Hillary to Hire Internet Trolls to Attack Bernie Supporters. Get Your Popcorn Here.

internet-trollIf you don’t believe that the Clinton Campaign is concerned about the unexpected success of the Presidential Campaign of Bernie Sanders, check this out:

Breitbart.com reports that

Correct the Record, a pro-Hillary Clinton political action committee (PAC), is spending over $1 million on online trolls in order to ‘correct’ Bernie Sanders supporters on social media sites.

The PAC this week launched an initiative called “Barrier Breakers 2016,” which is composed of a “task force” that will debate ‘Bernie Bros,’ presumably supporters of the Senator Sanders’s campaign, as referred to by their official press release.

According to Correct the Record, the task force will “combat online political harassment,” boasting that it has already “addressed more than 5,000 individuals who have personally attacked Secretary Clinton on Twitter.”

“The task force will provide a presence and space online where Clinton supporters can organize and engage with one another and are able to obtain graphics, videos, gifs, and messaging to use in their own social spaces,” the group states.

“Additionally, the Barrier Breakers 2016 task force hopes to embrace the creativity of Hillary Clinton’s supporters by sharing their efforts and content with other groups,” it continues.

“Barrier Breakers 2016 is focused on pushing out positive content to Hillary supporters online to counter negative attacks and false narratives,” Correct the Record’s communications director, Elizabeth Shappell, told The Daily Beast. “The expanded task force was established in anticipation of the general election.”

According to Campaign Legal Center lawyer Paul Ryan, Correct the Record is “creating new ways to undermine campaign regulation.” However, it is understood the Federal Electoral Commission will not be investigating the matter.

Those of us who are Political Junkies, who hang out on the Social Media, have witnessed the phenomenon known as “Paid Internet Trolls”, since the Presidency of George W. Bush.

It’s amazing how websites are a reflection of our Political Reality.

Every website and Facebook Page, where there is political discussion, unless they are just Pro-one-way-or-the-other, puts out a plea for civil discourse in the discussions that happen between commenters on their site.

Unfortunately, though, that never seems to happen. And, why is that?

If you are an Internet – Surfing Political Junkie like me, at some time or another, you have no doubt run into an aggravating, bitter, whiney individual, commonly referred to as an “Internet Troll”.

In America, most Internet Trolls belong to the Liberal Political Ideology (whether they admit it, or not).

And, as the above article proves, a lot of them are getting paid for eating Cheetos and commenting on Political Facebook Pages and Websites all day.

In our American Culture today, the art of civil discourse has degenerated into a shouting match. This wouldn’t be so bad, if both sides had the right to shout equally as loud as the other side.

The problem is, for some reason, Conservatives are expected to mind our manners, be meek and mild, and follow the Marquis of Queensberry rules, while Liberals, libertarians, and self-identified “Moderates” (Liberals who won’t admit to being one) call us everything but a child of God.

However, this doesn’t just happen on the Internet, this happens in the Real World as well… and it all starts with the President of the United States and trickles down from there.

Before Obama became President, in a private fund raiser in Pennsylvania, he referred to us American Conservatives as bitter clingers, clinging to our guns and Bibles. Then, the Main Stream Media, totally in love with their new messiah, told everyone who would listen, that if you did not vote for Barack Hussein Obama as President, you are a racist.

When Conservatives started to dig up historical facts about Obama, we are told by those whom I identified to sit down, shut up, and know “our role” or “stay in our lane”.

After Obama was elected, and the country started to find out just exactly who he was, Conservatives started to speak out again. Again, we were told to sit down, shut up, and know our “role”(stay in our lane).

Finally, we had enough and began a groundswell, which led to the formation of what has become known as the Tea Party.

The rise of the Tea Party movement and America’s return to Conservatism, which resulted in the political massacre known as the 2010 Midterm Elections, was such a surprise to them. In their self-imposed isolation, they actually thought that the America people wanted them to continue their deal-making, soul-selling, business-as-usual politics.

They were in shock when American Conservatives stood up on their hind legs and gave the House of Representatives back to the Republican Party.

And, you know what happened afterwards?

The Liberal Establishment and their minions, the Internet Trolls, began a relentless Social Media Campaign designed to make American Conservatives, once again, the “Silent Majority”, calling us “racists” for speaking the truth about Barack Hussein Obama, and telling us, once again, to sit down, shut up, know our “role”/”stay in our lane”.

Then, after the overwhelming Political Massacre that transpired on November 6, 2014, with Republicans gaining control of both Houses of Congress, thanks, once again, to the Conservative Base, and, the national resentment of the growing Liberal use of the Rhetoric of Class and Racial Warfare, spurred on by their Petulant President, the Internet Trolls started whining louder than the Civil Defense Siren at Noon on Saturday.

And now, on the cusp of the Presidency of Donald J. Trump, the reformation of the Republican Party, and the  apparent abject failure of the Presidential Campaign of Hillary Clinton, Internet Trolls are poised to once again attempt to shut down Free Speech and reshape the very fabric of reality.

Are you beginning to see a pattern, boys and girls?

Liberal Trolls and their activity on the Internet are simply an extension of our culture at large.

Liberalism has always been a failed political ideology. It has never been embraced by the majority of Americans.

So, in order for Liberals to “get their way”, since their ideas are never excepted by the majority of Americans, they must resort to the facilitation of Culture Change through intimidation, rule by fiat, and via Executive Orders, if they have a President in the White House, who will do their bidding…which has certainly been the case since January 21, 2009.

In other words, Liberal Activists, especially Internet Trolls, are dirty, manipulative, little cowards, who overestimate their power….and, their own intelligence…as this “Inter-Party War” between Clinton and Sanders will clearly demonstrate.

Each side will expect the other to acquiesce and surrender to their “superior intellect” and unceasing Internet insults and propaganda.

Normally, Liberal Democrats, including the “Trolling” variety, both paid and unpaid, attack average Conservative Americans, expecting us to behave like a dog who has been whipped too much, go cower in a corner and allow them to insult and walk all over us in our online “discussions”.

Their expectation of Conservative Behavior is predicated on the fact that they know that we were raised right, usually by two parents, and that the majority of us are Christians, and are reluctant to have an out-of-body experience on an Internet Chat Board or Political Facebook Page, telling them where to go and the temperature when they get there.

Therefore, Liberal Democrats feel as if they can take advantage of the good nature of American Conservatives, and walk all over us.

They have found out differently over the past several years, as they frequently get their hindquarters handed to them.

In the scenario described by article at the beginning of this post, it will be Liberal insulting Liberal, in a scene reminiscent of two Professional Wresting “Heels” beating the snot out of each other.

Grab your popcorn, boys and girls.

This should be fun to watch.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Group of “Conservatives” to Seek Third-Party Candidate to Challenge Trump. Salvation or Sabotage?

image

H. Ross Perot is an very successful, outspoken American Businessman, who has played the part of “spoiler” in two unsuccessful campaigns for the Presidency of the United States of America.

Biography.com offers the following summary:

Always politically outspoken, Perot decided to step off the sidelines and get into the action in the spring of 1992. He was disappointed in President George Bush and didn’t like any of the potential Democratic candidates. Positioning himself as a political outsider, Perot wrote about his ideas for rebuilding a troubled America in United We Stand: How We Can Take Back Our Country. He also broadcasted his political views in infomercials, using his substantial wealth to buy air time across the country. Perot had a down-home style and a habit for speaking in snappy sound-bites, which appealed to many members of the voting public. As journalist Paul Burka wrote in Texas Monthly, “Perot is the candidate of the disaffected, the disenchanted, the fed up: the people whose contempt for politics has passed beyond cynicism to despair.”

His campaign seemed to gather momentum as the political race heated up. Perot promoted himself as a reformer, building on his success with the Texas Public Education system in the 1980s. But, in July, he dropped out of the race, later claiming that the Republican Party had plans to embarrass his daughter Carolyn before her wedding. According to The New York Times, Perot believed that the Bush campaign was going to start a rumor about his daughter’s sexuality.

Perot returned to the race in October with only weeks left before the election. Despite this setback, he managed to garner nearly 19 percent of the popular vote. Perot was the first independent candidate since Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 to receive this large of a share of the popular vote. Still the lion’s share of voters chose Democrat Bill Clinton. Perot faced off against Clinton again in 1996, but his campaign failed to win over much public support.

The following report may be found under the category of “Those Who Ignore History…”.

Businessinsider.com reports that

Now that Donald Trump is the last man standing in the Republican presidential race, his critics in the party are intensifying their search for a candidate they could back as a serious third-party alternative.

Political operatives are courting donors, calling potential candidates and developing legal contingency plans for overcoming onerous ballot-qualification laws.

“This is as much as anything a battle for the future of American party politics,” said Republican strategist Joel Searby, who is working with conservative writer Bill Kristol, among others, to identify a third-party candidate for the November 8 presidential election.

The group Conservatives Against Trump, which includes blogger Erick Erickson, has been holding calls and meetings to discuss third-party candidates as well as other options to stop the New York billionaire from winning the White House.

The hurdles for a third-party candidacy are high. No independent candidate has ever won a presidential election, though some have played spoilers. But the efforts by the Republican groups underscore the unusual divisiveness of Trump’s candidacy within Republican ranks ahead of a likely general-election fight with Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton.

Trump’s opposition to free trade is at odds with the views of many Republicans, especially in the party’s business wing. Many of Trump’s critics also find his rhetoric offensive, including his call to temporarily bar Muslims from entering the country and his comment describing some Mexican immigrants to the US as rapists and drug dealers.

Some Republicans say they worry that any third-party candidate would only siphon votes away from Trump and help Clinton win the election.

Ralph Nader’s run as the Green Party candidate in the 2000 presidential election has been blamed by some Democrats for the razor-thin loss of Democratic nominee Al Gore to George W. Bush. Ross Perot’s independent candidacy in 1992 was seen by some Republicans as contributing to President George H.W. Bush’s loss to Democrat Bill Clinton.

One outcome, though rare, may be that no candidate crosses the necessary threshold of 270 votes in the US Electoral College. In that case, the vote for the next president would pass to the US House of Representatives, currently controlled by Republicans.

Deborah DeMoss Fonseca, who recruited donors for former Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush and is working with Conservatives Against Trump, said her group was trying to find a candidate who would be high-profile enough to compete with Trump and Clinton.

As a Christian American Conservative,
I can understand some Conservatives’ reluctance to support Donald J.Trump.

That being said, at this late stage, the unrealistic expectation of finding a viable Third-Party Candidate, by which, somehow, to steal the Republican Presidential Nomination from Trump or the victory in the General Election from Trump, simply because the Primary Elections, due to the will of the American people, has not gone the way that you envisioned it, amounts to nothing more than a willful act of sabotage, which could enable the loathsome Hillary Clinton to become President.

The failure of Senator Ted Cruz’s campaign to become the Republican nominee, is attributable to no one except his Campaign Advisors and the Senator, himself.

Instead of attempting to form a coalition, as Trump has been able to do, the Cruz Campaign, along with the unsolicited help of Radio Talk Show Host and Real-Life Elmer Gantry , Glenn Beck, positioned themselves, whether accidentally or on purpose, to resemble an old fashioned Tent Revival, at times, reminiscent of the old Neil Diamond song, “Brother Love’s Traveling Salvation Show”.

While I am also extremely concerned about the social issues which face this country and the slippery slope that we seem to be traveling on, at this time, that is not what is foremost on the minds of the American Voting public.

Americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck, while more and more of us, through no fault of our own, are being expunged from the American Workforce, with that number now being well over 94, 400, 000.

Meanwhile, up on Capitol Hill, those whom we have voted into office to represent us, are more intent on reaching across the aisle, fulfilling the interests of a small minority of Americans, who would radically change this nation into something unrecognizable, turning The Shining City Upon the Hill into the World’s Piggy Bank and Doormat.

Hillary Clinton must not be given the chance to continue the failed policies of Barack Hussein Obama, facilitating an accelerated Ascent of America into an abyss that we may never be able to climb out of.

Certain members of the Republican establishment have already announced that they will not support Trump, even if he is the Republican Nominee.

It would be the height of irony and a disservice to American Conservatives who have gone before, if this current attempt by this group of “Conservatives”, to launch a third-party candidate, undos all the hard work of those who have tried to prevent this country’s destruction by an out-of-control Federal Government which panders to Special Interest Groups, instead of the American voters, while inadvertently aligning themselves with these Establishment Republicans.

Now is not the time for temper tantrums, now is the time for maturity.

It is time to begin the process of taking America back.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Call It “Nationalism” or “Populism”, There is a Reason That Trump is Still Leading The Republican Primary: Americans Are Voting For Him.

Final-GOP-Cut-600-LAAs I was perusing my usual sources this morning, in my preparation for writing today’s post, I found an article by Patrick J. Buchanan, who was twice a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination and the Reform Party’s candidate in 2000. He is also a founder and editor of The American Conservative. Buchanan served three presidents in the White House, was a founding panelist of three national TV shows, and is the author of 10 books.

The title of the article, “What Trump Has Wrought”, leads one into a descriptive summary of the movement that the Political Intelligentsia is referring to as “Nationalism”.

In other words, the old-fashioned, according to Liberals and Marxists (but, I repeat myself), concept of PUTTING AMERICA FIRST.

And, while the article is a very nice summary of exactly where we are and why Donald J. Trump is leading the Republican Presidential Primary Race, on behalf of my fellow contributors at www.hotgas.net, please allow me to quote John McClane (Bruce Willis, in the now-classic movie, “Die Hard”), when I say,

Welcome to the party, pal!

As we have been chronicling, this “Nationalism” that Buchanan refers to in his article, is actually a Grass Roots Movement, just like the Tea Party Movement was, and is.

It is a Populist Movement.

Dictionary.com defines “populism” as

1. the political philosophy of the People’s party.
2. (lowercase) any of various, often antiestablishment or anti-intellectual political movements or philosophies that offer unorthodox solutions or policies and appeal to the common person rather than according with traditional party or partisan ideologies.
3. (lowercase) grass-roots democracy; working-class activism; egalitarianism.
4. (lowercase) representation or extolling of the common person, the working class, the underdog, etc.:populism in the arts.

That word first reappeared in the American Lexicon, when Sarah Palin almost dragged John McCain’s RINO Rear across the Finish Line, in the Presidential Election of 2008.

The Grassroots Movement, which began back then has led us to a seminal moment in American Politics.

The American People are speaking, loud and clear.

Along with my fellow contributors at Hot Gas, I have been writing factual articles about why Donald J. Trump was winning in the Republican Primaries, so far.

And, we have all caught Hell about it.

We have been was called everything, but Children of God.

Heck, one guy of the Political Facebook Page of another Christian American Commenter, even reported a recent article of mine as “spam”.

If y’all have any doubts about my Christian American Conservative Bonafides, there are almost 2,200 blogs which prove them, going back to April of 2010, when I started.

Or, you can ask the “Missional Community” (it’s not called “Sunday School” any more, at this contemporary church) Class I led last Sunday Morning at my home church.

But, I digress…

The word “populism” first reappeared in the American Lexicon, when Sarah Palin almost dragged John McCain’s RINO Rear across the Finish Line, in the Presidential Election of 2008.

The Grassroots Movement, which began back then, through the hard work of average Middle Class Americans, like you and me, has led us to a seminal moment in American Politics.

A “Citizen Statesman”, such as our Founding Fathers envisioned, is on track to be the Republican Candidate for the Presidency of the United States of America.

The American People are speaking, loud and clear.

A Candidate has to build a coalition, in order to win the Presidency.

Ronald Reagan, and, again, I am not comparing Trump to Reagan, figured out in 1980, that, in order to win the presidency, you had to bypass the Republican Establishment and go directly to the American People.

That is exactly what Donald J. Trump has done.

The Godfather of Conservative Talk Radio, Rush Limbaugh, broke it down for us, during his program on February 10, 2016…

This is what the Republican Party’s been telling us they need to win.  I’ve had ’em come to my office.  I’ve told you.  I’ve had Rand Paul here, Mitt Romney’s here.  One thing they’ve all said in common is that Republican Party can’t win with Republican votes alone anymore.  We have to branch out, we have to reach out.  This is what they were telling me to prepare me for some of the campaign tactics that I was gonna see. That they were gonna have to reach out and immigration was one of the ways of reaching out, supporting amnesty. Well, all along Trump has built that coalition the Republican Party claims to want and they’re out there badgering it and bashing it.  It’s exactly what they claim to want.  They could have had it.  The Republican Party could have had the Trump coalition.  They could have had it at health care.  A majority of Americans opposed Obamacare from the get-go.  The Republican Party could have seriously attempted to form an alliance with the Tea Party and the anti-Obamacare people and been a dominant majority party on that issue alone.  And then on subsequent issues to come down the pike the Republican Party could have formed an alliance with majorities in other areas of opposition, and they didn’t. 

Donald Trump has the exact coalition the Republican Party, to a man, has told me they need to win, that they need to thrive.  And now they’re reduced to bashing it by virtue of bashing Trump.  And now they’re reduced to bashing it by virtue of bashing Cruz.  The two people who are showing the Republican Party all they had to do all these past seven years, but they didn’t.  They purposely, strategically, tactically refused to push back, refused to make a spectacle of stopping Obama, and they have themselves to blame for this predicament. 

People are not gonna donate and donate and vote and vote and hear the right things during campaigns, the promises to stop Obama, to oppose Obamacare, to seriously make an effort to repeal it.  Even if they don’t have the votes to override a veto, the effort, all it would have taken was the effort, all it would have taken was put the onus on Obama, make Obama illustrate that all this is his fingerprints.  No such strategy was ever seen. 

As I gave previously written, Trump is riding the crest of an ever-growing anger over the inaction of Professional Politicians, whom, after being voted into National Office by their constituents back home, have literally bitten the hand that feeds them, tossing Ma and Pa Kettle aside for Big Money Donors and the Political Prestige of “reaching across the aisle”, i.e.. “selling out”.

The results of today’s Wisconsin Primary, are promising to be very close.

All of the so-called “Political Pundits”, both Professional and self-identified, to use a Millennial Buzzword, have already given Cruz the victory.

The problem with their presupposition, is that several polls are showing a last-minute surge by Trump.

Things could get very interesting tonight.

I understand the ongoing frustration that Cruz Supporters are feeling.

I liked him, too. In fact, during his ongoing quest against the Establishment (Vichy) Republicans, I stood by him 100%.

However, this Presidential Primary Season has revealed, one thing, if nothing else:

There are no angels in these Presidential Primary Races. One either side.

The problem is, Moderates and Democrats, for whatever reason, do not trust Cruz.

Holding one’s breath until they turn blue, or telling a Christian American Conservative that they are somehow condemned to Hell and are Unpatriotic, for pointing out the reality that Trump is the Undisputed Leader in the Republican Primary Race, is not going to change the reality of the situation.

Neither will staying at home and not voting this November, if Trump receives the Republican Nomination.

That’s been tried before.

That is how we got stuck with Petulant President Pantywaist.

Finally, as I have observed in previous articles, if the Republican Establishment decided to have a Brokered Convention, as appoints their own Moderate milksop of a Presidential Candidate, America will be swearing-in President Hillary Rodham Clinton, next January.

However, I am beginning to believe that the Vichy Republicans. for all of their bluster, could care less.

They appear to be willing to do whatever it takes to preserve the Washingtonian Status Quo…including ignoring the wishes of the American Voters, who gave them their cushy jobs.

As it has  proven, without a doubt in the past, the Republican Establishment’s arrogance will be their undoing.

After all…

Actions (and Inactions) have consequences.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Jeb! to Meet With Republican Candidates Today…Except Trump. “Red Rover, Red Rover…Send Donald Trump Over!”

Hold-Nose-600-LAThe definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again…and expecting different results. – Albert Einstein

Foxnews.com reports that

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, after ending his campaign last month, is returning to the 2016 fray to meet with the remaining not-Trump candidates in his home state on Thursday – potentially the first step in an effort to power-broker a consensus alternative to take on the Republican front-runner.  

It’s unclear whether Bush plans to endorse anyone before Florida holds its all-important primary on Tuesday. But the former candidates sense a quickly closing window to pick their horse as Donald Trump racks up ever-more wins and delegates.

Another former candidate, ex-HP CEO Carly Fiorina, announced her endorsement earlier Wednesday for Texas Sen. Ted Cruz during a surprise appearance in Miami.

Fiorina, who dropped out of the 2016 race in February, called Cruz a “leader and a reformer” and urged voters to rally around Cruz as the candidate who can challenge Trump.

“Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are two sides of the same coin. They’re not going to reform the system. They are the system,” she said.

Sources confirmed to Fox News that Bush plans to meet Thursday with Cruz, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Ohio Gov. John Kasich while the candidates are in Florida for a GOP debate Thursday night. He has no plans to meet with Trump.  

…While Bush was in the race, Trump was relentless in his criticism of Bush’s family, his “low energy” and the big-money super PACs supporting him – which could explain why Bush does not have plans to meet with Trump in Florida on Thursday.

Evidently, despite having his clock cleaned, in his bid for the Republican Presidential Candidate Nomination, Jeb! believes that he has a winning strategy to offer the remaining candates, who like he did, appear destined to lose to Donald J. Trump.

Why is Jeb! doing this?

His was a failed campaign from the start…a homogenized, low-energy, Vichy Republican-sponsored effort, reminiscent of his Father’s, George H.W. Bush’s, Destiny and Power Campaign in 1980, which he lost to the greatest American President in my lifetime, Ronald Wilson Reagan.

H.W.’s  uninspired campaign promise was that he was “a president we won’t have to train”, as opposed to both Carter and his chief competitor, Reagan.

During Jeb!’s Campaign, he followed a similar tact, frequently taking two-sided shots at his primary foes. The younger Bush’s argument was that America shouldn’t elect another first-term senator as president, slamming Sitting President Barack Obama, a former senator, and both Rubio and Cruz.

Unfortunately for H.W., and, fortunately for us, he soon learned that experience took a back seat to ideology in the 1980 Republican primary race, just as it has in 2016.

Back then, just as today, Americans are angry…fed up with empty promises, made by the Washington Elite.

George H.W. Bush’s “inability to project great conviction” in 1980 was mirrored in his son’s “low-energy” label in 2016. While H.W. was seen as weaker than Reagan in 1980, Jeb! was perceived by the Base as being weaker than Trump in 2016.

Jeb!’s meetings today are a continuance of the Republican  Establishment’s Campaign against Trump, born of a desperation, which has been building to a fever pitch, once the Republican Establishment realized that Trump was well on his way to garnering the required number of delegates to lawfully receive the Republican Nomination as their Presidential Candidate.

On March 3rd, Failed Republican Presidential Candidate, Mitt Romney, came on National Television, on behalf of the Republican Establishment. His speech began thusly:

Now, I’m — I’m not here to announce my candidacy for office. And I’m not going to endorse a candidate today. Instead, I would like to offer my perspective on the nominating process of my party.

Back in 1964, just days before the presidential election — which, incidentally, we lost — Ronald Reagan went on national television and challenged America, saying that it was a time for choosing. He saw two paths for America, one that embraced conservative principles, dedicated to lifting people out of poverty and helping create opportunity for all.

And the other, an oppressive government that would lead America down a darker, less free path. I’m no Ronald Reagan and this is a different moment in time, but I believe with all my heart and soul, that we face another time for choosing, one that will have profound consequences for the Republican Party, and more importantly, for our country.

I say this, in part, because of my conviction that America is poised to lead the world for another century. Our technology engines, our innovation dynamic, the ambition and skill of our people are going to propel our economy and raise the standard of living of Americans.

America will remain, as it is today, the envy of the world. You may have seen Warren Buffett. He said, and I think he’s 100 percent right, that “The babies being born in America today are the luckiest crop in history.”

Now, that doesn’t mean we don’t have real problems and serious challenges. We do. At home, poverty persists. And wages are stagnant. The horrific massacres of Paris and San Bernardino. The nuclear ambitions of the Iranian mullahs. The aggressions of Putin. The growing assertiveness of China and the nuclear tests of North Korea confirm that we live in troubled and dangerous times.

“Mittens” also said that

Frankly, the only serious policy proposals that deal with a broad range of national challenges we confront today come from Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and John Kasich. One of these men should be our nominee.

Now, I know that some people want this race to be over. They look at history and say a trend like Mr. Trump’s isn’t going to be stopped. Perhaps. But the rules of political history have pretty much all been shredded during this campaign.

If the other candidates can find some common ground, I believe we can nominate a person who can win the general election and who will represent the values and policies of conservatism. Given the current delegate selection process, that means that I’d vote for Marco Rubio in Florida and for John Kasich in Ohio and for Ted Cruz or whichever one of the other two contenders has the best chance of beating Mr. Trump in a given state.

First, Life-long Vichy Republican Moderate Romney would not know “Conservatism” if it French-kissed him. That is why hundreds of the Conservative Base stayed home in 2012, rather than vote for him in the Presidential Election.

Second, all the current polls show that Trump is on-track to beat both Kasich and Rubio in their home states.

Rut ro, Rooby Roo.

Here’s some advice from ol’ KJ, if I may be so bold: you members of the Republican Establishment need to climb down off of your bar stools at the Congressional Country Club, and travel outside the Echo Chamber of the Beltway, where actual, average Americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck, trying to provide for their families, while attempting to make a better life for their children and grandchildren.

You are not helping what, at this point, appears to be the inevitable fact that the next President of the United States will be a Republican.

The problem you face, as the Republican Establishment, is that is will not be one of you.

The public wants new ideas. We are tired of dancing to the Washington Two-Step.

That is the reason for the popularity of Donald J. Trump. He is saying the things that Americans have been wanting to hear for some time now.

That is the reason that he is in the process of running away with the Republican Primary Elections.

Contrast the energy and the “Populist Movement” behind Trump to the candidates whom the Democrats are offering: two old white folks from the Northeast Corridor, one who is as crooked as a dog’s hind leg and the other, a demented old socialist, who resembles Doc Emmett Brown from “Back to the Future”.

You “Vichy Republicans” as I have referred to you as being for the last several years, are looking a Gift Horse in the mouth.

You are positioned to sweep the nation, on the way to placing your Party’s Candidate in the Oval Office, buoyed by a Grassroots Movement, the likes of has not been seen since the 1980 Presidential Election, which put into office the greatest president in my lifetime, Ronald Wilson Reagan.

All you have to do to be successful is something that you seem to have forgotten how to do, since you were swept into Congressional Power in the 2010 and 2012 Mid-Term Elections.

You need to pay attention and actually listen to the voters who gave you your cushy jobs, instead of trying to tell us what we should believe and attempting to shame us into voting for a Professional Politician of your choice, who only represents the Washingtonian Status Quo.

You need to stop backing the wrong “horse”.

As Ronald Reagan, himself, said, at CPAC in 1975,

It is time to raise a banner of BOLD COLORS! Not PALE PASTELS!

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Trump Wins MI, MS, and Hawaii. Why? “I’m a Unifier.” No Brag. Just Fact?

Fliped-Off-600-LALast night, American Entrepreneur and Businessman, Donald J. Trump, won 3 out of the 4 Republican Primaries by securing victories in Michigan, Mississippi, and Hawaii. Senator Ted Cruz won in Idaho, with John Kasich and Marco Rubio being shut out.

Per usual, Trump was exuberant following his victories.

Realclearpolitics.com reports that

At a press conference held after his victories in the Michigan and Mississippi Republican presidential primaries, Donald Trump called on the Republican party to come together and unify behind him.

“Given your statement to Major [Garrett] about how easy it would be to beat Hillary Clinton do you agree you’re going to need to get mainstream Republican politicians, the establishment as it has been labeled behind you? And if so, what do you say to them tonight, given so many are pouring their money in to trying to beat you?” FOX News’ Campaign Carl Cameron asked Trump.

“I say let’s come together folks,” Trump said Tuesday night. “We’re going to win. I say let’s come together. Carl, the answer is not 100 percent but largely I would say yes. Some people you are just not going to get along with. It’s okay.”

“I am a unifier,” Trump said in Jupiter, Florida tonight. “I unify. You look at all of the things I built all over the world. I’m a unifier. I get along with people. I have great relationships. I even start getting along with you, right? Campaign Carl. But, no, I get along with people. And I really say this, Carl, I think it’s time to unify.”

CARL CAMERON, FOX NEWS: Given your statement to Major [Garrett] about how easy it would be to beat Hillary Clinton do you agree you’re going to need to get mainstream Republican politicians, the establishment as it has been labeled behind you? And if so, what do you say to them tonight, given so many are pouring their money in to trying to beat you?

DONALD TRUMP: I say let’s come together folks. We’re going to win. I say let’s come together. Carl, the answer is not 100 percent but largely I would say yes. Some people you are just not going to get along with. It’s okay.

But largely I would like to do that and believe it or not, I am a unifier. I unify. You look at all of the things I built all over the world. I’m a unifier. I get along with people. I have great relations. I even start getting along with you, right? Campaign Carl. But, no, I get along with people. And I really say this, Carl, I think it’s time to unify.

We have something special going on in the Republican party. And, unfortunately, the people in the party, they call them the elites or they call them whatever they call them. But those are the people that don’t respect it yet. We have millions and millions of people, I’ve discussed it before. We have millions and millions of people coming up and voting, largely for me.

It’s a record. It has never happened before. In 100 years what is happening now to the Republican party has never happened before.

Now, before you dismiss Trump’s claim to be a unifier, look at what he is accomplishing and how it is happening.

  1. In order to be an effective President, you have to build a Coalition. The most effective President in my lifetime did.

On July 27. 2012. John Heubush, Executive Director of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation, wrote the following op ed for The Daily Caller about the succerss of Ronald Reagan’s Presidency:

…How in the world did Reagan do it? Experience.

Matching wits with Jack Warner (of Warner Brothers) as head of the actors’ union and Jesse Unruh (speaker of the California State Assembly) as governor taught Reagan to come to the bargaining table prepared. “I’d learned while negotiating union contracts,” Reagan wrote, “that you seldom get everything you ask for.” (Years later, the press asked him about negotiating with Gorbachev. “It was easier than dealing with Jack Warner,” Reagan shot back.)

Although the Democrats were in a tough position after the Carter years, their big trump card was that nothing would get done unless Reagan won over a substantial number of them in the House. It’s no wonder that O’Neill was so full of braggadocio.

Somehow Reagan had to build a coalition.

The strategy to get the Economic Recovery Act passed by a conflicted Congress had two major parts.

First, Reagan would use his tremendous skills as a communicator by making repeated televised appeals to Congress and the American people. “Every time he spoke,” Reagan Chief of Staff Jim Baker recalled, “the needle moved.”

Second, the Legislative Strategy Group led by Baker and Ed Meese “did the grunt work” of inviting Democrats to the White House, while the president worked the phones. “I spent a lot of time in the spring and early summer of 1981 on the telephone and in meetings trying to build a coalition to get the nation’s recovery under way,” Reagan wrote. At the time, he even noted in his diary, “These Dems are with us on the budget and it’s interesting to hear some who’ve been here ten years or more say that it is their first time to ever be in the Oval Office. We really seem to be putting a coalition together.

2.  In order to become President of the United States, you must garner more votes than the other party’s candidate. This cannot be done simply by relying on the votes of your own poltical party.You must have ‘crossover votes”.

Back on August 15, 1984, Mark Green, in an article written for the New York Times, titled, “Reagan, The Liberal Democrat”, wrote the following…

…If Ronald Reagan holds to this path, he may soon end up back among the Americans for Democratic Action, which he fled and renounced in the 1950’s.

Not surprisingly, ideological fellow-travelers such as the commentators William F. Buckley Jr. and Pat Buchanan have expressed dismay over their champion’s apostasy. Mr. Buchanan worries that by flirting with the idea of a summit meeting, the President ”is playing with the national security of the U.S.”

Mr. Reagan’s election-year liberalism appears designed to win over those political independents and weak Democrats who might otherwise recall him as the man who has opposed all but one of the major civil rights laws and nuclear arms control pacts of the past two decades.

Will it work? Only if these constituencies believe his reversals to be principled and permanent – and that seems unlikely. To conclude now that Ronald Reagan has suddenly become pro-environment, pro-arms control, pro-food stamps and pro-regulation is to believe that a sow’s ear can become a silk purse merely by declaring itself so.

Besides, swing voters faced this fall with the equivalent of two Democratic tickets may just as well decide to vote for the real McCoy rather than the imitation brand.

Sound familiar?

Every day, on Political Websites and Facebook Political Pages, Conservatives and Liberals, alike, are arguing from dust to dawn, whether Trump can actually win the presidency.

One of the oft-repeated arguments that they present is a modern version of the final argument that Mark Green made in his article:

Why should Liberals vote for Trump, when they can vote for Clinton or Sanders?

The answer to that is as obvious as Kim Kardashian’s brunette roots (if you actually noticed them in the two “nekkid [that is when you are sans clothes and you’re up to something] selfies” that she just released).

The Democrat Candidates STINK ON ICE.

Would you vote for them?

The indisputable fact of the matter is that, in “Open” Primaries, Trump is doing even better than he is in those primaries in which only Republicans can vote.

Trump is building a Coalition.

Americans are fed up with the Washingtonian Status Quo.

We are tired of professional politicians empty promises and their failure to properly address the issues facing America, in any way, except a self-serving one.

While I would never equate Trump with Ronaldus Magnus, they do have this much in common: Like Reagan, Trump is unabashedly America and an advocate for American Exceptionalism.

Trump speaks of “possibilities” and is offering a view from outside of the Washington Beltway.

The reason Trump is winning so many votes, including those of Democrats?

He is offering the possibility of a brand new “Morning in America”.

And. voters are desperate to wake up from this Long National Nightmare.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

 

 

Obama Attacks Trump During Presidential Press Conference. Throws Stone From Glass House.

Obama-Shrinks-2Yesterday, President Barack Hussein Obama held a Press Conference….and further demeaned the Office, which he presently holds.

CNN.com posted the following article…

Washington (CNN) – President Barack Obama has a message for Donald Trump — being president is tougher than being on a reality show and the American people are too “sensible” to elect him.

“I continue to believe Mr. Trump will not be president,” Obama said at a news conference in California after a meeting with southeast Asian leaders. “And the reason is that I have a lot of faith in the American people. Being president is a serious job. It’s not hosting a talk show, or a reality show.”

He went on: “It’s not promotion, it’s not marketing. It’s hard. And a lot of people count on us getting it right.”

Obama offered surprisingly frank assessments of the campaign to replace him, taking shots at Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. He also hinted hint that he was sympathetic to Hillary Clinton’s position on the difficulty of enacting political change, as she faces a tough challenge from a candidate in Bernie Sanders, who has fired up Democratic primary voters who are demanding sweeping reform.

But it was the potential of a Trump administration that Obama seemed most eager to critique. 

The presidency isn’t “a matter of pandering and doing whatever will get you in the news on a given day. And sometimes, it requires you making hard decisions even when people don’t like it,” Obama said, adding that whoever succeeds him needs to be able to reflect the importance of their office and give foreign leaders confidence he or she knows their names and something about their nations’ histories. Obama also appeared to raise the question of whether Trump was prepared to be commander-in-chief.

“Whoever’s standing where I’m standing right now has the nuclear codes with them, and can order 21-year-olds into a firefight, and (has) to make sure that the banking system doesn’t collapse, and is often responsible for not just the United States of America, but 20 other countries that are having big problems, or are falling apart and are gonna be looking for us to something.”

He added: “The American people are pretty sensible, and I think they’ll make a sensible choice in the end.”

Trump responded to Obama during an event in Beaufort, South Carolina.

“He has done such a lousy job as president,” Trump said, before adding that he didn’t mind being targeted by Obama, saying he took it as a “great compliment.”

Trump wasn’t the only Republican who took a shot from the President.

When he bemoaned Republican warnings that his nominee to replace late Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court would not even get a hearing, Obama rebuked people who claim to be “strict interpreters” of the Constitution — except regarding his right to propose a nominee.

That seemed to be a clear jab at Cruz, who has helped lead calls to prevent the president installing a nominee who could tilt the ideological balance of the court to the left.

Rubio also came under fire when the president mocked “a candidate who sponsored a bill, that I supported, to finally solve the immigration problem, and he’s running away from it as fast as he can.”

The President stepped more carefully when he was asked about the Democratic race. He opened by making it look like he was delivering a veiled endorsement of Clinton, who is facing a stronger than expected challenge from Sanders.

“You know, I know Hillary better than I know Bernie, because she’s served in my administration, and she was an outstanding secretary of state. And I suspect that, on certain issues, she agrees with me more than Bernie does,” Obama said.

But then added: “On the other hand, there may be a couple issues where Bernie agrees with me more. I don’t know, I haven’t studied their positions that closely.”

Obama who, like Sanders, once wowed young Democrats with soaring calls for change in the 2008 election, also appeared to give credence to Clinton’s election argument that pushing through fundamental reforms is harder than it looks.

“Ultimately, I will probably have an opinion on it, based on both — (having) been a candidate of hope and change and a President who’s got some nicks and cuts and bruises from — you know, getting stuff done over the last seven years.”

Obama was clear on one thing — he’s happy not to be in the race himself.

“The thing I can say unequivocally,” he said, “I am not unhappy that I am not on the ballot.”

Considering that you are about a popular with Americans as Michael Moore is with All-you-can-eat Buffets, I’ll bet you’re not, Mr. President.

That’s a nice Glass House you’ve got there, Skippy.

Let’s take a moment and look at your less-than-stellar track record before your “Sponsors” cleaned you up and foisted you upon the American People. shall we?

The following FACTS are contained in my post, “The Great Disconnect: The Whole, Ugly Truth About Barack Hussein Obama”…

From 1985 – 1988, Obama was a Community Organizer in Chicago.  What does a Community Organizer do?  I’m glad you asked.

Per Byron York in an article found at nationalreview.com:

Community organizing is most identified with the left-wing Chicago activist Saul Alinsky (1909-72), who pretty much defined the profession. In his classic book, Rules for Radicals, Alinsky wrote that a successful organizer should be “an abrasive agent to rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; to fan latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expressions.” Once such hostilities were “whipped up to a fighting pitch,” Alinsky continued, the organizer steered his group toward confrontation, in the form of picketing, demonstrating, and general hell-raising.

If you ask Obama’s fellow Community Organizers what his significant accomplishments were, they’ll say two things: the expansion of a city summer-job program for South Side teenagers and the removal of asbestos from one of the area’s oldest housing projects.  Those  were his biggest victories.

So, after 3 years of Community Organizing, Obama enrolled in Harvard Law School at the age of 27.  The question is:  How did he get the money for this?  In my article Why Haven’t I Heard of Khalid Al-Monsour? ,  I attempted to answer that question:

President Obama attended Harvard Law School from 1988 – 1991.  The average tuition during that time was $25,000 per year.  It would have cost $75,000 to attend there for 3 years.  As president of the Harvard Law Review, he received no stipend from the school, according to Harvard spokesman Mike Armini in a interview with Newsmax.

If numbers cited by the Obama Presidential Campaign for Scooter”s student loans are accurate, that means that Obama came up with more than $32,000 over three years from sources other than loans to pay for tuition, room and board.  Hmmmmm.

Along with the funding issue, very little is known about Obama’s time at Harvard Law School,and his sycophants in the Liberal hierarchy, Main Stream Media,  and even Harvard Law School Administrators have done a remarkable job in running interference against anyone trying to find out about it.

From Jodi Kantor’s article at nytimes.com:

He arrived there as an unknown, Afro-wearing community organizer who had spent years searching for his identity; by the time he left, he had his first national news media exposure, a book contract and a shot of confidence from running the most powerful legal journal in the country.

In 1995  “Bomber” Bill Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dohrn hosted a fund-raiser for Obama prior to Obama’s run for Alice Palmer’s seat in the state Senate  and Ayers donated $200 to Obama’s upcoming state Senate campaign.

In 1996 at age 34, he ran for the state Senate in dubious campaign that is barely known of, outside of Chicago.   Alice Palmer, the incumbent, had decided to run for Congress and supported Obama as her successor.   But after Palmer’s congressional campaign ran into trouble, she changed her mind and decided to run for re-election to the Illinois Senate after all. Obama refused to step aside and the melee ensued.  One of Scooter’s volunteers challenged whether Palmer’s nominating petitions were even legal.  Obama’s campaign pulled the same chicanery concerning the petitions of other candidates.  Palmer dropped out, and the other candidates were disqualified.   So,  Obama won unopposed in the Democratic primary—guaranteeing his victory in the general election.  This was truly an example of Chicago-style politics at it’s finest…or dirtiest.

He “served” as a United States Senator from Illinois from 2005 – 2008.

Obama sponsored 121 bills as a senator, of which 115 never made it out of committee and 3 were successfully enacted.   He co-sponsored 506 bills during the same time period.

Barack Obama missed 314 (24%) of 1,300 roll call votes.  He did not have the option of voting “Present” as he did 130 times in the Illinois State Senate.

One and one half years after taking his seat in the U.S. Senate, Obama declared himself a candidate for the Democratic nomination as their representative in the 2008 Presidential Election.

And now, after 7 years of a failed presidency, Obama has the temerity to attacked a self-made billionaire, further degrading the Office of the President in the process.

Trump responded to Obama’s comments Tuesday from Beaufort, SC, saying,

This man has done such a bad job. He has set us back so far, and for him to say that is a great compliment, if you want to know the truth. A network called and wanted a response. I said, ‘You’re lucky I didn’t run last time when Romney ran, because you would have been a one-term president.’

The man may have a point.

According to the latest Reuters Poll, he still has a commanding lead over the other Republican Candidates, including Senator Ted Cruz…

  • Donald Trump 40.8%
  • Ted Cruz 16.9%
  • Ben Carson 11.5%
  • Marco Rubio 9.8%
  • Jeb Bush 8.0%
  • John Kasich 7.1%
  • Wouldn’t vote 5.4%
  • Jim Gilmore 0.6%
  • Carly Fiorina –%
  • Chris Christie –%

With November rapidly approaching, the Democrat Party, including the President himself, are beginning to show signs of desperation and panic.

Look at their two top candidates, can you blame them?

You have a crazy old Socialist, who looks like Doc Emmett Brown from “Back to the Future”, who hasn’t held a real job in over 40 years and a Former First Lady/Carpetbagger New York Senator/Failed Secretary of State, with obvious Health Issues and no personality whatsoever, who is so dadburn mean that grass never grows again where she spits.

It’s really no surprise that the President of the United States attacked the Leading Presidential Candidate of the Opposition Party, yesterday.

Liberals will tell you whom they fear.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Republican Establishment Stacks SC Debate Audience in an Effort to Derail Trump and Cruz

gop-debate-north-charleston-680x365A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers. – Ronald Reagan, March 1, 1975

Yesterday, on Facebook Political Pages and Political Websites, a lot of Americans were talking about Republican Presidential Hopeful Donald J. Trump and the less-than-supportive reaction that he received during the Republican Primary Candidate on Saturday Night, which was held in South Carolina, the state which will hold the next Primary Elections.

It turns out that there was a logical reason for that, and it wasn’t just his mercurial personality.

Breitbart.com reports that

GREENVILLE, South Carolina — The chairman of the local Republican Party here confirmed to local television that 2016 frontrunner billionaire Donald Trump’s concerns—and those of his closest competitor Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) —with the Republican National Committee (RNC) allocation of debate audience tickets are well-placed.

Chad Groover, the chairman of the Greenville County Republican Party here, told WYFF—the local NBC News station—that party donors get tickets to the debate.

“You’ll have a good mix of people who are donors, people who are donors and workers, and people who are just workers,” Groover said, noting that he got “a couple of dozen” of tickets to hand out to the party’s faithful donors.

“I didn’t have hundreds of tickets. I had a couple of dozen tickets,” Groover said.

That means a significant proportion of his stack of approximately 24 tickets went to monied interests backing the GOP—not to actual voters in the upcoming election.

Sources close to the process who work for the RNC, but are not authorized to speak on the record, confirmed to Breitbart News throughout the evening on Saturday that that is standard operating procedure for the RNC and the party as a whole for all debates: Donors get tickets while voters have to watch on TV at home.

As such, the same appears to have been true party-wide. One well-placed source who works for one of the GOP presidential campaigns and was in attendance at the debate on Saturday evening here—but was not authorized to speak on record about the matter—told Breitbart News that Sen. Lindseey Graham (R-SC) and South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley were personally given scores of tickets to distribute. Both despise Trump and have said so publicly–Haley even using the platform of the official GOP response to the State of the Union to do so–and it would be no surprise if they did aim to stack the audience with anti-Trump sentiment.

“I’ve never seen anything like it,” said another source in the audience, someone who has attended several of the GOP debates. That source said the anti-Trump and anti-Cruz audience members—who were thoroughly cheering for Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and his mentor former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush when they made passionate cases for amnesty for illegal aliens, something entirely non-representative of South Carolina’s electorate—were behaving unlike any audience he’d ever seen in his lifetime of attending GOP presidential debates.

The Republican National Committee’s Sean Spicer confirmed to Breitbart News pre-debate that the RNC proper distributed 367 tickets while the state party and locally elected officials received 550 tickets. Meanwhile the debate partners—CBS News, the Peace Center, and Google—received another 100 tickets. That means more than 1000 tickets—1,017 by Spicer’s admission—went not to voters in the upcoming election and not to campaigns for equal distribution to their supporters but to special interest distribution of those connected to the party, mostly high dollar donors. Only 600 tickets were distributed equally among the six remaining GOP campaigns, which to be fair to the RNC is the highest number of tickets distributed as such so far this election cycle.

But Trump’s campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, is calling for the RNC to drop all donor tickets and stop handing them out to special and monied interests entirely. Lewandowski says at all the rest of the debates from here on out, Spicer and the RNC must equally allocate all tickets among the various campaigns so they can distribute them equally and fairly to their supporters—and cut out all the donors and special interests who get tickets.

“I think the RNC does a terrible job in allocating the tickets, to be honest with you, There’s an opportunity—there’s 2,000 seats out there, there’s six candidates on stage, they should just divide them evenly so everyone has them, but instead they just give them to the donor class, they give them to the lobbyists and to all the special interests,” Lewandowski said in the spin room. “It’s not fair, it’s not equitable. So I think what they should do moving forward is take the total number of seats available, allocate them across the board and let the candidates bring their people in, because that’s who should be here, not the donors.”

Spicer has refused repeatedly over the course of several emails on Saturday and Sunday morning to answer whether the RNC will comply with Lewandowski’s request to drop all RNC and state and local party ticket allocation and just allow the campaigns to equally distribute all debate tickets fairly to their supporters in the future.

Trump’s and Cruz’s concerns are even being confirmed by many across the political spectrum. In fact, even the left-of-center Huffington Post confirms that the RNC’s ticket allocation system seems to have been “behind” the excessive and unwarranted booing of Trump and Cruz—and cheering of the donor class supported Rubio and Bush.

“The audience at Saturday’s CBS News Republican presidential debate was more boisterous than unusual — booing, clapping and generally making its feelings known during several exchanges between candidates on stage in Greenville, South Carolina,” the Huffington Post’s Igor Bobic wrote. “At various points, attendees seemed to favor former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), and to be very much against Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and real estate mogul Donald Trump — the two candidates currently leading the race. The way the Republican National Committee distributed the tickets may have been behind the heightened reactions.”

Vox, another left-of-center outlet, ran a headline that made it even clearer: “The Republican establishment packed the debate audience with Donald Trump haters.” In the piece, author German Lopez noted that the audience’s pro-Rubio and pro-Bush cheering was “very peculiar” as was the booing of Trump and Cruz.

“Something very peculiar happened at the Republican debate on Saturday night: When Donald Trump talked, the audience booed. Yet when Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and even John Kasich talked, they got loud cheers and applause,” Lopez wrote. “This happened again and again. It even led a spike in Google searches for ‘Why are people booing?’”

Vox even admits that Trump’s claim on stage that the odd—and unrepresentative of the party’s voting base—audience was made up of “Jeb’s special interests and lobbyists” was really not “that far-fetched.”

“Prior to the debate, the Republican Party decided not to use a lottery system to decide who should be in the audience,” Lopez wrote. “Instead, most tickets went to elected Republican officials, donors, and other workers for the party picked by local, state, and national party officials. The result, it seems, is the room was packed with Republican voters who overwhelmingly dislike Trump.”

That seems to be why Lewandowski is calling for a new system for fairness, one that cuts the RNC completely out of the process. It remains to be seen if other campaigns will get on board with this, but earlier in the cycle–due to the RNC’s ineffectiveness in dealing with biased moderators–the entire field of campaign managers met privately to cut the RNC out of the process of negotiating with the networks. It is only logical that the next step is that the campaigns work to ensure fairness in debate audience selection, something the RNC clearly failed at providing.

Well, gosh. Why would the Establishment Republicans want to stack the audience like that?

Could they be desperate?

Did the ignorant, disrespectful CBS Television Series “Angel From Hell” featuring Jane Lynch, a Conservative-hating Atheist, get cancelled…quickly?

You betcha.

Speaking of CBS…

According to CBS News…

The CBS News Battleground Tracker poll shows that Donald Trump keeps a large lead in South Carolina, bolstered by support from conservatives and also from evangelical voters, who make up a large share of the electorate here.

Ted Cruz is in second place, but well behind Trump. Cruz has the support of those who consider themselves very conservative, but trails Trump among all conservatives as well as moderates.

John Kasich has gotten a little bounce out of his surprisingly strong showing in New Hampshire, but he may be limited here by the fact that evangelical voters are not as strongly in support of him as non-evangelicals.

For Trump voters, who have been relatively steadfast in their support over the last few months, the percentage who say they’ve firmly decided on Trump has increased. Trump’s lead among evangelicals is up from January, and he has widened his lead among conservatives, too.

In a contest marked by divisions among so-called “insiders” and “outsiders,” South Carolina Republicans show a strong preference for campaigns running as the latter, and this poll helps illustrate why. By four to one, South Carolina Republicans describe the “establishment” as a bad thing, and few describe it as a group that knows how to get things done.

On the metric of being “prepared” to be president, Trump and Cruz do well, and Jeb Bush and John Kasich do relatively well, but Marco Rubio trails in this regard, suggesting that last week’s debate in New Hampshire may have had an impact.

Hillary Clinton keeps her large lead in South Carolina, which has narrowed only slightly from last month, and she is bolstered by strong support from the African American voters who comprise most of the Democratic electorate here.

This is what I don’t understand about the Republican Establishment.

They run around telling everybody how Conservative they are, when in reality,they actually hold the same beliefs as Liberal Democrats.

The public wants new ideas. We are tired of dancing to the Washington Two-Step.

That is the reason for the popularity of Trump and Cruz. They have been saying the things that Americans have been wanting to hear for some time now.

That is the reason that they are the Leaders in the Republican Primary.

Contrast them to the candidates whom the Democrats are offering: old white folks from the Northeast Corridor, one who is as crooked as a dog’s hind leg and the other, a demented old socialist, who resembles Doc Emmett Brown from “Back to the Future”.

The “Vichy Republicans” as I refer to them, are looking a Gift Horse in the mouth.

They are positioned to sweep the nation, on the way to placing their candidate in the Oval Office, buoyed by a Grassroots Movement, the likes of has not been seen since the 1980 Presidential Election, which put into office the greatest president in my lifetime, Ronald Wilson Reagan.

All the Republicans have to do to be successful is something that they seem to have forgotten how to do, since they themselves were swept into Congressional Power in the 2010 and 2012 Mid-Term Elections.

They need to pay attention and actually listen to the voters who gave them their cushy jobs.

The need to stop backing the wrong “horse”.

They are showing their color to be Liberal Blue, while they claim to be Conservative Red.

It is almost as if they believe that the Political Tsunami, which resulted in Republicans holding both Houses of Congress, came about because they made themselves look like Democrats.

They need to come down off of Capitol Hill every now and then.

And, visit Realityville.

Average Americans, like you and me, living from paycheck to paycheck in America’s Heartland, do not need another Democratic Party.

If we wanted to continue to put up with their Liberal Stupidity, we would have left all of them in office.

Instead, in November of 2014, we showed them the door.

The overwhelming majority of average Americans are tired of the empty promises and spineless behavior of Professional Politicians, including Squishy Moderates, who have more in common with the Democrats in the Northeast Corridor, than they do with average Americans in the Heartland.

If the Republican Establishment continues this war against Trump and Cruz, they will go down to defeat again in 2016.

They will never achieve victory by trying to push the jello of “Liberal Moderation” up a hill.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

A KJ Op Ed: Vetting The Republican Candidates – Going After the Wrong “Enemy”

ctax=Campaigns^Expose^Viewers^Placement%2035743%20-%20Viewer (2) Sward-StoneFor those of us Conservatives, who are considering which candidate to vote for in the 2016 presidential Election, our cup runneth over.

We literally have a smorgasbord of candidates, who are still campaigning, less than 10 months from the big day.

And, therein lies the problem.

While candidates seem to be more interested in attacking each other, than the Democrats, potential Republican Voters are following suit, and attacking each other, all over the World Wide Web.

To quote the Master of Malapropisms, the late, great Yogi Berra,

It’s deja vu, all over again.

During the Presidential Elections of 2008 and 2012, while we were busy “vetting” the Republican Candidates, in search of their “bonafides”, Liberal Democrats were solidly behind their Great Black Hope”, the “Clean and Articulate” (Biden’s words, not mine) Barack Hussein Obama, which resulted in an unvetted, untested, incompetent, petulant, anti-American metrosexual assuming the role of “Leader of the Free World”.

Why have we and why are we “eating our own”?

  • Unlike the present-day version of the Democrat Party, which has moved to the Far Left of the Political Spectrum, Republicans, both Conservative and “Moderate”, still think for themselves. We all have our own opinion on the criteria necessary for a successful American President. Democrats, like the Proletariat of the old Soviet Union, possess a “Hive-Mind” mentality, voting en masse for whoever is deemed “good for the Party”.
  • There is a Generational Gap, in regards to morality and ethical behavior, which is a determining factor as to each Republican’s own definition of “Conservatism”, which is a determining factor as to whom their candidate of choice will be. For example, in my case, as a 57-year old Reagan Conservative, I judge Presidential Primary Candidates, and those who vote for them, by the following criteria, as defined by Matt Barber

Ronald Reagan often spoke of a “three-legged stool” that undergirds true conservatism. The legs are represented by a strong defense, strong free-market economic policies and strong social values. For the stool to remain upright, it must be supported by all three legs. If you snap off even one leg, the stool collapses under its own weight.

A Republican, for instance, who is conservative on social and national defense issues but liberal on fiscal issues is not a Reagan conservative. He is a quasi-conservative socialist.

A Republican who is conservative on fiscal and social issues but liberal on national defense issues is not a Reagan conservative. He is a quasi-conservative dove.

By the same token, a Republican who is conservative on fiscal and national defense issues but liberal on social issues – such as abortion, so-called gay rights or the Second Amendment – is not a Reagan conservative. He is a socio-liberal libertarian.

Put another way: A Republican who is one part William F. Buckley Jr., one part Oliver North and one part Rachel Maddow is no true conservative. He is – well, I’m not exactly sure what he is, but it ain’t pretty. 

  • Another problem, which Republican voters are facing, is the fact that there are no Perfect Candidates. Ronald Reagan is not running for President. Each of the Top Tier Candidates all have their own  good points. Unfortunately, they all have their weak points, as well, just like we voters do. Voters support those candidates whose stance of the important issues most closely resembles their own, a fact which helps to explain why Trump and Cruz are leading the pack.
  • Our defensiveness toward the Republican Candidates comes from the fact that the Republican Establishment has, in several instances, abandoned and betrayed those who placed them in office: average American Voters, living out here in the heartland (or, as those up in the Halls of Power refer to it as, “Flyover Country”). The reaction of Republican Voters in this Primary Season, is, above all else, a repudiation of betrayal of the Republican-held House and Senate. While compromise is, indeed, a part of Washington Politics, capitulation to the opposition party is not. Because of the actions of the Republican Establishment, average Americans have become hyper-vigilant to discrepancies in what a candidate says in the present, and, their actions in the past.

And that, gentle reader, is why we, as Conservatives and potential voters for the Republican Candidate, are allowing the Main Stream Media to lead us around by the nose, “vetting” our candidates, by cause more consternation and infighting, than a bunch of texting teenage girls on Prom Night.

Because of our concerns that whoever winds up as the Republican Candidate for the Office of President of the United States of America represent US, the average American Voter, we are literally, presently, at war with one another, mirroring the infighting going on between the candidates, using the platforms given to us via Political Websites and Facebook Pages.

While vetting the candidates through the use of the New Media is a good thing, it must not be used to tear down each other and destroy our opportunity to undo the damage that years of “Progressive” Political Control in DC has done to our country.

Our mission, now, as Americans, is to decide our own destiny. 

We must not let the Political Elite, on BOTH sides of the aisle, nor the Main Stream Media, pick our candidate for us.

Ronald Reagan once said,

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.

A charge to keep WE have.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

 

 

Trump, Fox News, the Democrat Elite, and “The Art of the Deal”

Oval-Office-Trump-ArtOfTheDealLeading Republican Presidential Primary Candidate, Donald J. Trump, was at the top of the News Cycle all day, yesterday.

I’m shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

Eight hours ago, as of this posting, the Presidential Campaign Office of Donald J. Trump issued the following statement on his Official Faceboo Account…

(New York, NY) January 26th, 2016 – As someone who wrote one of the best-selling business books of all time, The Art of the Deal, who has built an incredible company, including some of the most valuable and iconic assets in the world, and as someone who has a personal net worth of many billions of dollars, Mr. Trump knows a bad deal when he sees one. FOX News is making tens of millions of dollars on debates, and setting ratings records (the highest in history), where as in previous years they were low-rated afterthoughts.

Unlike the very stupid, highly incompetent people running our country into the ground, Mr. Trump knows when to walk away. Roger Ailes and FOX News think they can toy with him, but Mr. Trump doesn’t play games. There have already been six debates, and according to all online debate polls including Drudge, Slate, Time Magazine, and many others, Mr. Trump has won all of them, in particular the last one. Whereas he has always been a job creator and not a debater, he nevertheless truly enjoys the debating process – and it has been very good for him, both in polls and popularity.

He will not be participating in the FOX News debate and will instead host an event in Iowa to raise money for the Veterans and Wounded Warriors, who have been treated so horribly by our all talk, no action politicians. Like running for office as an extremely successful person, this takes guts and it is the kind mentality our country needs in order to Make America Great Again.

Yesterday, Trump also said the following in an interview with Mike Barnicle on the seldom-watched cable news channel, MSNBC

Well, I think that I’m going to be able to get along with Pelosi. I think I’m going to be able to — I’ve always had a good relationship with Nancy Pelosi. I’ve never had a problem. Reid will be gone. I always had a decent relationship with Reid, although lately, obciosuly, I haven’t been dealing with him so he’ll actually use my name as the ultimate — you know, as the ultimate of the billionaires in terms of, you know, people you don’t want.

But I always had a great relationship with Harry Reid. And frankly, if I weren’t running for office I would be able to deal with her or Reid or anybody. But I think I’d be able to get along very well with Nancy Pelosi and just about everybody.

Hey, look, I think I’ll be able to get along well with Chuck Schumer. I was always very good with Schumer. I was close to Schumer in many ways. It’s important that you get along. It’s wonderful to say you’re a maverick and you’re going to stand up and close up the country and all of the things, but you have to get somebody to go along with you. You have a lot of people. We have a system. The founders created the system that actually is a very good system. It does work, but it can’t work if you can get nobody to go along with you.

When word came out, my fellow Conservatives made the following  points that

  1. If Trump can’t stand up to Meghan Kelly, how is he going to stand up to Putin and the rest of our enemies?
  2. 2. Who the heck wants to get along with Pelosi, Reid, and Schumer? The next President needs to politically destroy them!

Why did Trump tell Fox News to buzz off?

Why is he talking about “getting along” with the Democrat Elite?

The Godfather of Conservative Talk Radio, Rush Limbaugh, gave a superb analysis of the way Trump operates, on his nationally-syndicated Program, yesterday…

Let me share with you some analysis that will no doubt be misunderstood and distorted in many places in our media, but here we go.  As I’m listening to Trump talk about all this — and not just today. It is fascinating, is it not, that Donald Trump has sort of reframed, or maybe even redefined, the purpose and the position of the presidency as something defined by negotiating deals?  He talks about this all the time. This is important. He’s credibly presenting himself as a skilled dealmaker, as a skilled negotiator.  Therefore, he is positing here that the job of president, to him, is negotiating and dealmaking, foreign and domestic. 

Trade equals deals. Foreign policy equals deals such as Iran, the entire Middle East.  Domestic policy equals deals, i.e., making them with Democrats.  By all those deals… Here’s the thing: Every time Trump talks about doing a deal — with Mexico and the wall, you name it, with the ChiComs. Every time he talks about doing deals, he talks about winning them for his position, that nobody else is any good at this, that the people running our government now, elected officials now don’t know how to do deals. They do the dumbest deals ever. 

But Trump is gonna do smart deals, because that’s what his life is. 

He does deals for everything, and he runs rings around everybody. 

He wrote a book on how to do deals better than anybody else.  Even after telling everybody how to do deals, they still can’t do ’em better than he does.  And he’s defined all of this as pro-America, i.e., for the people. Making America great again.  The opposition, or the opposite reactions to Trump among Republicans and others depends on whether people trust or believe him or not.  Trump opposers don’t believe it; Trump supporters do believe it.  He thinks he can make deals with Russia and Putin better than Obama, everybody think is so that’s he’s repositioning everything here as he’s a dealmaker and Cruz can’t do deals because everybody hates him.

Okay.  Let’s talk about deal-making here for a minute.  Just a quick minute or two.  When you are in business, let’s say you’re J.R. Ewing and you’re up against the cartel in Dallas, and you’re making deals, those are businesses deals.  Any kind of a business deal.  The experts who teach business school students how to do deals, the best deals are those in which everybody at the end feels good. The Art of the Deal in business is making sure that you get what you want while making the other side think they got enough of what they want that they’re happy, too.  That in business it’s a bad thing to skunk somebody and leave them with nothing.  Give ’em something, no matter what cards you hold, and if you go into the deal holding none of the cards, the objective is, both sides like it and both sides don’t.  If there’s commonality, if both sides are unhappy they didn’t get it all, fine.  If both sides are happy with what they get to one degree or another, then you got a good deal, an okay deal, and you’re out of there. 

In politics, that’s not how it works.  Take a look at the deals the Republicans have done with the Democrats and ask yourself, in every one of them, be it a budget deal, be it an immigration deal, is there any, is there a single deal that the Republicans have made in the past seven years that any of you have felt, “You know what, we got something out of this?”  No. However, if you listen to the Republicans who participated in the negotiation of the deal, they universally come out of there and start telling us, “Hey, you know, we got some stuff in here that we didn’t have. And out of the budget deal you know what that was?  We won back the right to export oil.  We smoked ’em.  We got a great deal.”  And you’re saying, “You think that makes this a good deal?” 

So from the Republican establishment standpoint, they think you will be made to believe that they made a good deal if they tout what they think they got out of it.  The Democrats, when they go into one of these deals, it’s smoke city.  There isn’t going to be one iota’s compromise.  The Republicans aren’t gonna get anything that matters. 

Now, the Democrats might give them something inconsequential, just enough that the Republicans can leave the negotiation and say, “Look what we got, look what we got here, we did okay.”  And their voters are saying, “You got skunked, you got nothing, we lost it again, and what you promised to do is kick it down the road and we’ll deal with it next time.  It keeps happening and happening.  We didn’t get diddly-squat.” 

“Yeah, we did, look at Medicare Part B!  We skunked ’em, we got a brand-new entitlement that’s got conservative free market principles all over.”  You think that was a win?  That’s what we were told after that happened.  How in the world can you, with a Republican administration, Republican House, agree to a new entitlement, it’s your idea for a new entitlement.  And they dare come out and tell us that that’s a win? 

But in Trump’s world, where he does deals, he’s gonna have to do business with ’em down the road.  He doesn’t want to make enemies like he says Ted Cruz does.  Ted Cruz is not nasty.  You know, this is the thing.  I have warned them about this I don’t know how many times.  Ted Cruz is not nasty.  (imitating Trump) “He’s a nasty guy. Everybody hates Cruz.”  No, they fear Cruz, maybe respect Cruz, but, hey, look, if you’re running a scam and somebody comes along in your own club and calls you out on it, you’re not gonna love ’em, which is what Cruz did many times.

Addressing the first point concerning Trump’s decision to boycott tomorrow night’s debate,

1.  Trump knows that Fox News has been backing the Republican Elite’s Heir to the Throne, Jeb Bush, since the start of the Republican Primary. He is not going to walk into anywhere that he perceives, right or wrong, to be an ambush.

2. Trump’s real fight is with Roger Ailes, with whom he has been negotiating. Meghan Kelly is simply being used as a focal point.

3. Any publicity is good publicity. Trump evidently feels that this will not hurt his campaign.

4. Leverage.

Concerning Trump’s assertion that he can “get along” with the Democrat Hierarchy…

On July 27. 2012. John Heubush, Executive Director of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation, wrote the following op ed for The Daily Caller

  1. In order to be an effective President, you have to build a Coalition. The most effective President in my lifetime did.

“You’re in the big leagues, now.”

So the speaker of the House said to the 40th president of the United States just days after his inauguration.

It was 1981. The 97th Congress was a mixed bag, with a Democratic-controlled House, led by Speaker Thomas “Tip” O’Neill, and a Senate held by Republicans who, for the first time since 1953, controlled a chamber of Congress.

But Ronald Reagan didn’t think “eight years as governor of one of the largest states in the union had exactly been the minor leagues.” Sacramento had been Reagan’s beta-site where nothing was accomplished until strong coalitions were formed. “It was important to develop an effective working relationship with my opponents in the legislature,” Reagan wrote, “our political disagreements not withstanding.”

What did this adversarial relationship with O’Neill and Democrats produce in the next two years? Caustic gamesmanship? A stand-off? On July 29, 1981, less than six months after Reagan took office, a strong bipartisan coalition in the House passed one of the largest tax cuts in American history, the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981. Two days later, the Senate followed suit.

How in the world did Reagan do it? Experience.

Matching wits with Jack Warner (of Warner Brothers) as head of the actors’ union and Jesse Unruh (speaker of the California State Assembly) as governor taught Reagan to come to the bargaining table prepared. “I’d learned while negotiating union contracts,” Reagan wrote, “that you seldom get everything you ask for.” (Years later, the press asked him about negotiating with Gorbachev. “It was easier than dealing with Jack Warner,” Reagan shot back.)

Although the Democrats were in a tough position after the Carter years, their big trump card was that nothing would get done unless Reagan won over a substantial number of them in the House. It’s no wonder that O’Neill was so full of braggadocio.

Somehow Reagan had to build a coalition.

The strategy to get the Economic Recovery Act passed by a conflicted Congress had two major parts.

First, Reagan would use his tremendous skills as a communicator by making repeated televised appeals to Congress and the American people. “Every time he spoke,” Reagan Chief of Staff Jim Baker recalled, “the needle moved.”

Second, the Legislative Strategy Group led by Baker and Ed Meese “did the grunt work” of inviting Democrats to the White House, while the president worked the phones. “I spent a lot of time in the spring and early summer of 1981 on the telephone and in meetings trying to build a coalition to get the nation’s recovery under way,” Reagan wrote. At the time, he even noted in his diary, “These Dems are with us on the budget and it’s interesting to hear some who’ve been here ten years or more say that it is their first time to ever be in the Oval Office. We really seem to be putting a coalition together.”

These “Dems” — the Boll Weevils — were Southern conservative Democrats who became key players in Reagan’s economic recovery strategy. It helped Reagan’s purpose that many represented districts that the president had carried in 1980. If they voted against a popular president, it could cost them their seats in 1982.

“To encourage the Boll Weevils to cross party lines,” journalist Lou Cannon wrote, “Reagan accepted a suggestion by James Baker and promised that he could not campaign in 1982 against any Democratic members of Congress who voted for both his tax and budget bills.” It was a shrewd and effective move.

2. In order to become President of the United States, you must garner more votes than the other party’s candidate. This cannot be done simply by relying on the votes of your own poltical party. You must have ‘crossover votes”.

Back on August 15, 1984, Mark Green, in an article written for the New York Times, titled, “Reagan, The Liberal Democrat”, wrote the following…

To what do we owe these conversions on the road to November? Could it be election-year opportunism? Could it be anything else?

There is a kind of historical consistency in this inconsistency: As Will Rogers noted back in the 1920’s: ”The Republicans have a habit of having three bad years and one good one, and the good ones always happened to be election years.”

If Ronald Reagan holds to this path, he may soon end up back among the Americans for Democratic Action, which he fled and renounced in the 1950’s.

Not surprisingly, ideological fellow-travelers such as the commentators William F. Buckley Jr. and Pat Buchanan have expressed dismay over their champion’s apostasy. Mr. Buchanan worries that by flirting with the idea of a summit meeting, the President ”is playing with the national security of the U.S.”

Mr. Reagan’s election-year liberalism appears designed to win over those political independents and weak Democrats who might otherwise recall him as the man who has opposed all but one of the major civil rights laws and nuclear arms control pacts of the past two decades.

Will it work? Only if these constituencies believe his reversals to be principled and permanent – and that seems unlikely. To conclude now that Ronald Reagan has suddenly become pro-environment, pro-arms control, pro-food stamps and pro-regulation is to believe that a sow’s ear can become a silk purse merely by declaring itself so.

Besides, swing voters faced this fall with the equivalent of two Democratic tickets may just as well decide to vote for the real McCoy rather than the imitation brand.

The New York Times was a Liberal Schlock Sheet, even way back in 1984.

They, like the rest of the Liberals in the Media back then, could not stand Ronald Reagan. That’s no secret. However, even they understood what Reagan. He was attracting “crossover votes” for his Second Presidential Campaign.

The constant deal-making, bravado and braggadocio, and his “willingness to work together” are arrows in the quiver of Donald J. Trump, which have served him well in the past, and have helped him become an American Success Story,

We shall see if those arrows find their mark during the Republican Presidential Primary Battle and later, the President Campaign, if he is the Nominee.

Similar arrows found the mark for Ronald Reagan.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Beck Endorses Cruz, Says That He Prefers Socialist Bernie Over Capitalist Donald

beck-iowaWell, Professional Showman and Radio Talk Show Host Glenn Beck is at the top of the News Cycle, again.

Why? Because CONTROVERSY MEANS RATINGS.

Thehill.com has reported that

Conservative commentator Glenn Beck on Saturday endorsed Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz for the White House.

Beck compared Cruz to the 16th president, Abraham Lincoln, and gave him a compass that belonged to the first one, George Washington.

“I’m taking a very big risk here and gambling on it, but this is how much I believe in Ted Cruz,” Beck said at a Cruz rally in Ankeny, Iowa.“I’d like you to hold onto that,” he said, passing Cruz the compass, “to make sure your compass is square and you stay true” to your values.

Beck said he had never endorsed a presidential candidate in his 40 years of broadcasting, but he made an exception because of the urgency of the moment.

He said Cruz is the only candidate in the field who can defeat GOP front-runner Donald Trump in the Iowa caucuses.

“I like [Sen.] Marco Rubio – I’ve had real problems with his policies, especially on the NSA – but I like him, he’s a decent man,” Beck said. “Ben Carson – really good, decent, honorable, God-fearing man. I just don’t think he’s ready – I wish he was, but I don’t think he’s ready.

“[Sen.] Rand Paul, strong on the Constitution and a good guy,” he continued. “But I will tell you this – those guys aren’t going to win Iowa. They might win down the road, they’re not going to win Iowa.

“And if Donald Trump wins, it’s going to be a snowball to hell.”

The conservative media magnate took several shots at Trump, comparing him to a progressive in the likeness of President Obama.

“The other guy has said he hasn’t done anything in his life that actually makes him feel like he should ask forgiveness from God,” he said of Trump. “The hubris of that is astonishing, as if for the last eight years we have watched a narcissist in the Oval Office and it has meant nothing to us.”

Beck said Trump owed America an apology for supporting the Wall Street bailout during the financial crisis.

“It’s up to him to ask God’s forgiveness, but I would like to suggest to you that the man owes America an apology, and he should ask conservatives for America for forgiveness for supporting billions of dollars of bailouts, for pulling for the nationalization of our banks,” he said.

He said he even prefers Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a self-proclaimed “democratic socialist” running in the Democratic presidential primary, to Trump.

“Honesty, faith and truth are basic requirements. And quite honestly, I have to tell you, this probably isn’t going to go over very well, that’s why I like Bernie Sanders,” he said. “Bernie Sanders is like, ‘Yep, I’m a socialist.’ 

“I can actually sit at a table with a man who says, ‘Yes, I’m a socialist, and yes, I don’t like what we are doing, we should be more like Denmark,’ ” he added.

“What we really need in America is enough of these politicians who are telling us what we want to hear, hiding behind fancy language, and actually have a debate between a constitutionalist like Ted Cruz and a socialist like Bernie Sanders.”

Cruz praised Beck as a “fearless and reliable conservative.”

“Glenn has been a relentless fighter for liberty, for limited government, and for restoring the country we all love so much,” he said in a statement released by his campaign after the endorsement.

“His powerful voice and passion played a critical role in my Senate victory and I am now proud to have him in our corner in 2016.”

I can remember when Glenn Beck first came on in the Memphis Area.

I thought, “Hey. This guy’s pretty refreshing and entertaining. He makes some pretty intelligent points.”

As time went by, Beck became more powerful in the world of Conservative Talk Radio.

He became a part of the Grassroots Movement, known as “The TEA Party”.

He held massive rallies to “Restore Honor” and to reinforce “Traditional American Values”, such as Faith and Family.

And then, something happened.

Like Captain Ahab, who changed from a respected “Man of the Sea” to an obsessed lunatic, willing to sacrifice ship and crew to kill the massive White Whale, Moby Dick, Beck has become obsessed in bringing down the Front-running Potential Republican Presidential Candidate, Donald J. Trump.

Allow me to set something straight, before I go any further,  I do not begrudge him, or any of my friends, for supporting Ted Cruz. I like him, as well.

He is a good candidate and a fine Christian American.

However, the reality is, Trump is way out in front of him in the Primary Race because Americans have had their fill of Professional Politicians.

Heck, I will be fine with either one of these men taking up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

BECAUSE THEY ARE BOTH A D@#N SIGHT BETTER MEN THAN THE MUSLIM-LOVING SOCIALIST DHIMMI, WHO SLEEPS IN UNTIL 10 O’CLCK EVERY MORNING, AND WHO CURRENTLY USES OUR HOUSE FOR HIS “CRIB”.

Beck is as big a Showman as Trump is. Hence, his statement of stated “affinity” for the Far Left Whackjob Socialist, Democrat Primary Candidate Bernie Sanders.

We are already suffering under one Far Left Socialist Whackjob, we sure as heck don’t need to follow up this present Presidential Nightmare with another.

French sociologist and political theorist Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859) traveled to the America in 1831 to study our prisons and returned to France with a wealth of broader observations that he compiled together in “Democracy in America” (1835), one of the most influential books of the 19th century. With its spot-on observations on equality and individualism, Tocqueville’s work remains a valuable explanation of America to Europeans and of Americans to ourselves.

He once observed that

Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.

In other words, the failed political ideology of socialism takes away the exhilaration and fulfillment of individual achievement and replaces it with self-sacrifice in servitude to the State, for the good of the Central  Nanny-State Government, which, in turn, promises to “share the wealth”, but, as was the case in the old Soviet Union, and more recently, Venezuela, never does.

…And, Professional Politician Bernie Sanders, like the members of the old Soviet Union’s Politboro before him,  has a net worth that is more than most of us will never see in our lifetimes.

The great Sir Winston Churchill once said that

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.

I would rather be blessed than miserable.

Wouldn’t you?

Thehill.com, in the preceding article got something wrong about Glenn Beck. He has never been a “Conservative”

He is a Libertarian.

Per libertarianism.org:

Libertarianism is the belief that each person has the right to live his life as he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others. Libertarians defend each person’s right to life, liberty, and property. In the libertarian view, voluntary agreement is the gold standard of human relationships. If there is no good reason to forbid something (a good reason being that it violates the rights of others), it should be allowed. Force should be reserved for prohibiting or punishing those who themselves use force, such as murderers, robbers, rapists, kidnappers, and defrauders (who practice a kind of theft). Most people live their own lives by that code of ethics. Libertarians believe that that code should be applied consistently, even to the actions of governments, which should be restricted to protecting people from violations of their rights. Governments should not use their powers to censor speech, conscript the young, prohibit voluntary exchanges, steal or “redistribute” property, or interfere in the lives of individuals who are otherwise minding their own business.

Libertarian ideas are becoming increasingly influential. Philosopher Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia helped to revitalize political theory and to focus attention on the proper limits of state power. Classical liberal economists and social scientists have pioneered the understanding of processes of social coordination and change, many of them earning Nobel Prizes in the process. And the broad global trend toward economic deregulation, freer trade, limits on taxes, toleration of minorities, and greater personal freedom shows the influence of libertarian ideas and libertarian thinkers and activists.

For example, Dr. Ron Paul is a Libertarian, and he and his son, Republican Candidate, Dr. Rand Paul, are frequent guests on Beck’s program.

Ronald Reagan defined Conservatism as being a three-legged stool, consisting of Social Conservatism, Fiscal Conservatism, and National Defense.

Today’s Libertarians misidentify themselves as Conservatives.  They discard two out of the three legs of the stool, identifying themselves as “Fiscal Conservatives”.

If you’re having a discussion with someone and they call themselves a “Fiscal Conservative”. Nine times out of ten, you’re talking to a Libertarian.

While Trump is not a Classic Reagan Conservative, either, Ted Cruz has his faults as well.

I, for one, would love to see them running on the same ticket.

As this Campaign Season rolls on, just remember:

There was only ONE PERFECT MAN.

And, he gave his life for us on Calvary.

Until He Comes,

KJ