and beyond what was expected of me because I knew the vast majority of everything that was official already was in the State Department system. And now I think it’s kind of fun. People get a real-time behind-the-scenes look at what I was emailing about, and what I was communicating about.” —Hillary Clinton

Race bait: “As a nation — I don’t think as a president — but as a nation, we have got to apologize for slavery.” —Bernie Sanders

And last… “A Mexican national shot a 32-year-old woman in San Francisco. It’s a gun free zone and a sanctuary city. I know — let’s focus on banning the Mexican flag.” —Twitter satirist @weknowwhatsbest

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.

Links

http://patriotpost.us/posts/36285
http://patriotpost.us/articles/36235
https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/statement-us-immigration-and-customs-enforcement-ice-director-saldana
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/07/08/federal-judge-orders-administration-to-court-to-explain-why-it-has-ignored-his-injunction/
http://patriotpost.us/posts/36289

http://benghazi.house.gov/news/press-releases/gowdy-statement-in-response-to-clinton-comments-on-the-benghazi-committee
http://patriotpost.us/posts/36263
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/247011-gop-has-knives-out-for-school-lunch-rules
http://patriotpost.us/tags/school%20lunch
http://patriotpost.us/alexander/36268
http://patriotpost.us/manage/
http://patriotpost.us/articles/36284
http://www.huduser.org/portal/affht_pt2.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/420896/massive-government-overreach-obamas-affh-rule-out-stanley-kurtz
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/07/08/obama-administration-to-unveil-major-new-rules-targeting-segregation-across-u-s/
http://patriotpost.us/articles/36035
http://patriotpost.us/articles/36287
http://patriotpost.us/posts/36269
http://patriotpost.us/posts/36270
http://patriotpost.us/posts/36277
http://patriotpost.us/posts/36264
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/36271
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/36280
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/36276
http://patriotpost.us/opinion