Why the RINOS will vote for Hillary

June 17th, 2016

Rinos hate Trump because he is their greatest fear and worst nightmare. A fear far greater than a Hillary or Bernie administration.

The Republican elitists fear Trump because a Republican in the White House that will not support the machine’s agenda will extol extreme political damage on them. A Trump victory could change the very face of conservatism and expose these hypocrites for what they really are.

“What are they” say you?

They are self-serving royalty who care nothing about true conservative values. They are cowards whose only true ambition is re-election. Their only true skill is fund raising.

They would sell out their own mothers in back door deals to enhance their personal power base.

Now what about a Hillary win in November?

The Rino elitists politicians, power-brokers and political scam artists will thrive!  Yes, that’s right. A Hillary win will ensure a limitless supply of capital (power) for conservatives in general.

A Hillary win will most certainly guarantee a continued majority in the House and Senate. Monetary support for conservative causes will break all funding records.

Yes, a Hillary victory will spell victory for the Rino elitist machine. A Hillary victory does not mean defeat for the Rinos, it means victory.

A Hillary victory only means defeat for “”We the People”.

Any “Republican” politician who refuses to support Trump is enthusiastically supporting Hillary for personal political gain. We MUST remember these duplicitous traitors come election day in 2016, 2018 and beyond.

God help us!!






June 13th, 2016

Ann Coulter
June 8, 2016

Annoyed at federal judge Gonzalo P. Curiel’s persistent rulings against him in the Trump University case (brought by a law firm that has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for speeches by Bill and Hillary), Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said that maybe it’s because the judge is a second-generation Mexican immigrant.

The entire media — and most of the GOP — have spent 10 months telling us that Mexicans in the United States are going to HATE Trump for saying he’ll build a wall. Now they’re outraged that Trump thinks one Mexican hates him for saying he’ll build a wall.

Curiel has distributed scholarships to illegal aliens. He belongs to an organization that sends lawyers to the border to ensure that no illegal aliens’ “human rights” are violated. The name of the organization? The San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association — “La Raza” meaning THE RACE.

Let’s pause to imagine the nomination hearings for a white male who belonged to any organization for white people — much less one with the words “THE RACE” in its title.

The media were going to call Trump a racist whatever he did, and his attack on a Hispanic judge is way better than when they said it was racist for Republicans to talk about Obama’s golfing.

Has anyone ever complained about the ethnicity of white judges or white juries? I’ve done some research and it turns out … THAT’S ALL WE’VE HEARD FOR THE PAST 40 YEARS.

The New York Times alone has published hundreds of articles, editorials, op-eds, movie reviews, sports articles and crossword puzzles darkly invoking “white judges” and “all-white” juries, as if that is ipso facto proof of racist justice.

Two weeks ago — that’s not an error; I didn’t mean to type “decades” and it came out “weeks” — the Times published an op-ed by a federal appeals judge stating: “All-white juries risk undermining the perception of justice in minority communities, even if a mixed-race jury would have reached the same verdict or imposed the same sentence.”

In other words, even when provably not unfair, white jurors create the “perception” of unfairness solely by virtue of the color of their skin.

Innocence Project co-founder Barry Scheck’s entire career of springing criminals would be gone if it were generally accepted that we can’t question judges or juries based on race or ethnicity. Writing about the release of Glenn Ford, a black man convicted of robbing a jewelry store and murdering the owner, Scheck claimed that one of the most important factors in Ford’s death sentence was the “all-white jury.”

On the other hand, the evidence against Ford included: His two black friends telling police he’d shown them jewelry the day of the murder, another Ford acquaintance swearing he’d had a .38 in his waistband — the murder weapon was a .38 — and the gunshot residue on Ford’s hand. His conviction was overturned many years later, on the theory that his black friends had committed the murder, then framed him.

So we know 1) the “real killers” were also black; and 2) any jury would have convicted Ford on that evidence.

Here’s how the Times described Ford’s trial: “A black man convicted of murder by an all-white jury in Louisiana in 1984 and sentenced to die, tapped into an equally old and painful vein of race.”

I have approximately 1 million more examples of the media going mental about a “white judge” or “all-white jury,” and guess what? In none of them were any of the white people involved members of organizations dedicated to promoting white people, called “THE RACE.”

Say, does anyone remember if it ever came up that the Ferguson police force was all white? Someone check that.

I don’t want to upset you New York Times editorial board, but perhaps we should revisit the results of the Nuremberg trials. Those were presided over by – TRIGGER WARNING! – “all white” juries. (How do we really know if Hermann Göring was guilty without hearing women’s and Latino voices?)

The model of a fair jury was the O.J. trial. Nine blacks, one Hispanic and two whites, who had made up their minds before the lawyers’ opening statements. (For my younger readers: O.J. was guilty; the jury acquitted him after 20 seconds of deliberation.) At the end of the trial, one juror gave O.J. the black power salute. Nothing to see here. It was Mark Fuhrman’s fault!

In defiance of everyday experience, known facts and common sense, we are all required to publicly endorse the left’s religious belief that whites are always racist, but women and minorities are incapable of any form of bias. If you say otherwise, well, that’s “textbook racism,” according to Paul Ryan.

At least when we’re talking about American blacks, there’s a history of white racism, so the double standard is not so enraging. What did we ever do to Mexicans? Note to Hispanics, Muslims, women, immigrants and gays: You’re not black.

Other than a few right-wingers, no one denounced now-sitting Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor for her “wise Latina” speech, in which she said “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”

But Trump is a “racist” for saying the same thing.

Six months ago, a Times editorial demanded that the Republican Senate confirm Obama judicial nominee Luis Felipe Restrepo, on the grounds that “[a]s a Hispanic,” Restrepo would bring “ethnic … diversity to the court.”

You see how confusing this is. On one hand, it’s vital that we have more women and Latinos on the courts because white men can’t be trusted to be fair. But to suggest that women and Latinos could ever be unfair in the way that white men can, well, that’s “racist.”

The effrontery of this double standard is so blinding, that the only way liberals can bluff their way through it is with indignation. DO I HEAR YOU RIGHT? ARE YOU SAYING A JUDGE’S ETHNICITY COULD INFLUENCE HIS DECISIONS? (Please, please, please don’t bring up everything we’ve said about white judges and juries for the past four decades.)

They’re betting they can intimidate Republicans — and boy, are they right!

The entire Republican Brain Trust has joined the media in their denunciations of Trump for his crazy idea that anyone other than white men can be biased. That’s right, Wolf, I don’t have any common sense. Would it help if the GOP donated to Hillary?

The NeverTrump crowd is going to get a real workout if they plan to do this every week between now and the election.

What do Republicans think they’re getting out of this appeasement? Proving to voters that elected Republicans are pathetic, impotent media suck-ups is, surprisingly, not hurting Trump.



Protect Your Kids From The Tyrant Known As Obama

May 31st, 2016

Posted By James Dobson On 05/30/2016 @ 2:22 pm

When I was in the third grade, I raised my hand one day and asked the teacher for permission to “go to the bathroom.” She nodded, and I hurried down the hall to the door designated “Boys.” When I had relieved myself, I headed back in the direction of my homeroom. As bad luck would have it, the doors in the hallway all looked alike, and I opened the wrong one. Two second-grade girls were standing there with their mouths open in disbelief. Then they both screamed and pointed at me. The loudest one said, “You’re in BIG trouble!” The other shouted, “Get out of here!” Sweet kids.

I was mortified beyond belief. I sneaked back into class and looked at the floor, wondering who might have witnessed my unthinkable crime. That was decades ago, but I haven’t forgotten my humiliation. The cardinal rule is that boys and girls never entered each others private facilities. Never!

How the world has changed! Who would have believed a day would come during my lifetime when boys could meander into the private sanctuary of girls’ toilets, or that it would someday be a civil right for men to use women’s locker rooms and showers without permission or apology? Imagine sex-absorbed junior high boys ogling the bodies of developing pubescent girls or standing beside them in their showers. Have we gone absolutely mad? What ever happened to modesty, safety, and Christian morals?

Did it upset you when the president of the United States ordered every public school in America to open all its bathroom facilities including those that are in use by a member of the opposite sex? The president’s order made me furious, and then sick to my stomach. How dare this man do something so audacious and unthinkable! His letter from the White House carried an implied threat to withhold federal money from local schools, which rocked the halls of public education. Who is this politician that is spending your hard-earned tax dollars to manipulate school officials, anyway? Who is it that warping our children? It is Barack Obama, one of the worst presidents in American history, and it is time we stood up and said so!

Obama, acting like a king, is wielding dictatorial powers never envisioned in the law. He is determined to change the way males and females relate to one another, and worse, how children perceive themselves. If you are a married man with any gumption, surely you will defend your wife’s privacy and security in restroom facilities. Would you remain passive after knowing that a strange-looking man, dressed like a woman, has been peering over toilet cubicles to watch your wife in a private moment? What should be done to the pervert who was using mirrors to watch women and girls in their stalls? If you are a dad, I pray you will protect your little girls from men who walk in unannounced, unzip their pants and urinate in front of them. If this had happened 100 years ago, someone might have been shot. Where is today’s manhood? God help us!

(You are probably aware that Target has taken a stand to allow persons who “self-identify” as a man or woman to use the restroom of their choice. In addition to Target Stores, the following retailers have also decided, against the objection of their customers, to create “gender neutral” bathrooms: Starbucks, Ross, Walgreens, Toys “R” Us, and Barnes & Noble. My wife, Shirley, and I will no longer patronize these stores, and I hope millions of others will do likewise.)

Let’s talk more about Barack Obama, who is a tyrant in many ways. How dare he assault centuries of modesty and moral beliefs! By what authority does he tell parents and school officials what to teach children under their care? Christian parents, does this outrageous order violate something deep within your sense of propriety? The president has already maneuvered the courts to undermine a 5,000-year-old definition of marriage, after experiencing his infamous epiphany. Now he is determined to change Western civilization forever. He becomes more reckless and defiant as his second term comes to an end. Never has an American president been so absorbed with the use and abuse of power, and unfortunately, he still has seven months to go. What is next?

I grew up respecting the authority and dignity of the nation’s presidents. Each of them was tasked to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to protect our rights as citizens. That is what I was taught. My fourth grade teacher, Mrs. Harris, described for us the three branches of government, and how each division has the authority to restrain the other two according to a principle known as “checks and balances.” It made America unique among nations. But, with the complete refusal of the U.S. Congress to restrain the presidency or to curtail a runaway judiciary that is itself drunk with power, “we the people” are victimized by those who steal our freedom. Our Founding Fathers would be shocked to learn how the safeguards on our freedom have been abandoned.

My friend Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council recently said he is often asked, “Why is the Obama administration trying to mainstream ‘transgenderism’ and force schools to accommodate students who want to use the bathrooms and locker rooms of the opposite sex?” Tony’s answer gets to the heart of the motive: “It’s all part of a radical movement trying to destroy the fact that God created man and woman – and that somehow people can choose what gender they want to be. The ultimate goal is to break down all sexual inhibition and morality – a goal that would result in social chaos.”

This is what influential feminist Dale O’Leary had to say on the issue of gender and its meaning in her publication, “Gender: The Deconstruction of Women: Analysis of the Gender Perspective in Preparation for the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, China.” She wrote, “Although many people think that men and women are the natural expression of a genetic blueprint, gender is a product of human thought and culture, a social construction that creates the ‘true nature’ of all individuals.”

Do you understand what she was saying? Gender is not determined by your chromosomes. It is a product of culture. If a man thinks like a woman, he IS a woman. Furthermore, if we protect children from social and religious conditioning, people will be free to move into and out of existing gender roles at will. Taking that concept to its logical conclusion, the feminists and LGBT activists want to dissolve the traditional roles of mothers and fathers and, in time, eliminate references to wife, husband, son, daughter, sister, brother, manhood, womanhood, boy, girl, masculine and feminine. These activists want us to replace age-old terminology with neutral terms, such as significant other, spouse, parent, child and sibling. You’ll see that happening in the near future. The bottom line is that they want to destroy human sexuality and take with it the foundation of the family. That is their goal, and they have a president in office who is willing to use his executive authority to force this nonsense on us all.

Clearly, there are serious implications here for mothers and fathers. I urge you to protect your boys and girls from those who are espousing these views. Shield them from gender feminism and from those who would confuse their sexuality. They will be under increasing political pressure in years to come.

It is also important for us as adults to understand our own sexual identities. If we don’t know who we are, our kids will be doubly confused about who they are. Any uncertainty, any ambiguity in that assignment must be seen as damaging not only to our sons and daughters but also to the long-term stability of society itself.

I urge you to base your teachings about sexuality on the Scriptures, which tell us, “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27). Jesus, who was the first Jewish leader to give dignity and status to women, said, “Haven’t you read … that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’” and, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh” (Matthew 19:4-5). That is the divine plan. It leaves no doubt that the Creator made not one sex but two, each beautifully crafted to “fit with” and meet the needs of the other. Any effort to teach children differently is certain to produce turmoil in the soul of a child.

We must fight to protect our homes and families from politically correct politicians who would create new entitlements that take away our liberties. There is no time to lose. Our children hang in the balance.
Article printed from WND: http://www.wnd.com

URL to article: http://www.wnd.com/2016/05/protect-your-kids-from-tyrant-obama/




Trump vs. Clinton on Gun Rights

May 25th, 2016

A fifth liberal Justice could kill the individual right to bear arms.
May 24, 2016 7:22 p.m. ET

Donald Trump is famous for his flights of political exaggeration, but every so often he lands on the truth. Witness his claim to the National Rifle Association on Friday that “the Second Amendment is on the ballot in November” and that Hillary Clinton “wants to abolish the Second Amendment.”

This has offended Mrs. Clinton’s media bodyguards who claim she merely favors background checks and minor regulation. Mrs. Clinton took to Twitter to claim that Mr. Trump is “wrong,” and “We can uphold Second Amendment rights while preventing senseless gun violence.”

Let’s go to the audiotape. http://on.wsj.com/1OM0Ozz

If Mrs. Clinton “gets to appoint her judges, she will, as part of it, abolish the Second Amendment,” Mr. Trump told the NRA. He added that Mrs. Clinton had rebuked the Supreme Court for its 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller establishing that the Second Amendment included an individual right to bear arms.

At a private fundraiser last year Mrs. Clinton did criticize the Supreme Court for being “wrong on the Second Amendment.” One of her policy advisers, Maya Harris, tried to muddy that position this weekend by telling Bloomberg Politics that Mrs. Clinton “believes Heller was wrongly decided in that cities and states should have the power to craft common sense laws to keep their residents safe.”

But that is a fudge. Heller explicitly allowed that the “right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion did not sort through every possible regulation, but it did say that the individual right covers guns that are “in common use for lawful purposes.” And it overturned the District of Columbia’s handgun ban. By implication Heller would also disallow the Clinton Administration’s ban on semi-automatic rifles used for hunting. That ban has since expired, though Mrs. Clinton supports reinstating it.

The question Mrs. Clinton is ducking is whether she agrees with Heller’s ruling that individuals can bear arms. The political left has long held that such a right under the Second Amendment belongs only to a “well regulated Militia.”

This distinction matters because Mrs. Clinton knows that four liberal Justices dissented from Heller on precisely this point about an individual right. And apparently they still do. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of the dissenters, told a luncheon of the Harvard Club in 2009 that their dissent was crafted with an eye to helping a “future, wiser court” overturn Heller.

Sonia Sotomayor replaced David Souter in 2009, but she joined the liberal bloc on guns. The Supreme Court has over the years applied the Bill of Rights to the states as relevant cases presented themselves. Once Heller established an individual right to bear arms, every Court precedent called for applying it to the states in McDonald v. Chicago in 2010. The vote should have been 9-0. Yet the four liberals still dissented in McDonald—confirming Justice Ginsburg’s Harvard boast that they are waiting to overturn Heller.

Justice Elena Kagan (who replaced John Paul Stevens) hasn’t had a chance to rule on the individual right to bear arms, but don’t expect her to be different. If Mrs. Clinton selects Antonin Scalia’s replacement, she knows the Court’s liberals will get their opportunity to overturn Heller. The Second Amendment really is on the ballot this November.

Mitt is a Sore Loser

May 25th, 2016

Mitt is a Sore Loser
by: Wayne Allyn Root

Mitt Romney is a bitter, jealous, sore loser. But it’s more than that. It’s much deeper. It’s time to stop kidding ourselves. Mitt Romney just made it clear. This is war. The entire leadership of the GOP needs to be purged. Let them go start a third party for wishy-washy moderate losers who believe in slightly smaller government than the Democrats . . . and giving all the power to globalists, the United Nations, lawyers, lobbyists, government bureaucrats, billionaires and multi-national corporations. Let’s see how far they get with that message.  

Because there is no longer any room for the establishment GOP inside the GOP. It’s time for a hostile takeover. Enter Donald Trump.

This is what is causing such panic and desperation. Trump’s raw truth has unhinged the GOP establishment. They are losing their own party. They are losing their grip on power. They are losing their lifetime gravy train. It’s complete panic and pandemonium. The GOP leadership is in the last days of the end of Rome.   Bravo Donald Trump.

Donald Trump just conducted a hostile takeover of the GOP from within. Trump just proved “The truth will set you free.” The good voters of the GOP have been set free by the raw politically-incorrect truth of Donald Trump.

Trump has exposed the GOP establishment from Romney to Bush to Paul Ryan to Mitch McConnell. He’s brought them out of their dark hiding places. It turns out the establishment GOP is really no different or better than the socialists, Marxists and America-haters on the other side- the Obama, Hillary, Bernie side. They are on the same team- just using different slogans.

As one of my best friends put it just yesterday, “If any of them were real Republicans they’d be using their shock, outrage and vitriol to attack Obama and Hillary and Bernie every second of every day. They’d be condemning the Democrats over this horrible economy. We’re all drowning. Instead Republican leaders are in panic over Trump? Are you kidding me?”

Folks the U.S. economy is in free fall. It’s on the verge of total collapse. The middle class has been gutted like a fish. Obamacare has bankrupted the nation. Health insurance costs are wiping out the budgets of every middle class and working class household in America. That’s why record low gas prices have done nothing for the U.S. economy.

There are no middle class jobs. We are being told unemployment is low at the same time food stamp use is near record highs. Do you think we’re that stupid? Obama has created an entire economy for illegal aliens- the only jobs created are for cleaning toilets, mowing lawns, washing dishes, or serving drinks at a bar. Manufacturing has been destroyed- down for 15 months in a row- decent high-paying jobs have left the country. The border is wide open and illegals and terrorists are coming across in record numbers. We have $19 trillion in debt- the most in world history.

In response to this decay and decline of America under Obama, GOP establishment leaders like Paul Ryan have chosen to help Obama pass the Trans Pacific Partnership . . . refuse to put up a fight against Obama’s executive order legalizing millions of illegal aliens . . . pass bloated trillion dollar spending bills that add dramatically to the deficit and national debt…and pass funding to bring 300,000 new Muslim immigrants into the USA.

And . . .

 Donald Trump has them in desperation and panic mode, not Obama or Hillary or Bernie? Are you starting to sense something wrong here? “The fix” has been in. The GOP has never been on our side. Trump exposed the lies and fraud. He brought all the bad guys out of hiding.

The GOP’s leadership isn’t in panic not over what’s happened to the economy . . . or the border . . . or American jobs . . . or the middle class . . . or their last two losing presidential elections led by establishment candidates who stood for nothing . . .

Instead they are in panic over Donald Trump . . . a commonsense Republican businessman who has brought millions of new voters to the GOP . . . who has incited passion, intensity, enthusiasm and record turnouts into the GOP race . . . who has brought working class Americans to the GOP for the first time . . . who has brought people who quit voting, or voted Democrat in the past two elections back to the GOP. Trump has brought union members to the GOP. People who felt abandoned and hopeless are for the first time in their lives excited about voting for a GOP candidate. Polling indicates Trump could be the first Republican since Reagan to win New York state.

And this is bad? This is cause for panic? Desperation? Threats? This is worse than what Obama has done to the USA? This is more important than an economy in collapse? This is more important than the wholesale murder of the middle class and the death of mobility and the American Dream?

Thank God for Trump. He has exposed the GOP establishment as the frauds they are. They care nothing about America . . . or American jobs . . . or small business . . . or the middle class…or the working class. They care only about their own power . . . their billionaire donors . . . their own corruption and greed…their consultants, strategists, lobbyists and lawyers.

Trump is brilliant. He is a third party candidate from within the GOP. He is carrying out an internal hostile takeover of the rat-infested, corrupt, greedy, soul-less GOP. The establishment dynasty families that claim to be “Republican”- Bush’s, Romney’s, Bloomberg’s (and many more not-so-famous billionaire donors)- are out. “Business as usual” is out. The gravy train is over.

This is why they are hysterical. This is why they are more panicked over Trump than what Obama has done to our economy and country. Trump has exposed their true colors. Trump has exposed their conflicts of interest. Trump has exposed their deception and fraud and corruption. Trump has exposed their lies. They were never on our side. They were never on our team. They were double agents all along.

This is why they are screaming hysterically like little children realizing the jig is up. They have lost their power. They have lost their piggy bank. And the way it happened is humiliating. Trump not only destroyed the old guard in a matter of months . . . with the media arrayed against him . . . with hundreds of millions of dollars of Super PAC money against him . . . with the powerful party apparatus against him . . . with the Republican National Committee against him . . . he did it by spending almost NOTHING.

Trump accomplished a GOP takeover from within. He finished what the Tea Party started. And he conducted this hostile takeover of the GOP without spending any money. The establishment is embarrassed and angry and in shock. Trump routed them, destroyed them, left them standing in a torrential rainstorm without shelter . . . without a rowboat . . . without even an umbrella. They are homeless.

It’s OUR party now. Trump has given the GOP back to the people.

Attacking Our Nation’s Founders

April 17th, 2016

Attacking Our Nation’s Founders

By Walter Williams

Published April 13, 2016

During Sen. Bernie Sanders’ campaign visit to Liberty University, he told the students that our nation was created on racist principles. Students at a Christian-based university, such as Liberty, do not often hear the founders-as-racists argument. But it is featured at many other universities, as well as primary and secondary schools. Most often, the hate-America teachings are centered on the fact that slavery is a part of our history. What is left untaught is: Slavery was a routine part of human history. Blacks were the last people to be enslaved. Plus, our Founding Fathers struggled mightily over the issue of slavery. Let us look at some of that struggle.

George Washington said, “I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it.” Thomas Jefferson, John Jay, Patrick Henry and others were highly critical of slavery, describing it as a “disease of ignorance,” “an inconsistency not to be excused” and a “lamentable evil.” George Mason said, “The augmentation of slaves weakens the states; and such a trade is diabolical in itself, and disgraceful to mankind.” James Madison, in a speech at the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, declared, “We have seen the mere distinction of color made in the most enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man.” Benjamin Rush said: “Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principles of Christianity. … It is rebellion against the authority of a common Father.”

In their effort to create a union, the delegates at the Constitutional Convention had to negotiate many contentious, deal-breaking issues. Slavery was chief among them. Southern states made clear that they would not vote to ratify a constitution that abolished slavery or ended the slave trade. Northern delegates wanted to end slave trading and did not want slaves counted at all for congressional apportionment. Southern delegates wanted slaves counted as whole people. That would have given the South greater political power in the House of Representatives.

Convention delegate James Wilson offered a compromise whereby each slave would be counted as three-fifths of a person for the purposes of determining the number of representatives a state would have in the House. This rule applied only to slaves. Freemen, whether black or white, would be counted as whole people. Another compromise was to set 1808 as the year to abolish the slave trade.

Contrary to what academic hustlers teach, the Three-Fifths Compromise was not a statement about human worth; it was an attempt to reduce the pro-slavery representation in Congress. By including only three-fifths of the total number of slaves in congressional calculations, Southern states were actually being denied a greater number of representatives in Congress and hence electoral votes for selecting a president.
Read more at http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams041316.php3#hwwtM6sivlfd38Ck.99

2016 … It really is the most important election of our lives! And here’s why…

March 21st, 2016

A lot of people have brought up the fact that they won’t vote for Trump if he’s the eventual nominee. I just want to put something in perspective.

Justice Scalia’s seat is vacant. Ginsberg is 82 years old, Kennedy is 79, Breyer is 77, and Thomas is 67. Nowadays, the data shows that the average age of a Supreme Court retirement or death occurs after 75. These are 5 vacancies that will likely come up over the next 4-8 years. The next President will have the power to potentially create a 7-2 Supreme Court skewed in their ideology.

Think about that… 7-2. If the next President appoints 5 young justices, it will guarantee control of the Supreme Court for an entire generation. And 7-2 decisions will hold up much more over time than 5-4 decisions which are seemed to be lacking in mandate.

Hillary has made it clear she will use the Supreme Court to go after the 2nd Amendment. She has literally said that the Supreme Court was wrong in its Heller decision stating that the Court should overturn and remove the individual right to keep and bear arms. Period.

Everyone saying that they won’t vote for one candidate or the other if they are the GOP nominee, please realize this: If Hillary Clinton wins and gets to make these appointments, you likely will never see another Conservative victory at the Supreme Court level for the rest of your life. Ever.

The world that your children and grandchildren live in will truly, without shadow of doubt, be determined by the outcome of THIS presidential election.

If you are a Conservative, a vote for anyone BUT the GOP nominee, whomever that will be (or a vote for no one), is a vote for Hillary Clinton.

An Open Letter to the Conservative Media Explaining Why I Have Left the Movement

March 13th, 2016

Love or hate Trump, this letter seems to reflect the feelings of many out there:

An Open Letter to the Conservative Media Explaining Why I Have Left the Movement

by: John Kluge
March 3, 2016

Let me say up front that I am a life-long Republican and conservative. I have never voted for a Democrat in my life and have voted in every presidential and midterm election since 1988. I have never in my life considered myself anything but a conservative. I am pained to admit that the conservative media and many conservatives’ reaction to Donald Trump has caused me to no longer consider myself part of the movement. I would suggest to you that if you have lost people like me, and I am not alone, you might want to reconsider your reaction to Donald Trump. Let me explain why.

First, I spent the last 20 years watching the conservative media in Washington endorse and urge me to vote for one candidate after another who made a mockery of conservative principles and values. Everyone talks about how thankful we are for the Citizens’ United decision but seems to have forgotten how we were urged to vote for the coauthor of the law that the decision overturned. In 2012, we were told to vote for Mitt Romney, a Massachusetts liberal who proudly signed an individual insurance mandate into law and refused to repudiate the decision.

Before that, there was George W. Bush, the man who decided it was America’s duty to bring democracy to the Middle East (more about him later). And before that, there was Bob Dole, the man who gave us the Americans with Disabilities Act.

I, of course, voted for those candidates and do not regret doing so. I, however, am self-aware enough to realize I voted for them because I will vote for virtually anyone to keep the Left out of power and not because I thought them to be the best or even really a conservative choice. Given this history, the conservative media’s claims that the Republican party must reject Donald Trump because he is not a “conservative” are pathetic and ridiculous to those of us who are old enough to remember the last 25 years.

Second, it doesn’t appear to me that conservatives calling on people to reject Trump have any idea what it actually means to be a “conservative.” The word seems to have become a brand that some people attach to a set of partisan policy preferences, rather than the set of underlying principles about government and society it once was. Conservatism has become a dog’s breakfast of Wilsonian internationalism brought over from the Democratic Party after the New Left took it over, coupled with fanatical libertarian economics and religiously-driven positions on various culture war issues. No one seems to have any idea or concern for how these positions are consistent or reflect anything other than a general hatred for Democrats and the Left.

Lost in all of this is the older strain of conservatism. The one I grew up with and thought was reflective of the movement. This strain of conservatism believed in the free market and capitalism but did not fetishize them the way so many libertarians do. This strain understood that a situation where every country in the world but the US acts in its own interests on matters of international trade and engages in all kinds of skulduggery in support of their interests is not free trade by any rational definition. This strain understood that a government’s first loyalty was to its citizens and the national interest. And also understood that the preservation of our culture and our civil institutions was a necessity.

All of this seems to have been lost. Conservatives have become some sort of schizophrenic sect of libertarians who love freedom (but hate potheads and abortion) and feel the US should be the policeman of the world. The same people who daily fret over the effects of leaving our society to the mercy of Hollywood and the mass culture have somehow decided leaving it to the mercies of the international markets is required.

Third, there is the issue of the war on Islamic extremism. Let me say upfront that, as a veteran of two foreign deployments in this war, I speak with some moral authority on it. So please do not lecture me on the need to sacrifice for one’s country or the nature of the threat that we face. I have gotten on that plane twice and have the medals and t-shirt to prove it. And, as a member of the one percent who have actually put my life on the line in these wars movement conservatives consider so vital, my question for you and every other conservatives is just when the hell did being conservative mean thinking the US has some kind of a duty to save foreign nations from themselves or bring our form of democratic republicanism to them by force? I fully understand the sad necessity to fight wars and I do not believe in “blow back” or any of the other nonsense that says the world will leave us alone if only we will do that same.

At the same time, I cannot for the life of me understand how conservatives of all people convinced themselves that the solution to the 9-11 attacks was to forcibly create democracy in the Islamic world. I have even less explanations for how — 15 years and 10,000 plus lives later — conservatives refuse to examine their actions and expect the country to send more of its young to bleed and die over there to save the Iraqis who are clearly too slovenly and corrupt to save themselves.

The lowest moment of the election was when Trump said what everyone in the country knows: that invading Iraq was a mistake. Rather than engaging the question with honest self-reflection, all of the so called “conservatives” responded with the usual “How dare he?” Worse, they let Jeb Bush claim that Bush “kept us safe.” I can assure you that President Bush didn’t keep me safe. Do I and the other people in the military not count? Sure, we signed up to give our lives for our country and I will never regret doing so. But doesn’t our commitment require a corresponding responsibility on the part of the president to only expect us to do so when it is both necessary and in the national interest?

And since when is bringing democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan so much in the national interest that it is worth killing or maiming 50,000 Americans to try and achieve? I don’t see that, but I am not a Wilsonian and used to, at least, be a conservative. I have these strange ideas that my government ought to act in America’s interests instead of the rest of the world’s interests. I wish conservatives could understand how galling it was to have a fat, rich, career politician who has never once risked his life for this country lecture those of us who have about how George Bush kept us safe.

Donald Trump is the only Republican candidate who seems to have any inclination to act strictly in America’s interest. More importantly, he is the only Republican candidate who is willing to even address the problem. Trump was right to say that we need to stop letting more Muslims into the country or, at least, examine the issue. And like when he said the obvious about Iraq, the first people to condemn him and deny the obvious were conservatives.

Somehow, being conservative now means denying the obvious and saying idiotic fantasies like “Islam is the religion of peace,” or “Our war is not with Islam.” Uh, sorry but no it is not, and yes it is. And if getting a president who at least understands that means voting for Trump, then I guess I am not a conservative.

Fourth, I really do not care that Donald Trump is vulgar, combative, and uncivil and I would encourage you not to care as well. I would love to have our political discourse be what it was even thirty years ago and something better than what it is today. But the fact is the Democratic Party is never going to return to that and there isn’t anything anyone can do about it. Over the last 15 years, I have watched the then-chairman of the DNC say the idea that President Bush knew about 9-11 and let it happen was a “serious position held by many people,” watched the vice president tell a black audience that Republicans would return them to slavery if they could, watched Harry Reid say Mitt Romney was a tax cheat without any reason to believe it was true, and seen an endless amount of appalling behavior on the part of the Democrats which is too long to list here and which I am sure you are aware. And now you tell me that I should reject Trump because he is uncivil and mean to his opponents? Is that some kind of a joke? This is not the time for civility or to worry about it in our candidates.

Fifth, I do not care that Donald Trump is in favor of big government. That is certainly not a virtue but it is not a meaningful vice since the same can be said of every single Republican in the race. I am sorry but the “we are just one more Republican victory from small government” card is maxed out. We are not getting small government no matter who wins. So Trump being big government is a wash.

Sixth, Trump offers at least the chance that he might act in the American interest instead of the world’s interest or in the blind pursuit of some fantasy ideological goals. There is more to economic policy than cutting taxes, sham free trade agreements, and hollow appeals to “cutting government” and the free market. Trump may not be good, but he at least understands that. In contrast, the rest of the GOP and everyone in Washington or the media who calls themselves a conservative has no understanding of this.

Rubio would be — as Laura Ingram pointed out this week — nothing but a repeat of the Bush 43 administration with more blood and treasure spent on the fantasy that acting in other people’s interests indirectly helps ours. Cruz might be somewhat better, but it is unclear whether he could resist the temptations of nation building and wouldn’t get bullied into trying it again. And as much as I like Cruz on many areas he, like all of them except Trump, seems totally unwilling to admit that the government has a responsibility to act in the nation’s interests on trade policy and do something besides let every country in the world take advantage of us in the name of “free trade.”

Consider the following. Our country is going broke, half its working-age population isn’t even looking for work, faces the real threat of massive Islamic terrorist attack, and has a government incapable of doing even basic functions. Meanwhile, conservatives act like cutting Planned Parenthood off the government or stopping gays from getting marriage licenses are the great issues of the day and then have the gumption to call Donald Trump a clown. It would be downright funny if it wasn’t so sad and the situation so serious.

It is not that I think Donald Trump is some savior or an ideal candidate. I don’t. It is that I cannot for the life of me — given the sorry nature of our current political class — understand why conservatives are losing their minds over him and are willing to destroy the Republican Party and put Hillary into office to stop him. All of your objections to him either apply to many other candidates you have backed or are absurd.

I don’t expect you to agree with me or start backing Trump. I would, however, encourage you to at least think about what I and others have said and to understand that the people backing Trump are not nihilists or uneducated hillbillies looking for a job. Some of us are pretty serious people and once considered ourselves conservatives. Even if you still hate Trump, you owe it to conservatism to ask yourself how exactly conservatism managed to alienate so many of its supporters such that they are now willing to vote for someone you loath as much as Trump.

I would also encourage you to stop insulting Trump voters. Multiple conservative journalists — Kevin Williamson to name one — have said, in so many words, that Trump supporters are welfare queens, losers, uneducated, and bums. I am a Trump supporter. My father is a Trump supporter. We both went to war for this country. My father spent 40 years in the private sector maintaining this thing we like to call the phone system. I have spent the last 20 years in the Army and toiling away doing national security and law enforcement issues for the federal government. Just what exactly have any of the people saying these things ever done for the country? Where do they feel entitled to say these things? And more importantly, why on earth do they think it is helping their cause?

I am sorry, even if you can convince me Trump is the next Hitler, I don’t want to be associated with that. I don’t want to be associated with a movement that calls other Americans bums and welfare queens because they support the wrong candidate. If I wanted to do that, I would be a leftist.

Perhaps none of this means anything to you and the movement has left me behind. If it has, I think conservatives should understand that it is leaving a lot of people like me behind. I can’t see how that is a good thing.

Think about it ….

December 4th, 2015

1944: 18-20-year-olds stormed enemy beaches, parachuted behind enemy lines, charged into battle and almost certain death.

2015: 18-20-year-olds need “safe zones” on college campuses to protect their fragile little emotions from offensive “WORDS”.

Historical Ignorance II

October 29th, 2015

Historical Ignorance II
Walter E. Williams | Jul 22, 2015

We call the war of 1861 the Civil War. But is that right? A civil war is a struggle between two or more entities trying to take over the central government. Confederate President Jefferson Davis no more sought to take over Washington, D.C., than George Washington sought to take over London in 1776. Both wars, those of 1776 and 1861, were wars of independence. Such a recognition does not require one to sanction the horrors of slavery. We might ask, How much of the war was about slavery?

Was President Abraham Lincoln really for outlawing slavery? Let’s look at his words. In an 1858 letter, Lincoln said, “I have declared a thousand times, and now repeat that, in my opinion neither the General Government, nor any other power outside of the slave states, can constitutionally or rightfully interfere with slaves or slavery where it already exists.” In a Springfield, Illinois, speech, he explained: “My declarations upon this subject of Negro slavery may be misrepresented but cannot be misunderstood. I have said that I do not understand the Declaration (of Independence) to mean that all men were created equal in all respects.” Debating Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln said, “I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes nor of qualifying them to hold office nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.”

What about Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation? Here are his words: “I view the matter (of slaves’ emancipation) as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion.” He also wrote: “I will also concede that emancipation would help us in Europe, and convince them that we are incited by something more than ambition.” When Lincoln first drafted the proclamation, war was going badly for the Union. London and Paris were considering recognizing the Confederacy and assisting it in its war against the Union.

The Emancipation Proclamation was not a universal declaration. It specifically detailed where slaves were to be freed: only in those states “in rebellion against the United States.” Slaves remained slaves in states not in rebellion — such as Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and Missouri. The hypocrisy of the Emancipation Proclamation came in for heavy criticism. Lincoln’s own secretary of state, William Seward, sarcastically said, “We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free.”

Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been heartily endorsed by the Confederacy: “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. … Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.” Lincoln expressed that view in an 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives, supporting the secession of Texas from Mexico.

Why didn’t Lincoln share the same feelings about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our nation’s history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What “responsible” politician would let that much revenue go?

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.