Saturday, November 28, 2015

5 Devastating Facts About Black-on-Black Crime

by Jerome Hudson 
28 Nov 2015

 The mainstream American media is, again, happily hitting the Black Lives Matter crack pipe in its pernicious pursuit of high ratings. These blood-lusting junkies were nowhere to be found when, with haunting predictability, Chicago news headline after headline detailed the carnage that has consumed dozens of communities in that city where black men kill each other with terrifying regularity.

Where were these Black Lives Matter protesters after the slaying of Chicago’s little Tyshawn Lee, the 9-year-old lured into an alley and shot to death by a black man seeking gang-related vengeance against his father?

Did little Tyshawn’s murder at the hands of a black gangster–an all too common occurrence in Chicago–not warrant wall-to-wall news coverage or Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson-style calls for “justice”?



Because the ugly truth behind #BlackLivesMatter is that black people killing other black people does nothing to advance its political power in the same way that one white cop killing a black criminal can.

Despite the media’s overindulgence on white cops killing blacks, there is still a far-larger amount of black bodies being sent to morgues by black killers. Here’s five devastating facts, liberals can’t deny, that prove it.

FACT 1. Over 1,400 more black Americans murdered other blacks in two years than were lynched from 1882 to 1968.
According to FBI data, 4,906 black people murdered other blacks in 2010 and 2011. That is 1,460 more black Americans killed by other blacks in two years than were lynched from 1882 to 1968, according to the Tuskegee Institute.

FACT 2. Black People (mostly men) commit a grossly disproportionate amount of crime.
In 2012, white males were 38 percent of the population and committed 4,582 murders. That same year, black males were just 6.6 percent of the population but committed a staggering 5,531 murders.

In other words: black people–at just a fifth of the size–committed almost 1,000 more murders than their white counterparts.

The figures above highlight a horrific truth that black racialists and white liberals routinely ignore: Lawbreaking black Americans, young black males particularly, put themselves in close proximity to (mostly white male) police officers at rates sometimes five to 10 times higher than whites. This is a recipe for disaster. Thusly….

FACT 3. Despite making up just 13% of the population, blacks committed half of homicides in the United States for nearly 30 years.
DOJ statistics show that between 1980 and 2008, black people committed 52% of homicides.
In 2013, black criminals committed 38% of the murders. Whites accounted for just 31 percent.

There are five times fewer black people than white people in America and, yet, they consistently carry out a larger share of the crimes? Given this rate, it’s no wonder that there aren’t more assistances where cops kill black criminals.

FACT 4. Chicago’s death toll is almost equal to that of both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, combined.
There have been almost as many deaths in one American city as there have been in the two major wars carried out by the U.S. military this century.

Chicago’s death toll from 2001-November, 26 2015 stands at 7,401. The combined total deaths during Operation Iraqi Freedom (2003-2015: 4,815) and Operation Enduring Freedom/Afghanistan (2001-2015: 3,506), total 8,321.

FACT 5. It would take cops 40 years to kill as many black men as have died at the hands of others black men in 2012 alone.
University of Toledo criminologist Dr. Richard R. Johnson examined the latest crime data from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports and Centers for Disease Control and found that an average of 4,472 black men were killed by other black men annually between Jan. 1, 2009, and Dec. 31, 2012.
Professor Johnson’s research further concluded that 112 black men died from both justified and unjustified police-involved killings annually during this same period.

Follow Jerome on Twitter: @jeromeehudson

Big Government

Thursday, November 19, 2015

Obama Wants to Defeat America, Not ISIS

By Daniel Greenfield

Last year at a NATO summit, Obama explicitly disavowed the idea of containing ISIS. "You can't contain an organization that is running roughshod through that much territory, causing that much havoc, displacing that many people, killing that many innocents, enslaving that many women," he said.

Instead he argued, "The goal has to be to dismantle them."

Just before the Paris massacre, Obama shifted back to containment. “From the start, our goal has been first to contain them, and we have contained them,” he said.

Pay no attention to what he said last year. There’s a new message now. Last year Obama was vowing to destroy ISIS. Now he had settled for containing them. And he couldn’t even manage that.

ISIS has expanded into Libya and Yemen. It struck deep into the heart of Europe as one of its refugee suicide bombers appeared to have targeted the President of France and the Foreign Minister of Germany. That’s the opposite of a terrorist organization that had been successfully contained.

Obama has been playing tactical word games over ISIS all along. He would “degrade and ultimately destroy” ISIS. Or perhaps dismantle the Islamic State. Or maybe just contain it.

Containment is closest to the truth. Obama has no plan for defeating ISIS. Nor is he planning to get one any time soon. There will be talk of multilateral coalitions. Drone strikes will take out key figures. And then when this impressive war theater has died down, ISIS will suddenly pull off another attack.

And everyone will be baffled at how the “defeated” terrorist group is still on the march.

The White House version of reality says that ISIS attacked Paris because it’s losing. Obama also claimed that Putin’s growing strength in Syria is a sign of weakness. Never mind that Putin has all but succeeded in getting countries that were determined to overthrow Assad to agree to let him stay.

Weakness is strength. Strength is weakness.

Obama’s failed wars occupy a space of unreality that most Americans associate with Baghdad Bob bellowing that there are no American soldiers in Iraq. (There are, according to the White House, still no American ground forces in Iraq. Only American forces in firefights on the ground in Iraq.)

There’s nothing new about any of this. Obama doesn’t win wars. He lies about them.

The botched campaign against ISIS is a replay of the disaster in Afghanistan complete with ridiculous rules of engagement, blatant administration lies and no plan for victory. But there can’t be a plan for victory because when Obama gets past the buzzwords, he begins talking about addressing root causes.

And you don’t win wars by addressing root causes. That’s just a euphemism for appeasement.

Addressing root causes means blaming Islamic terrorism on everything from colonialism to global warming. It doesn’t mean defeating it, but finding new ways to blame it on the West.

Obama and his political allies believe that crime can’t be fought with cops and wars can’t be won with soldiers. The only answer lies in addressing the root causes which, after all the prattling about climate change and colonialism, really come down to the Marxist explanation of inequality.

When reporters ask Obama how he plans to win the war, he smirks tiredly at them and launches into another condescending explanation about how the situation is far too complicated for anything as simple as bombs to work. Underneath that explanation is the belief that wars are unwinnable.

Obama knows that Americans won’t accept “war just doesn’t work” as an answer to Islamic terrorism. So he demonstrates to them that wars don’t work by fighting wars that are meant to fail.

In Afghanistan, he bled American soldiers as hard as possible with vicious rules of engagement that favored the Taliban to destroy support for a war that most of the country had formerly backed. By blowing the war, Obama was not only sabotaging the specific implementation of a policy he opposed, but the general idea behind it. His failed wars are meant to teach Americans that war doesn’t work.

The unspoken idea that informs his strategy is that American power is the root cause of the problems in the region. Destroying ISIS would solve nothing. Containing American power is the real answer.

Obama does not have a strategy for defeating ISIS. He has a strategy for defeating America.

Whatever rhetoric he tosses out, his actual strategy is to respond to public pressure by doing the least he can possibly do. He will carry out drone strikes, not because they’re effective, but because they inflict the fewest casualties on the enemy.

He may try to contain the enemy, not because he cares about ISIS, but because he wants to prevent Americans from “overreacting” and demanding harsher measures against the Islamic State. Instead of fighting to win wars, he seeks to deescalate them. If public pressure forces him to go beyond drones, he will authorize the fewest air strikes possible. If he is forced to send in ground troops, he will see to it that they have the least protection and the greatest vulnerability to ISIS attacks.

Just like in Afghanistan.

Obama would like ISIS to go away. Not because they engage in the ethnic cleansing, mass murder and mass rape of non-Muslims, but because they wake the sleeping giant of the United States.

And so his idea of war is fighting an informational conflict against Americans. When Muslim terrorists commit an atrocity so horrifying that public pressure forces him to respond, he lies to Americans. Each time his Baghdad Bob act is shattered by another Islamic terrorist attack, he piles on even more lies.

Any strategy that Obama offers against ISIS will consist of more of the same lies and word games. His apologists will now debate the meaning of “containment” and whether he succeeded in defining it so narrowly on his own terms that he can claim to have accomplished it. But it really doesn’t matter what his meaning of “containment” or “is” is. Failure by any other name smells just as terrible.

Obama responded to ISIS by denying it’s a threat. Once that stopped being a viable strategy, he began to stall for time. And he’s still stalling for time, not to beat ISIS, but to wait until ISIS falls out of the headlines. That has been his approach to all his scandals from ObamaCare to the IRS to the VA.

Lie like crazy and wait for people to forget about it and turn their attention to something else.

This is a containment strategy, but not for ISIS. It’s a containment strategy for America. Obama isn’t trying to bottle up ISIS except as a means of bottling up America. He doesn’t see the Caliph of the Islamic State as the real threat, but the average American who watches the latest beheading on the news and wonders why his government doesn’t do something about it. To the left it isn’t the Caliph of ISIS who starts the wars we ought to worry about, but Joe in Tennessee, Bill in California or Pete in Minnesota.

That is why Obama sounds bored when talking about beating ISIS, but heats up when the conversation turns to fighting Republicans. It’s why Hillary Clinton named Republicans, not ISIS, as her enemy.

The left is not interested in making war on ISIS. It is too busy making war on America.

Sultan Knish

Thursday, October 29, 2015

Trump is Right: Illegal Alien Crime is Staggering in Scope and Savagery


Non-Americans commit over five times more serious crimes per capita than Americans.

It is estimated that there are some 133,741 foreign criminals in prisons and jails in the USA (1).  They are not there for spitting on the sidewalk or jaywalking, and very few are there for immigration violations, as those illegal alien criminals are typically deported in fairly short order or simply let go as we have seen time and time again. They are there in large part for molesting, raping, killing, maiming and murdering people in America, as you will see below.

Add in the 168,680 convicted criminal immigrants who have final orders of removal but who remain at large in the U.S., and another 179,018 convicted criminal aliens with deportation cases pending but who are also at large (2), and we have a total non-American felon population of 481,439...a number the size of our 35th largest city, Sacramento, California, and larger than the entire populations each of Atlanta, Kansas City, Omaha, Miami, Minneapolis - and more.

And remember, for most of these felons, there was a victim.

Looking at it another way, illegal aliens constitute 27% of the federal prison population (3). This means that a group which comprises less than 5% of the population nationally is committing 27% percent of the federal crimes.  So just by that metric alone, illegal aliens commit over five times more serious crimes on a per capita basis than residents do.

But here's another fact.  According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) in an April 7, 2005 report to Congress entitled "Information on Criminal Aliens Incarcerated in Federal and State Prisons and Local Jails", "The percentage of all federal prisoners who are criminal aliens has remained the same over the last 3 years--about 27 percent. * The majority of criminal aliens incarcerated at the end of calendar year 2004 were identified as citizens of Mexico."  Sorry to report the truth here, but quite a few people owe Mr. Trump an apology.

That doesn't even include all the other criminal aliens that the government desperately tries to hide from the public even though they must announce it: according to Jessica M. Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, the 36,007 criminal immigrants that the Obama administration released in 2013 to prowl the streets of America even though they had a collective 88,000 convictions, including 193 homicides, 426 sexual assaults, 303 kidnappings and 1,075 aggravated assaults. And that was just one year's worth of criminal illegal aliens let go to continue to prey on the citizens of the USA.

In 2014, in a cynical move that can only be described as depraved especially because Mr. Obama ‘s most important job is to protect  Americans, the Obama administration released another 30,558 criminal immigrants, who had a total of 79,059 convictions, into America to mingle with its unsuspecting, innocent, law-abiding citizens.  Someone ought to tell the man what his job is.

To read all of the horrifying crimes these illegals commit click on the link Family Security Matters.

Family Security Matters

Monday, October 26, 2015

20 Reasons Why It Should Be Donald Trump in 2016

by A.J. Delgado22 Oct 2015


It isn’t “acceptable” in polite society to support Donald Trump, I am told.

America’s bullies – the sneering, “we know better than you” establishment classes – have made many cower in silence rather than proclaim that Trump is a tremendous presidential candidate and has earned their support.

It is a replay of the worst aspects of high school peer-pressure, about what’s OK and what isn’t, based on selfish interests and prejudices.

Well, enough of that. Trump is already changing America for the better – and is encouraging us to boldly stand up for our beliefs about what’s best for our nation and best for our fellow Americans.

So let’s get right to it. Shifting America back on course requires Donald Trump as the Republican nominee. Not only is he the only Republican candidate who could win the general election, but he is the only choice Republican voters should consider (and should consider themselves lucky to have on their side).

In no particular order, here are the top 20 reasons why:

1. He is not your ordinary politician.  Yes, Trump is different. Guess what? That’s a good thing. His ideas – e.g., a sound immigration policy, returning manufacturing jobs to America, negotiating better trade deals – are not at all radical, but do go against the Washington status-quo. You see, we’re supposed to select another perfectly malleable politician – a Republican not unlike a Democrat – who won’t shake things up too much while in office. Same ol’, same ol’. And you, little person, you are supposed to vote for more of the same and like it. But the American public has reached a tipping point – we’d rather gouge out our eyes than select another career politician or Washington insider. That’s just electing the problem to fix the problem. Hence, this:

Screen Shot 2015-10-21 at 4.39.21 PM

It’s make or break time – and drastic times call for, well, not drastic measures but certainly something different. America is headed towards demise. If the old adage is that ‘insanity is trying the same thing time and time again and expecting a different result,’ why would we nominate the usual type of politician?

2. Trump is not reliant on donors.  This cannot be overstated enough. Not relying on donors – especially not following the Rubio-model of huge support from just a handful of individuals (as a Gawker piece rightly predicted last year) is crucial. No one will own Trump. Yet the Trump-attacking conservative pundits continue to scoff that he doesn’t have the cash to see this campaign through. This is an astonishing, frightening smear. Why? Because it means we no longer even bother with the pretense that money doesn’t buy an office.
The “he doesn’t have the big donors/funding-network to go all the way!” smirk is precisely why he should.

3. Yes, he doesn’t have much of a filter. Bravo. We keep hearing from the Trump-naysayers that’s Trump’s mouth is a problem. But where you see a loudmouth, I see candor. Where you see a lack of filter, I see transparency. Where you see a man who gaffes, I see a man who is willing to wipe the cancer of political correctness out of our society. Where you see a loose cannon, I see a man who says what he means and means what he says. Or, would we rather the typical Hollywood celebrity or establishment politician (the two are remarkably similar) who runs a statement by 20 handlers, 10 advisers, and a social-media team before making it? Do we wish to be led by an individual who does not speak from the heart but rather prefers to be advised on what to say and when to say it? Do we wish to be led by a politician who waits to see how the polls emerge on a subject before issuing an opinion? Do you seek a president…. or a ventriloquist puppet who’s views who you do not truly know?

Screen Shot 2015-10-22 at 12.07.18 PM(Hannity show, October 9th, 2015)

Screen Shot 2015-10-22 at 2.24.57 PM

Go ahead and call him a ‘bully.’ You almost say that as though it’s a bad thing –a “bully” in Washington is precisely what the doctor ordered. (And P.S.: he is no more a “bully” that those donors in the establishment who seek to sideline our preferences with a check, or smear us with epithets.)

4. He speaks for us little people. Hate to break it to ya’ – but we don’t have much of a voice. We have politicians who will throw us meaningless bones, corny platitudes about the “American dream”, and make big promises they will never keep. At the end of the day, all do their donors’ bidding, and the bidding of Big Business rather than ours. Try speaking up and you will be flattened. It takes someone powerful, who is beholden to no-one more powerful, to lift up our concerns. Thank heavens we have someone who understands those concerns and is willing to be that voice. Consider this online comment:

Stuart Mill

Trump actually discusses the concerns of the middle-class, blue-collar worker. Bringing jobs back to the American worker is something about which most politicians care little, if at all. Why? Because nearly all are crony-capitalists, tucked into the pockets of Big Business executives who want to outsource your job to China. The other GOP contenders will pay lip-service to middle-class concerns but, in reality, it’s all “wink-wink” behind closed doors in trade deals that ensure your job is lost, and immigration policies that ensure your wages remain stagnant and you’ll face stiff competition for housing or even a fast-food gig.

5. Make no mistake, there is an establishment plot against him. The establishment really, really doesn’t want him – but we really, really do.

Screen Shot 2015-10-22 at 12.15.49 PM

(NY Post, October 17, 2015)
So their takedowns keep backfiring. Consider this quote from George Will, which doesn’t at all sound hysterical!

Screen Shot 2015-10-22 at 7.38.59 PM

This Facebook commenter nails it:
Screen Shot 2015-10-22 at 12.19.16 PM

The more the powers-that-be try to take Trump down with breathless: “Can you believe he said ____?!” the more the American public shrugs and says: “Eh, sorry, still love him” or, worse yet, as seems to be the case lately: “Hey, actually, we like him even more now! I’m glad someone finally said ___!”

Attempt after attempt on Teflon Trump slides right off him and instead backfires and blows up in their collective faces. It reminds me of a scene in “Gladiator” (indulge me for a minute – there is a side of me that is a 19-year-old bro), where Commodus (after attempting to orchestrate Maximus’s death by forcing Maximus to fight the greatest living gladiator, only to have Maximus turn the tables by not only besting the opponent but showing him mercy), in a fit of frustration, exasperatedly wails: “And now they love Maximus for his mercy! So I can’t kill him or it makes him even more merciful. The whole thing is like a great nightmare!” That is not unlike what is happening right now in the smoke-filled rooms of the establishment.

Take the Megyn Kelly incident – naysayers said Trump would be doomed among conservatives by feuding with a fairly popular Fox News host. Except, conservatives didn’t care.

Megyn Kelly screenshot copy

USA Today piece
(USA Today, September 4, 2015

And poor Jorge Ramos, who self-imploded when he tried to confront Trump, coming across as an unhinged, angry activist rather than a professional journalist.
Creepiest of all is the “let’s not attack him directly, let’s just keep saying his campaign is over in the hopes that it will stick.” They’ve been saying his campaign is over, every week (“no, this time it’s really, really is over!” only to have it thrive. Consider this  from September 27, 2015:

Screen Shot 2015-10-22 at 11.44.21 AM

Yet this is the Drudge Report banner on October 21st:
Screen Shot 2015-10-21 at 10.21.33 AM

6. Diplomacy. We also keep hearing Trump isn’t “diplomatic.” Interestingly, though, it is Trump who is willing to sit across the table and actually talk to Vladimir Putin, while we have other GOP contenders calling a hugely popular First World nation’s leader a “thug.” (Free advice: It isn’t presidential to refer to another world leader, the elected leader of a first world nation, using ad hominem attacks. Not very Reagan-ite.) Remind me again who’s the diplomatic one? For an alleged blowhard, Trump sure is diplomatic when it counts. To that end, he’s also sensible. Despite describing the Iran nuclear agreement a “disastrous deal” and “horrible contract,” he said he would work it. Meanwhile, demagogue candidates were proclaiming they would (despite the impossibility of doing so) rip it up on “Day One” – sounds swell.

7. His business accomplishments.  Shocker! Imagine having a president who has actually built and created things! Imagine having a president with a proven track record as an enormously successful businessman. But, silly me – why have that when we can have, for instance, a first-term senator, career-politician who’s never even passed any significant legislation or a governor whom, despite some laudable accomplishments, most of the nation, including Republicans, can’t stomach?

8. He’s pro-women. In the plot to take down Trump, one of the first tactics tried was to cast him as anti-women. But Trump has worked with many peers and sparred against many rivals – male and female alike – and thus actually shows he treats women as equals (e.g., Yes, he joked about Carly Fiorina – he also joked about

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)
. Get it?). Or are we, as women, demanding to be coddled and spared the same treatment as the gents? Last week, an article by Yahoo!’s Chief National Correspondent found Trump has a history of building women up.

Screen Shot 2015-10-22 at 12.40.27 PM

9. A stellar first family. We often forget that we are not only choosing a president but choosing a First Family. While the other candidates all have perfectly nice families, none has the potential for impact as the Trumps. (Before you say ‘the Bush family’ – stop. That family is more overexposed than Taylor Swift – go away for a while and maybe we can miss you.) Melania as First Lady? Absolutely. A poised, elegant, intelligent woman, already accustomed to the spotlight, who is an immigrant herself with a keen interest in women’s health issues. His children? Where to begin? Ivanka, for instance, would be a tremendous role model across the world – a working mother who is a thriving entrepreneur. And, in 2015, is it not time to consider having a ‘blended,’ modern family as the First Family?

10. A man of sound morals. For those who judge a man’s character based on whether he called someone a “loser” during a silly Twitter feud, well, there is no helping your stupidity so stop reading this. The rest of us, however, know to look at a man’s actions and his record in life. What is Trump’s? For one, he’s known for treating his workers well. Second, is there no ugly scandal or brush with the law – he seems to lead a fairly straight-arrow life. Then there’s his family life. Two divorces? Sure. Marriages sometimes don’t work out. Ask Newt Gingrich or even Ronald Reagan himself. He’s on friendly terms with both ex-wives, though. What does that tell you? And his children routinely express what a loving, supportive father he’s been. Point me to another businessman of Trump’s money with four adult children, all of whom have stayed away from scandal and disgrace despite growing up in the spotlight. We’d be hard pressed to find one – meaning, Trump clearly did something right. Heck, forget the “Art of the Deal” — Trump should write the “Art of Parenting.”

11. The celebrity factor is actually a huge plus. If you’re reading this article, you’re someone who follows politics and stays informed. Hey, congrats — proud of ya. But guess what? The majority of the American public does not. They’ll vote – if they can even be bothered to do so on election-day – for a candidate based on gut instinct or name recognition (how else do you think the Kennedy’s get elected?!). And, newsflash: Save for some parts of Texas, it isn’t OK to say you’re a Republican these days, thanks to years of liberal academia and Hollywood beating our image like a rented mule. But Trump can bridge that gap. It’s conservatism … but represented by a well-liked celebrity. How much clearer can this be? Trump is a God-send. Finally, we conservatives caught a break!

12. His policies are spot-on, particularly immigration. For brevity, this article is not meant to discuss the nuances of Trump’s proposed policies and positions. But he’s right on pretty much every position he espouses, first and foremost that of immigration, the most critical issue facing America.

Screen Shot 2015-10-22 at 12.45.33 PM

In fact, if you vote based on one issue, make it that one, as it affects all others. And only Trump has the correct view, out of every GOP contender. Moreover, each time he makes an ‘inflammatory’ remark, the stats back him up.

Screen Shot 2015-10-22 at 11.49.07 AM

Screen Shot 2015-10-22 at 11.51.31 AM

How about taxes? Trump is the only one willing to take on the hedge-fund managers and blast their ridiculously unfair tax rate. It’s the ideal position – someone with a conservative tax plan but who realizes attacking the hedge-funders’ sweet deal doesn’t make one a “liberal” – and simply shows an individual with an astute understanding of finance and a genuine sense of fairness.
How about a dedication to veterans? Check! A strong but sensible foreign policy? Check! (Trump admits Iraq wasn’t a great idea and thinks we are best off sitting back and letting the Syria mess play itself out, without sending our boys into harm’s way. Amen!) What does he not get right? He has the New York Times’ Paul Krugman praising him:

Screen Shot 2015-10-22 at 11.37.00 AM
For heaven’s sake, there’s even this:
Screen Shot 2015-10-22 at 11.34.35 AM
In a nutshell, the nation agrees with his policies, as noted here. Trump didn’t rise because of his personality but simply because his positions are popular ones, as noted in this August piece from VOX:

Screen Shot 2015-10-22 at 1.01.13 PM

13. He can bring in independents. Consider this:

Screen Shot 2015-10-22 at 7.43.27 PM(Quartz, September 1, 2015)

If you think any statistically-significant number of independents will vote for Bush or Rubio, I tip my hat to your ridiculous level of optimism. You should start a retreat in the mountains for manic-depressives. But simple math shows we cannot win without independents. So, even if you disagree with the rest of these reasons, Trump is the GOP’s only shot. And consider this online comment:


Want to see someone who will bring folks of all walks of life together? Trump. The war-hero? “Man do I love Trump….” The single mom down the block? “I actually like what Donald Trump says, I’d vote for him.” He’s a true populist. (P.S. Noticed how the Trump-attackers use that term as a pejorative? Odd. Apparently recognizing the needs and concerns of the masses, and of average Americans like you and me, is a negative.)

14. The naysaying is rooted in careerists’ self-interests. Too many conservative writers and conservative TV pundits are out for their career security and financial bottom line — not to save the nation or save conservatism.
Do you work at an outlet where the owners/donors/funders don’t like Trump? Here come the articles blasting him! (Because your career and your paycheck matter more than the good of conservatism, the nation, or your conscience, apparently.) Better yet, are you a network contributor or network TV host at a network whose top brass prefers another candidate? Tow that line! Ca-ching! (Ever notice how rarely some conservative pundits criticized the “Gang of 8” amnesty bill? Well, now ya’ know!) And, even above all that, do you want to fit in with the smarmy, snickering conservative writer/pundit so-called “smart set,” who simply can’t stomach the idea of having to publicly stump for, ewwww!, celebrity Donald Trump next year, should he win the nomination? Ridicule him! And, if you really want to earn a pat on the back, attack his supporters, too!
Aside from this, there is the political consultant class, whose entire cushy livelihoods are threatened by Trump’s rise. Why? He’s shown you can make it without their useless input and advice. The pointless wizard behind the curtain is revealed – uh-oh. Standing up for Trump is also standing up against these Pharisees.

15. Negotiation skills. Presidents have the benefit of being surrounded by highly talented experts in their respective fields – it’s the entire basis for the Cabinet appointments. But, what’s the one area on which a president is on his own? Negotiations. When our leader walks into an international forum, or that one-on-one meeting with the British PM, there is no adviser that can speak for him. It’s the one time the president sinks or swims on his own merits. As such, a stern – even arrogant — president with negotiating expertise is of paramount importance. Governors have keen negotiating skills, sure – so do CEO’s. Trump is so good at it, though, he – literally – wrote the ‘bible’ on it.

16. Many Latinos love him. Speaking of Jorge Ramos…. The media keeps insisting Latinos despise Trump. Except, we don’t. In fact, many of us love him. Myriam Wichter, the Columbian immigrant from the recent Las Vegas Trump rally, is not an anomaly. Hang-onto-your-horses for this whopper of a ‘revelation’: America’s Latinos have the same wants, needs, and concerns as other Americans! Our priorities are the same as “Anglos”: jobs, healthcare, and so on! A truly novel concept!

GettyImages-491994548 trump latino
Here’s more from the Pew Research Center;
Screen Shot 2015-10-22 at 11.29.04 AM
Screen Shot 2015-10-22 at 11.29.22 AM
Oops! Or how about this?:
Screen Shot 2015-10-22 at 7.47.58 PM

Or, this!

Screen Shot 2015-10-22 at 7.51.10 PM
Or, there’s more (we could do this all day…)
Screen Shot 2015-10-22 at 1.07.56 PM
According to the media, however, Latinos’ main issue is not just immigration but illegal immigration, because, this argument goes, (1) Latinos all came to this country by breaking the law and (2) unlike every other American concerned about the economy or education, of course immigration is their number-one concern!

That line of thinking is what’s borderline racist, not Trump’s remark.
When VOX’s editor in chief tweets that “Donald Trump’s immigration plan reads like a plot to make sure Republicans never get another Hispanic vote,” as a genuinely-hurt Latina I have to wonder if the media realizes that is far more offensive to America’s Latinos than anything Trump has uttered.
I am a hard-working, taxpaying, American who has the same concerns as other hard-working, taxpaying Americans. Yes, “immigration” is on my list of concerns – but as a huge problem, and not something of which we need more.

17. African-Americans love him, too. Trump is the first Republican who actually has a chance at obtaining a huge chunk of the African-American vote. The main reason is simple – African-Americans are angry, and rightly so, about immigration and what it’s doing to this nation and to their job prospects. Here are just a few (out of countless) examples of the passionate support for Trump among the African-American community:

Screen Shot 2015-10-22 at 11.18.30 AM

Screen Shot 2015-10-22 at 11.21.18 AM

18. Heck, Americans idolize him. As a little kid in the 1980’s, the name “Trump” was synonymous with success. In fact, my understanding of conservatism was ingrained in me, by my father, using Donald Trump as an example. He would caution me against class warfare, and explain to me how economies and jobs work, citing Trump: “Take Donald Trump,” he’d say. “We don’t envy his wealth. We wish him well! His wealth is good for everyone. Look how many jobs he creates. Look how many people he employs with each project!”

I would nod and take it all in and this larger-than-life, Andrew Carnegie/Dodge-brothers type of figure, felt like a living testament of the capitalism’s greatness in action. While, even a year ago, I never would have envisioned myself writing an article about Trump and the GOP nomination, perhaps, reflecting on this, it makes perfect sense.

19. By process of elimination. If for no other reason, consider the other GOP options one by one. The flip-flopping, amnesty-pusher? Or Jeb? (I truly tried to get excited about Jeb – but one can only try for so long.) The failed technology CEO? The governors who crashed before they’d even begun? There aren’t any other options.

20. If he doesn’t earn the nomination, there is no hope for American politics. Not going to sugar-coat it: if Trump does not secure this nomination, despite his undeniable, widespread support across the nation, you should just give up. We should all just give up. That’s right, throw in the towel. It’s all a farce – your voice and your opinion really mean nothing. The jig will be up on the illusion of American democracy, for if a candidate with Trump’s enormous support cannot secure the nomination, then there really is no political process to speak of. And I’m not the only one who’s noticed this:

Screen Shot 2015-10-22 at 1.14.04 PM

We all want to make America great again. Every candidate, even
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
, want what’s best for America. But only one candidate has the appeal, the nerve, the commitment, the ideas, the sheer will to actually accomplish it. And Americans know who that is — the icon, business tycoon, husband, father, and lovable loudmouth. This week a Washington Post piece noted: Screen Shot 2015-10-22 at 7.54.22 PM

Let that sit for a minute and think about it. “They know who and what he is and that’s why they’re behind him.” In politics, what can be purer – and more beautiful — than that?
In August, CNN contributor and former Obama advisor, Dan Pfeiffer, wondered:

Screen Shot 2015-10-22 at 7.56.18 PM

Well, lo and behold, two months later, the ever-so-insulting inquiry continues:

Screen Shot 2015-10-22 at 2.21.29 PM
To answer this pestering question, though…
Yes, American voters did come to their senses about Donald Trump…
that’s why he’s at the top.

- A.J. Delgado is a conservative columnist who’s writings have appeared in Breitbart, National Review, American Conservative, Fox News, and various other sites and publications. She holds a juris doctorate from Harvard Law School and often writes about politics and pop culture.


Saturday, October 10, 2015

The minority of Muslim invaders: women and children.

By Carol Brown 
October 10, 2015

Much has been written on conservative news sites about the large percentage of young males invading Europe. There is a great deal to be concerned about regarding this demographic. But the women and children should not be ignored, as they bring their own kind of threat. Because while Muslim men are far more likely to be physically aggressive, Muslim women are not without responsibility for the myriad ways hate against us is nurtured and expressed – hate that is codified in the Quran.

And while Muslim males are more likely to inflict physical harm, it would be dangerous to underestimate the potential of Muslim women to do the same, because increasing numbers of them do, as was the case with this Muslim teenage girl whose greatest desire was to be a martyr for Allah. 

And so she set out to achieve her dream. And stabbed an Israeli man in the back.
Jew hatred is endemic and crops up just about everywhere in the Muslim world. This video documenting life for women in a Jordanian refugee camp ends with the words of a veiled Syrian woman (who, by the way, sells women into sham marriages that amount to nothing more than legalized rape): “I hope we don’t have the same destiny as the Palestinians who fled their country and never got it back again.”

Ah, yes. The poor “Palestinians” and those evil Jews who stole their land (the latter part is inferred).
Like the woman in this interview, it appears the majority of Muslim woman in refugee camps are wearing traditional garb that covers just about every inch of their body in the blistering desert sun. 

This suggests they are anything but secular. (And even secular people in Islamic countries marinate in a culture of hate.)

In fact, Muslim women in Syria were on the forefront in pushing for an “Islamic revival” as reported in 2006 by the NY Times: “[16-year-old] Enas al-Kaldi stops in the hallway of her Islamic school for girls and coaxes her 6-year-old schoolmate through a short recitation from the Koran…‘Skip to next paragraphIt’s true that they don’t understand what they are memorizing at this age, but we believe that the understanding comes when the Koran becomes part of you’….

“When the Koran becomes a part of you.”

And therein lies the rub.

Here’s what happens when “the Koran becomes a part of you.” You wind up with a little tot giving a Hitler salute on a German train (how apt).

[The screen shot was taken from this video, as reported at Atlas Shrugs.]

Perhaps the greatest threat of Muslim women is that they bear Muslim children who become the next generation to spread death, darkness, and destruction across the globe.

Many Muslim children are raised to hate non-believers, with a special hatred for Jews. Anti-Semitism is a constant theme in the Quran. And Muslim families waste no time in getting their children on board with a hatred as vicious as that of Nazis, except unlike Nazism, this has been going on for 1400 years. (See here, here, here, here, and here for videos of Muslim children preaching Jew hatred, interviews with young Muslims of various ages talking about their hatred for Jews, and programs geared for young Muslims that teach them to be martyrs and to kill Jews, including anti-Semitic cartoons.)

Now, backing up for a moment, consider that after these aggressive Muslim male invaders are settled in their new home in the West, the next step is to bring their family. Enter: women and children. In this way, the already huge numbers of invaders expands exponentially, especially since Muslims tend to have large families. So each male invader becomes a family of 7, 8, or 9. As Daniel Greenfield writes (emphasis is mine): “…the number of migrants invading Europe this year might reach 1.5 million. And that bad news gets much worse because…each migrant will bring in as many as eight family members once they’re settled in….

So here’s the simple math: Every male invader coming to Europe or the United States = nearly 10 Muslims.

That makes an outrageous, unacceptable, dangerous situation an imminent threat to our culture, to our very survival. 

American Thinker

Tuesday, September 8, 2015

An Open Letter To Jonah Goldberg – RE: The GOP and Donald Trump


A few days ago I took the time to read your expressed concerns about the support you see for Donald Trump and the state of current conservative opinion.  Toward that end I have also noted additional media present a similar argument, and I took the time to consider.
goldberg headshot 

While we are of far lesser significance and influence, I hope you will consider this retort with the same level of consideration afforded toward your position.

The challenging aspect to your expressed opinion, and perhaps why there is a chasm between us, is you appear to stand in defense of a Washington DC conservatism that no longer exists.

I hope you will indulge these considerations and correct me where I’m wrong.

On December 23rd 2009 Harry Reid passed a version of Obamacare through forced vote at 1:30am.  

The Senators could not leave, and for the two weeks previous were kept in a prolonged legislative session barred returning to their home-state constituencies.  It was, by all measures and reality, a vicious display of forced ideological manipulation of the upper chamber.  I share this reminder only to set the stage for what was to follow.

Riddled with anxiety we watched the Machiavellian manipulations unfold, seemingly unable to stop the visible usurpation.   Desperate for a tool to stop the construct we found Scott Brown and rallied to deliver $7 million in funding, and a “Kennedy Seat” victory on January 19th 2010.

Unfortunately, the trickery of Majority Leader Harry Reid would not be deterred.  Upon legislative return he stripped a House Budgetary bill, and replaced it with the Democrat Senate version of Obamacare through a process of “reconciliation”. Thereby avoiding the 3/5ths vote rule (60) and instead using only a simple majority, 51 votes.

Angered, we rallied to the next election (November 2010) and handed the usurping Democrats the single largest electoral defeat in the prior 100 years.  The House returned to Republican control, and one-half of the needed Senate seats reversed.  Within the next two election cycles (’12 and ’14) we again removed the Democrats from control of the Senate.

Within each of those three elections we were told Repealing Obamacare would be job #1.  It was not an optional part of our representative agreement to do otherwise.

From your own writing:
[…]  If you want a really good sense of the damage Donald Trump is doing to conservatism, consider the fact that for the last five years no issue has united the Right more than opposition to Obamacare. Opposition to socialized medicine in general has been a core tenet of American conservatism from Day One. Yet, when Republicans were told that Donald Trump favors single-payer health care, support for single-payer health care jumped from 16 percent to 44 percent.  (link)
With control of the House and Senate did Majority Leader Mitch McConnell or House Speaker John Boehner use the same level of severity expressed by Harry Reid to put a repeal bill on the desk of Obama for veto?  Simply, NO.

Why not? According to you it’s the “core tenet of American conservatism”.

If for nothing but to accept and follow the will of the people.  Despite the probability of an Obama veto, this was not a matter of option.  While the method might have been “symbolic”, due to the almost guaranteed veto, it would have stood as a promise fulfilled.

Yet you speak of “core tenets” and question our “trust” of Donald Trump?
We are not blind to the maneuverings of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and President Tom Donohue.  We are fully aware the repeal vote did not take place because the U.S. CoC demanded the retention of Obamacare.

Leader McConnell followed the legislative priority of Tom Donohue as opposed to the will of the people.   This was again exemplified with the passage of TPPA, another Republican construct which insured the Trans-Pacific Trade Deal could pass the Senate with 51 votes instead of 3/5ths.

We are not blind to the reality that when McConnell chooses to change the required voting threshold he is apt to do so.  Not coincidentally, the TPP trade deal is another legislative priority of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Yet you question the “trustworthiness” of Donald Trump’s conservatism?

Another bill, the Iran “agreement”, reportedly and conveniently not considered a “treaty”, again we are not blind.  Nor are we blind to Republican Bob Corker’s amendment (Corker/Cardin Amendment) changing ratification to a 67-vote-threshold for denial, as opposed to a customary 67 vote threshold for passage.  A profound difference.

Yet you question the “ideological conservative principle” of Donald Trump?

Perhaps your emphasis is on the wrong syllable.  Perhaps you should be questioning the “ideological conservative principle” of Mitch McConnell, or Bob Corker; both of whom apparently working to deny the will of the electorate within the party they are supposed to represent.   Of course, this would force you to face some uncomfortable empirical realities.  I digress.

Another example – How “conservative” is Lisa Murkowski?  A senator who can lose her Republican primary bid, yet run as a write-in candidate, and return to the Senate with full seniority and committee responsibilities?

Did Reince Preibus, or a republican member of leadership meet the returning Murkowski and demand a Pledge of Allegiance to the principles within the Republican party?

Yet you question the “allegiances” of Donald Trump?

Perhaps within your purity testing you need to forget minority leader Mitch McConnell working to re-elect Senator Thad Cochran, fundraising on his behalf in the spring/summer of 2014, even after Cochran lost the first Mississippi primary?

Perhaps you forget the NRSC spending money on racist attack ads?  Perhaps you forget the GOP paying Democrats to vote in the second primary to defeat Republican Chris McDaniel.  The “R” in NRSC is “Republican”.

Perhaps you forget.  We do not.

Yet you question the “principle” of those who have had enough, and are willing to support candidate Donald Trump.

You describe yourself as filled with anxiety because such supporters do not pass some qualified “principle” test?  Tell that to the majority of Republicans who supported Chris McDaniel and found their own party actively working against them.

Principle?  You claim “character matters” as part of this consideration.  Where is the “character” in the fact-based exhibitions outlined above?

Remember Virginia 2012, 2013?  When the conservative principle-driven electorate changed the method of candidate selection to a convention and removed the party stranglehold on their “chosen candidates”.  Remember that?  We do.

What did McConnell, the RNC and the GOP do in response with Ken Cuccinelli, they actively spited him and removed funding from his campaign.   To teach us a lesson?  Well it worked, we learned that lesson.

Representative David Brat was part of that lesson learned and answer delivered. Donald Trump is part of that lesson learned and answer forthcoming – yet you speak of “character”.

You speak of being concerned about Donald Trump’s hinted tax proposals. Well, who cut the tax rates on lower margins by 50% thereby removing any tax liability from the bottom 20% wage earners? 

While simultaneously expanding the role of government dependency programs?

That would be the GOP (“Bush Tax Cuts”)

What? How dare you argue against tax cuts, you say.  The “Bush Tax Cuts” removed tax liability from the bottom 20 to 40% of income earners completely. Leaving the entirety of tax burden on the upper 60% wage earners. Currently, thanks to those cuts, 49% of tax filers pay ZERO federal income tax.

But long term it’s much worse. The “Bush Tax Cuts” were, in essence, created to stop the post 9/11/01 recession – and they contained a “sunset provision” which ended ten years later specifically because the tax cuts were unsustainable.

obama_delivers budget_ 

The expiration of the lower margin tax cuts then became an argument in the election cycle of 2012. 

And as usual, the GOP, McConnell and Boehner were insufferably inept during this process.
The GOP (2002) removed tax liability from the lower income levels, and President Obama then (2009) lowered the income threshold for economic subsidy (welfare, food stamps, ebt, medicaid, etc) this was brutally predictable.

This lower revenue higher spending approach means – lower tax revenues and increased pressure on the top tax rates (wage earners)  with the increased demand for tax spending created within the welfare programs.  Republicans focus on the “spending” without ever admitting they, not the Democrats, lowered rates and set themselves up to be played with the increased need for social program spending, simultaneously.

Is this reality/outcome not ultimately a “tax the rich” program?

As a consequence what’s the difference between the Republicans and Democrats on taxes?   All of a sudden Republicans are arguing to “broaden the tax base”.  Meaning, reverse the tax cuts they created on the lower income filers?  This is a conservative position now?  A need to “tax the poor”?  Nice of the Republicans to insure the Democrats have an atomic sledgehammer to use against them.

This is a winning strategy?  This is the “conservatism” you are defending because you are worried about Donald Trump’s principles, character or trustworthiness.

Here’s a list of those modern conservative “small(er) government” principles:

• Did the GOP secure the border with control of the White House and Congress? NO.

• Did the GOP balance the budget with control of the White House and Congress? NO.

• Who gave us the TSA? The GOP

• Who gave us the Patriot Act? The GOP

• Who expanded Medicare to include prescription drug coverage? The GOP

• Who created the precursor of “Common Core” in “Race To the Top”? The GOP

• Who played the race card in Mississippi to re-elect Thad Cochran? The GOP

• Who paid Democrats to vote in the Mississippi primary? The GOP

• Who refused to support Ken Cuccinnelli in Virginia? The GOP

• Who supported Charlie Crist? The GOP

• Who supported Arlen Spector? The GOP

• Who supported Bob Bennett? The GOP

• Who worked against Marco Rubio? The GOP

• Who worked against Rand Paul? The GOP

• Who worked against Ted Cruz? The GOP

• Who worked against Mike Lee? The GOP

• Who worked against Jim DeMint? The GOP

• Who worked against Ronald Reagan? The GOP

• Who said “I think we are going to crush [the Tea Party] everywhere.”? The GOP (McConnell)

McConnell and Boehner

And, you wonder why we’re frustrated, desperate for a person who can actually articulate some kind of push-back? Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are what the GOP give us? SERIOUSLY?
Which leads to the next of your GOP talking points. Where you opine on Fox:
“Politics is a game where you don’t get everything you want”
Fair enough. But considering we of questionable judgment have simply been demanding common sense, ie. fiscal discipline, a BUDGET would be nice.

The last federal budget was passed in September of 2007, and EVERY FLIPPING INSUFFERABLE YEAR we have to go through the predictable fiasco of a Government Shutdown Standoff and/or a Debt Ceiling increase specifically because there is NO BUDGET!

That’s a strategy?

That’s the GOP strategy?  Essentially:  Lets plan for an annual battle against articulate Democrats and Presidential charm, using a creepy guy who cries and another old mumbling fool who dodders, knowing full well the MSM is on the side of the other guy to begin with?


Don’t tell me it’s not, because if it wasn’t there’d be something else being done – there isn’t.

And don’t think we don’t know the 2009 “stimulus” became embedded in the baseline of the federal spending, and absent of an actual budget it just gets spent and added to the deficit each year, every year.  Yet this is somehow smaller fiscal government?

….And you’re worried about what Donald Trump might do?


Conservative Treehouse