With Time Winding Down on the Game Clock, and Jeb! out of the Game, the Desperate Republican Elite, Call an Audible, and Bankroll Rubio

On February 23, 2016 By kingsjesterIn Politics8 Comments

The failure of “Third Generation Professional Political Legacy” Jeb! Bush and the unabashed success of American Entrepreneur Donald J. Trump in the Republican Primaries, has forced the Establishment (Vichy) Republicans to “throw a lateral pass” and to bankroll Senator Marco Rubio, who , by default, has now become, “Their Guy”.

Sean Sullivan, writing for The Washington Post, filed the following report…

LAS VEGAS — Mainstream Republican donors and elected officials flocked to Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) on Monday amid a growing sense that he is the last best chance to prevent Donald Trump from running away with the Republican presidential nomination.

But Rubio’s path remains narrow and perilous. He has yet to win a state, and a raft of major March 1 contests known as “Super Tuesday” offers few obvious chances for him to do so. And if Trump keeps racking up wins, it will become more difficult to blunt his progress.

Increasingly, there is a recognition among Republican elites that if Trump is not slowed by the middle of March, it may be too late to prevent him from winning the nomination.

“The window is closing, and we need to move now,” said Bobbie Kilberg, a major Republican donor who lined up behind Rubio after former Florida governor Jeb Bush ended his campaign Saturday.

Fielding questions from reporters here Monday morning, Rubio didn’t predict any imminent victories.

“We look forward to continuing to add delegates to our count, and as we get into the winner-take-all states, I think we’re going to be in a very strong position,” he said, referring to primary contests that begin March 15.

Bush’s departure from the race has provided Rubio with a much-needed injection of establishment money and structural support. Those who sided with Bush or were reluctant to cross him now feel free to back Rubio.

Throughout Monday, a string of former Bush backers from across the country gravitated to the senator from Florida, including former Republican presidential nominee Robert J. Dole and Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah). In South Florida, Republican Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Mario Diaz-Balart and Carlos Curbelo and former congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart — all of whom had backed Bush — announced their support.

Rubio also picked up backers who previously stood on the sidelines, such as former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty and Sens. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.).

On the donor side, in addition to Kilberg, former ambassador Francis Rooney, who gave more than $2 million to a pro-Bush super PAC through his holding company, is now with Rubio. So is financial industry executive Muneer Satter, who also made big donations to support Bush.

Phil Rosen, a New York lawyer who is a major Republican fundraiser, said he has spent the past two days on the phone with former Bush donors who are eager to join the Rubio effort.

Sen. Marco Rubio delivers his speech to a crowd at the conclusion of the South Carolina Republican primary on Saturday night. (Alex Holt/For The Washington Post)
“They have a lot of disappointment about Jeb, but they are ready to put full steam ahead for Marco,” said Rosen, who said he has gotten commitments from 15 top Bush bundlers.

“I am going to continue to reach out to literally every person that was on the Bush campaign,” he said.

Rosen said he has not encountered any residual bitterness from the campaign clashes between the two men.

In a new ad released Monday that will run in Super Tuesday states, a super PAC supporting Rubio casts Trump as “erratic” and “unreliable.” It says Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), another top rival, is “calculated” and “underhanded.”

Rubio campaigned in Nevada on Monday in advance of the state’s Tuesday caucuses, which seem to favor Trump but are small and unpredictable. At his campaign stops, Rubio talked up his personal ties to the state, where he lived as a child.

On March 1, Rubio’s most pressing goal will be to eclipse the threshold required — as high as 20 percent of the vote in some states — to qualify for delegates in the states holding contests that day, most of which are seen as friendlier to Trump or Cruz.

Beyond that, Rubio is looking to the delegate-rich states of Florida and Ohio on March 15, which will award delegates on a winner-take-all basis. Rubio’s backers concede that a loss in his home state to Trump would likely be a fatal blow.

As the pace picks up, Rubio has adopted a broader message, sounding general-election notes in recent days as he has tried to bolster his central argument: that he is the most electable candidate left in the GOP field.

“Americans are the descendants of people that came here, whether it was two centuries ago or two years ago, because they refused to live in a society that told them that they could not be who they wanted to be,” Rubio said in Franklin, Tenn., on Sunday before his largest crowd of the campaign. “America is the descendants of slaves who overcame that horrifying institution to claim their stake to the American Dream.”

In a North Las Vegas hotel ballroom Sunday night, Rubio recalled recently being asked about the GOP’s minority outreach issues and responding with a story about the ethnically diverse group of South Carolina leaders who backed him.

“I said, ‘Well, just this afternoon, I was onstage receiving the endorsement of an Indian American governor from South Carolina, who has endorsed a Cuban American from Florida. And I was standing next to the African American Republican senator from South Carolina. That sounds pretty minority to me,’ ” he said.

Rubio was introduced Sunday and Monday by Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.), a former Bush backer. Heller told the crowd in North Las Vegas that the race is a “two-man show” between Rubio and Trump and repeated himself in Reno on Monday. He pointedly left out Cruz, who won the Iowa caucuses and who finished close behind Rubio in South Carolina.

At a rally in Minden, which was held outside on a sunny and temperate afternoon, Heller joked, “I heard that Trump kicked El Niño out of the country.”

Rubio will campaign Tuesday in Minnesota and Michigan, which vote on March 1 and March 8, respectively. There, he will continue his strategy of focusing on major metropolitan areas and suburbs.

A threat to Rubio, particularly in the Midwest, is Ohio Gov. John Kasich, a centrist who finished second in New Hampshire and is signaling that he has no intention of leaving the race. Kasich will campaign in Virginia, Georgia, Mississippi and Louisiana this week.

In the South, Cruz — who was bruised by his third-place showing in South Carolina — remains a major obstacle to Rubio. The Texan has staked his campaign heavily on a collection of Southern states voting on March 1.

And then there is Trump, who is ahead in polling and seemingly poised to compete everywhere. Rubio aides are confident that Trump has a lower ceiling of support than their candidate. But the front-runner is fresh off decisive wins in New Hampshire and South Carolina and campaigning hard in Nevada.

At a Sunday rally for Rubio in Little Rock, Seth Flynt, 28 of Sherwood, Ark., held up an “Anyone but Trump” sign.

Flynt embodied the challenge Rubio faces in trimming down the field to a one-on-one showdown with Trump. He explained that Rubio was not his first or even second choice. His pick: retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, who is still in the race despite poor showings in the early states.

Okay…so now, Senator Marco Rubio is the New “Establishment Guy”.

Gosh, who could have seen that coming? **cough** **Everybody who has been paying attention.** **cough**

The problem is, Rubio is still in Third Place, engaged in a “Bi-lingual Battle” with Senator Ted Cruz.

On his program yesterday, the Godfather of Conservative Talk Radio, Rush Limbaugh, addressed the main reason why the “Rank Amateur”, Donald J. Trump is presently beating the “Professional Politicians” like a rented mule…

But, what is one of the things you have to do to succeed in politics? (interruption) Well, yeah, you have to win, but you have to draw flies. You have to draw people. You have to make a connection with people. You have to go out there and you have to do whatever it takes, because that’s how you win. Yeah, you have to win. Yeah, you have to raise money. But you do all that by connecting with people. You have to create an army of supporters. Now, here’s Trump — a quote/unquote “political neophyte,” never done it before.In the words of the establishment, he’s inexperienced, doesn’t know what he’s doing. “We’re the pros.” The establishment cannot draw flies. The Republican establishment candidates cannot draw a crowd. They cannot connect with the voters. They have blown it. So just how…? For people who think that Trump is somehow doing all this on a whim and things are aligning and it’s just coincidental that it’s working, Pat’s point is that there’s much more than coincidence going on here.

And it looks like Trump has a better understanding of what has to be done to draw a crowd and to hold the crowd and to expand the crowd than the political professionals, the people that devoted their lives to it. And make no mistake: That ticks ’em off. Oh, do not misunderstand. Here you have this cadre of political professionals at all levels. You got professional analysts. You got professional strategists. You got professional consultants. You have professional advisors.

You have professional lobbyists. You have professional suck-ups. You have professional yes-men. You have professional everything. You’re inside the Beltway and you’ve got the best, the creme de la creme. And here comes a guy, a reality TV host carnival barker, and he’s running rings around you on your field. He’s running rings around you in your business. It makes total sense that they would be flabbergasted, that they would be discombobulated, that they would be all out of sorts and not understanding what’s hit them.

Because there’s an arrogance sometimes that attaches itself to years and years and years of unchallenged dominance or superiority. And it’s clear that the professional political class is making a mess of things.

Americans have watched in disgust as a United States President intentionally harmed our country, while he and his fellow travelers, Professional Progressive Politicians on both sides of the aisle, thumbed their noses at the wishes of the overwhelming majority of American Citizens…the people who elected them to their cushy jobs in the first place: THEIR BOSSES.

Average Americans yearned for Common Sense Leadership.

A LEADER WHO WOULD RECOGNIZE THEIR ANGER AND FRUSTRATION AND REPRESENT THEM…NOT THEMSELVES.

A Leader who would stand up for average Americans.

Americans wanted someone who thought and spoke like this man:

I don’t believe the people I’ve met in almost every State of this Union are ready to consign this, the last island of freedom, to the dust bin of history, along with the bones of dead civilizations of the past. Call it mysticism, if you will, but I believe God had a divine purpose in placing this land between the two great oceans to be found by those who had a special love of freedom and the courage to leave the countries of their birth. From our forefathers to our modern-day immigrants, we’ve come from every corner of the earth, from every race and every ethnic background, and we’ve become a new breed in the world. We’re Americans and we have a rendezvous with destiny. We spread across this land, building farms and towns and cities, and we did it without any federal land planning program or urban renewal.

Indeed, we gave birth to an entirely new concept in man’s relation to man. We created government as our servant, beholden to us and possessing no powers except those voluntarily granted to it by us. Now a self-anointed elite in our nation’s capital would have us believe we are incapable of guiding our own destiny. They practice government by mystery, telling us it’s too complex for our understanding. Believing this, they assume we might panic if we were to be told the truth about our problems.

Why should we become frightened? No people who have ever lived on this earth have fought harder, paid a higher price for freedom, or done more to advance the dignity of man than the living Americans the Americans living in this land today. There isn’t any problem we can’t solve if government will give us the facts. Tell us what needs to be done. Then, get out of the way and let us have at it.

That was Ronald Wilson Reagan, the greatest American President in my lifetime, a man who brought us together, instead of pitting us against each other….a man who stood up to tyranny, instead of embracing it…A LEADER…NOT A FOLLOWER.

He became the President of the United States by communicating directly with the American People, in straight-forward language, that we could understand.

While Trump is not Ronald Reagan, he, too, has identified the Political Reality, known as the Washingtonian Status Quo, which has been holding average Americans, here in the Heartland, hostage, for far too many years.

Now, the good ol’ boys in the Northeast Republicans’ Club, or Vichy Republicans, as I like to call them, after the failure of Jeb!, have finally begun to realize that the majority of Americans out here in the Heartland are fed up with the greed and machinations of self-serving Professional Politicians., and are scrambling to maintain their Positions of Power.

And, it is nobody’s fault but their own.

You see, boys and girls, they forgot, a long time ago, that they are not “THE BOSS”…WE ARE.

And, to paraphrase “The Donald”,

THEY’RE FIRED!

Until He Comes,

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

On February 15, 2016 By kingsjesterIn Politics2 Comments

A 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,

Hillary After New Hampshire: From “The Inevitable Candidate” to Just Another “Face in the Crowd”?

On February 10, 2016 By kingsjesterIn PoliticsLeave a comment

Last night, in the New Hampshire Democrat Primary Election, Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, lost, in epic fashion, to the old Socialist, Bernie Sanders.

In fact, the only age group who voted for her, were well-off folks, who were 65 years old and older.

What happened to “The Inevitable Democrat Presidential Candidate”?

Dick Morris, Former Advisor to President Bill Clinton, wrote the following op ed for thehill.com…

Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign is falling apart. Bernie Sanders soared in New Hampshire and now two polls have him tying her nationally. It’s a disaster.

Now she’s called in the B Team — the cynical, paranoid and wacky twins Sidney Blumenthal and David Brock — to bail her out. And here comes the elderly, diminished and livid former President Bill Clinton to lead the duo’s frantic attacks on Sanders.

The attacks are rooted in nothing more than a list of dirty names they call the Vermont senator every day. Having found little in his record to attack, they have consulted the thesaurus to turn up ugly sounding accusations.

Sanders has a coherent, consistent and concise message: Incomes are stagnant because the economy is rigged by the top one-tenth of 1 percent that controls politics through massive campaign contributions.

Clinton has no competing message, just the charge that Sanders’s supporters are “sexist and vulgar.” Brock adds that one of Sanders’s ads was racist because it had too many white people in it.

Their strategy is laughable. After losing 84 percent of young voters in Iowa — and failing to recover them in New Hampshire — they sent in two aging fossils of feminism to insult and threaten young women.

The 81-year-old feminist Gloria Steinem charged that young women are only backing Sanders because that’s where they can meet boys. And 78-year-old Madeleine Albright threatened to consign to a “special place in hell” women who don’t back female candidates like Clinton.

Those are two great ways to attract young voters.

The aging and raging ex-president, meanwhile, speaking to a half-filled gym in a New Hampshire school, ranted about Sanders’s “hypocrisy” in condemning his wife’s paid speeches. Sanders, too, has given paid speeches, Bill Clinton claimed.

He’s got a point. In 2013, for example, Sanders made all of $1,500, which he donated to charity as required by federal law. In 2014, he raked in $1,850 for paid speeches. By contrast, Clinton made, and kept, over $21 million during the same time period. Sanders was only reimbursed for coach class airfare, while Clinton demanded private jets. Sanders’s hosts were the TV show “Real Time with Bill Maher,” Avalon Publishing and a machinists union. Clinton’s were Goldman Sachs, the big banks and the pharmaceutical and energy industries. What hypocrisy for Sanders to use that as an issue!

Both Brock and Blumenthal share the former first lady’s enthusiasm for discussing the “vast right-wing conspiracy” in America. Now that they’ve been outed as being back on her team, it’s easy to understand why Clinton sees conspiracies everywhere. This paranoia, egged on by the B Twins, explains her failure to grasp the cataclysmic changes her own misconduct has wrought on her image, to say nothing of the societal and economic tectonic shifts at work. No, it’s all the GOP’s fault.

Blumenthal worked to spin Monica Lewinsky as a crazed stalker of an innocent president, and his hundreds of gossipy emails urged Clinton to do all she could to topple Moammar Gadhafi when she was secretary of State without realizing that it would open the door and let the terrorists waltz in. He hides in the shadows, ducking subpoenas and frantically emailing his crazy self-serving ideas while flattering his way into Clinton’s affections.

Brock first came into the Clinton camp as a convert from conservatism. Before he did so, he outed Paula Jones, triggering Bill Clinton to lie to a grand jury, resulting in close to $1 million in payments to Jones and thousands to the court in fines, as well as disbarment and impeachment scandals. Now he serves to destroy Hillary Clinton’s career as well by counseling a scorched-earth policy that savages Sanders and alienates the very young people who must provide Clinton her political base in the general election.

Neither the B Twins nor Bill Clinton’s rage can save the bewildered former secretary of State, who cannot understand why a funny thing is happening on her way to her coronation. Voters looked at her and ran screaming.

My, how the “Inevitable Democrat Presidential Candidate” has fallen.

I was immediately struck by how similar the rapidly-devolving candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton was to the classic movie “A Face in the Crowd”:

Andy Griffith makes a spectacular film debut in this searing drama as Lonesome Rhodes, a philosophical country-western singer discovered in a tanktown jail by radio talent scout Patricia Neal and her assistant Walter Matthau. They decide that Rhodes is worthy of a radio spot, but the unforeseen result is that the gangly, aw-shucks entertainer becomes an overnight sensation not simply on radio but, thereafter, on television. As he ascends to stardom, Rhodes attracts fans, sponsors and endorsements by the carload, and soon he is the most powerful and influential entertainer on the airwaves. Beloved by his audience, Rhodes reveals himself to his intimates as a scheming, power-hungry manipulator, with Machiavellian political aspirations. He uses everyone around him, coldly discarding anyone who might impede his climb to the top (one such victim is sexy baton-twirler Lee Remick, likewise making her film debut). Just when it seems that there’s no stopping Rhodes’ megalomania, his mentor and ex-lover Neal exposes this Idol of Millions as the rat that he is. She arranges to switch on the audio during the closing credits of Rhodes’ TV program, allowing the whole nation to hear the grinning, waving Rhodes characterize them as “suckers” and “stupid idiots.” Instantly, Rhodes’ popularity rating plummets to zero. As he drunkenly wanders around his penthouse apartment, still not fully comprehending what has happened to him, Rhodes is deserted by the very associates who, hours earlier, were willing to ask “how high?” when he yelled “jump”. Written by Budd Schulberg, Face in the Crowd was not a success, possibly because it hit so close to home with idol-worshipping TV fans. Its reputation has grown in the intervening years, not only because of its value as a film but because of the novelty of seeing the traditionally easygoing Andy Griffith as so vicious and manipulative a character as Lonesome Rhodes.

Just like Lonesome Rhodes, Hillary’s is a completely manufactured persona. Also like Rhodes, she was meant to represent something unique.

While Rhodes represented the common man, down on his luck, who pulled himself up by his bootstraps to achieve success, Clinton, in turn, is supposed to represent the return of the affable Bill “Bubba” Clinton’s reign as President…a fictional Kennedy-style “Camelot”, where Fairy Tales came true, and the Progressive Clintons ruled with impunity.

And, just as Rhodes was exposed for the vacuous, megalomaniac that he was, so has Hillary been revealed for who she is, through Benghazi and the popular movie about that horrible night, her corrupt influence-peddling involving the Clinton Foundation, and, the FBI Investigation into her use of private servers to handle Top Secret E-mails, while she was Secretary of State.

About that influence-peddling…

Hillary continues to refuse to release the contents of her speeches to Goldman Sachs. There’s a reason for that.

In an attempt to appeal to the young and dumb Bernie Voters, Hillary has been trying to portray herself as an anti-capitalist.

However, Rush Limbaugh, during his nationally-syndicated radio program on February 8th, made the following observation…

How did the Clintons end up having a fortune of $150 million when they had Clinton’s salary of 400 grand as president and Hillary, whatever she had as a Rose Law Firm lawyer, they didn’t have any money compared to this. I’m not saying they were dirt poor, but how they ended up having $150 million, for doing speeches, are you kidding me? Nobody gets paid that much to do speeches, because nobody has that much to say to make it that worth it. There’s something else going on here. That’s why Mrs. Clinton won’t reveal the transcripts of these speeches. Something in them would give away the game.

Either these speeches are filled with nothing but slathering, slavish, complimentary garbage about how great the banks are, how great Goldman Sachs is, and if that’s in there, there’s no way Mrs. Clinton wants her average voters to see that. As far as Democrat voters are concerned, Hillary and Bernie hate the banks, and if there are transcripts of speeches with Hillary out there praising the banks, talking how wonderful the banks are, saving the world, it would be a big problem. So there’s no way you’re ever gonna see those transcripts. But, I mean, $120 million doing speeches. This is so phony you can just see right through it.

In conclusion, there was a reason that the only voter bloc that Hillary carried last night was the old and the wealthy.

They are the only Democrat Voters who can relate to her.

Now, don’t get me wrong…Bernie is nothing but a Professional Politician, peddling empty promises, also.

However, just like the “47%” voted “Baracky Claus” into a second term as President, so are the “Young and Dumb” voting for “Mr. Free Stuff” in the Democrat Primary Elections.

Perhaps Hillary should promise the young Democrat Ladies free dates with Bubba?

Until He Comes,

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

On February 6, 2016February 6, 2016 By kingsjesterIn PoliticsLeave a comment

For 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,

Iowa Caucus Analysis: Winners, Losers, and Unbelievable Spin

On February 2, 2016 By kingsjesterIn PoliticsLeave a comment

Alright. As Maureen McGovern sang, “There’s Got to Be a Morning After”.

Now that the dust has settled, what can we learn from the results of the First Event of the Primary Season, the Iowa Caucus, or, as it is called, the “Hawkeye Caucai”?

Edward J. Rollins is a former assistant to President Ronald Reagan, who managed Reagan’s 1984 reelection campaign. He is presently a senior presidential fellow at Hofstra University and a member of the Political Consultants Hall of Fame. He is Senior Advisor for Teneo Strategy.

Rollins, a Fox News Contributor, has submitted the following op ed, analyzing the results of yesterday’s Iowa Caucus on the Republican Side of the Aisle…

It is always interesting to watch democracy in action and Iowa is ground zero.

Many political pundits and media analysts complain about the attention Iowa receives from candidates and the media because it goes first. But it also is a state filled with people who are willing to pay attention, to go to small events and forums (more than 1,500 have been held) and to show up at a caucus on a cold, often snowy night to participate in a ritual few states duplicate.

Millions of dollars are spent on TV commercials (over 60,000) and organization that Monday night produced a record turnout.

Iowa doesn’t always produce the eventual winners but it does eliminate the losers. With 17 Republican candidates starting this process, there are really only three or four real candidates now with voter support and sufficient monies to go on to the remaining contests.

With a record voter turnout in Iowa, the winner, Ted Cruz goes on with his extraordinary organization and conservative supporters with a big upset.

Marco Rubio, the best debater, came on strong and gained real momentum. He came very close to coming in second. Certainly he has to be viewed as a very serious candidate and the best bet to become the establishment candidate.

Trump is Trump and his special appeal to new voters and the angry anti-Washington element will go on, too, but with unpredictable results. He also paid a price for missing the last debate and fighting Fox News.

Ben Carson held his 10 percent base, but his candidacy is short lived and beyond Iowa has minimal support.

The biggest losers are Bush, Christie and Huckabee. Bush spent the most money and dropped like a rock.

Christie’s bluster, unlike Trump’s, didn’t sell. He has no money and no future in this race.

And Huckabee, who won this race eight years, and thought he could be a serious challenger against Romney in 2012, was a bottom dweller getting less than 2 percent of the vote. He raised no money and has no appeal and barely has enough money left to buy a bus ticket back to Arkansas. He quickly waved the flag of surrender and wisely quit the race.

One more may make the cut after Iowa, but this is the field now and it will be fascinating to watch.

Monday night’s win is a giant victory for Cruz and his team. He won in spite of a greater turnout than in years past and benefited from the dramatic increase in new voters. And now on to New Hampshire!

So, the Grand Old Party’s cup runneth over, They are seemingly blessed with 3 strong contenders for this Presidential Candidate Nomination.

The problem, as history has shown, is the fact that the Iowa Caucus is not exactly a bellweather by which to determine what will happen in November.

The other problem for the Republican Establishment, is the fact that they absolutely cannot stand the candidates that came in first and second.

Rubio, in the past, has proven to be a useful ally.

Things promise to be interesting in the months leading up to the convention.

Meanwhile, over at Propaganda Central for the Democrat Party and the Clinton Machine, otherwise known as the New York Times, Nate Cohn tried to declare the Queen of Mean, the winner of a VIRTUAL TIE.

Bernie Sanders is right: The Iowa Democratic caucuses were a “virtual tie,” especially after you consider that the results aren’t even actual vote tallies, but state delegate equivalents subject to all kinds of messy rounding rules and potential geographic biases.

The official tally, for now, is Hillary Clinton at 49.9 percent, and Mr. Sanders at 49.6 percent with 97 percent of precincts reporting early Tuesday morning.

But in the end, a virtual tie in Iowa is an acceptable, if not ideal, result for Mrs. Clinton and an ominous one for Mr. Sanders. He failed to win a state tailor made to his strengths.

He fares best among white voters. The electorate was 91 percent white, per the entrance polls. He does well with less affluent voters. The caucus electorate was far less affluent than the national primary electorate in 2008. He’s heavily dependent on turnout from young voters, and he had months to build a robust field operation. As the primaries quickly unfold, he won’t have that luxury.

Iowa is not just a white state, but also a relatively liberal one — one of only a few of states where Barack Obama won white voters in the 2008 primary and in both general elections. It is also a caucus state, which tends to attract committed activists.

In the end, Mr. Sanders made good on all of those strengths. He excelled in college towns. He won an astonishing 84 percent of those aged 17 to 29 — even better than Mr. Obama in the 2008 caucus. He won voters making less than $50,000 a year, again outperforming Mr. Obama by a wide margin. He won “very liberal” voters comfortably, 58 to 39 percent.

But these strengths were neatly canceled by Mrs. Clinton’s strengths. She won older voters, more affluent voters, along with “somewhat liberal” and “moderate” Democrats.

This raises a straightforward challenge for Mr. Sanders. He has nearly no chance to do as well among nonwhite voters as Mr. Obama did in 2008. To win, Mr. Sanders will need to secure white voters by at least a modest margin and probably a large one. In the end, Mr. Sanders failed to score a clear win in a state where Mr. Obama easily defeated Mrs. Clinton among white voters.

Mr. Sanders’s strength wasn’t so great as to suggest that he’s positioned to improve upon national polls once the campaign heats up. National polls show him roughly tied with Mrs. Clinton among white voters, and it was the case here as well. It suggests that additional gains for Mr. Sanders in national polls will require him to do better than he did in Iowa, not that the close race in Iowa augurs a close one nationally.

Mr. Sanders will have another opportunity to gain momentum after the New Hampshire primary. He might not get as much credit for a victory there as he would have in Iowa, since New Hampshire borders his home state of Vermont. But it could nonetheless give him another opportunity to overcome his weaknesses among nonwhite voters.

As a general rule, though, momentum is overrated in primary politics. In 2008, for instance, momentum never really changed the contours of the race. Mr. Obama’s victory in Iowa allowed him to make huge gains among black voters, but not much more — the sort of exception that would seem to prove the rule. Mr. Obama couldn’t even put Mrs. Clinton away after winning a string of states in early February.

Continue reading the main story Write A Comment There’s an even longer list of candidates with fairly limited appeal, particularly Republicans like Rick Santorum, Pat Buchanan or Mike Huckabee, who failed to turn early-state victories into broader coalitions.

The polls this year offer additional reasons to doubt it. Mrs. Clinton holds more than 50 percent of the vote in national surveys; her share of the vote never declined in 2008. The polls say that her supporters are more likely to be firmly decided than Mr. Sanders’s voters.

Back-to-back wins in Iowa and New Hampshire by Mr. Sanders might have been enough to overcome that history. The no-decision in Iowa ensures we won’t find out.

Wow.

I haven’t seen a job of spinning like that since Rumpelstiltskin spun straw into gold. (look him up, kids.)

Mr. Cohn, as we say down here in Dixie,

That dog don’t hunt.

While Sanders’ strength does rely with white voters ( which is funny, because you Democrats are supposed to cherish DIVERSITY, but, I digress…), his base of power lies in the New England States, home of his Millennial Minions and a bunch of those college towns, which you referred to. And the last time I checked, New Hampshire is located in New England.
Mrs. Clinton’s Voter Base have begun to distance themselves, en masse, from her. She carries more baggage than the image of the late Bob Crane (Greg Kinnear) and his buddy (Willem Dafoe), rolling through the airport, in the Biographical movie, “Auto Focus” …And, she’s just as sleazy.
Momentum “never really changed the contours of the race in 2008”, because it was all on Obama’s side, from the get-go. When you have the ground troops of SEIU and their partner-in-crime, ACORN, going door-to-door for you around the nation, it provides you with an insurmountable lead in “the community”. Hillary does not have access to those ground troops.
BIG QUESTION: What happens if Obama and the Democrat Elites decide that they don’t like what they are seeing, so Obama orders the DOJ to indict Hillary and Crazy Uncle Joe enters the Primaries to “save the day”?

Clinton, no matter what those “smarter than the rest of the country” in the Northeast Corridor may choose to believe, is neither trustworthy nor likable as the polls have shown, time and again. Her Political Accomplishments are all negative, bordering on the nonexistent.

Bill’s coattails can cover up only so much political stain (Ask Monica).

Somebody had better hide all of the sharp instruments at the New York Times. This could get ugly.

Get your popcorn ready.

Until He Comes,

The Iowa Caucus: Bernie Sanders, Millennials, and the Empty Promise of “FREE STUFF!”

On February 1, 2016February 1, 2016 By kingsjesterIn PoliticsLeave a comment

Today, the focus of America will be on the state of Iowa, as Presidential Candidate Hopefuls from both parties, vie to win their respective races.

On the Left Side of the Political Aisle, a 74-year old curmudgeon, from a tiny New England State, promising a whole lot of FREE STUFF, is in a virtual tie with the Queen of Mean, the “Inevitable Democrat Party Candidate” Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The Washington Post reports that

DES MOINES — In his final campaign rally before the Iowa caucuses, Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders on Sunday decried the nation’s “rigged economy” and pressed other now-familiar themes before an enthusiastic crowd estimated at 1,700 people.

“You want a radical idea? All right, here’s a radical idea,” the senator from Vermont told an audience packed into a gym at Grand View University. “Together, we’re going to create an economy that works for all of us, not just the 1 percent.”

Sanders’s appearance capped a full day of campaigning on the eve of the nation’s first presidential nominating contest, which could go a long way toward shaping the direction of the Democratic race against Hillary Clinton. Polls have shown the caucuses to be a dead heat.

Sanders made only passing references to Clinton during his 48-minute remarks, instead emphasizing the same issues that propelled him from being a fringe candidate when he launched his bid nine months ago to a surprisingly strong contender.

He called for a $15 minimum wage, pay equity for women, paid family leave for workers, a $1 trillion federal jobs program and an overhaul of the tax system to make large corporations to pay substantially more.

Sanders singled out Wal-Mart, saying it pays its workers so little that taxpayers subsidize the company’s owners by paying for Medicaid, food stamps and housing assistance for its employees.

“I say to the Walton family: Get off of welfare, pay your workers a living wage,” Sanders said, referring to the family that owns the company.

In an interview taped in Ames before the rally, Sanders told Matt Lauer of NBC’s “Today” show that his campaign is “in this until the end,” regardless of the outcome in Iowa.

“What we are doing is running a national campaign,” Sanders said. “We’re going to run until the convention.”

“I hope we win, but if we lose by two points, so what — we’re going to go to New Hampshire, then we’re going to go to South Carolina, then we’re going to go to Nevada,” he told Lauer. “We are in this to the end.”

Why is this self-proclaimed SOCIALIST still in the Race?

Sanders is riding the crest of a wave of popularity among the generation whom we call “Millennials”…those, whom my late Daddy, who landed on the beaches of Normandy, France on D-Day, all those decades ago, in the biggest Fight Against Fascism that the world has ever known, and the rest of “The Greatest Generation”, would have called “useful idiots”, “dupes”, or “slackers” for their inability to recognize the con job and failed theory that is Marxism, when they see it.

The following is a post found on fee.org, the website of the Foundation for Economic Education. It explains this part of Marxist Theory and “Why Socialism Failed”.

Socialism is the Big Lie of the twentieth century. While it promised prosperity, equality, and security, it delivered poverty, misery, and tyranny. Equality was achieved only in the sense that everyone was equal in his or her misery.

In the same way that a Ponzi scheme or chain letter initially succeeds but eventually collapses, socialism may show early signs of success. But any accomplishments quickly fade as the fundamental deficiencies of central planning emerge. It is the initial illusion of success that gives government intervention its pernicious, seductive appeal. In the long run, socialism has always proven to be a formula for tyranny and misery.

A pyramid scheme is ultimately unsustainable because it is based on faulty principles. Likewise, collectivism is unsustainable in the long run because it is a flawed theory. Socialism does not work because it is not consistent with fundamental principles of human behavior. The failure of socialism in countries around the world can be traced to one critical defect: it is a system that ignores incentives.

In a capitalist economy, incentives are of the utmost importance. Market prices, the profit-and-loss system of accounting, and private property rights provide an efficient, interrelated system of incentives to guide and direct economic behavior. Capitalism is based on the theory that incentives matter!

Under socialism, incentives either play a minimal role or are ignored totally. A centrally planned economy without market prices or profits, where property is owned by the state, is a system without an effective incentive mechanism to direct economic activity. By failing to emphasize incentives, socialism is a theory inconsistent with human nature and is therefore doomed to fail. Socialism is based on the theory that incentives don’t matter!

In a radio debate several months ago with a Marxist professor from the University of Minnesota, I pointed out the obvious failures of socialism around the world in Cuba, Eastern Europe, and China. At the time of our debate, Haitian refugees were risking their lives trying to get to Florida in homemade boats. Why was it, I asked him, that people were fleeing Haiti and traveling almost 500 miles by ocean to get to the “evil capitalist empire” when they were only 50 miles from the “workers’ paradise” of Cuba?

The Marxist admitted that many “socialist” countries around the world were failing. However, according to him, the reason for failure is not that socialism is deficient, but that the socialist economies are not practicing “pure” socialism. The perfect version of socialism would work; it is just the imperfect socialism that doesn’t work. Marxists like to compare a theoretically perfect version of socialism with practical, imperfect capitalism which allows them to claim that socialism is superior to capitalism.

If perfection really were an available option, the choice of economic and political systems would be irrelevant. In a world with perfect beings and infinite abundance, any economic or political system–socialism, capitalism, fascism, or communism–would work perfectly.

However, the choice of economic and political institutions is crucial in an imperfect universe with imperfect beings and limited resources. In a world of scarcity it is essential for an economic system to be based on a clear incentive structure to promote economic efficiency. The real choice we face is between imperfect capitalism and imperfect socialism. Given that choice, the evidence of history overwhelmingly favors capitalism as the greatest wealth-producing economic system available.

The strength of capitalism can be attributed to an incentive structure based upon the three Ps: (1) prices determined by market forces, (2) a profit-and-loss system of accounting and (3) private property rights. The failure of socialism can be traced to its neglect of these three incentive-enhancing components.

Prices

The price system in a market economy guides economic activity so flawlessly that most people don’t appreciate its importance. Market prices transmit information about relative scarcity and then efficiently coordinate economic activity. The economic content of prices provides incentives that promote economic efficiency.

For example, when the OPEC cartel restricted the supply of oil in the 1970s, oil prices rose dramatically. The higher prices for oil and gasoline transmitted valuable information to both buyers and sellers. Consumers received a strong, clear message about the scarcity of oil by the higher prices at the pump and were forced to change their behavior dramatically. People reacted to the scarcity by driving less, carpooling more, taking public transportation, and buying smaller cars. Producers reacted to the higher price by increasing their efforts at exploration for more oil. In addition, higher oil prices gave producers an incentive to explore and develop alternative fuel and energy sources.

The information transmitted by higher oil prices provided the appropriate incentive structure to both buyers and sellers. Buyers increased their effort to conserve a now more precious resource and sellers increased their effort to find more of this now scarcer resource.

The only alternative to a market price is a controlled or fixed price which always transmits misleading information about relative scarcity. Inappropriate behavior results from a controlled price because false information has been transmitted by an artificial, non-market price.

Look at what happened during the 1970s when U.S. gas prices were controlled. Long lines developed at service stations all over the country because the price for gasoline was kept artificially low by government fiat. The full impact of scarcity was not accurately conveyed. As Milton Friedman pointed out at the time, we could have eliminated the lines at the pump in one day by allowing the price to rise to clear the market.

From our experience with price controls on gasoline and the long lines at the pump and general inconvenience, we get an insight into what happens under socialism where every price in the economy is controlled. The collapse of socialism is due in part to the chaos and inefficiency that result from artificial prices. The information content of a controlled price is always distorted. This in turn distorts the incentives mechanism of prices under socialism. Administered prices are always either too high or too low, which then creates constant shortages and surpluses. Market prices are the only way to transmit information that will create the incentives to ensure economic efficiency.

Profits and Losses

Socialism also collapsed because of its failure to operate under a competitive, profit-and-loss system of accounting. A profit system is an effective monitoring mechanism which continually evaluates the economic performance of every business enterprise. The firms that are the most efficient and most successful at serving the public interest are rewarded with profits. Firms that operate inefficiently and fail to serve the public interest are penalized with losses.

By rewarding success and penalizing failure, the profit system provides a strong disciplinary mechanism which continually redirects resources away from weak, failing, and inefficient firms toward those firms which are the most efficient and successful at serving the public. A competitive profit system ensures a constant reoptimization of resources and moves the economy toward greater levels of efficiency. Unsuccessful firms cannot escape the strong discipline of the marketplace under a profit/loss system. Competition forces companies to serve the public interest or suffer the consequences.

Under central planning, there is no profit-and-loss system of accounting to accurately measure the success or failure of various programs. Without profits, there is no way to discipline firms that fail to serve the public interest and no way to reward firms that do. There is no efficient way to determine which programs should be expanded and which ones should be contracted or terminated.

Without competition, centrally planned economies do not have an effective incentive structure to coordinate economic activity. Without incentives the results are a spiraling cycle of poverty and misery. Instead of continually reallocating resources towards greater efficiency, socialism falls into a vortex of inefficiency and failure.

Private Property Rights

A third fatal defect of socialism is its blatant disregard for the role of private property rights in creating incentives that foster economic growth and development. The failure of socialism around the world is a “tragedy of commons” on a global scale.

The “tragedy of the commons” refers to the British experience of the sixteenth century when certain grazing lands were communally owned by villages and were made available for public use. The land was quickly overgrazed and eventually became worthless as villagers exploited the communally owned resource.

When assets are publicly owned, there are no incentives in place to encourage wise stewardship. While private property creates incentives for conservation and the responsible use of property, public property encourages irresponsibility and waste. If everyone owns an asset, people act as if no one owns it. And when no one owns it, no one really takes care of it. Public ownership encourages neglect and mismanagement.

Since socialism, by definition, is a system marked by the “common ownership of the means of production,” the failure of socialism is a “tragedy of the commons” on a national scale. Much of the economic stagnation of socialism can be traced to the failure to establish and promote private property rights.

As Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto remarked, you can travel in rural communities around the world and you will hear dogs barking, because even dogs understand property rights. It is only statist governments that have failed to understand property rights. Socialist countries are just now starting to recognize the importance of private property as they privatize assets and property in Eastern Europe.

For the past 7 years, Barack Hussein Obama has been promising “Hope and change”, through his unceasing rhetoric of Class Warfare, Racial Animus, and “Sharing the Wealth”.

His promises have proven to be as empty as our pocketbooks.

Almost 94,000,000 Americans are now out of our workforce, having given up ever being able to find a job.

The Socialist Paradise, which Bernie Sanders is offering Millennials, is nothing new.

Ask the countries of Venezuela and Greece, as they burn to the ground, their hopes and dreams piled on top of a “Democratic Socialist” Pyre of their own making.

As we enter the first event of the Presidential Primary Season, the Iowa Caucus, tonight, it would be wise for those voters who want to “#FeelTheBern” to remember the words of a great World Leader, Sir Winston Churchill, who, as Prime Minister, lead Great Britain though the Fight Against Fascism, which I referenced before, World War II, when he said,

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. – Winston Churchill

Someone has to pay for all of the FREE STUFF that ol’ Bernie is promising, kids.

And, if he gets in office, that will be YOU.

Until He Comes.

Thursday Night in Iowa: A Republican “Royal Rumble” Without the Front-Runner There (Physically, Anyway)

On January 29, 2016 By kingsjesterIn PoliticsLeave a comment

Last Sunday, the WWE staged it’s annual event, known as “The Royal Rumble” in which 30 combatants enter the squared circle, individually, every 3 minutes, and try to toss each other over the top rope, to see who will headline WrestleMania in a World Championship Match.

Last night’s Republican Presidential Candidates Primary Debate, with the notable absence of the Front-Runner, Donald J. Trump, was reminiscent of that wrestling event.

For those of you who did not watch the Trump-less Republican Primary Contenders’ Debate on Fox News Channel last night, MSN.com provides a detailed synopsis (from the Opposition Party’s point-of-view, of course)…

DES MOINES — The first Republican presidential debate without Donald Trump still took on a Trumpian tone at times, with the seven other top candidates here Thursday night voicing anger, talking tough and vowing to do away with political correctness.

But with the defiant GOP front-runner staging his own counter-program by rallying supporters a few miles away, Trump’s absence left a vacuum on the debate stage and fewer fireworks than Republicans had grown accustomed to.

From the opening question, it was mostly filled by Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.), who has been locked in an intensifying duel with Trump for dominance in Iowa’s first-in-the-nation caucuses, only four days away.

Cruz began by mocking Trump’s reputation for insults: “I’m a ‘maniac’ and everyone on this stage is ‘stupid,’ ‘fat’ and ‘ugly.’ And Ben [Carson], you’re a ‘terrible surgeon.’ Now that we’ve gotten the Donald Trump portion out of the way . . .”

From there, however, little more was said about Trump, few direct attacks were leveled at him and the overall atmosphere was notably calmer than in previous debate. That left Cruz as the top target as Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) and other opponents sought to puncture the Texas senator’s appeal by trying to depict him as an inauthentic conservative.

“The truth is, Ted, throughout this campaign you’ve been willing to say or do anything in order to get votes,” Rubio said. “You want to trump Trump on immigration.”

Rubio and Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) both attacked Cruz for having once supported an amendment that would have granted legal status, not citizenship, to illegal immigrants — though Cruz maintains that it was a “poison pill” and that he has always opposed amnesty.

“He is the king of saying, ‘Oh, you’re for amnesty. Everybody’s for amnesty except for Ted Cruz,’ ” Paul said. “But it’s a falseness, and that’s an authenticity problem.”

Cruz was not the only candidate on the defensive on immigration, however. Rubio also came under fire for his role as one of the Gang of Eight senators who crafted comprehensive reform legislation in 2013.

After giving Rubio a backhanded compliment for being “charming and smooth,” Cruz hammered him for having aligned with President Obama and Democratic Senate leaders Harry Reid (Nev.) and Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.).

The Fox News Channel moderators tried to challenge both Cruz and Rubio by playing archival video footage of the two senators. After showing the Cruz videos, co-moderator Megyn Kelly asked: “Was that all an act? It was pretty convincing.”

In the absence of Trump, Cruz and Rubio had the most to gain or lose in Thursday night’s debate. The two are the second- and third-polling candidates in Iowa, and their strategies are predicated on being the last non-Trump candidate left standing to face off with the mogul in a long-slog primary season.

Both men emerged with scars.

Rubio appeared to struggle explaining why he advocated a hard-line immigration approach as a Senate candidate, then pursued comprehensive reform that included a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, then reverted.

Rubio said he does not support “blanket amnesty” and focused on the need to seal the border with Mexico and improve security there.

Former Florida governor Jeb Bush used the exchange to portray Rubio — his onetime protege when Rubio was a Florida state lawmaker — as weak for having reversed positions on immigration. After noting that he supported Rubio’s work in the Gang of Eight, Bush said, “He cut and run because it wasn’t popular among conservatives, I guess.”

“You shouldn’t cut and run,” Bush said. “You should stick with it. That’s exactly what happened. He cut and run, and that’s a tragedy.”

Rubio countered by saying that Bush had reversed his own position on citizenship and legal status in a book he wrote.

“So did you,” Bush snapped back.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie used the back-and-forth over Senate votes and amendments to show the leadership differences between legislators and executives, and he repeated his call for a governor in the White House.

“I feel like I need a Washingtonese-English dictionary converter,” Christie joked.

Carson, the retired neurosurgeon who once led the polls but has seen his lead falter among heavy scrutiny of his policy knowhow, invoked his medical career as a credential for the White House: “I’ve had more 2 a.m. phone calls than everybody here put together, making life and death decisions.”

The immigration exchange was one of the few moments of direct confrontation onstage between the candidates. The debate lacked a central focus, with Kelly and her co-moderators, Bret Baier and Chris Wallace, asking many one-off questions that focused on the vulnerabilities of individual candidates.

In return, the candidates gave many of the canned lines that have become familiar on the campaign trail, avoiding taking big risks with the Iowa caucuses so close.

The seventh Republican debate of the 2016 campaign cycle was the first not to include Trump, the billionaire mogul whose bombast and showmanship dominated the previous events.

Trump boycotted the debate, escalating his feud with Fox and its star anchor, Kelly, because he believed he would not be treated fairly. He has long harbored disdain for Kelly because of her aggressive line of questioning during the first GOP debate in August, and he has argued that the network was taking advantage of his popularity with viewers to boost its ratings and thus its advertising revenue.

In her opening question, Kelly said, “Let’s address the elephant not in the room tonight.”

Trump staged a competing rally Thursday night on the Des Moines campus of Drake University, where he raised money for and honored veterans.

Much of the debate centered on foreign policy, with the candidates competing to show who would be the toughest commander in chief.

“You claim it is tough talk to discuss ‘carpet bombing,’ ” Cruz said. “It is not tough talk. It is a different fundamental military strategy than what we’ve seen from President Obama.”

Early in the debate, Cruz took fire on multiple fronts. Paul went after him for refusing to show support for a vote to audit the Federal Reserve and for not voicing strong enough opposition to the government’s surveillance efforts.

“I don’t think Ted can have it both ways. They want to say they’re getting some of the liberty vote,” Paul said. “But we don’t see it happening at all. We think we’re going to do very well in Iowa with the liberty vote.”

Rubio, as he has for months, portrayed Cruz as weak on national security.

“As already has been pointed out, the only budget that Ted has ever voted for is a budget that Rand Paul sponsored that brags about cutting defense spending,” Rubio said. “And I think that’s a bad idea.”

The closing days of the race have been nasty here in Iowa. The campaigns and allied super PACs are blanketing television and radio airwaves with attack ads, while the candidates have laced their stump speeches with sharp barbs.

Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who is banking his hopes on the Feb. 9 New Hampshire primary, sought to position himself above the fray.

“We cannot fix things in this country — the Social Security, the border, balancing the budget, getting wages to grow faster — unless we lead as conservatives, but we also invite people in from the other party,” Kasich said. “We have to come together as a country. And we have to stop all the divisions.”

Kasich’s call for unity went unheeded, and he was a non-factor through significant stretches of the debate as other candidates sparred.

As in previous debates, the candidates harshly attacked Hillary Clinton and sought to position themselves as best equipped to lead the Republican Party into the general election against Clinton, whom they see as the most likely Democratic nominee.

“She is not qualified to be president of the United States,” Christie said, drawing loud cheers from the audience. “The fact is, what we need is someone on that stage who has been tested, who has been through it, who has made decisions, who has sat in the chair of consequence and can prosecute the case against Hillary Clinton.”

Bush made a similar pitch.

“This is an election about people that are really hurting,” he said. “We need a leader that will fix things and have a proven record to do it. And we need someone who will take on Hillary Clinton in November.”

So, what was the Front-Running Trump up to, while the rest of the candidates duked it out?

Again, MSN.com has the story (and, please remember, they are hardly non-partisan)…

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Donald Trump opened a Thursday rally coinciding with the final GOP debate before Monday’s Iowa caucuses by telling supporters he would have preferred to be at the debate, but had no choice but to skip it after promising a boycott.

Angry over an escalating feud with debate host Fox News, Trump bowed out of the debate and held what his team called a “Special Event to Benefit Veterans Organizations” at a packed 775-seat auditorium at nearby Drake University instead.

“You have to stick up for your rights. When you’re treated badly, you have to stick up for your rights,” Trump told the crowd. “We have to stick up for ourselves as people and we have to stick up for our country if we’re being mistreated.”

Speaking from the stage at what felt like a cross between a televised fundraising telethon and a typical Trump campaign rally, Trump said his foundation already had raised between $5 million and $6 million for veterans since announcing the event. He said he’s putting up $1 million of his own money and read off the names of wealthy friends he said had pledged major contributions.

Trump repeated earlier statements that Fox “very much” wanted him to attend the debate and said he’d fielded repeated phone calls from the network during the day. Fox News Channel issued a statement saying Trump had offered to appear at the debate upon the condition that Fox contribute $5 million to his charities, which the network said was not possible.

Fox News says Chairman Roger Ailes, in conversations with Trump, “acknowledged his concerns” about a statement the network had made in the days leading up to the debate.

Trump has said he’s not worried about turning off voters who may be disappointed by his decision to skip Thursday’s contest.

“We’ve had other voters that love what I’m doing because they don’t want to be pushed around by the establishment,” said Trump, who is planning to participate in the next debate in New Hampshire.

It was unclear exactly which groups would receive money raised from the event and new website Trump launched for collecting donations: donaldtrumpforvets.com. Contributions to the site will go to The Donald J. Trump Foundation, Trump’s nonprofit charitable organization. The page says: “100 percent of your donations will go directly to Veterans needs.”

Trump representatives had been reaching out to various groups, in some cases inquiring about their programs and finances. Among those contacted were the Green Beret Foundation, which provides care to veterans, and Fisher House, which provides free or low cost housing to veterans and military families receiving treatment at military medical centers.

K9s for Warriors, which trains rescue dogs to be service animals for veterans, received a call from a Trump campaign representative asking if the group was interested in accepting funds from the event, according to executive director Rory Diamond. Diamond said the group is non-partisan but would be happy to accept any contributions.

Two of Donald Trump’s presidential rivals have taken the stage at a rally Trump is hosting to benefit veterans as he skips the Republican debate.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum attended the rally after participating in the early undercard debate for candidates whose poll numbers were too low to make it on the main stage.

Trump was joined at the event by two of his rivals, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum. Both took the stage at Trump’s event after participating in the early, undercard debate for candidates whose poll numbers were too low to make it on the main stage.

Santorum joked that he didn’t want his picture taken with the Trump campaign sign. He quipped that he’s “supporting another candidate for president,” but said he was happy to come out to support veterans.

Huckabee had earlier stressed his appearance should not be seen as an endorsement of Trump. He told the audience gathered at Drake University that he, Santorum and Trump may be presidential race competitors but said “tonight we are colleagues” in supporting veterans.

Every since I graduated high school in 1976, I have followed politics. I had to in college, because I was the News Director of the Campus Radio Station, with a staff of 20 students , who received class credit for producing a 5-minute newscast, once a week.

In 1980, I was privileged to cast my very first vote for the greatest American President in my lifetime, Ronald Reagan.

Since then, I have witnessed a lot of political chicanery, resulting in a lot of harm to the country which I love.

The Muslim-sympathizing, Alinsky-ite Marxist, who currently saunters down to the Oval Office every morning at 10:30 a.m. in his shirt sleeves, on his way to play golf, is the latest and most egregious example.

In every decade since the 1970s, the Media in this country has become more and more Liberal…and more and more subjective in their Editorial Policies and actual reporting.

With the advent of cable television and the 24-hour News Cycle, the Media had to step up their behind-the-scenes manipulation of events, in order to be competitive, and to secure the Cash Cow of their business, high viewership ratings.

What happened last night, was a result of an American Businessman, refusing to play the role of Pinocchio to one of these Modern-day Gepettos.

Per gatewaypundit.com,

FOX News and Google invited a radical Muslim activist, a Bernie Sanders supporter, a Black Lives Matter supporter and a Mexican illegal immigrant to the debate to confront Donald Trump.

Trump found out and, instead of stepping into a pile of…well, you know…he stepped around it, right into more FREE PUBLICITY, while raising money for our American Veterans, whom this Administration has treated so badly.

So, will Trump be hurt by last night?

Hardly.

As of this morning’s Drudge Report’s Republican Candidate Poll, Trump is far outdistancing the pack, with 65.59% of the vote. Sen. Ted Cruz has 16.63%, and Marco Rubio has 6.5%.

Not a scientific poll, I know, but, it could very possibly be a portent of things to come.

The best laid plans of mice and men oft’ times go awry. – Robert Burns

Until He Comes,

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

On January 25, 2016January 25, 2016 By kingsjesterIn Politics3 Comments

Well, 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,

Blatant Unprofessional Objectivity Just Cost the Democrat Lackeys at NBC the Republican Primary Debates

On January 19, 2016 By kingsjesterIn Politics2 Comments

As I have related to you before, I was a Radio News Director during college from 1978-1980, with a staff of 20 student reporters, who each received credit for producing and delivering a 5-minute newscast, once a week, on our College Radio Station.

I can remember sitting in the lecture hall of the (then) Memphis State University Journalism Building, listening to Dr. Williams, whom we all swore did the first newscast of KDKA, America’s first radio station, in 1920. The class was “Introduction to Journalism” and Dr. Van Williams was telling us that the ” key to being a good journalist was objectivity”.

Now, in 2016, one Broadcast/Cable News Organization has become so blatantly objective, that one of America’s two political parties has had no choice but to fire them from hosting their Presidential Primary Candidate Debates.

Breitbart.com reports that

The Republican National Committee (RNC) officially voted on Monday afternoon to sever its business relationship with NBC News for the previously-scheduled Feb. 26, 2016, GOP presidential primary debate, Breitbart News has learned.

The Debate Committee for the RNC met via conference call and after hearing updates from RNC chairman Reince Priebus officially voted to cancel the partnership with NBC, according to sources on the call. The vote was unanimous.

After the October debate hosted by NBC partner CNBC—in which co-moderator John Harwood was roundly criticized for a poor performance—the RNC suspended its relationship with NBC News over that upcoming Houston debate.

“I write to inform you that pending further discussion between the Republican National Committee (RNC) and our presidential campaigns, we are suspending the partnership with NBC News for the Republican primary debate at the University of Houston on February 26, 2016,” Priebus wrote to NBC News chairman Andy Lack back in late October. “The RNC’s sole role in the primary debate process is to ensure that our candidates are given a full and fair opportunity to lay out their vision for America’s future. We simply cannot continue with NBC without full consultation with our campaigns.”

In response, NBC News signaled in a statement at the time that it thought the situation could be resolved.

“This is a disappointing development,” NBC News said in a statement. “However, along with our debate broadcast partners at Telemundo we will work in good faith to resolve this matter with the Republican Party.”

This process also sparked an unprecedented meeting of top officials with almost every GOP presidential campaign, in which campaign managers represented most of the 2016 GOP candidates to fight for better representation in the debate process. Donald Trump’s team and Dr. Ben Carson’s team, as well most of the rest of the campaigns, huddled together to wrest control away from the mainstream media—which has been, until now, dominating the process.

Clearly, however, despite NBC’s previous hopes that the RNC would reinstate the network as a moderator of the upcoming debate, the RNC has officially moved forward with formal actions to end the network’s plans for the Houston debate.

NBC News moderated Sunday evening’s Democratic debate between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley.

The move by the RNC to formally extricate NBC News from the process is sure to seriously harm the media organization’s reputation, and its financial bottom line. Typically, networks make millions of dollars in ad revenue with debate moderation due to the extraordinarily high viewership.

The debate is still on the schedule–it would come after Iowans, New Hampshire citizens, South Carolinians, and Nevadans vote, heading into the all-important SEC Primary of which Texas is a part on March 1–but it’s unclear as of yet who will moderate it or where it will air.

For years, the Main Stream Media has been in bed with politicians and business moguls. While, touting objectivity, they have often fallen way short of that goal.

The Media really came into its own during the 80’s, with the advent of Cable Television, the First Iranian Hostage Crisis, and the ascension and election of President Ronald Wilson Reagan. Their advocacy of all things Liberal became very apparent, as they attacked the greatest president of this generation, mercilessly, giving no quarter.

I believe that Reagan’s election was a wake up call to the MSM. They realized that, if let to their own devices, the American Public would elect a Conservative as president, every time. And, they just couldn’t have that. They were already in too deep to their Democratic, Progressive Masters.

So, America’s Media forsook their objectivity, choosing to help to shape current events, instead of just reporting on them, in an effort to produce outcomes which would be most beneficial to the Progressive Cause.

Now, in 2015, after propping up Barack Hussein Obama and getting him re-elected, their own hubris has given them an exaggerated sense of self-importance, as to their role in our society.

Their Achilles’ Heel , the before-mentioned hubris, blinded them to the potential of the upstart Fox News Channel in informing America’s population in the Heartland, and that has been their undoing, much to Obama’s consternation.

Every night of the week, the Fox News Channel beats the mainstream outlets in popularity. There is a reason for that.

Fox News is exactly what it claims to be: fair and balanced.

The Mainstream News Channels are so far up Obama’s and the Democratic Party’s backsides that they wouldn’t know the truth if it French-kissed them.

Just as it was during the Russian Revolution, when Vladimir Leninn seized control of Russia from the Czar, and just as it was during the era of the National Socialist Party in Germany, when a former altar boy and house painter named Adolf Hitler took over, the first thing that totalitarian governments do is to take control of media, for propaganda purposes.

Through threats, coercion, and promises of reward, that is exactly what Obama did when he took office.

Of course, he did not have to try very hard. The Main Stream Media were already Obama Fanboys, their staffs being made up of a majority of Liberals.

Heck, they were posting fictitious propaganda about Barack Hussein Obama, before he was even elected president.

The election of Barack Hussein Obama is the best thing that ever happened to the Fox News Channel. It has solidified their position as the Leader in Cable News.

And, the thing about it, is the fact that Fox News is not the only source by which average Americans can obtain the truth about Obama and his administration. The New Media, the Internet, has proven to be an invaluable source for dissemination of information.

Principled reporters, such as the late Andrew Breitbart and Michelle Malkin, turned up the heat on both Obama and the MSM, by providing an alternative source through which Americans can receive news, unfiltered by those in the Halls of Power.

All during the Republican PreFsidential Primate Candidate Debates, which they have had the privilege of hosting, the NBC Debate Moderators, while doing the will of their Masters at the Network and the Democratic Party, the self-proclaimed “Broadcast Journalists” allowed the entire country to witness them practice, on live television, their actual jobs: being junkyard dogs and purveyors of propaganda , in service to a political party and ideology, who once stood for the “Working Man and Woman”, but who now stand for the worst kind of state-sponsored fascism, racial division exacerbated by the Rhetoric of Class Warfare, and greed-inspired socialism.

It was refreshing to actually see the Republican National Committee tell them to go take a long walk off of a short pier.

It is time to take our country back.

Until He Comes,

Hillary, Benghazi, and the Democrat Nomination: Inaction Has Consequences, Too

On January 16, 2016January 16, 2016 By kingsjesterIn Politics2 Comments

In the Arena of Presidential Politics, sometimes what is lauded as “inevitable”, “ain’t necessarily so”.

The Washington Post has the story…

Some leading Democrats are increasingly anxious about Hillary Clinton’s prospects for winning the party’s presidential nomination, warning that Sen. Bernie Sanders’s growing strength in early battleground states and strong fundraising point to a campaign that could last well into the spring.

What seemed recently to be a race largely controlled by Clinton has turned into a neck-and-neck contest with voting set to begin in less than three weeks.

On Capitol Hill and in state party headquarters, some Democrats worry that a Sanders nomination could imperil candidates down the ballot in swing districts and states. Others sense deja vu from 2008, when Clinton’s overwhelming edge cratered in the days before the Iowa caucuses.

Just as Barack Obama’s stunning upset there helped assure Democrats in later states that a black man could win votes from whites and propelled him to victory in South Carolina and other places, so, too, could a Sanders victory on Feb. 1 in Iowa and then Feb. 9 in New Hampshire ease doubts about the viability of a self-described “democratic socialist,” some said.

“It’s just like the weak spot for Barack Obama was his skin color, but he got cured of that in Iowa,” said Rep. James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.), the party’s leading African American in Congress.

“If [Sanders] comes out of Iowa and New Hampshire with big victories — if it’s close in both places, that’s one thing — but if he comes out of there with big victories, hey, man, it could very well be a new day,” Clyburn added.

One Clinton ally on Capitol Hill said some in the party are starting to seriously consider what it would mean for Democrats nationally if Sanders were to win.

“There’s definitely an elevated concern expressed in the cloakroom and members-only elevators, and other places, about the impact of a Sanders nomination on congressional candidates,” Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) said.

Israel, a former chairman of the Democrats’ House campaign committee, said that a Sanders nomination “increases the level of anxiety that many of our candidates have in swing districts, where a Hillary Clinton nomination erases that anxiety.”

Sensing the tightening race, some state party officials have gone out of their way to keep the peace with supporters of Sanders, hoping to tap their energy and keep them activated for the general election campaign.

The reevaluation of the Democratic primaries — which seemed destined for a Clinton coronation after she recovered from a summer slide amid controversy over her use of a private email system while secretary of state — comes as state and national surveys show her sliding fast once again.

A Des Moines Register survey of likely Iowa caucus voters released Thursday showed a statistical dead heat, with Clinton at 42 percent and Sanders at 40. That marks a significant shift from a month ago, when Clinton held a lead of nine percentage points and saw her share of the vote at 48 percent. In New Hampshire, Sanders holds a commanding lead, 53 percent to 39 percent, according to a Monmouth University poll released this week.

Clinton and Sanders have escalated their attacks on each other, with each claiming to be the strongest general election candidate.

The new dynamic will be on display in South Carolina this weekend, when the Democratic candidates attend a party dinner and then a fish fry hosted by Clyburn ahead of their debate Sunday night. The pre-debate events, expected to draw hundreds of activists, will serve as a chance for Sanders to prove that his campaign has an effective organization beyond the first two states.

“We’re really at the front end of the process for states beyond Iowa and New Hampshire,” said Sanders adviser Tad Devine. “Part of the process is to convince people Bernie is a serious option, and doing well in early states helps.”

Clinton’s allies have said that they have always planned for a difficult primary season and that they expect their well-structured campaign to pay dividends when the race moves on to larger states with more diverse electorates than the two earliest states. They note that a recent trip to Oklahoma, part of the Super Tuesday bloc of 10 states on March 1, demonstrated their campaign’s long view of the race.

“From Day One, we have told everyone who will listen this would be a dogfight,” said Jerry Crawford, a longtime Clinton supporter in Iowa. “Hillary will continue to fight for every vote just as she has done since Day One in Iowa, and I wouldn’t trade places with any other campaign.”

Whether or not he wins, Sanders’s rise has created challenges for party leaders by highlighting policy differences between the Democratic establishment and the party’s support base.

Many Sanders proposals — Medicare for all, free college and breaking up big banks — go beyond congressional Democrats’ agenda but are embraced by an ascendant wing of the party.

Those policy prescriptions win support in primaries, but many Democratic elites fear how they would play in a general election. At the same time, Democratic leaders know they can’t afford to alienate an energized party base.

Some recent surveys suggest that Sanders is drawing support beyond the liberals and young voters who have flocked to his rallies.

A Quinnipiac University poll early this month found Sanders trailing Clinton by an insignificant two percentage points among moderate and conservative Democrats, a sharp shift from Clinton’s 24 percentage-point lead among that group in December.

“Whatever the success that Senator Sanders, that Bernie Sanders, has, I think it’s important to recognize that his supporters are essential to our success in winning the White House,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) told reporters in the Capitol on Wednesday.

In the Senate, more than two-thirds of the Democratic caucus has endorsed Clinton. For now, the senators will remain calm, even if she loses the first two states, according to a senior consultant working on Senate races.

However, full-fledged panic would set in if Clinton loses the Nevada caucuses, wedged in between New Hampshire and South Carolina, the consultant said.

A Clinton defeat would complicate matters for one of the country’s most vulnerable Democrats, Rep. Cheri Bustos (D-Ill.). Bustos said that much of her campaign strategy is based on energizing female voters with the potential of a female presidential nominee . “There’s a lot of excitement about having a woman at the top of the ticket,” Bustos said, without directly critiquing Sanders.

While the Elite of the Democrats are excited about the prospect of having “The Queen of Mean” as their Presidential Candidate, others are, as the article alluded to, beginning to distance themselves from Hillary and her “baggage”.

Regardless of what she proclaimed in front of a sub-committee, what happened at a remote Embassy Compound in Libya DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

And now, it is on “the Big Screen” for all Americans to see.

The Christian Post reports that

Pat Smith, mother of American 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack victim Sean Smith, called presumptive 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton “a liar” this week after viewing the Benghazi-themed film “13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi.”

Smith, in an appearance on Fox News with Megyn Kelly this week, said she couldn’t complete watching the film after seeing the portrayal of her deceased son in the movie.

“Hillary is a liar! I know what she told me,” screamed Smith pointing to the Obama administration blaming a YouTube video for the controversial attack.

Kelly noted that Clinton had denied telling families of the Benghazi victims that the YouTube video was what caused the terrorist attack but Smith replied “bull feathers.”

“Oh, Pat. I know it must be so hard. So many people want to put this behind them and say, Hillary sat there and testified, she testified with her own 13 hours. And they say it’s done. They say there’s no story about Benghazi. And that she did everything she could do to the war and she came right out and said she is not lying. Suggesting you are the one who is lying about what happened [at] that Air Force base,” said Kelly.

“Bull feathers! That is just plain old bull! I know what she said and not only did she say it, but Obama said the same thing to me. And Panetta. And Biden. And Susan Rice. I went up to all of them, begging them to tell me what happened. And they all said, that it was the video. Every one of them,” said Smith.

“13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi” is an action thriller based on the 2014 non-fiction book written by journalist Mitchell Zuckoff with the Annex Security Team. The film depicts the harrowing true story of the attack on a CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012, which killed four Americans. After the assault begins, a U.S. Special Ops team are sent to the annex to protect those still trapped within the compound. The film is directed by Michael Bay, and stars John Krasinski, James Badge Dale, and Pablo Schreiber.

We have learned a lot of things since the Benghazi Massacre.

On October 27th, 2012, I reported that

Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command — who also told the CIA operators twice to “stand down” rather than help the ambassador’s team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.

Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to “stand down,” according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to “stand down.”

Woods and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The rescue team from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.

At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Spectre gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights.

CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Youngblood, [on orders from General Petraeus] though, denied the claims that requests for support were turned down.

“We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi,” she said. “Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. In fact, it is important to remember how many lives were saved by courageous Americans who put their own safety at risk that night-and that some of those selfless Americans gave their lives in the effort to rescue their comrades.”

That means that the order to stand down had to come from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and/or President Barack Hussein Obama. [or Valerie Jarrett]

We also learned on October 26, 2012, that there were two drones circling overhead, as four brave Americans were being slaughtered. Obama and his Administration knew exactly what was happening, yet, for the sake of political expediency, chose to do nothing about it.

What Hillary’s appearance before the Benghazi Hearings showed, was a pathological predilection for dishonesty, insincerity, and inappropriateness, not only on the part of Former Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton, but the whole Obama Administration, as well, from the top on down.

They all knew that the cause of the attacks was not some stupid Youtube Video, but a full-blown Muslim Terrorist Attack.

However, for the sake of Political Expediency…and the re-election of President Barack Hussein Obama and the legacy of his rapidly-failing Foreign Policy, known as Smart Power!, they had to quickly come up with an excuse for their liability in the deaths of those four brave Americans.

And now, Hillary Rodham Clinton, with her Oscar-worthy Performance in front of the House Committee, which including circuitous answers to Yes or No Questions and inappropriate smirks, accompanied by cackling laughter, echoes across the years, proving completely true and accurate as to what I and my fellow Conservative Americans have said about her all along:

She is a sociopath, who envisions herself to be smarter than everybody else, above the law, and White House-bound, because, “it’s her turn”.

The new movie about that fateful night of September 11, 2012, hopefully, will be the final nail in her Political Coffin.

The only place that she should be bound, at least in this life, is jail.

Her final destination promises to be a more Southern Locale…and infinitely hotter.

Until He Comes,

Kingsjester's Blog

Tag: Democrats

With Time Winding Down on the Game Clock, and Jeb! out of the Game, the Desperate Republican Elite, Call an Audible, and Bankroll Rubio

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

Hillary After New Hampshire: From “The Inevitable Candidate” to Just Another “Face in the Crowd”?

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

Iowa Caucus Analysis: Winners, Losers, and Unbelievable Spin

Thursday Night in Iowa: A Republican “Royal Rumble” Without the Front-Runner There (Physically, Anyway)

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

Blatant Unprofessional Objectivity Just Cost the Democrat Lackeys at NBC the Republican Primary Debates

Hillary, Benghazi, and the Democrat Nomination: Inaction Has Consequences, Too