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”?
No.
Why?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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?
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:
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.
(NY Post, October 17, 2015)
So their takedowns keep backfiring. Consider this quote from George Will, which doesn’t at all sound hysterical!
This Facebook commenter nails it:
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.
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:
Yet this is the Drudge Report banner on October 21st:
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)
93%
. 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.
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.
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.
And…
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:
For heaven’s sake, there’s even this:
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:
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!
Or, there’s more (we could do this all day…)
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:
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:
We all want to make America great again. Every candidate, even
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
16%
, 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 Postpiece noted:
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:
Well, lo and behold, two months later, the ever-so-insulting inquiry continues:
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.
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).
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
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.
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.
ADVERTISEMENT
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.
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)
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? THAT’S YOUR GOP STRATEGY? 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? Seriously?
(
