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

Homeland Security Working Overtime To Add NINE MILLION ‘New Americans’ By 2016 Election

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.

DHS working to make new democratic voters before 2016 election
Multiple sources at DHS confirm that political appointees are prioritizing naturalization ahead of the 2016 presidential election

Hat/Tip to J. Christian Adams at PJMedia.com.

The Obama administration isn’t just content with destroying as much of America as they can while IN office. His DHS is trying to pave the way to NINE MILLION new Democratic voters…

Hope and change much?


 

President Obama’s amnesty by edict has always been about adding new Democrats to the voter rolls, and recent action by the Department of Homeland Security provides further proof. Sources at the Department of Homeland Security report to PJ Media that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services is reallocating significant resources away from a computer system — the “Electronic Immigration System” — to sending letters to all 9,000,000 green card holders urging them to naturalize prior to the 2016 election.

This effort is part of the DHS “Task Force on New Americans.”

PJ Media has obtained an internal “Dear Colleague” letter written by Leon Rodriguez, the “director and co-chair of the Task Force on New Americans.”  The letter refers to a White House report called “Strengthening Communities by Welcoming All Residents.”

Leon Rodriguez has a tainted history — not only was he a central player in the radicalization of Eric Holder’s Civil Rights Division, he also “undertook a purportedly illegal search” of a government employee’s computer in Montgomery County, Maryland.  (Messy details are at the Washington Post.)

The Rodriguez letter states:

This report outlines an immigrant integration plan that will advance our nation’s global competitiveness and ensure that the people who live in this country can fully participate in their communities.

“Full participation” is a term commonly used to include voting rights.  To that end, resources within DHS have been redirected toward pushing as many as aliens and non-citizens as possible to full citizenship status so they may “fully participate” in the 2016 presidential election.  For example, the internal DHS letter states one aim is to “strengthen existing pathways to naturalization and promote civic engagement.”

leon rodriguez at dhs
Leon Rodriguez has a tainted history — not only was he a central player in the radicalization of Eric Holder’s Civil Rights Division, he also “undertook a purportedly illegal search” of a government employee’s computer

 

Naturalization plus mobilization is the explicit aim of the DHS “Task Force on New Americans.” Multiple sources at DHS confirm that political appointees are prioritizing naturalization ahead of the 2016 presidential election.

Empirical voting patterns among immigrants from minority communities demonstrate that these new voters will overwhelmingly vote for Democrat candidates.  If the empirical rates of support for Democrats continued among these newly naturalized minority voters, Democrats could enjoy an electoral net benefit of millions of new voters in the 2016 presidential election.

Other DHS sources report that racial interest groups such as La Raza (translated to “The Race”) and the American Immigration Lawyers Association have been playing a central and influential role in rewriting the administration’s immigration policies — both the public policies as well as internal and largely unseen guidelines.

One DHS official who disagrees with the administration’s policies told me DHS “intends to ‘recapture’ ‘unused’ visas from years past to grant more visas and LPR [green card] status. In addition to this ‘visa blizzard,’ the agency will allow folks to jam in applications during the blizzard, knowing that the visa applicant/beneficiary is not eligible for the visa.”

This means that DHS is not only rushing green card holders toward citizenship before the next election, but also jamming previous visa holders toward green card status.  These policies and priorities add to the brazen public positions of the president toward enforcing immigration laws.

.

.

.

 

Share

Former Arkansas Gov. Turned Fox Talk Show Host, Mike Huckabee Just Launched His White House Bid

Share

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.Hat/Tip to WeaselZippers.

So the tally of GOP nominee-hopefuls grows longer with nearly each passing day. We’re up to a half dozen already and it’s not even summer time, yet.

At least it cannot be said that the GOP has shallow bench this time…

POTUS:

For the GOP:

  • Ted Cruz
  • Marco Rubio
  • Rand Paul
  • Dr. Ben Carson
  • Carly Fiorina
  • Mike Huckabee

For the Dems:

  • Hillary Clinton
  • Bernie Sanders

Will Huckabee get the nomination this time? If so, can he beat Hillary?

Mike Huckabee on Tuesday told Americans he wants to take the country from hope to higher ground as he became the sixth Republican to declare for president during a rousing speech in his hometown of Hope, Ark.

The former Arkansas governor, who ruled in Little Rock for over a decade before leaving office in 2007, is hoping to recapture some of the magic that transformed him from an unknown to Iowa caucus winner during his first run for president seven years ago. Huckabee, 59, delivered a late morning speech before a full auditorium on the campus of a local community college, making a populist pitch for the White House that included term-limiting Supreme Court justices, replacing the income tax with a national sales tax and vowing no changes whatsoever to popular retirement programs like Social Security and Medicare.

“It was eight years ago that a young, untested, inexperienced and virtually unknown freshman senator made great speeches about hope and change. But eight years later, our debt’s more than doubled, America’s leadership in the world is completely evaporated and the country is more polarized than ever in my lifetime,” Huckabee said. “Ninety-three million Americans don’t have jobs, and many of them who do have seen their full time job with benefits they once had become two part time jobs with no benefits at all. We were promised hope, but it was just talk, and now we need the kind of change that really get America from hope to higher ground.”

The spot Huckabee chose to reveal his 2016 plans was meant to send another message — that he is uniquely qualified to take on the Clinton political machine. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, got her start in politics as the wife of Bill Clinton, the other famous politician to hail from Hope, Ark. Bill Clinton served as governor before going on to be elected president in 1992.

Read the full story here.

.

.

.

 

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

Clinton Foundation Stench Driving Away Donors

Share

clinton foundation logo

 

Hat/Tip to IOTWReport.com and Hot Air.

Why? Well maybe part of the problem is the stellar endorsements that Hillz has gotten, such as these that are adding to the odor of something, not quite right…

Lesbian PAC Endorses Hillary, She Will Lick The Competition …

or

Larry Flynt Endorses Hillary, Centerfold To Follow?

Gee, I wonder why? After all, many of them haven’t yet been identified. Ken Vogel explains that the publicity surrounding the influence-peddling schemes at chez Clinton has potential donors looking elsewhere, but … does that apply to those who still want to buy influence? Hmmm.

Actually, the fact that so little goes to charity — and that the rate (6.4% in 2013) has become so public — is what has them rethinking their commitments:

One major donor who contributed at least $500,000 to the foundation last year said a 2015 donation is less likely because of revelations about sloppy record-keeping and huge payments for travel and administrative costs.

“There are a lot of factors and the reputational is among them,” said the donor, who did not want to be identified discussing philanthropic plans that have not been finalized. “We had some questions about how the money was being spent — and that was long before the problems were in the press.”

At least three other major donors also are re-evaluating whether to continue giving large donations to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, according to people familiar with its fundraising.

They say increasing financial pressures and escalating outside scrutiny have sparked sometimes intense internal debates about the priorities and future of a pioneering charitable vehicle that was supposed to cement the family’s legacy.

The pass-through rate should have big donors looking for much better options in charitable giving … if that was their intent in the first place. If that was true, though, wouldn’t those large institutional donors and the sophisticated wealthy individual donors have done some due diligence on that point? It didn’t take Sean Davis a huge amount of time to look through the records of the Clinton Foundation and discover that only 15% of revenues went to direct programmatic grants in the four years that Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. The same tax records showed that over 60% of the revenue went to internal costs, an outrageously high level for a legitimate charity. It took even less to discover that the pass-through rate in 2013 was just 6.4%, and that almost as much money got spent on travel costs alone at the Clinton Foundation.

The “priorities” concern is just window dressing. People contributed to the Clinton Foundation to curry favor and get some leverage from their connections to power. The exposure of the Clinton Foundation as a political “slush fund” has embarrassed them, and now they want a reason to hit the exits. That’s why the foundation is in a “tailspin,” as Vogel puts it.

Plus, there’s also a new allegation of quid pro quo today from initial reviews of Peter Schweizer’s book Clinton Cash. An Indian politician and donor says that his contributions convinced Hillary to change her stance on India’s use of nuclear technology:

Hillary Clinton changed her position on a 2008 nuclear agreement between the United States and India after Indian business and government interests flooded various Clinton enterprises with cash, a highly anticipated new book alleges in a chapter obtained by POLITICO. …

Implying that a group of influential Indians directed money and attention to the Clintons in order to get them to support the nuclear deal, the book details the activities of Sant Chatwal, the New York hotelier who in December was sentenced to three years probation for his campaign finance violations.

Chatwal allegedly helped arrange one of Bill Clinton’s most lucrative public speeches — a $450,000 affair in London — and once said, “Even my close friend Hillary Clinton was not in favor of the deal [in 2006] … But when I put the whole package together, she also came on board. … In politics nothing comes free. You have to write cheques in the American political system.”

Politico disputes a couple of the book’s contentions, but this is the kind of access and influence that donors expected to get. And in the end, in this and with Uranium One, they arguably got.

.

.

.

Share

Self Identified Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders Challenges Hillary For Democratic Nomination

Share
Bernie Sanders
American Socialist Bernie Sanders

Hat/Tip to Fox News.

Self described Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders, Independent from Vermont, has announced he is challenging Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders announced Thursday he is running for president, giving Hillary Clinton her first official Democratic primary challenger. 

At a press conference, the independent senator and self-described “democratic socialist” said he is “running to win,” though he faces long odds against Clinton’s juggernaut political operation — and several other potential Democratic candidates. 

Sanders, in throwing his hat into the ring, urged the media to discuss “serious issues” and not turn the race for the White House into a soap opera. The white-haired populist preacher said America should refocus on income inequality and jobs. He also took a jab at political activist billionaires Charles and David Koch.

Sanders plans to hold an official launch on May 26 in Burlington, Vt. In an interview earlier with The Associated Press, Sanders promised to fight what he deems “obscene levels” of income disparity and a campaign finance system that is a “real disgrace.”

“After a year of travel, discussion and dialogue, I have decided to be a candidate for the Democratic nomination for president,” Sanders said in an email to his supporters. “But let’s be clear. This campaign is not about Bernie Sanders. It about a grassroots movement of Americans standing up and saying: ‘Enough is enough. This country and our government belong to all of us, not just a handful of billionaires

In the email, he says billionaires are rigging the political system and that the U.S. is facing enormous challenges.

Read the full story here.

.

.

.

 

 

 

Share

Straw Poll: Sarah – 79%, Hillary – 7%

Share

Sarah Palin
Sarah Palin

Hillary Clinton
Hillary Clinton

Hat/Tip to Lance Thate at Examiner.com.

Of course this is a very unscientific poll, but it makes you wonder what a head-to-head match up between the two of them would be like, huh?

Hillary Decimated by Palin in Today’s Poll

The media and party polls continue to play each other off with this candidate or that one being beaten by Hillary. When another candidate beats Hillary, there is the proverbial declaration of “within the margin of error too close to call”. This is a never ending theme to fill airtime. The Town Criers ask you to consider their random poll. The Town Criers are a Committee of the St. Augustine Tea Party and have been conducting polls and interacting with the national audience in historic St. Augustine for over four years. [http://www.examiner.com/review/a-look-at-town-crier-s-history]

saint augustine floride tea party 2015
St. Augustine, Florida 2015

 

The poll taken April 18, 2015 is actually the second time the Criers pursued this question, “Who would you vote for Sarah Palin or Hillary Clinton?” On January 31, 2015, the Criers first asked the question. The purpose was to gauge the effectiveness of the media’s distortion and ridicule of Sarah Palin, and to test the effectiveness of the rejection of Sarah Palin by both political parties. The results of that poll were: 74% Palin, 6% Clinton and 20% neither.

Now that Hillary Clinton has announced her candidacy for president, the question was asked again. The reader should bear in mind that this is not an opinion poll strictly from St. Augustine residents. Very few people on St. George Street, on any one day are from the city. St. George Street is populated by people from every state in the union, and many countries of the world. The poll was random and face-to-face. Only American citizens of voting age were allowed to participate.

  1. Palin Wins Hands Down: The final results of today’s poll are:
    Palin 79%
  2. Neither 14%
  3. Clinton 7%

.

.

.

Share

Democratic Presidential Hopeful Courts Hollywood: And It’s A Man Baby!

Share

2010-poy-p72-

 

Hat/Tip to Tina Daunt at The Hollywood Reporter.

Yep, it’s kind of a foregone conclusion that if you’re a Democrat running for POTUS, then you HAVE to woo the Hollywood Libs.

*yuck*

You can’t be a serious Democratic presidential hopeful these days without a fundraising base in Hollywood, which is why former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley is back in town this week to meet with a loyal cadre of industry admirers.

O’Malley on Wednesday afternoon made a visit to Sony Studios, where he has longstanding relationships with a number of top executives. On Thursday evening, he’ll attend a high-wattage meet-and-greet hosted by Sony Pictures-Screen Gems senior production vp Eric Paquette and Dixon Slingerland, the Youth Policy Institute’s executive director, who raised nearly $1 million for Barack Obama‘s campaigns.

The evening event, which is set for the fashionable Republique restaurant on La Brea Ave., is expected to draw more than 50 industry Democrats and activists. It’s the second such affair Paquette has hosted for O’Malley, who is generally thought to be positioning himself as the alternative candidate to Hillary Clinton.

Although he significantly trails Clinton in support among entertainment industry moguls (Haim Saban and Casey Wasserman sent out emails this week asking for Clinton campaign donations), O’Malley’s left-of-center views have generated excitement among some Hollywood progressives who worry that the former Secretary of State has become too conservative.

O’Malley’s potential candidacy seems to be picking up the most traction among activists and contributors who came out early for Obama when he contested the nomination against Clinton. Sony Studios, meanwhile, has become a frequent West Coast stop for the former Maryland governor.

Read the full story here.

.

.

.

Share

‘Everyday Americans’ In New Hampshire Refuse To Shake Hillary’s Hand

Share

hillary clinton 002

 

Hat/Tip to IOTWReport.com.

For this Editor, there’s not enough hand sanitizer in the WORLD…

 

  • Clinton was at Kristin’s Bakery in Keene, NH in advance of a small-business roundtable event

  • She sat with a handful of customers and made her way to the back to greet employees

  • But a cashier told Daily Mail Online that some of the kitchen staff ‘didn’t want to come out to meet Hillary’ because ‘they just don’t like her’

  • Clinton’s communications director said it’s helpful to recruit future Hillary evangelists from among Democratic activists by pre-screening them to meet Hillary in small settings as cameras click

  • ‘If someone like that loves her, then they’ll talk to other people, and so on, and that’s going to help,’ she said 

  • Palmieri wouldn’t rule out the possibility that some at the bakery on Monday were asked to come.

A Hillary Clinton campaign official explained on Monday why her presidential advisers have brought pre-screened partisans to some events promoted as an opportunity for the former secretary of state to meet with ‘everyday Americans.’

Just steps away in a Keene, New Hampshire bakery, a few run-of-the-mill people decided they didn’t want to be seen with her.

‘There was a bit of a thing back here when she came in,’ explained Marcia DuBois, a cashier at Kristin’s Bistro & Bakery on Washington Street, where Clinton spent a half-hour talking with customers and shaking hands.

‘A few of the staff didn’t want to come out to meet Hillary,’ DuBois said. ‘They just don’t like her.’

Read the full story here.

.

.

.

 

Share

James Carville Says Romney Will ‘Get Back In The Race’ After Jeb Drops Out

Share
bush carville romney
Jeb Bush, James Carville and Mitt Romney

Hat/Tip to Karen Tumulty and Robert Costa at The Washington Post.

With only Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio on the Republican side and Hillary Clinton on the Democratic side OFFICIALLY in the race for the 2016 Presidential Election, speculation still abounds.

Saint Anselm College has been a required stop on the pilgrimage for presidential aspirants, going at least as far back as John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon more than a half-century ago.

When former Florida governor Jeb Bush (R) made his first speech here on Friday, he pointed to the historic photos on the wall.

“I’m looking out at this room, and I’m seeing these incredible pictures, some of which bring back really fond memories — guy over there, guy over there,” Bush said.

They were decades-old images of two former candidates who happened to be Bush’s father and brother.

The lessons that George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush had learned in New Hampshire were hard ones. Both stumbled the first time they ran here, in 1980 and 2000, respectively.

But this time around the competition on the GOP side is going to be much stiffer and well funded, so the Granite State could be nearly crucial to a successful run on the Republican side.

For Jeb Bush, an even trickier set of challenges awaits in the Granite State in 2016. The first-in-the-nation primary may well be a do-or-die situation for the third Bush to run in it.

Not yet formally declared as a candidate, Bush already is being seen as the establishment front-runner. But that status means less than it used to, given that the GOP has moved further to the right than it was when the older Bushes ran. It also appears that Jeb Bush will be running in a far larger field of credible, well-financed contenders.

Even more significant, New Hampshire could be a crucial test of Bush’s core argument that he is the GOP candidate who stands the best chance of beating Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton in the general election.

Democrats will also be watching Bush’s New Hampshire effort closely, as a sign of how much of a free-for-all the GOP nominating process is likely to become.

“Jeb Bush has to win New Hampshire. It’s a must-win for him, because he will lose Iowa. You’ve got to win one of them, particularly if [you’re] considered to be something of a front-runner,” Democratic strategist James Carville said at a panel discussion in February celebrating the New Hampshire primary’s upcoming 100th anniversary.

“I will go further,” Carville said. “If Jeb Bush loses New Hampshire, they’ll get Mitt Romney back in the race” — a reference to the GOP’s 2012 nominee, who briefly flirted with the idea of making a third bid for the White House.

Read the full story here.

.

.

.

Share

Carly Fiorina Set To Run, Says She Will Take Away Hillary’s ‘I’m A Woman’ Argument

Share

 photo carly20fiorina_zpse1luyhwf.jpg

Hat/Tip to WeaselZippers.

This is shaping up to be quite the campaign!

Republican Carly Fiorina took a step closer to running for president, revealing Thursday that she is near a decision while blasting Hillary Clinton’s policies as “crushing the middle class.”

“I am giving serious consideration to becoming a candidate for the presidency because I think our nation is at a pivotal point,” said the former Hewlett-Packard and one-time California Senate candidate. “I think our government has grown so large, so powerful, so costly, so complex, so corrupt in fact that we are crushing the potential for the nation,” she added.

Laying out her platform to reporters at a breakfast roundtable sponsored by theChristian Science Monitor, she slammed domestic and foreign policies under President Obama and Clinton, decrying a “web of dependence” that’s trapped the poor while making others poor by destroying small businesses with regulations.

Read the full story here.

.

.

.

Share

Second Amendment? Ted Cruz Smacks Down A Reporter – Hard

Share

poster 002Hat/Tip to Mike Miller at Doug Ross @ Journal.

On the 2nd Amendment Ted Cruz Mops The Floor With Reporter’s Attempt At A “Gotcha Question.”

You’ve gotta love how he so Reaganesguely deconstructs, and thus takes the power away from the typical far left ‘gotcha’ question.

 

At a recent event, GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz was asked the following question:

“In the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting, a statistic surfaced putting support for background checks at 90%. Did you go against the want of the nation with your vote against Manchin-Toomey (a bill that would have required background checks on all commercial sales of guns)?”

After patiently listening to the questioner read the prepared question, Cruz responded:

“You know there’s an old line: there are lies, damn lies and statistics. You’re right, that was a poll that was bandied around a lot, but you can find a lot of results in a poll depending on how you frame the question. As you and I both know, we have a system of background checks in place right now.

What Manchin-Toomey was trying to do was extend that to every private sale between two individuals … two guys in a duck blind selling their shotgun, one to the other. The federal government doesn’t have any business there.

When you asked about the role of public opinion polls, when it comes to Constitutional rights, what matters is what the Bill of Rights says. It doesn’t matter what happens to be popular at the moment.

The entire reason for the Second Amendment is not for hunting, it’s not for target shooting … it’s there so that you and I can protect our homes and our families and our lives. And it’s also there as fundamental check on government tyranny.”

Classic Cruz.

.

.

.

Share

Hillz First Campaign Speech Tackles Free Speech – Go Figure

Share
Over budget? What difference does it make?
I get to use Free Speech, but not you people!

Hat/Tip to Andrew Malcom at Investors Business Daily.

Yep, we’re not even really underway as far as the 2016 Presidential Election is concerned, but Hillz is already talking about taking away some of our rights…

You may very well have missed it. But at her first 2016 campaign stop in Iowa Tuesday, wannabe president Hillary Clinton called for a constitutional amendment if necessary to limit free speech rights granted by the Supreme Court to unions, companies and organizations donating to political campaigns.

Few might have expected the ex-Obama aide to kick off her second bid to infiltrate the Oval Office with such a proposal for fundamental change in settled American law. But there she was wearing an uber-smile with more media than audience at Kirkland Community College in Monticello (get the Thomas Jefferson link?).

First, she modestly portrayed herself as somewhat courageous for taking on some evil special interest groups. Because, as her divisive mentor Barack Obama so ably shows, you must have a “Them” to create an “Us.” Hillary proclaimed:

“I want to be the champion who goes to bat for Americans in four big areas, four big fights that I think we have to take on because there are those who don’t agree with what I think we should be doing. And they’re pretty powerful forces.”

  • Topic One: “We need to build the economy of tomorrow, not yesterday.” Take that, Marco Rubio, who’s called her a yesterday leader. (Scroll down for video of her remarks.)
  • Topic Two: “We need to strengthen families and communities because that’s where it all starts.” Remember her 1996 book, “It Takes a Village”?
  • Topic Four (yes, it’s out of order but play along): “We need to protect our country from the threats that we see and the ones that are on the horizon.”

Purposely not specific. With Clinton, “threats” could be anything from the “vast right-wing conspiracy” to the media to, gee, here’s a thought, maybe even terrorism threats that have exploded since she took office as Secretary of State in early 2009.

  • Topic Three: “We need to fix our dysfunctional political system and get unaccountable money out of it once and for all—even if that takes a constitutional amendment.”

Wait! What? Yup, the woman with her own PACs who could spend upwards of $1.7 billion on her campaign is taking on the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision. That one granted free speech spending rights to nonprofit organizations in the political process, since expanded to unions and corporations.

You may recall Barack Obama violating political protocol in his 2011 State of the Union address to criticize the Citizens decision of Supreme Court justices sitting silently, politely right in front of him. Citizens United is an issue near and dear to the mechanical pumps that pass for hearts in the left-wing of the Democrat Party.

.

.

.

Share

Is Rubio Eligible To Be POTUS?

Share

Bipartisan Group Of Senators Announce Major Agreement On Immigration Reform

 

Hat/Tip to Javier Manjarres at Breitbart.

Editor’s Note: We ran a story about Marco Rubio which was written by Ken McIntyre at The Daily Signal. From the feedback of the comments, it would seem that, once again there are those who, armed with Google have their own interpretation of what the term natural born citizen means.

Here, reprinted in its entirety, is an article from April of 2013 by Breitbart.com, one of the MOST Conservative websites on the planet.

Conservative Hideout takes no sides on this issue, as we have ‘no dog in the fight’, so to speak. Our job is to present facts and historical data, and even opinions of Constitutional scholars so that our readers can make informed decisions.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The immigration reform issue is all the buzz across the country, and Senator Marco Rubio, who is aggressively pushing the newly unveiled immigration reform bill he  helped craft in the U.S. Senate, is once again be talked up as a possible 2016 Presidential candidate.

But while the Senator’s political  allies and supporters believe that he will run for President, there are those out there that do not believe that he is even eligible to become Commander-In-Chief of the United States.

I decided to take a stab at trying understanding why ‘Birthers’ believe Rubio is not eligible to be President of the United States.

Birthers contend that Rubio is ineligible to be President because his parent were not born in the United States. Rubio was born in 1971 at Cedars of Lebanon Hospital in Miami, Florida, making him a U.S. citizen.

While many of us will jokingly say that  a U.S. passport is required to travel to the ‘country of  Miami-Dade,’ the fact is,  Miami-Dade county and all of its municipalities are part of the United States.

Both of Rubio’s parents were born in Cuba and became naturalized U.S. citizens years after their initial migration from the island.

For this reason, and this reason alone, Birthers believe that Rubio is not eligible to become President. Many contend that in order to become President, both parents of any presidential candidate have to be U.S. citizens at the time of his or her birth. Yet, this is not stipulated in the U.S. Constitution.

Here is what is exactly written in the U.S. Constitution’s Article II Section 1-

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

So as you can see, the Constitution does not specifically define the term natural-born citizen. Those challenging Rubio’s eligibility cite various opinions and interpretations of what the natural-born citizen term could mean.

According to a Tampa Bay Times story written two years ago, Birthers “cite the U.S.Supreme, which in the 1875 case Minor vs. Happersett, used the term “natural born citizen” in reference to persons who were born in the United States, of U.S.-citizen parents.

The story also says that Constitutionalists point to the 14th Amendment, “which conferred citizenship on former slaves born in the United States (now a contentious issue involving the children of illegal immigrants.) Birthers say the amendment fortifies their case because it does not use “natural” born.”

So, while these Birther arguments are understandable, and cannot be completely dismissed as crazy talk, considering  the lack of definition of a natural born citizen in  Article II Section 1 of the Constitution, there is nothing written, or amended to the document that directly defines or changes the original requirements to become President of the United States.

In 2011 Congressional Research Service released a  report that stated the following-

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is  entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth”, either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth”. Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.

Again, this is the interpretation of this particular think tank, or organization.

.

.

.

Share

Both Ted Cruz And Marco Rubio Are Eligible To Be President Or Vice-President

Share

Ted Cruz
U.S. Senator and candidate for the GOP nomination for President of the United States, Ted Cruz

marco rubio 003
U.S. Senator and candidate for the GOP nomination for President of the United States, Marco Rubio

Editor’s Note: We ran a story about Marco Rubio which was written by Ken McIntyre at The Daily Signal. From the feedback of the comments, it would seem that, once again there are those who, armed with Google have their own interpretation of what the term natural born citizen means.

Here, reprinted in its entirety, is an article from September of 2013 by Diane Sori at the Tea Party Tribune, which is among the staunchest Conservative websites in the blogosphere.

Conservative Hideout takes no sides on this issue, as we have ‘no dog in the fight’, so to speak. Our job is to present facts and historical data, and even opinions of Constitutional scholars so that our readers can make informed decisions.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Last Tuesday, Texas Senator Ted Cruz showed what an elected official should be…a champion of ‘We the People.’ In a 21-hour ‘non-filibuster’ filibuster, Cruz let it be known about the danger facing us all…the danger that is ObamaCare. By standing strong, Ted Cruz got thrust into the limelight as the front runner for the Republican Presidential or Vice-Presidential nomination in 2016…and rightly so.

One of those standing united with Ted Cruz, and speaking when he needed a break, was Florida Senator Marco Rubio, who in 2012 was on Mitt Romney’s Vice-Presidential ‘short list’ and whose name is also be spoken of for the Presidential or Vice-Presidential nomination in 2016.

However, with both Cruz and Rubio’s names comes the issue raised by some that neither meets the requirement of being a ‘natural born citizen.’ But what most do NOT realize is that in the case of both men this concern can be resolved by just reading the words…or lack of words…in the Constitution itself…just reading the words as written…NOT trying to change or reinterpret words that our Founders made clear and simple in their meaning.

Let me explain…let’s start with the critical issue that is at the crux of the issues raised…what exactly is a ‘natural born citizen’? Simply, the Constitution does NOT define those words, but the Framers’ understanding…combined with statutes enacted by the First Congress…indicate that the phrase meant both birth abroad to American parents (in a manner regulated by federal law…more on that later), and birth within the nation’s territory regardless of parental citizenship.

In fact, the Supreme Court has upheld that meaning many times in various contexts even with being a ‘natural-born citizen’ a requirement to be President or Vice-President of this country. But again, NOWHERE in the Constitution does it define ‘natural born citizen ‘ while ‘native born’ citizen is clearly defined.

And while Article 2 of the Constitution does state, “no person except a natural born citizen … shall be eligible to the Office of President,” the actual term ‘natural born citizen’ was ambiguous at best. Some contend that anyone born inside the U.S. should be considered a natural born citizen, and the Congressional Research Service (CRS)* seems to back that view.

They have stated that, “The weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion indicates that the term means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship “at birth” or “by birth,” including any child born “in” the United States, even to alien parents (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.”

And herein lies the key, and read these words very carefully, “one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship “at birth” or “by birth,” including any child born “in” the United States, even to alien parents…” Even to “alien parents,” as long as the child is born “in” the United States…that is the key phrase in Marco Rubio’s particular case.

In the case of Canadian born Ted Cruz the words “at birth” are key as Cruz’s mother, a U.S. born American citizen, conferred citizenship to Ted under ‘The Nationality Act of 1940? which states which children become “nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.” Stating those born in the United States or born outside the United States to at least one parent who was a citizen at the time of the child’s birth allows citizenship to go to that child if that citizen parent spent a certain number of years in the U.S.

And this is where Ted Cruz’s American citizenship is garnered from as Cruz being born to a born in America citizen mother, was able to assume her citizenship ‘at birth’ because under the law in effect between 1952 and 1986…Cruz was born in 1970…someone must have a citizen parent who resided in the United States for at least 10 years, including five years after the age of 14, in order to have citizenship conferred to them.

The indisputable fact is that Ted Cruz’s mother, Eleanor Darragh, was born and raised in the U.S…in Delaware…did NOT go to Canada until her mid-to late 20s. and did NOT have Ted until into her 30’s…way beyond the mandatory 5-year-post-age-14 residency requirement.

And herein lies Barack HUSSEIN Obama’s problems for whether he was born in Kenya as some claim or whether he was born in Hawaii as others claim…his American citizen mother did NOT reside in the U.S. for 5 years after age 14 as she was 18 years of age when Obama was born…only 4 years after reaching the mandatory 14 years of age…and Obama was born in 1961 so he comes under the same rules of law as Ted Cruz does.

This simple fact makes Barack HUSSEIN Obama ineligible to be President NO matter which side of the ‘birther’ vs ‘non-birther’ battle one is on.

As for Rubio, while we all know his parents were NOT citizens at the time of his birth there is NO doubt whatsoever that Marco Rubio was indeed born “in” the United States, in Miami in fact, as he has an indisputable birth certificate that proves just that. His parents received their final naturalization papers in 1975, four years after Marco’ birth but there is NO denying that his “alien parents” were here LEGALLY, they came here through the LEGAL process, they lived here LEGALLY, and they became citizens LEGALLY as per the requirements of that day. So, yes they were “alien parents” at the time of Marco’s birth but the Congressional Research Service clearly states that ‘under the Constitution’ as long as the person in question was born here, having “alien parents” means nothing.

There is even more credence in both Cruz and Rubio’s eligibility to become either President or Vice-President. Article Two: Section One, Clause 5 of the Constitution states the eligibility requirements for serving as either President or Vice President of the United States:

“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

Now reread these words very carefully again, “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…” “At the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…” This again is a key phrase that allows both Cruz and Rubio to be the Republican nominee for either position.

Let me again explain…the requirement to be ‘natural born’ was an attempt to alleviate the fears that foreign aristocrats might immigrate to the new nation…the United States of America…and use their wealth and influence, and power to impose a monarchy upon the people, a monarchy, the very rule of government that the Founders were opposed to.

So to make sure this did not happen, as they were laying the foundations of the laws of our land that would became our Constitution, the Founders made it clear that at the time of the “Adoption of this Constitution” that no one NOT born on United States soil would be eligible to become President, because they feared that England might still try to destroy the emerging nation from within by ‘planting’ a person of their choosing within the emerging ranks of leaders.

Breaking it down even further, this phrase uses the term ‘natural born’ in context only to the time in which the Constitution was being adopted and makes NO reference to ‘natural born’ in context to later years.

Now also take into account the words, “…have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” (Marco Rubio was born here, has lived here his entire life, and is over 35 years of age…Ted Cruz, while born in Canada, had citizenship conferred to him “at birth” through his mother, has lived here most of his life, and is over 35 years of age) “…and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” “been fourteen Years a resident…” the word ‘resident’ contradicts the CRS’s interpretive ruling of having to “be born in” or did they take into account in their ruling that the Founders, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, realized that since the nation was new that maybe some who aspired to the presidency might have been born in England or elsewhere but came here as a child…hmmm, we will never know for sure.

But critical in today’s questioning is the memorandum to Congress dated April 3, 2009, written by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), stating:

“Considering the history of the constitutional qualifications provision, the common use and meaning of the phrase “natural-born subject” in England and in the Colonies in the 1700s, the clause’s apparent intent, the subsequent action of the first Congress in enacting the Naturalization Act of 1790 (expressly defining the term “natural born citizen” to include a person born abroad to parents who are United States citizens), as well as subsequent Supreme Court dicta, it appears that the most logical inferences would indicate that the phrase “natural born citizen” would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “at birth” or “by birth.”

And the words, “natural born citizen” would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “at birth” or “by birth” are the most important of all.

So with all the information I have presented, it should be clear to all that both Texas Senator Ted Cruz and Florida Senator Marco Rubio are indeed eligible to be either President or Vice-President of these United States.

.

.

.

Share

“I Want A Woman President, Just Not You!”

Share

 photo Judge Jeanine Pirro_zpsmftooz3h.jpg

Hat/Tip to the Conservative Tribune.

In one of her famous opening segment monologues, Judge Jeanine Pirro ripped Hillary Clinton to shreds over her credibility, or rather lack of credibility. I wouldn’t want to be on this lady’s bad side.

Very few people would ever confuse the Fox News Channel’s Judge Jeanine Pirro with a supporter of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

However, just to make sure that her views are clear as can be, the fiery judge ripped into the former Secretary of State, Senator, and first lady during her “Opening Statement” on her Saturday evening program.

Judge Jeanine began by noting that she is all for America having a woman for president, just not Hillary Clinton.

“I want someone who says what she means, and means what she says,” she said. “I want someone who understands and respects the Judeo-Christian ethics upon which this country was founded. I want someone who cares about us, who cares about the American people,” she said.

“Hillary Clinton is not that person,” the judge deadpanned.

According to BizPac Review, Judge Jeanine went on to detail an old case Hillary had worked when she was a lawyer in Arkansas, defending a man accused of raping and beating a 12-year-old girl.

She pointed out how Hillary is on tape laughing about how the pedophile beat a lie detector test, and how Hillary successfully got her client’s sentence reduced to mere months by smearing and destroying the credibility of the young victim.

“You blame the victim and you laugh about it,” Pirro said. “And you want us to believe that you’re going to protect us?”

“How can we expect a woman as cold and calculating as you to protect all Americans?” the judge asked rhetorically.

“I want a woman president,” Pirro concluded, “but not you.”

Rest assured, Judge Jeanine Pirro is not alone in that sentiment, and there is a large and growing number of Americans who will do everything within their power to ensure that Hillary Clinton never gets elected to another office of public trust, especially that of the President of the United States.

.

.

.

Share