14 Reasons Donald Trump Is Really Running — And Doing Well

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

NEW YORK, NY - AUGUST 29:  American business magnate and TV personality Donald Trump visits "FOX and Friends" at FOX Studios on August 29, 2011 in New York City.  (Photo by Slaven Vlasic/Getty Images)
NEW YORK, NY – AUGUST 29: American business magnate and TV personality Donald Trump visits “FOX and Friends” at FOX Studios on August 29, 2011 in New York City. (Photo by Slaven Vlasic/Getty Images)

Hat/Tip to Jim Meyers at Newsmax.

Love him or hate him, there’s no denying that he is the quintessential deal maker. That quality would serve a POTUS well in relations with other countries and in getting legislation through Congress.


Real estate tycoon and reality TV star Donald Trump says he will announce once and for all in June if he will seek the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.

There are a number of signs that Trump will in fact run for president this time — and indications are that he is doing well in the run-up to the announcement. Here are 14 reasons why:

1. Trump is polling extremely well. In the recent Bloomberg Politics/Saint Anselm poll in New Hampshire, the first primary state, Trump was the first choice of 8 percent of voters, finishing fifth in a field of 15 potential GOP candidates — ahead of Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Chris Christie, and Ben Carson, among others. It is important to note that no candidate got more than 12 percent of the vote, and since the margin of error was +/- 4.9, Trump was statistically virtually tied with the top candidates, Rand Paul and Scott Walker.

2. An official announcement could boost him even more. Trump pointed out himself that his numbers would improve if he was officially in the race:

“If they thought I was running, [the numbers] would have been even better.”

3. He consistently beats top-tier candidate in nationwide polls. He outpolled Marco Rubio and Rand Paul in another poll of Republican voters conducted by Monmouth University — 7 percent of respondents nationwide said they would support Trump for the nomination.

4. Trump is leaving “The Apprentice” for its next TV run. According to news reports, he has announced that he is walking away from the hit reality TV show, another strong indication that he plans to focus on a presidential bid.

5. Trump is preparing a national organization. According to The Washington Post, Trump is “gearing up” to launch a presidential exploratory committee. And the Washington Examiner reported that Trump has hired several political staffers to map out a potential campaign in early voting states including New Hampshire and South Carolina.

6. Trump has already begun actively campaigning. He visited key state South Carolina, attending a weekend summit earlier in May and distancing himself from lobbyists by declaring that he “doesn’t give a [bleep] about lobbyists.”

7. Trump is an outsider. He is distancing himself from Washington insiders.

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

“Washington is totally broken and it’s not going to get fixed unless we put the right person in that top position,” he said in February in an address to activists at the Conservative Political Action Committee.

8. He has drawn an enormous response from the grassroots. Reactions to his speeches show his tremendous popularity. He got a standing ovation when he told the crowd in South Carolina that plans for a nuclear deal with Iran are “a disaster.” He said: “I got by far the biggest standing ovations.” He also got a standing ovation from the crowd at the Iowa Freedom Summit in January when he blasted rank-and-file Republican politicians and “was easily the most brazen speaker to take the stage,” the Des Moines Register observed.

9. Trump is clearly differentiating himself from other candidates.

He said Carly Fiorina “was dismissed, fired, really in a tough manner from Hewlett-Packard. Then she ran for the Senate from California, lost in a landslide. I wish her luck.” He also said Mike Huckabee and Ben Carson “don’t have a great chance” of winning, adding that “I could do a better job than anybody else.”

10. Trump has the experience to rebuild America. After the tragic train derailment in Philadelphia, he got ink for tweeting:

“The only one to fix the infrastructure of our country is me — roads, airports, bridges. I know how to build, pols only know how to talk!”

11. He plans to be part of the debate. He said in a recent interview: “I get ratings.”

12. He has tremendous name recognition, which is almost beyond comprehension. A two-time Emmy Award nominee, Trump has hosted the popular show “The Apprentice” on NBC since 2004. And in business, attaching the Trump name to an enterprise immediately marks it as a premium venture.

13. Trump is a true American success story. He is the only Republican candidate who can claim the “Triple Crown” in American life, having become one of the foremost leaders in business, politics, and entertainment.

14. Trump carries clout with voters. His endorsement of GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his robo-calls to voters in Ohio, Michigan, and other states made a big difference in the 2012 GOP primaries and demonstrated his political clout as Romney won in each state where Trump ventured.

.

.

.

Share

This Boy Wonder Is Building The Conservative Answer To MoveOn.org In An Illinois Garage

Share
Charlie Kirk
Charlie Kirk, a new breed of GOP?

Hat/Tip to IOTWReport.com and Julie Bykowicz at Bloomberg Politics.

Maybe there is hope for the GOP after all.


 

Charlie Kirk was just about to leave the 2012 Republican National Convention in Tampa when he spotted the multimillionaire investor Foster Friess in a stairwell. Kirk, who was 18 and fresh out of high school, had spent weeks memorizing the names and faces of the top 25 Republican political donors in case he found himself in just such a situation. He grabbed Friess into a handshake, took a nervous breath, and began his elevator pitch. Instead of going to college, he wanted to start a grass-roots organization to rival liberal groups such as MoveOn.org, which offer Democratic candidates a standing army of volunteer activists. All he needed, Kirk told Friess, was cash. Friess, who’d just blown $2.1 million on a failed quest to help Rick Santorum win the GOP presidential nomination, handed over his business card. Three weeks later, Kirk had a five-figure check. “He impressed me with his capacity to lead, intelligence, and love for America,” Friess says. “I instantly knew I wanted to support him.”

In the three years since, Kirk—who still sleeps in his childhood bedroom in Wheeling, Ill.—has built his organization, Turning Point USA, into the go-to group for reaching young conservatives. It has a presence on 800 college campuses, where fieldworkers hand out posters and collect e-mail addresses. At the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in February, the group hosted an event featuring Senators Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, who have each since announced they’re running for president. On May 8, Paul was scheduled to speak at a Turning Point rally at Arizona State University, and Carly Fiorina is on deck to speak in June at a Turning Point conference for women in Chicago. Kirk says he’s met candidate Marco Rubio and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who is considering a presidential run.

Kirk’s circle of financial backers has expanded to include Illinois Republican Governor Bruce Rauner; Montana-based technology entrepreneur Greg Gianforte, a donor to Christian causes; and Mike Miller, a suburban Chicago jeweler who’s given Turning Point $50,000. Kirk says he’s raised $1 million since January. (Because Turning Point is organized as a nonprofit advocacy group, it doesn’t have to disclose its full donor list or budget.) During the CPAC convention, Friess and Miller entertained 100 Turning Point activists over dinner at Washington’s Metropolitan Club. Kirk, Friess says, “is the ultimate role model for us all.”

Turning Point LogoTurning Point displays at campus fairs are filled with colorful posters that cheer capitalism and boo big government. The most popular one right now spells out LOL, with the “O” styled after President Obama’s iconic campaign logo. The group’s field activists approach their duties with evangelical passion. When they reel in a curious student, out comes an electronic tablet with a questionnaire. “Where do you think the most cuts should be made in the budget?” asks one multiple-choice question. The options include defense, social programs, health care, environment, or “government itself.” The survey concludes with a place for respondents to list their name, graduation year, and e-mail address.

Attracting interest is easy on campuses such as Texas Christian University. In April, Turning Point’s Texas field coordinator Stephanie Conway, who moved to Dallas after graduating from Eastern Connecticut State University in 2014, set up a display in the student union. Dressed in a Turning Point T-shirt that read “Big Government Sucks,” she asked passersby, “Hey, who wants to talk about the debt?” A surprising number of people bit, popping out their earbuds long enough to listen. “People love our message,” she says. “We’re giving them something to think about—like, hey, maybe government is too big, maybe we shouldn’t have this huge federal debt—that they probably haven’t ever heard before in a college setting.”

Conway’s team deployed heavier-duty tactics at the University of Texas at Arlington, a larger campus that’s less right-leaning than Texas Christian.

A staffer offered cupcakes: “These represent the federal debt. Take your share.” Others manning a dunk tank shouted carnival barker lines. “You can just go right up to the tank and push the lever,” said one, Tyler Bowyer. “There are no rules! Just like the federal government!”

The group’s paid workers are each supposed to make at least 1,500 student contacts per semester. About 20,000 people have attended a Turning Point event, posted on social media, or volunteered for the group’s events, Kirk says. Turning Point also registers voters in states that will be critical in 2016, including Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio. In April the group registered 1,030 voters in Florida—30 more than the goal, says national field director Crystal Clanton.

Turning Point’s headquarters have moved out of Kirk’s parents’ house in Wheeling and into a garage in Lemont, southwest of Chicago. (“Apple and Amway also started in garages, so we’re in really good company,” Kirk says.) Behind the scenes, Bill Montgomery, a 74-year-old former restaurateur, handles paperwork—“the old guy who keeps it all legal,” says Montgomery, who met Kirk in 2012 at a panel discussion on politics at Benedictine College. The young man gave a speech that was “practically Reaganesque,” Montgomery says. An Eagle Scout who played saxophone and baseball, Kirk gained national attention for an essay he wrote for the conservative Breitbart website about liberal bias in high school textbooks, which led to an appearance on Fox Business. With Montgomery urging him to dive into full-time political activism, Kirk traveled to Tampa, leading to his fateful chat with Friess.

Turning Point remains tiny compared with MoveOn, which has about 8 million members. MoveOn started in 1998 with an e-mail campaign asking people to sign a petition demanding that Congress censure President Bill Clinton and “move on” after the Monica Lewinsky scandal. MoveOn’s success using the Internet to organize Democratic voters paved the way for Obama’s 2008 campaign, a model Hillary Clinton is trying to replicate in her 2016 bid.

Republicans haven’t come close to matching that organizational muscle, Kirk says.

When he pitches donors on Turning Point, he cheerfully describes it as “the MoveOn of the Right.” Now 21, he says it’s helpful to have an example to follow. “I don’t think I agree with them on a single issue,” he says. “But I have nothing but respect for how successful they’ve been.”

.

.

.

Share

Mark Levin: GITMO Terrorists Have More Due Process Rights Than U.S. Police…

Share


Hat/Tip to WeaselZippers.

Maybe she’s trying to land a job at Eric Holder’s law firm…


 

Nationally syndicated radio talk show host Mark Levin took Baltimore City State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby to task yesterday on Hannity questioning her decision-making and saying, “How can it be that terrorists in Guantanamo Bay apparently have more due process rights, apparently are released even though they go back to the battlefield and they kill Americans and others, how can it be that they are treated one way and police officers another?”

“Joining us now, nationally syndicated radio talk show host, I call him the great one, Mark Levin,” said Sean Hannity, introducing Levin to his show. “We have 50 plus years, Mark, of Democratic rule in the city of Baltimore, dominating politics in that city, $40 trillion spent on poverty programs since the great society, $1.8 billion in stimulus money to Baltimore alone, $1.2 billion a year in education. The president, Elijah Cummings, everybody else lecturing America, well, we’re not doing enough for Baltimore. Is that the real cause?”

“Well, liberalism doesn’t work,” said Levin. “I guess we need to spend another $20 trillion and maybe that will have some effect.

Then Mark lets fly with both barrels:

“First of all I want to say this. Where are the civil libertarians? Where’s the ACLU? Where are the real lawyers in America, every single one who should be speaking out about what is already a travesty of justice. The mob in the street is in that state attorney’s office. The charge of second-degree murder, false imprisonment, she didn’t use a grand jury, she didn’t take time to read the medical examiner’s report. This is a disgrace. And the entire legal community should be rising up over this. Whatever happens in the courtroom, whatever happens with the judge and the jury, so be it. But the way this prosecutor has conducted herself is outrageous.”

Read the full story here.

.

.

.

Share

TED CRUZ: The Blood Of Millions Will Be On Obama’s Head If This Insane Iran Deal Goes Forward

Share

nuclear-explosion-600x250

 

Hat/Tip to Doug Ross @ Journal.

While the feckless GOP leadership in the Senate has kissed Obama’s ass yet again, this time seemingly allowing HIM to perform THEIR Constitutionally mandated duty, that of approving treaties with foreign governments; Ted Cruz is not going down quietly.

Sen. Ted Cruz is an outspoken critic of the Obama administration’s bizarre deal to loosen sanctions on Iran and allow it to continue to develop nuclear weapons.

A complicit GOP establishment — including “craven moron” Bob Corker and the mendacious malignancy known as Mitch McConnell are Obama’s co-conspirators — and have essentially ceded the Senate’s Constitutionally authorized power to ratify any treaty signed by the Executive.

Ted Cruz — reviled by the hacks in both parties — is one of the few statesmen left in Congress willing to fight this insane abdication of sanity on the part of Obama and the GOP fogies. Tonight Cruz took to the Senate floor to rip Obama’s deal and the GOP Establishment’s support for it.

[Cruz told] his colleagues that the nuclear deal with Iran will lead to the deaths of “millions of Americans.”

If President Barack Obama moves forward to provide sanctions relief to Iran as part of the deal, “the blood of the men and women and children who will be murdered by those terrorists will be directly on the hands of this administration,” Cruz warned.

After being blocked from calling a vote on an amendment to the Iran bill to raise the threshold for congressional approval of the nuclear deal, Cruz accused senators of “abrogating our authority and responsibility.”

…”This deal makes war a certainty,” promised Cruz, a Republican contender for president in the 2016 election.

Cruz has repeatedly insisted that Congress require any nuclear deal with Iran to include recognition of Israel’s right to exist. The Obama administration has held firm to the position that the negotiations should be narrowly focused on Iran’s nuclear program.

…Democrats are afraid to vote, Cruz told reporters in the Capitol. “They are terrified of casting a vote on whether the legislation would require Iran to recognize Israel’s rights to exist as a Jewish state, and rather than have to go on record and make clear the Democratic senators’ opposition to supporting Israel, they’re blocking every amendment on the Iran deal instead,” he said. “This should be a matter that brings us together in unity, because a nuclear Iran represents the single greatest national security threat to America. Unfortunately, far too many Senate Dems are playing politics with this rather than focusing on the grave national security threats we face.”

…While Democrats and their Republican allies could likely defeat the amendment, Democratic lawmakers have expressed frustration with being put in the position of publicly voting against pro-Israel legislation in order to preserve the Iran oversight bill.

On Tuesday, The Huffington Post asked Cruz to elaborate on what recognition of Israel had to do with eliminating Iran’s nuclear program:

Senator Ted Cruz R-TX
Senator Ted Cruz R-TX

“In the midst of these negotiations, a senior Iranian general said the annihilation of Israel was, quote, non-negotiable. One cannot negotiate with theocratic zealots who are explicit in their desire to murder you,” Cruz said. “There is no common ground or middle ground on whether or not you are murdered. In the midst of these negotiations, Ayatollah Khamenei is leading the masses in chanting death to America.”

…”This deal makes war a certainty … Because [of] what President Obama is doing, if this goes forward, is unraveling the international consensus in favor of sanctions. That means the next president who enters the White House in January of 2017 is likely to encounter a world with Iran on the verge of having nuclear weapons where sanctions will have been taken off the table by Barack Obama, because they cannot be placed back with our allies in any reasonable period of time to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, which means in all likelihood the next president will face a binary choice: Either allow Iran to have nuclear weapons or use military force to prevent it.

“That’s the consequence of this Obama-Iran deal, is it makes military conflict a certainty,” Cruz said.

.

.

.

Share

Is Glenn Beck Dropping His Support For Ted Cruz?

Share

mass media

 

Hat/Tip to The Blaze.

Some folks are worried that Glenn Beck has soured on Ted Cruz. Well, according to The Blaze, that just isn’t so.

Glenn Beck on Tuesday said he is still a “full-fledged” supporter of Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz, despite recent reports to the contrary. The confusion stems from a comment Beck made on his radio program Monday, where he said he wasn’t sure Cruz could govern if elected in 2016.

“So does that mean that Glenn Beck is a psycho, schizophrenic, has changed his mind? Or am I missing a piece of information?” Beck asked on his radio program Tuesday. “They were missing a piece of information. People who listen to this show should know that the missing piece of information … is the world is about to change.”

Beck told his audience that during the next presidency, Americans will see martial law “either regionally or across the entire country … because there’s going to be a breakdown of the system.”

In a time of crisis, Beck said, he doesn’t want to repeat the actions of President George W. Bush, who built a coalition that “abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.”

The fact that Ted Cruz may have difficulty building a coalition, Beck said, could actually be one of his strengths.

“I would expect Cruz to lead in a different way if he were elected,” Beck explained. “He’d go to the people with a healthy dose of common sense and try to change things from the bottom up, rather than trading favors for the compromising of his values. ”

Beck warned that the economic instability could be much greater under the next president than it was under President Bush. The government could close the banks, there could be riots in the streets and a “complete crackdown” from which you “never get your freedoms back.”

But with the right leader, Beck said, the country could actually unite in the time of crisis.

“I don’t know which way it’s going to go,” Beck admitted. “But it’s important that you have a constitutionalist at that moment to govern, because they’re going to have to reset this system. And are they going to reset it to the Constitution? Or are they going to look to a new system to reset it?”

Beck said it is Cruz’s steadfast refusal to cut deals that makes him the ideal president for the tumultuous times ahead.

“I want Ted Cruz because I believe we are going to face tough times,” Beck concluded. “I want somebody that will take that and, with a velvet hand, will put uprisings down if we have them and then let the hand off and restore our freedoms again.”

.

.

.

Share

GOP Rep Introduces Bill To Gut EPA

Share
sam-johnson_JPG_800x1000_q100
Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Texas) introduced the Wasteful EPA Programs Elimination Act, which he said is a money-saving measure, citing a Heritage Foundation forecast that it would save $7.5 billion over 10 years

Hat/Tip to Doug Ross @ Journal and Timothy Cama at The Hill.

It may pass, but it’ll never get signed by Obama.

A House Republican wants to cut 13 programs at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), including all of its grants and its ability to regulate ground-level ozone and carbon dioxide.

Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Texas) introduced a bill, the Wasteful EPA Programs Elimination Act, which he said is a money-saving measure, citing a Heritage Foundation forecast that it would save $7.5 billion over 10 years.

“As a fiscal conservative, I believe Washington should be respectful of taxpayers’ dollars and live within its means,” Johnson said in a Thursday statement.

“American taxpayers certainly don’t need to be paying for the EPA’s empty and unused buildings and its wasteful programs,” he said. “This bill does right by the hardworking folks in my district and across the country and is part of my ongoing effort to get our fiscal house in order.” 

The measure would force the EPA to close all of its field offices, sell or lease certain properties, cut various climate change programs and stop its environmental justice activities.

It would also stop the EPA from regulating ground-level ozone and from limiting the greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles and power plants, the subject of the most controversial EPA programs recently.

.

.

.

 

Share

Carly Fiorina: ‘Yes, I Am Running For President’

Share
FORMER HEWLETT-PACKARD CO-CEO CARLY FIORINA WAVES AFTER SPEAKING AT THE FREEDOM SUMMIT IN DES MOINES, IOWA
Former Hewlett-Packard CEO, Carly Fiorina throws her hat into the ring for the GOP nomination for President of the United States

 

 

Hat/Tip to Newsmax.

Once again, to recap who is officially running for POTUS:

For the GOP:

  • Ted Cruz
  • Marco Rubio
  • Rand Paul
  • Dr. Ben Carson

For the Dems:

  • Hillary Clinton
  • Bernie Sanders

 

Fiorina ran an unsuccessful campaign to unseat California Democrat Barbara Boxer. Carson gained political fame when he criticized President Barack Obama at the 2013 National Prayer Breakfast while the president was sitting a few feet away.

Fiorina served as an executive at AT&T and Lucent before assuming the leadership role at HP, then America’s largest computer maker, in 1999. That business experience, along with her leading role at a number of charitable organizations—such as the micro-financing non-profit Opportunity International and Good360, which helps coordinate corporate donations — will serve as a centerpiece of a campaign that is expected to portray Fiorina as the antithesis of the career politician, and the only Republican who can neutralize Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton’s advantage among women voters.

“We have to have a nominee who can take punches, but we have to have a nominee who will throw punches,” Fiorina told the National Review Ideas Summit on Saturday. “We’ve got to take that fight to Hillary Clinton.”

Read the full story here.

.

.

.

Share

Ben Carson Is Running For President

Share
dr. benjamin carson
Acclaimed Neurosurgeon, Dr. Ben Carson throws his hat into the ring for the GOP nomination for President of the United States

Hat/Tip to Newsmax.

So officially it’s now:

For the GOP:

  • Ted Cruz
  • Marco Rubio
  • Rand Paul
  • Dr. Ben Carson

For the Dems:

  • Hillary Clinton
  • Bernie Sanders

He made a splash on the national scene when he politely, but effectively ripped Obama’s nanny state policies to shreds. Now he’s asking you to vote for him for POTUS.

Retired surgeon Ben Carson declared his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination Monday, resting his longshot bid on his vision of the nation as “a place of dreams” where people can thrive when freed from an overbearing government.

Carson, the only African-American in the race, spoke in front of hundreds of people at Detroit Music Hall, a few miles from a high school that bears his name. A choir singing the chorus from Eminem’s “Lose Yourself” set the stage.

He told supporters that he’s not anti-government but believes Washington has exceeded its constitutional powers.

“It’s time for people to rise up and take the government back,” he said. “The political class won’t like me saying things like that. The political class comes from both parties.”

The former head of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins hospital has never run for public office. But he’s a star among some conservatives and will try to parlay his success as an author and speaker into a competitive campaign.

He told his rally: “I’m Ben Carson and I’m a candidate for president.”

Carson was the second White House hopeful to get into the Republican race Monday. Former technology executive Carly Fiorina declared her intent to run earlier in the day.

 Read the full story here.

.

.

.

Share

Urge Your State Representatives To Support An Article V Convention

Share

article v logo 002

 

Hat/Tip to Doug Ross @ Journal.

Mark Levin started this movement with his best selling book, The Liberty Amendments, it’s up to us to keep it going.

Do you believe Washington, D.C., is broken? Do you believe those in D.C. are willing or capable of curbing their own power? Are you looking for a solution to reduce the size, scope and jurisdiction of the federal government, impose fiscal restraints and place term limits on federal officials?

A package of constitutional amendments — proposed by an Article V convention of the states and designed to curb the abuses of the federal government — would go a long way toward restoring the rightful power of state and local governments.

According to a recent Pew survey, only 23 percent of Americans trust the federal government to do the right thing “at least most of the time.” A higher percentage of Americans trust their state and local governments — 33 percent trust their state government and 41.5 percent trust their local government to do the right thing all or most of the time.

State and local governments are closer to the people they serve and, thus, more accountable. The individuals in a state or city can more easily contact or visit their representatives and officials to voice their concerns or grievances. Unfortunately, D.C. has gradually stripped these governments of their rightful power, turning them into nothing more than regional agencies.

It’s time for a change in the status quo.

We should continue to elect virtuous people who vow to defend the Constitution; however, we’ve been trying that for decades. And the federal government has gotten larger and more abusive. According to State Budget Solutions, in 2013, North Carolina received 32.5 percent of its revenue from the federal government. At what point will the state legislators we elect be irrelevant? When will they become simply wards of the federal government?

There is a federal leviathan apparatus in Washington, D.C., that is hard to overcome.

Imagine a castle as the federal government. Its walls have gotten bigger and bigger over the last 100 years, almost impenetrable. We keep trying the same battering rams to knock down these walls without success, hoping for a different result. And then we look, and there’s a door open for us to walk through. The Founders in their wisdom knew we needed a method for the states to bypass Congress and provided one in the Constitution’s Article V. HB 321 (= SB 398) are currently under consideration in the General Assembly.

I ask that you urge your state representatives to support a Convention of States. Please call or e-mail your state representative and senator asking for their support. For more information, please visit conventionofstates.com.

Read the full story here.

.

.

.

Share

Audio: Mark Levin Says Baltimore Prosecutor Is A HACK And A DISGRACE

Share
mark levin of landmark legal foundation
The Great One, Mark Levin

Hat/Tip to IOTWReport.com.

As usual, Mark Levin knocks it out of the park on the flimsy excuse for justice in Baltimore.

Mark Levin opened his show tonight with blistering analysis of the announced prosecutions of Baltimore police officers, saying it all amounts to mob rule. He points out that the prosecutor, who brought the charges today against the six officers involved in Freddie Gray’s arrest, based these charges on a complaint as the investigations aren’t even completed yet. Further, he said that some of these charges are utterly absurd and that this prosecution is all about politics.

Levin says this prosecutor a hack and a disgrace and calls into question whether she should even be prosecuting this case.

Listen below as he explains it all:


..

Share

The President Loves The Military, Just Not The One In Office Right Now…

Share

 

 photo GW20Salutes20Wounded20Warrior_zpspeo52pun.jpg
George W. Bush salutes U.S. Army Staff Sergeant Santiago Frias

 

Hat/Tip to MRConservative.com.

Remember what it was like to have a Commander-in-Chief who LOVED and RESPECTED the brave men and women who donned their country’s uniform and paid the price to defend her?

Me neither. And that’s because for the last six years, we’ve had a loathsome individual who abhors the military. He has zero respect for them and will go completely out of his way to avoid having to talk with any member of the military.

But that wasn’t so in the previous administration. Love him, or hate him, but there is no denying his love, admiration and total respect he has for our country’s vets.

It’s been six years since Obama took office, so it’s easy to forget that we once had a president who respected and loved our veterans. However, an incident from years ago reveals that President George W. Bush had a respect for our servicemen and women that Obama has never had.

In her new book, Bush’s former press secretary Dana Perino reveals why he asked a military aide to perform a purple heart ceremony for the second time during a visit to the Walter Reed military hospital.

When Bush visited the hospital in 2005, he was scheduled to visit 25 patients, many of whom were in serious condition. The first patient he saw was a young marine who had been injured by a roadside bomb in Iraq.

“What’s his prognosis?” the president asked, according to Perino.

“Well, we don’t know sir, because he’s not opened his eyes since he arrived, so we haven’t been able to communicate with him. But no matter what, Mr. President, he has a long road ahead of him,” said the CNO.

The marine’s family was very excited to see Bush, and the president told the soldier’s young son how brave his father was. However, no one expected what happened next.

Perino describes the scene in her book:

The Marine had just opened his eyes. I could see him from where I stood.

The CNO held the medical team back and said, “Hold on, guys. I think he wants the president.”

The president jumped up and rushed over to the side of the bed. He cupped the Marine’s face in his hands. They locked eyes, and after a couple of moments the president, without breaking eye contact, said to the military aide, “Read it again.”

So we stood silently as the military aide presented the Marine with the award for a second time. The president had tears dripping from his eyes onto the Marine’s face. As the presentation ended, the president rested his forehead on the Marine’s for a moment.

Now everyone was crying, and for so many reasons: the sacrifice; the pain and suffering; the love of country; the belief in the mission; and the witnessing of a relationship between a soldier and his Commander in Chief that the rest of us could never fully grasp. (In writing this book, I contacted several military aides who helped me track down the name of the Marine. I hoped for news that he had survived. He did not. He died during surgery six days after the president’s visit. He is buried at Arlington Cemetery and is survived by his wife and their three children.)

 

George W. Bush awards veteran Lance Corporal John Munoz Ramirez the Purple Heart as Ramirez's parents look on
George W. Bush awards veteran Lance Corporal John Munoz Ramirez the Purple Heart as Ramirez’s parents look on

President George W. Bush and Dora watch as Scott demonstrates exercises at Walter Reed
President George W. Bush and Dora watch as Scott demonstrates exercises at Walter Reed

George W. Bush meets with U.S. Army Specialist Salvatore Cavallaro
George W. Bush meets with U.S. Army Specialist Salvatore Cavallaro

President George W. Bush shakes hands with U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Kyle Stipp of Avon, Ind., after presenting him with two Purple Hearts
President George W. Bush shakes hands with U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Kyle Stipp of Avon, Ind., after presenting him with two Purple Hearts

President George W. Bush shakes the hand of U.S. Army PFC Demario Hicks
President George W. Bush shakes the hand of U.S. Army PFC Demario Hicks

President George W. Bush talks with U.S. Marine Corps Bradley Jerome Walker
President George W. Bush talks with U.S. Marine Corps Bradley Jerome Walker

Sgt. Mike McNaughton running with President Bush at the White House
Sgt. Mike McNaughton running with President Bush at the White House

President George W. Bush reads a baby book with U.S. Army Reservist First Lieutenant Brandan Mueller of Webster Groves, Mo., his wife Amanda, and their daughter Abigail
President George W. Bush reads a baby book with U.S. Army Reservist First Lieutenant Brandan Mueller of Webster Groves, Mo., his wife Amanda, and their daughter Abigail

George W. Bush salutes U.S. Army Staff Sergeant Santiago Frias
George W. Bush salutes U.S. Army Staff Sergeant Santiago Frias

..

Share

There Is No Room For Christians In Today’s Democratic Party According To Ted Cruz

Share

Ted Cruz

 

Hat/Tip to Doug Ross @ Journal.

It has been posited that Liberalism, that is today’s definition of the Liberal-Secular-Progressive is a mental disorder. That may be true and, in that same vein we have Senator Ted Cruz from Texas positing that within that movement, the Liberal-Secular-Progressive movement, or in other words, the Democratic Party that there is no room in that Party for Christians.

The title of Jonah Goldberg’s recent bestseller — Liberal Fascism — has become part of the modern political parlance.

Sen. Ted Cruz argued Saturday that Democrats have become so extreme and “intolerant” of religious views that “there is no room for Christians in today’s Democratic Party.”

“There is a liberal fascism that is dedicated to going after believing Christians who follow the biblical teaching on marriage,” the Texas Republican said in his speech before a Christian conservative audience in Waukee, Iowa…. For his part, Cruz alluded to business that faced pushback for declining to cater to same-sex weddings.

…As the Supreme Court gets ready to hear oral arguments on whether to overturn same-sex marriage bans in states, Cruz introduced legislation last week that would protect bans in place … “We need leaders who will stand unapologetically in defense of marriage,” he said.

The religion of today’s progressives is government. Big government. Unlimited government.

There is no room for people of faith in today’s Democrat Party.

Unfortunately, Senator Cruz is correct. There is no room anymore in the Democratic Party for Bible-reading, Jesus-believing Christians.

Why?

Because the modern Democratic Party is NO LONGER the same party that your parents and grandparents belonged to. It has been bastardized into a near Marxist, top-down, centralized government party that seeks to control every aspect of your lives.

.

.

.

Share

Killing Them With Kindness: Gov. Perry Expertly Handles Repetitive, Hostile Questions By Audience Member

Share

gov rick perry 001

 

Hat/Tip to WeaselZippers.

Even though it’s still early in this campaign season, we’re already beginning to see a different Gov. Rick Perry than we did in the 2012 race. He’s more calm, confident and assuring. Check out how he handles a series of hostile questions by a woman in the audience.

Hillary Clinton, of course, has no qualms getting a boatload of foreign government donations with the Clinton Foundation. But she’s hiding out from hostile questions on her ‘listening tour’…


.

.

.

Share

Ted Cruz Sets His Own ‘Red Line In The Sand’: Congress Must Approve Any Iran Deal

Share
Senator Ted Cruz R-TX
Cruz Lays Down The Gauntlet To President Obama: Congress MUST Okay Any Iran Nuke Deal

Hat/Tip to Doug Ross @ Journal.

Once again, Ted Cruz displays the type of leadership that is sorely lacking in the Oval Office right now.

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pennsylvania, have filed an amendment (#1152) to the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, which would require affirmative Congressional approval of any Iranian nuclear deal before sanctions relief can occur.

“The Constitution makes clear that Congress must approve international agreements like the one President Obama is negotiating with Iran,” said Sen. Cruz. “A nuclear Iran is the single greatest threat to our national security and also poses an unacceptably high risk to Israel. Reviewing this deal and deciding whether or not to consent to it may well be the most important function of this Congress. It is not something that should be rushed, and it is imperative that, at the very least, the President obtain majority support for his deal from both Houses of Congress before moving forward.”

As currently written, the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 would first require Congress to pass a resolution of disapproval and then require Congress to muster votes from two-thirds of each chamber to override a Presidential veto. What’s more, if Congress failed to act within a set timeframe, the deal would go into effect by default. This process gets the Constitution’s allocation of authority precisely backwards.

The Cruz-Toomey amendment would remove these options and restore a more proper process for Congress to exercise its Constitutional power. It would require President Obama to persuade a majority of Senators and Representatives to approve his deal before it goes into effect.

Share

Ted Cruz:The New York Times Doesn’t Have A Clue About The Meaning Of The Second Amendment

Share

Ted Cruz

Hat/Tip to Doug Ross @ Journal.

It looks like the New York Times is having trouble understanding what “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” really means.

 

The New York Times Doesn’t Have A Clue About The Meaning Of The Second Amendment

By Senator Ted Cruz (R, TX)

On Friday, the New York Times stated, in a blaring headline, that my support for Second Amendment rights is “strange.”

In particular, the writer took issue with my statement that “”the Second Amendment to the Constitution isn’t for just protecting hunting rights, and it’s not only to safeguard your right to target practice. It is a constitutional right to protect your children, your family, your home, our lives, and to serve as the ultimate check against governmental tyranny — for the protection of liberty.”

In addition to “strange,” the NYT described this view as “ridiculous,” “silly,” and “absurd” (methinks the Old Gray Lady doth protest too much).

The writer, the lead editor for the Times’ editorial page, continued, “I just don’t get the argument on constitutional or historical grounds.”

Perhaps this will help. Let’s survey some other “silly” people who have embraced this heretical understanding of our liberties.

Thomas Jefferson

And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. . . .

Alexander Hamilton

But if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights. . . .

Noah Webster

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.

Justice Joseph Storey

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

James Madison

The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men.

You can support Ted Cruz for President by clicking here

.

.

.

Share

Rubio’s Univision Remarks Lost In Translation: Says He WILL End Obama’s Illegal Executive Amnesty

Share

marco rubio 003

 

Hat/Tip to Sarah Rumpf at Breitbart.

There are tons of Facebook posts claiming that Marco Rubio told Univision that he supported Obama’s Illegal Executive Amnesty.

Such as this one…

Rubio Facebook Post Wrongly Saying He Flip Flopped On Obamas Exec Anmesty

 

What really happened?

In a Spanish language interview with Jorge Ramos on Univision’s Al Punto show, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) discussed immigration policy, affirming his longstanding objection to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) programs.

An article on Breitbart News earlier Saturday said that Rubio called DACA “important” and one that he would not reverse, but a closer look at the official transcript shows some misinterpretations in the translation, and Rubio’s campaign pushed back strongly against any suggestion that the Senator would allow President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty to continue.

But Rubio’s Spokesperson set the matter straight.

As Rubio spokesman Alex Conant told Breitbart News, “Marco went on Spanish media this week and rejected a comprehensive immigration reform approach, said that the immigration executive orders won’t be permanent policy under his administration, and that he would oppose legalization today because we first need to prevent a future illegal immigration crisis by enforcing our laws.”

“Marco also said it’s important not to end DACA immediately since it would be disruptive given all the people that have it,” continued Conant, “but that at a certain point it would have to end since it cannot be the permanent policy of the land.”

“In case anything was lost in translation, he believes we have to fix our broken immigration system in a series of smaller bills, starting with border security and enforcement, then modernizing our legal immigration system, and then eventually dealing with the illegal immigrants living here,” said Conant.

Now let’s revisit the whole DACA and DAPA mess, shall we?

DACA allows illegal immigrants who came to the United States before their sixteen birthday, commonly referred to as “DREAMers,” to obtain a renewable work permit and be protected from deportation. The original requirements for eligibility were that the DREAMers must be enrolled in school or have received a high school diploma or GED or been honorably discharged from the military, and pass a background check that they have not committed any felonies or serious misdemeanors, among other requirements.

Last November, Obama expanded the DACA program to waive the requirement that the DREAMers be under 31 years of age, to expand the renewal term from two years to three years, and other measures that would increase the number of eligible immigrants.

DAPA was a further expansion of protection from deportation for illegal immigrants, this time for parents who were here illegally but had lived in the U.S. since 2010 and had children who were American citizens or lawful permanent residents.

DAPA and the expansion of DACA have been harshly criticized, for enacting amnesty and for the way Obama enacted them through executive orders, without authorization from Congress. Shortly after Obama signed the executive orders, Texas, joined by twenty-six other states, filed suit against the federal government seeking to stop what they called an unconstitutional overreach by the executive branch, as Breitbart Texas reported. The litigation is still pending, but a federal court has issued an order stopping DAPA from being implemented while the case proceeds.

Via Breitbart, here is the full, unredacted transcript of the portion of the Univision interview in which Rubio and Jorge Ramos discussed immigration.

Ramos: As you know, it has always been hard for Republicans to get the Hispanic vote. I wanted to talk with you about very concrete issues that affect Hispanics directly. I would like to start with the issue of deferred action and DACA. If you made it to the White House, would you keep the DACA program; that is, Deferred Action for the Dreamers, and would you keep President Barack Obama’s executive action, which would benefit more than four million undocumented people?

Rubio: Well, DACA is going to have to end at some point. I wouldn’t undo it immediately. The reason is that there are already people who have that permission, who are working, who are studying, and I don’t think it would be fair to cancel it suddenly. But I do think it is going to have to end. And, God willing, it’s going to end because immigration reform is going to pass. DAPA hasn’t yet taken effect, and I think it has impeded progress on immigration, on immigration reform. And since that program hasn’t taken effect yet, I would cancel it. But DACA, I think it is important; it can’t be cancelled suddenly because there are already people who are benefitting from it. But it is going to have to end. It cannot be the permanent policy of the United States. And I don’t think that’s what they’re asking for, either. I think that everyone prefers immigration reform.

Ramos: But then, to clarify, you would end DACA once immigration reform is approved. But what happens, Senator, if there is no immigration reform? Would you cancel DACA anyway?

Rubio: At some point it’s going to have to end. That is, it cannot continue to be the permanent policy of the United States. I do think that if I wind up being president, it will be possible to achieve new immigration reform. It won’t be possible for it to be comprehensive; that is, they are not going to be able to do everything in one massive bill. We already tried that a couple of years ago. We have seen that the political support isn’t there, and I think we’ve spent a lot of time on this process when we could have started moving forward through the three steps that I advocated. Unfortunately, a lot of time has been wasted on that. It has become an even more controversial issue; harder to move forward on that issue. But I still say that it’s important to modernize our system, and that means improving the way we enforce it in the future, to modernize the immigration system so that it’s not so costly and bureaucratic. And we have to deal with 12 million human beings who are already here. And nobody, nobody is advocating a plan to deport 12 million human beings. So that issue has to be dealt with, as well.

Ramos: When you announced your candidacy, outside of the building where you announced it, there were a lot of Dreamers, protesting. And then there are some immigrant organizations that have criticized your candidacy. America’s Voice says that you have anti-immigrant positions. I would like to ask you, you were in favor of an immigration reform bill in the Senate, and you voted for it. But today, would you vote in favor of a path to legalization for 11 million undocumented people?

Rubio: Well, that can’t be done today for the following reason. I don’t think we can. I have been very clear. I, through that two-year experience, it’s very clear to me. We’re not going to have the votes or the necessary political support in Congress. Today, in some sectors of the American public, in order to move forward on this issue, unless we first prove to the American people that in the future there’s not going to be another immigration crisis. If we do that, I think that undoubtedly the political support is going to exist to do legalization as you have said. It has to be a process similar to what we advocated in the legislation that I sponsored, and it’s the law that says that, first, the things we’re all familiar with must be present: a background check, pay a fine, begin to pay taxes, get a work permit, and after 10 years, they can apply for their residency. That would be the process, but we can’t get to that point. Politically, the support and the votes in Congress aren’t there until we prove to those members of Congress and the American people that immigration laws are going to be enforced.

Here is the section in English, this is the portion that got changed in translation:

But DACA, I think it is important; it can’t be cancelled suddenly because there are already people who are benefitting from it. But it is going to have to end. It cannot be the permanent policy of the United States.

And here is the same two sentences in Spanish:

Pero DACA, yo creo que es importante, no se puede cancelar de un momento al otro porque ya hay personas que están beneficiando. Pero sí va a tener que terminar. No puede ser la política permanente de Estados Unidos.

But Univision, and then another media service got things mixed around, saying that Rubio said, “…DACA was important. It can’t be terminated from one moment to the next.” That doesn’t even make any sense, on the face of it. Here is how Breitbart explained the whole debacle:

A source close to Rubio who is a native speaker of Spanish told Breitbart News that the word “important” is being taken out of context, and that Rubio was not saying that DACA was important, but that his approach not to cancel the program immediately was an important concept. In other words, the word “important” belongs to the phrase that follows it, not the word “DACA” immediately preceding. This interpretation makes sense, since in the very next sentence and then repeatedly throughout the interview, Rubio says that the program must end.

In contrast, the translation relied upon by the original Breitbart News article from the media service Grabien flips this around, saying, ““I believe DACA is important. It can’t be terminated from one moment to the next, because there are already people benefiting from it.”

According to our source, even the Univision translation was a little imprecise, and said that a more word-for-word translation of Rubio’s words would be “But DACA, I think it’s important not to cancel it from one moment to the next because you already have people benefiting from it.”

Read the full story here.

.

.

.

Share