Tennessee Congressional Candidate Wants To Make America White Again

[From article]

An independent candidate for Congress has posted a campaign sign in Tennessee that says “Make America White Again.”
Rick Tyler, who is running as an independent, says he put the sign up along US Highway 411 near Benton. He told WRCB-TV that he doesn’t hate “people of color,” but wants to return to an earlier time “when there were no break-ins; no violent crime; no mass immigration.”
He also posted a sign with an image of the White House surrounded by Confederate flags.
Tyler is one of three independent candidates running for the seat now held by Chuck Fleischmann, a Republican, who faces both Republican and Democratic contenders.
The primary election is Aug. 4.

http://nypost.com/2016/06/22/a-candidate-for-congress-wants-to-make-america-white-again/

A candidate for Congress wants to ‘Make America White Again’
By Associated Press
New York Post
June 22, 2016 | 2:24pm

Liberal Double Standard Raises Its Head Again With Trump Campaign

U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel

As one more example of how language is distorted by politicians and journalists, this issue indicates that it is acceptable for some politicians to use ethnicity and race for their advantage. But victims of special privileges for some cannot point out the abuses. Once again, perceived hate speech and bias are more important than violations of law. The misguided statement of Paul Ryan shows how nonsensical the ideas of special privileges have become. Complaints about perceived bias of a judge is attacked as racist. Since when is hispanic a race? One more reason why Ryan is not fit to be House Speaker. The White House shows it is acting presidential (Ahem!)  by using his office to attack a candidate for president. More evidence of the deception of this White House exhibiting bias in everything it does. In one case a judge's ability to be impartial was questioned because he was a member of a golf club that did not admit women. U.S. Senator Chuck "You" Schumer  (D-NY) established a criteria for judges who must support the Roe vs. Wade decision.



[From article]
Trump has a perfect right to be angry about the judge’s rulings and to question his motives. Second, there are grounds for believing Trump is right.
On May 27, Curiel, at the request of The Washington Post, made public plaintiff accusations against Trump University — that the whole thing was a scam. The Post, which Bob Woodward tells us has 20 reporters digging for dirt in Trump’s past, had a field day.
[. . .]
what did Trump do to be smeared by a bipartisan media mob as a “racist”?
He attacked the independence of the judiciary, we are told.
But Presidents Jefferson and Jackson attacked the Supreme Court, and FDR, fed up with New Deal programs being struck down, tried to “pack the court” by raising the number of justices to 15 if necessary.
Abraham Lincoln leveled “that eminent tribunal” in his first inaugural, and once considered arresting Chief Justice Roger Taney.
[. . .]
The judiciary is independent, but that does not mean that federal judges are exempt from the same robust criticism as presidents or members of Congress.
Obama himself attacked the Citizens United decision in a State of the Union address, with the justices sitting right in front of him.
[. . .]
Apparently, it is now not only politically incorrect, but, in Newt Gingrich’s term, “inexcusable,” to bring up the religious, racial or ethnic background of a judge, or suggest this might influence his actions on the bench.
[. . .]
Does Newt think that when LBJ appointed Thurgood Marshall, ex-head of the NAACP, to the Supreme Court, he did not think Marshall would bring his unique experience as a black man and civil rights leader to the bench?
[. . .]
When Obama named Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, a woman of Puerto Rican descent who went through college on affirmative action scholarships, did Obama think this would not influence her decision when it came to whether or not to abolish affirmative action?
[. . .]
There are reasons why defense lawyers seek “changes of venue” and avoid the courtrooms of “hanging judges.”
When Obama reflexively called Sgt. Crowley “stupid” after Crowley’s 2009 encounter with that black professor at Harvard, and said of Trayvon Martin, “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” was he not speaking as an African-American, as well as a president?
[. . .]
But does anyone think that if Obama appointed a Muslim to the Supreme Court, the LGBT community would not be demanding of all Democratic Senators that they receive assurances that the Muslim judge’s religious views on homosexuality would never affect his court decisions, before they voted to put him on the bench?
[. . .]
And the Democrats who tore [Clement] Haynsworth (Nixon's Supreme Court appointee) to pieces did so because they feared he would not repudiate his Southern heritage and any and all ideas and beliefs associated with it.
[. . .]
The most depressing thing about this episode is to see Republicans rushing to stomp on Trump, to show the left how well they have mastered their liberal catechism.

http://buchanan.org/blog/donald-la-raza-judge-125323

The Donald & The La Raza Judge
Tuesday - June 7, 2016 at 1:01 am
Patrick J, Buchanan

* * *

[From article]
The federal judge presiding over the Trump University class action lawsuit is a member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association, a group that while not a branch of the National Council of La Raza, has ties to the controversial organization, which translates literally “The Race.”
U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who has been criticized by Donald Trump as a “hater” appointed by President Obama who should be recused from the case, listed his membership in the “La Raza Lawyers of San Diego” on a judicial questionnaire he filled out when he was selected to be a federal judge. He was named in a brochure as a member of the selection committee for the organization’s 2014 Annual Scholarship Fund Dinner & Gala. Meanwhile, the San-Diego based law firm representing the plaintiffs in the Trump University case, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, was listed as a sponsor of the event.



WND reported the San Diego firm paid $675,000 to the Clintons for speeches, and the firm’s founder is a wealthy San Diego lawyer who served a two-year sentence in federal prison for his role in a kickback scheme to mobilize plaintiffs for class-action lawsuits.
While critics of Trump have argued that the San Diego La Raza Lawyers’ association is not affiliated with the National Council of La Raza, consider the following:
The San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association is a member of the La Raza Lawyers of California, affiliated with the Chicano/Latino Bar Association of California.
On the website of the La Raza Lawyers Association of California, at the bottom of the “Links & Affiliates Page,” the National Council of La Raza is listed.
The website of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association is joint-listed as San Diego’s Latino/Latina Bar Association.



On the “endorsements” page, the combined website lists the National Council of La Raza as part of the “community,” along with the Hispanic National Bar Association,, a group that emerged with a changed name from the originally formed La Raza National Lawyers Association and the La Raza National Bar Association tracing its origin back to 1971.
Further, while the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association and the National Council of La Raza are legally separate incorporated entities, the two groups appear to have an affiliation that traces back to the emergence of MEChA, the Moviemento Estudiantil Chicanos de Atzlán.
MEChA is a 1960s radical separatist student movement in California that espoused the mythical Aztec idea of a “nation of Aztlán,” comprising much of the southwestern United States, including California.
As David Horowitz points out on his website Discover the Networks that La Raza, Spanish for “the race,” also has roots in the early 1960s with a “united front” organization, the National Organization for Mexican American Services, NOMAS. The group initially was funded by the Ford Foundation, and subsequently by George Soros’ Open Society Institute and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.
In 1968, the Southwest Council of La Raza was organized with Ford Foundation funding. In 1972, the group changed its name to the National Council of La Raza and opened an office in Washington, D.C.

http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/trump-u-judges-group-tied-to-national-council-of-laraza/ JUDGE,

LAW FIRM BRINGING TRUMP U CASE BOTH TIED TO LA RAZA Curiel awarded scholarship to illegal immigrant
Jerome R. Corsi
June 6, 2016

 * * *



[From 2009 article]

In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor, an appeals court judge, gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge “may and will make a difference in our judging.”
In her speech, Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor, who is now considered to be near the top of President Obama’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.
[. . .]
a video surfaced of Judge Sotomayor asserting in 2005 that a “court of appeals is where policy is made.” She then immediately adds: “And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m — you know.”
[. . .]
Judge Sotomayor has given several speeches about the importance of diversity. But her 2001 remarks at Berkeley, which were published by the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, went further, asserting that judges’ identities will affect legal outcomes.
“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences,” she said, for jurists who are women and nonwhite, “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”
[. . .]
“Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see,” she said.
Charles J. Ogletree Jr., a Harvard law professor and an adviser to Mr. Obama, said Judge Sotomayor’s remarks were appropriate. Professor Ogletree said it was “obvious that people’s life experiences will inform their judgments in life as lawyers and judges” because law is more than “a technical exercise,” citing Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’s famous aphorism: “The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15judge.html?_r=0

A Judge’s View of Judging Is on the Record
By CHARLIE SAVAGE

MAY 14, 2009
The New York Times

Excited President Stutters His Way Through Attack on Trump During Campaign. Is He Running Again?

[From article]

Poor Barack. He wanted to sound more powerful. He really did!
The lame duck president went to Indiana today to hold a rally and trash-talk Donald Trump.
Unfortunately, it didn’t go as planned.
He turned into a stuttering mess.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/06/wow-obama-tries-trash-donald-trump-turns-stuttering-mess/

MUST SEE VIDEO=> Wow! Obama Tries to Trash Donald Trump and Turns into a Stuttering Mess
Jim Hoft

Jun 1st, 2016 4:50 pm

https://youtu.be/mSxo9-Z5Ki0

State Department Releases Documents Signed By Hillary Clinton's Aides About Classified National Security Emails

Former state employee Brian Pagliano also asserted his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination before the House Benghazi committee.

[From article]
Senior Hillary Clinton aide Jake Sullivan and former tech support staffer Brian Pagliano each signed agreements with the government pledging not to disclose classified information, according to government documents released Thursday by Republicans.
Both men signed the nondisclosure statements swearing to protect 'marked or unmarked classified information, including email communications,' according to documents released by the Republican National Committee.
The document each of them signed is called a form 312, which requires federal employees to swear, under potential criminal penalty, that they won't mishandle classified information.
Sullivan is a senior campaign advisor who served as Clinton's direct (sic) of policy planning at State, and who sent more than 200 emails that weren't marked classified at the time but were later found to be classified following an agency review.
That review occurred after revelations Clinton maintained her own home email server rather than conducting business on a State.gov account.
The matter is currently under investigation by the FBI.
Pagliano was an IT staffer for Clinton's 2008 campaign, and helped to set up her server at her home in Chappaqua, New York.


Jake Sullivan, a top foreign policy advisor to Clinton at her campaign, left, with Hillary Clinton

Pagliano invoked his 5th Amendment right not to testify in a lawsuit by Judicial Watch related to the email scandal.
"Mr. Pagliano will invoke his right under the Fifth Amendment and decline to testify at the deposition" scheduled for June 6, attorneys Mark MacDougall and Connor Mullin wrote in a court filing.
The documents state that the signers have received 'security indoctrination' about proper handling of classified information.
Spreading such information could cause 'damager or irreparable injury' to the U.S. government, according to the language included in the document.
Pagliano is also seeking to prohibit an 'audiovisual recording' of his deposition, citing constitutional arguments and the risk of 'absue.'
Clinton's longtime aide Cheryl Mills recently gave a deposition and was able to prevent release of a video recording, although a transcript was released.
The RNC got the documents through a FOIA request from the State Department. They released them hours before Clinton delivered a slashing foreign policy address in San Diego where she ripped Donald Trump as 'dangerously incoherent' and said he was unequipped to be near the nation's nuclear codes.
'These documents show that the conspiracy to conceal Hillary Clinton's emails from the public involved many top aides casting aside their sworn obligations to protect classified information in the interest of her political ambition,' said RNC Chairman Reince Priebus.
'Hillary Clinton endangered our national security and created a culture where top staffers went rogue, silenced career officials and hid a reckless email scheme that placed her political ambitions above all else,' he added. 'These records show that like Clinton, her closest aides did not meet their responsibilities to protect classified information regardless of whether it was marked.'
The document release was just the latest instance of the email scandal intruding on Clinton's campaign schedule. Throughout the past year, the State Department has released troves of internal documents from those Clinton handed over to the agency after she left her post in 2013.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3622803/Bad-sign-Republicans-release-signed-documents-Clinton-aides-caught-email-scandal-pledging-protect-marked-unmarked-classified-information.html

Bad sign: Republicans release signed documents from Clinton aides dragged into email scandal pledging to protect 'marked and unmarked' classified information
Campaign aide and former state official Jake Sullivan signed document pledging to protect classified info 'including email communications'
So did tech aide Brian Pagliano, whose lawyers say he plans to take the Fifth rather than answer questions in a Judicial Watch lawsuit
The papers were standard for such federal employees, but Republicans released them Thursday in what looks like a bid to undercut Hillary Clinton on the day of a major foreign policy speech where she blasted Donald Trump
Clinton is under FBI investigation in connection with the email scandal
By GEOFF EARLE, DEPUTY U.S. POLITICAL EDITOR FOR MAILONLINE.COM
PUBLISHED: 17:01 EST, 2 June 2016 | UPDATED: 18:42 EST, 2 June 2016

Political Posters May 24, 2016

Pat Buchanan Reveals Why Romney's Stop Trump Effort is Misguided

Mitt Romney (right), leads the stop Donald Trump (left) Campaign

[From article]
Reince Priebus was commenting on a Washington Post story about Mitt Romney and William Kristol’s plot to recruit a third-party conservative candidate to sink Donald Trump.
Several big-name Republican “consultants” and “strategists” are said to be on board. Understandably so, given the bucks involved.
With the kind of cash that sloshes around in a presidential campaign, there should be no shortage of super PAC parasites at the enlistment office.
[. . .]
If Romney believes that Trump is an unacceptable nominee and would be an intolerable president, and that Republicans have a moral obligation to prevent this, why does Romney not man up and take on the assignment himself?
[. . .]
His father shared Romney’s mindset: If the voters have made a mistake, you are not obligated to support it. Just days after Sen. Barry Goldwater locked up the Republican nomination in the California primary, Gov. George Romney was at the Cleveland governors conference plotting to stop him.
Richard Nixon arrived to encourage Romney to step out onto the tracks in front of the Goldwater express. Romney thought better of taking Nixon’s counsel. But he did join Gov. Nelson Rockefeller in denouncing his own party for coddling extremists, and refused to endorse Goldwater, as son Mitt is refusing to endorse Trump.
It was after that Cleveland Convention that Nixon ruefully told me, “Buchanan, whenever you hear of a group forming up to stop X, be sure to put your money on X.”
[. . .]
But whatever you say about the political savvy of George Romney, he was stubborn as a bull in his convictions, and he had the courage to go down to defeat fighting for them.
[. . .]
The Romney-Kristol collusion thus overlaps nicely with the interests of the Clinton campaign and the agenda of the Beltway media elite.
By scheming to divide the Republican base, they are colluding to bring about the defeat of the Republican Party. And that means Bill and Hillary Clinton back in the White House.
[. . .]
Either Trump or Clinton is going to be the next president. [. . .] The Romney-Kristol cabal is Hillary Clinton’s fifth column inside the Republican Party.

http://buchanan.org/blog/mitt-suicide-mission-125247

Is Mitt on a Suicide Mission?
Monday - May 16, 2016 at 10:08 pm
Patrick J. Buchanan

George Will Indicates He Is Unlike Edmund Burke, I.e., Not A Populist

Edmund Burke (1729-1797)

[From article]
Today we are being treated to the sight of conservative George Will of the Washington Post, denouncing Donald Trump to the bitter end. Mr. Will is the WaPo's nod to Madisonian democracy, which feels safe enough to the lefties of the WaPo – because who is going to bring James Madison back to life today?
Mr. Will is there like a gold ormulu clock on the mantelpiece, to show the intellectual diversity of the WaPo. He writes and speaks in whole sentences, but secretly, my hero George Will is a member of the Whig Party, the founding elite of the United States.
Now, I admire Mr. Will as one kind of true conservative, believe it or not. But he is not a Burkean conservative, because Edmund Burke (1729-1797) was actually a populist intellectual.
Burke believed in the intuitive wisdom and good sense of ordinary people. I'm afraid that Mr. Will sneers at popular conservatives because they are...well, popular. Like GOP winner Donald Trump, who talks the earthy language of Queens, New York.


Donald Trump

Trump is attractive to voters who are sick and tired of being preached at and lied to by our mis-educated elites. Trump is not as intellectual as Ted Cruz. Intellectuals are good for Supreme Court justices, and Cruz knows his constitutional law.
But Trump understands and likes people, which is not the same thing.
Conservatives have long been divided between intuitive people and intellectuals. Thomas Jefferson was an intellectual. Andrew Jackson was an intuitive conservative.
Abe Lincoln was a very rare politician who had a liking and appreciation for everyday people but could still make eloquent speeches that educated Americans could love. Ben Franklin was also able to bridge popularity and intellect. But Alexander Hamilton famously said, "The People? Sir, the People is a Great Beast!"
In some way George Will is more of a Hamiltonian. Nothing wrong with that, but Mr. Will consistently fails to understand the Donald Trumps of this world. Ronald Reagan and Harry Truman had sound intuitions about people. Woodrow Wilson was an intellectual.
In truth, Trump understands sophisticated ideas also, and he can talk in complete sentences. We can see that as he is making his "pivot" to more conventional politics. But Mr. Trump loves to outrage the Hamiltonians in Washington, D.C., who are still freaked out by the prospect of a practical person getting a chance.
Burke was an Irishman who served in the British Parliament, a life history that might explain his hatred for tyranny and his love and respect for human intuition. Ireland in his time was miserably poor, generally uneducated, and badly exploited by English landlords, but still rich in human talent. Burke empathized with the poor and powerless, but he also admired the decency and good sense of most people.



In Burke's time, throngs of impoverished Irish fled to Britain, America, Australia, India and New Zealand, which is why so many American politicians have Irish roots.
Burke supported the American Revolution, because he saw the Constitution as an extension of British rights and freedoms, earned over the centuries in power struggles against tyrants. But the key to Burke was his faith in the good judgment of everyday people.
That's what he wrote about in his most famous paragraph, comparing the grasshoppers of the chattering classes to the mass of ordinary people, "reposed beneath the shadow of the British oak."
His advice was not to pay much attention to screaming headlines, but to put your trust in the intuitive good sense of the people.
Because half a dozen grasshoppers under a fern make the field ring with their importunate chink, whilst thousands of great cattle, reposed beneath the shadow of the British oak, chew the cud and are silent, pray do not imagine that those who make the noise are the only inhabitants of the field.
Trump is a practical man. George Will is a classic intellectual. They don't need to fight each other, because a viable world needs both kinds of people.
But maybe it's time for conservative intellectuals to stop sulking and get with the program. Worse things than Trump have happened to this country – like the last seven years of Obama, or (heaven forefend!) the next eight years of Hillary.
Today we have a choice, not an echo.
You may not love the choice, but consider the alternative.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/05/george_will_takes_on_edmund_burke.html

May 6, 2016
George Will Takes On Edmund Burke
By James Lewis

U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan Out On Long Limb, Making Demands

Left to right. Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater

[From article]
Forty-eight hours after Donald Trump wrapped up the Republican nomination with a smashing victory in the Indiana primary, House Speaker Paul Ryan announced that he could not yet support Trump.
In millennial teen-talk, Ryan told CNN’s Jake Tapper, “I’m just not ready to do that at this point. I’m not there right now.”
“[T]he bulk of the burden of unifying the party” falls on Trump, added Ryan. Trump must unify “all wings of the Republican Party, and the conservative movement.” Trump must run a campaign that we can “be proud to support and proud to be a part of.”
Then, maybe, our Hamlet of the House can be persuaded to support the elected nominee of his own party.
Excuse me, but upon what meat has this our Caesar fed?
Ryan is a congressman from Wisconsin. He has never won a statewide election. As number two on Mitt Romney’s ticket, he got waxed by Joe Biden. He was compromise choice as speaker, only after John Boehner went into in his Brer Rabbit “Zip-a-dee-doo-dah” routine.
Who made Ryan the conscience of conservatism?
Who made Ryan keeper of the keys of true Republicanism?
Trump “inherits something … that’s very special to a lot of us,” said Ryan, “the party of Lincoln and Reagan and Jack Kemp.”
But Trump did not “inherit” anything. He won the nomination of the Republican Party in an epic battle in the most wide-open race ever, in which Trump generated the largest turnout and greatest vote totals in the history of Republican primaries.
[. . .]
The hubris here astonishes. A Republican establishment that has been beaten as badly as Carthage in the Third Punic War is now making demands on Scipio Africanus and the victorious Romans.
[. . .]
Someone should instruct Paul Ryan that losers do not make demands. They make requests. They make pleas.
[. . .]
Ryan is saying he is ambivalent over whether he will accept the verdict of the Cleveland convention — of which he is the chairman.
If Ryan holds to his refusal to accept the decision of the Republican majority in the primaries, he should be removed from that role. And if Ryan does not come out of Thursday’s meeting with the Donald, endorsing him, the presumptive nominee should turn to Paul Ryan, and, in two words, tell him, “You’re fired!”
Trump cannot allow the establishment to claw back in the cloakrooms of Capitol Hill what he won on a political battlefield. He cannot allow a discredited establishment to dictate the issues he may run on.
That would be a betrayal of the troops who brought Trump victory after victory in the primaries.
[. . .]


Nelson A. Rockefeller

Paul Ryan is the Nelson Rockefeller of his generation.
In 1960, Gov. Rockefeller refused to challenge Vice President Nixon in the primaries. When Nixon went to Rockefeller’s New York apartment to persuade him to join the ticket, Rocky refused, but demanded concessions in the platform, to which Nixon acceded.
[. . .]

Only the appearance of Sen. Barry Goldwater at the podium to tell conservatives to “grow up. We can take this party back,” halted a suicidal drive to take the nomination away from Nixon.
After Goldwater won the nomination in the 1964 California primary by defeating Rockefeller, Rocky arrived at the San Francisco convention to demand that a plank equating the John Birch Society with the Communist Party and Ku Klux Klan be written into Goldwater’s platform. Hooted and rejected, Rocky went home and refused to endorse the nominee, who went down to a crushing defeat by LBJ.
Nixon, a party loyalist, campaigned across the country for Barry and his doomed party.
In 1968, Nixon got his reward, the nomination, with Goldwater’s support. And Govs. Rockefeller and George Romney, who had done the Paul Ryan thing, never came close.
[. . .]
This is one Private Ryan we cannot save.

http://buchanan.org/blog/promoted-private-ryan-125221

Who Promoted Private Ryan?
Monday - May 9, 2016 at 7:37 pm
Patrick J. Buchanan

Trump, Clinton Most Despised Candidates in History

Photo: AP; UPI
[From article]

No presidential candidate in polling history has been as hated by voters as Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are now.
But a review of the last eight presidential elections reveals that the most hated candidate in the spring almost always ends up winning in November.
This year’s top candidates have smashed all records for voter disdain. Clinton is “strongly disliked” by 37 percent of voters, topping the 32 percent who couldn’t stand George W. Bush in 2004.
And the disapproval of Trump has never before been seen in presidential politics, with 53 percent rating him “strongly unfavorable.”
The numbers were crunched by FiveThirtyEight, which released a set of charts comparing the “strongly unfavorable” ratings of presidential candidates stretching back to 1984.
Blame the huge disapproval numbers on a polarized electorate and the celebrity status of the front-runners.
But such negative numbers at this stage do not spell ballot-box doom.
Over the last 32 years, all but one of the major candidates who had a strong-disapproval rating higher than his opponent during primary season went on to win the popular vote.
[. . .]

While Trump might take heart from this historical lesson, he shouldn’t go measuring the Oval Office curtains just yet. There’s another set of numbers to take into account.

It’s net favorability — or the difference between the number of those who strongly disapprove and strongly approve of the candidate.
Since 1996, the candidate with the higher net strong-favorability number at this stage of the campaign has gone on to win the election.
Trump and Clinton set records here, too: both have the lowest net favorability numbers ever measured. Clinton’s minus-20 would be by far the lowest in history — if not for Trump’s, which is even worse at minus-41.

http://nypost.com/2016/05/08/trump-and-clinton-are-the-most-despised-candidates-in-history/

Trump and Clinton are the most despised candidates in history
By Mary Kay Linge
New York Post
May 8, 2016 | 2:47am

http://nyp.st/1Xf4SQa

Trump Could Never Get The Nomination. Oh Wait!

[From article]
A guy just won the Republican nomination for president by spending no money, hiring no pollsters, running virtually no TV ads, and just saying what he truly believed no matter how many times people told him he couldn’t say that.
I always hoped I’d see this once before I died. It’s like to going to Mecca, for Americans. Pay attention, because it’s the last time we’re going to see it in our lifetimes.
For those of you not yet on the Trump Train, I know you don’t want to vote for Hillary, but all the pundits have been trying to convince you that Trump’s a complete fraud. (That was between their smug assurances that he wouldn’t make it out of Iowa.)
It’s odd. When Trump launched his campaign by talking about Mexican rapists and the wall, his critics hysterically denounced him, rushing to TV to say he did NOT represent the Republican Party! Only after it became resoundingly clear that large majorities of Americans agreed with Trump did his critics try a new tack: He doesn’t believe it!
That’s what my friend Andy McCarthy at the now-defunct National Review wrote recently. I had to spend the weekend figuring out how to attack a friend without saying, “This is the most retarded argument I’ve ever read.”
[. . .]
Trump told Newsmax that Mitt Romney “had a crazy policy of self-deportation which was maniacal,” adding, “He lost all of the Latino vote … he lost everybody who is inspired to come into this country.”
It is strange that Trump would denounce “self-deportation,” which is like a chocolate sundae compared to his own plans for illegals.
[. . .]

So is Trump lying about his signature issue, immigration? The countervailing evidence to that 2012 pop-off is:
— Nine months of Trump soaring to the top of the polls and slaying all comers by talking about how he’s going to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it;
— His never, ever, ever backing down on the wall, sanctuary cities, anchor babies, suspending Muslim immigration, etc., etc., despite unprecedented attacks from both the liberal and “conservative” media;
— The fact that he talks about immigration at every single one of his massive rallies and always gets the biggest, most sustained standing ovations when he mentions the wall;
— The blizzard of tweets he sent out in 2013 denouncing Rubio’s amnesty bill as it was sailing through the Senate, supported by the entire liberal media, Rupert Murdoch, Fox News, most of talk radio, and every other GOP candidate for president this year, including, for a while, Ted Cruz (whose job was to know about bills being voted on in the Senate, unlike a Manhattan developer);
— Trump’s one and only policy guy is the magnificent Stephen Miller, who was Sen. Jeff Sessions’ main immigration guy.
[. . .]
Maybe 50 years of Trump’s talking about the working class was all a clever ruse leading to this one shining moment when he would trick Americans into voting for him, so he could sell us out, like any other candidate would.
On the other hand, maybe he’s changed his mind about that 2012 remark.
I’m bitter and cynical enough on immigration that I don’t trust anyone not to betray us. But if there was ever a candidate we could believe will build a wall and stop the mass importation of the Third World, it’s Trump.

http://humanevents.com/2016/05/04/and-then-there-was-the-one/?utm_source=coulterdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

And Then There Was The One

Ann Coulter

Wednesday May 4, 2016 2:21 PM

Republican Party Lacks Coherent Ideology

[From article]
The Republican Party has been in a political and ideological rut and there has not been a distinguishable leader of the party since Ronald Reagan left office. To illustrate, here’s an intellectual exercise: who is the current leader of the Republican Party? If you have to think hard about it then you’ve proven the point.
The biggest problem -- among a myriad of problems -- with the party is its lack of a strong and coherent ideology. Ideology is not a bad thing. In fact, it is necessary for a political party to have -- not only to survive, but to grow, compete, and to dominate in the realm of politics. Ideology serves as both a political foundation and a political map and compass. When you have a definable ideology, voters can identify where you stand on issues and why you stand where you stand. Moreover, when new issues emerge in the public square, a values-based ideology can help determine a party’s stance on a given issue. Democrats own social issues because they have a stance and they explain their stance to voters. The GOP loses these debates because they only say “no”; they never say why. Having a strong ideology would Republicans counteract this perception.
Another major problem is Republican leaders do not understand that they are at war with Democrats. How can you win a war you don’t acknowledge is going on? Yes, the GOP has taken control of Congress, but has the party furthered an agenda? No. Did it push an agenda when it had control of the government from 2001 to 2007? No, and the reason is that the party has no agenda. It has no agenda because it has no coherent ideology. Democrats win because they do have an ideology. The problem is that it’s the wrong ideology, leading to nothing but destruction and despair. However, their ideology is strong, they live by it, and they push it hard.
[. . .]
In his masterpiece Witness, Whittaker Chambers incidentally explained why the Republican Party has been so weak and ineffectual for most of its existence. In explaining why Communists were so dedicated to their cause, and were ultimately going to win against the West, Chambers said that they have “a reason to live and a reason to die.” Chambers then noted that if the West were to win this great human struggle, freedom-loving people would have to find a similarly strong faith. He cited faith in God as the only thing that could counteract communists’ fanaticism; but while religious faith is important, it is the values that emanate from faith that are vital in politics. We are up against the same enemy, who has this same faith and tenacity. Republicans, and therefore the country, are losing because they refuse to stand up against this rabid enemy.
Outside of Calvin Coolidge, Ronald Reagan, (perhaps) Dwight Eisenhower, and for a time behind Newt Gingrich, the Republican Party has rarely furthered a positive, active, ideologically-based agenda. Through much of its history, the GOP has reacted to Democrats. They are constantly on the defense, never positing their own ideas and policies.
[. . .]
The problem with Obama is that he adheres to the wrong ideology -- one that seeks to strip individuals of their liberty. Obama’s ideology is also one that constantly seeks a maximization of the state over the individual and the civil society. Reagan’s ideology, had it reached full flower, would have returned the United States to its original position, politically speaking. Individual liberty. Limited government. A vibrant civil society and middle class. Sadly, Reagan largely stood alone in the fight to stop the decades-long movement of the country to the left. Once he left office, Democrats, helped by Republicans, wiped out all of Reagan’s progress.
[. . .]
We haven’t been this weak relative to other countries since before World War II. Our culture and military have been infected with the limp-wristed weakness brought on by political correctness and a terrible public education system. Both parties are to blame: Democrats because they have actively sought the “fundamental transformation” of America; Republicans because they have been too weak to stand up and fight.
[. . .]
Can the Republican Party be saved? More importantly, should the Republican Party be saved? I would argue yes, the GOP can be saved. The second question is more debatable.
[. . .]
Reince Priebus and his ilk should be removed in favor of a strong, outspoken figure that can ignite the base and help grow the party. Though it will be tempting to form a new party, conservatives should follow Ronald Reagan’s advice and reform the GOP into one that flies “bold colors, not pale pastels.”
The Republican Party is definitely in trouble and it has few options moving forward. As this election cycle has shown, the base is tired of stale, establishment favorites. But because reality dictates the necessity of a party, voters need to insist on new leadership and a new, ideologically based platform. If not, Democrats will speed up this now century-long process and soon we won’t have a country to complain about.
[. . .]
The panel's hostility and contempt toward law enforcement, the Republican Party, and anyone opposed to Islamic militancy were similarly revealing. None of the speakers called for combating jihadism within the Muslim-American community as a moral duty. Nor was there any acknowledgement that, according to the latest FBI statistics, anti-Jewish hate crimes are over 3.5 times more common than those against Muslims.
Reducing such crimes to zero is a laudable goal. But the panel's – and particularly Bail's – scapegoating, systematic use of "Islamophobia" as a cudgel to settle partisan political scores, demonstratively inaccurate research, and lack of objective analysis or constructive suggestions impede rather than advance that aim.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/04/the_gops_missing_motivation.html

April 30, 2016
The GOP’s Missing Motivation
By Layne D. Hansen

Ann Couter Analyzes Republican Candidates

Left to right: Donald Trump, John Kasich, Ted Cruz: The Last Three Standing

[From article]
Apparently, John Kasich and Ted Cruz are at their most appealing when no one is paying attention to them, which, conveniently, is most of the time.
After Cruz won cranky Wisconsin last month — only the fourth actual election he’s won — voters decided to give him a second look. But two seconds after people said, “OK, let’s give this guy a try,” he cratered. You might say a little of Ted Cruz goes a long way. Voters can’t stand Cruz any more than his Senate colleagues can.
Listening to Cruz always makes me feel like I have Asperger’s. He speaks so slowly, my mind wanders between words. As Trump said, there’s a 10-second intermission between sentences. I want to order Cruz’s speeches as Amazon Audibles, just so I can speed them up and see what he’s saying
The guy did go to Harvard Law School, so I keep waiting for the flashes of brilliance, but they never come. Cruz is completely incapable of extemporaneous wit.
Now that Cruz has been mathematically eliminated, he’s adding Carly Fiorina to the ticket. She’s not his “running mate,” but his “limping mate.” It’s an all-around lemon-eating contest.
Voters quickly moved on from Cruz and tried Kasich. But he turned out to be the spitting image of a homeless man. He’s got the slouch, the facial tics, and a strange way of bouncing his head and looking around that makes you want to cross the street to avoid him. It looks like he cuts his own hair, and his suits are Ralph Nader cast-offs. He wolfs down food like a street person, has a hair-trigger temper, and rants about religion in a way that only he can understand.
Kasich is constantly proclaiming that illegals are “made in the image of God,” and denounces the idea of enforcing federal immigration laws, saying: “I don’t think it’s right; I don’t think it’s humane.”
[. . .]
When giving a speech to Ohio EPA workers a few years ago, Kasich suddenly went off topic and began shouting about a police officer who had given him a ticket three years earlier. “Have you ever been stopped by a police officer that’s an idiot?” he began. He proceeded to tell the riveting story of his traffic violation to the EPA administrators, yelling about “this idiot! … He’s an IDIOT!”
[. . .]
With Trump it’s exactly the opposite. The more people see of him, the more they like him. The usual pattern is: Trump says something perfectly sensible, the media lie about it, then voters find out the truth and like him more and the media less.

http://humanevents.com/2016/04/27/a-slow-talker-and-a-homeless-guy-walk-into-a-bar/?utm_source=coulterdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

A Slow-Talker And A Homeless Guy Walk Into A Bar…

Ann Coulter

Wednesday Apr 27, 2016 6:01 PM

Only Certainty About 2016 Presidential Elections, They Will Be Entertaining

[From article]
I’ve lived through and paid attention to elections going all the way back to Eisenhower. Each time, people chose up sides, whacked away at the opponent, and the votes fell where they fell. Then everyone stood up, dusted off their hands, and went back to work. People had conversations about policy and their favorite candidate, but such conversations required either an awkward phone chat or a face-to-face discussion and for much of that time both religion and politics were not considered proper fodder for social gatherings. Societal lids limited the whole election process.
Not so today. People occasionally ask me what I think will happen, assuming I suppose, that the wise old woman will have something intelligent to say. But not so. Even if I had a state-of-the-art crystal ball and a graphing calculator, I’d be clueless. Variables buzz around this election like mosquitoes in a swamp.
1. Health issues -- Bernie Sanders is 73, the Donald 70, and Hillary 67, all hovering around that precarious post-baby-boomer life expectancy precipice. Hillary appears to be tottering on the edge of actual ill health, going into occasional coughing fits and bouts of confusion.
Legal issues -- we don’t know what will happen with the FBI probe of Hillary and her infamous emails. If 147 agents are really on the case and since, on the face of it, she shouldn’t have had that email setup in the first place, she’s on some shaky ground. And Benghazi is always lurking in the background. Of course we have to add into this the fact that she is Hillary Clinton and therefore not subject to the same laws the rest of us are. We also must figure in the even more disturbing fact that most people left of center don’t seem to care about her apparently pending indictment. What do we do if she becomes the Democratic candidate (and the “if” here is very iffy) and she’s been charged with a crime? What does the Constitution say about the people electing a felon? Nor do we know what the Obama administration will do about this -- there’s no love lost between him and the Clintons, but on the other hand, if he lets her off the legal hook, then he would continue to have influence over a Clinton White House. What a tangle.
Unpredictability issues -- Donald Trump is, pardon the pun, a complete wild card. No one knows what he will say next. We can count on Cruz not to utter foul-mouthed personal insults, but we can’t predict what words will come shooting out of the Don’s mouth. Neither can he. We don’t know what skeletons will crawl out of his closet if he wins the nomination. We do know that his rabid supporters will hang on even if illegal behaviors surface. (I don’t know that any will, but given Trump’s take-no-prisoners approach to life, no one would be surprised.)
International issues -- we are at war with ISIS. North Korea is rattling sabers. Iran is building a nuke. The European Union is shaky at best. Any blow-ups on any of these fronts and this election could ricochet off in a direction none of us can imagine -- like Obama declaring martial law and just staying in office.
Financial issues -- our economy is shaky, as is the economy of most of the world right now. That is going to affect this election, but will the effect be a lurch further left in the hopes the government will kiss the boo-boo and make it all better? Or will it wake people up to the realties of economics and the value of a free market? Who knows? And which candidate represents which economic theory? Hard to tell.
Overstock issues -- we have from the beginning had too many candidates. A plethora of presidential wannabes has fractured the process to such an extent that the math becomes nearly impossible. Why is Kasich still in this? Why is Bernie? Neither has a realistic hope, so do we assume that insanity is part of this election’s algorithms or do these men just want to muddy up the works? And if the latter, who’s paying them? What will the Bernie supporters do when Hillary walks away with the convention? Will they bail to Trump? Swallow hard and vote for Hill anyway? Or will they stay home? With Kasich still in the Republican race only Einstein could do the math and he’s dead.
Math brings us to the delegates. Delegates are just people; they aren’t automatons programmed to vote according to the popular vote. They can, after the first vote, change their minds. So who knows what they’ll do?
That’s to say nothing of the snarl of convention rules, which appear not to be longstanding, time-honored methods, but made up as the delegates and party chairmen determine, sort of a fly-by-night, make-it-up-as-you-go, we’ll-cheat- to-get-our-way approach. Republicans could end up with a candidate who hasn’t even been running. The chaos that will cause is hard to picture.
Which brings the next variable: anger. I can’t remember ever seeing people this scared for their country, their families, their futures, and scared people are angry people. Republicans are mad because our elected officials have betrayed us. Democrats are mad because their socialist dream is a nightmare and they can’t admit that. Angry people act; this is good, but angry people don’t think first. They don’t worry about anything much beyond alleviating the pain of their fury. Worse, angry people are unpredictable. If things don’t go their way will they stay home and pout, or hit the streets and rampage? I used to be pretty sure that my conservative compatriots wouldn’t do anything desperate and dangerous, anything violent, but I don’t know that any more. No one does. We can count on the Bernie-lovers to throw a fit -- especially if Trump or Cruz wins the general election, but what will happen if Hillary marches back into the White House? Yikes.
The voter ID issue -- we don’t even know who’s voting, whether they are alive or dead, Americans or illegals, informed or dismally ignorant. We don’t know how often each person votes. This issue alone throws the whole thing off.
And last, but most important, what is the will of God in this matter? Looking at this objectively as possible, it doesn’t look to me like we deserve a better president than we currently have. If 50% of the country is happy with either a criminal or a communist what chance have we of maintaining our freedoms? But, God is gracious, and whereas He never gives a nation a worse leader than it deserves, He has sometimes given a country a second chance, (Israel, for instance) so maybe. He does answer prayer and millions of us are praying for the welfare of this nation and all it once stood for. We also need to at least glance at biblical prophecy, which has always been dead on in the past, so it bears looking at now. What will this election look like to our non-Christian countrymen if the Rapture really does take place? Could, you know.
So what do you think will happen? I know one thing for sure – we will be highly entertained for the rest of the year -- entertained in the edge-of-the-seat horror movie sense of the word, but entertained nevertheless. There is one blessing in the chaos; I’m very clear about all of this being out of my control, so I’ll not worry, just watch and pray.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/04/slouching_toward_washington_.html

April 10, 2016
Slouching Toward Washington
By Deana Chadwell

Trump Protesters Are Criminals

[From article]
According to the U.S. news media, Donald Trump is a dangerous extremist whose rhetoric is inciting violence at his rallies. The protestors are innocent as lambs, gentle people who are being violently assaulted by Trump supporters. Trump's jack-booted white-trash constituency is mercilessly punching and kicking anyone who dares to object to his inhumane racist and xenophobic policies.
This moralistic fairy tale is utter nonsense. It is the exact opposite of the truth. As Trump himself has pointed out, these "protestors" are more aptly described as "disruptors." Their intent is not to exercise their own First Amendment rights but to silence people they disagree with.
Trump's rallies across the U.S. have attracted tens of thousands of people. Before they were intentionally disrupted, these gatherings were entirely peaceful. Trump's supporters are not "white trash." On the contrary, they're the very salt of the earth: the law-abiding and hard-working people who pay their taxes and make this country work. These people want nothing more than to be left alone and participate peacefully in the democratic process of self-governance.
[. . .]
In North Carolina last March 9, an elderly white Trump supporter struck a young black man being escorted out of a Trump rally by law enforcement. The video recording of this incident has been shown more times than the Rodney King beating. One night, NBC news literally replayed it three times within fifteen seconds. The implication is that Trump is guilty by association. This is an absurd logical fallacy. A man is not guilty by association. And if we are to judge Mr. Trump by the behavior of his supporters, why choose the one person who became violent? Would it not be more reasonable to base our assessment on the tens of thousands of people who remained peaceful?
Who would have thought such a bad man could win so many elections? Mr. Trump's detractors have run through the entire English lexicon of insulting epithets. Perhaps they implicate themselves by protesting too much. If Mr. Trump suffers from any fault, it is a refusal to function as a punching bag. Some consider this to be a sterling virtue in a Presidential candidate.
if people want to oppose Donald Trump's candidacy they have a thousand ways to do so. Instead of disrupting Trump's rallies, they could hold their own rallies (would anyone attend?). They could write editorials, letters to the editor, and make comments on the internet. They could march up-and-down on the street holding up signs denouncing Trump. They might even try (gasp) voting. Everyone in our society has a multitude of ways of freely expressing themselves.
But the protestors do not want to merely express themselves. They want to impose their political views by force. If they don't like what you're saying, they're going to shut you down and shut you up. In Phoenix last March 19, protestors blocked a major highway leading to a Trump rally. This was not a peaceful or lawful act. It was a forceful way of stopping people who merely wanted to peacefully assemble and work for democratic change. Not only were Trump's supporters affected, so was anyone who happened to be traveling on that highway. This included people with medical emergencies desperately trying to reach a hospital.
The political season is just warming up. We have witnessed the beginning of the violence, not the end. So let's be entirely clear about what is happening here. The people who are disrupting Donald Trump's rallies are not merely a threat to the Trump campaign. They are thugs and criminals who are endangering everyone's right to free expression and democratic governance.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/03/trump_protestors_are_thugs_and_criminals.html

March 30, 2016
Trump Protestors are Thugs and Criminals
By David Deming

Dropouts From Presidential Race. Where Are They Now?

Left to right. Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal, Scott Walker.

[From article]
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal spends much of his time these days driving his children to sporting events. Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley plays guitar sing-alongs with college students. And Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker presented a proclamation at the World Dairy Expo to the 2015 "Cow of the Year".
Leaving the national spotlight can be a pride-swallowing experience for politicians who have grown accustomed to being in constant demand as guests on nationally televised Sunday shows. Some never recover their relevancy, and it can take them months or even years to adjust to their diminished statuses.
[. . .]
They've spent, in some cases decades, traveling back and forth between D.C. and their home district, constantly reminding their donors and constituents of what they've done for them, he said.
But unless a politician can find a compelling way to talk about ideas and the future he has a shelf-life in the media of about 18 months after leaving office, Tyler says.
[. . .]
But Tyler says Gingrich quickly became master at remaining relevant. He hasn't fallen into the politician's trap of hanging on to his past achievements, which limits a former politician s appeal to cable TV bookers and public speaking agencies.
"He doesn't sit there saying, 'when we passed the Contract for America... '. Even though that s a huge part of his legacy," Tyler said of Gingrich. "He's always been able to stay interesting It s sort of scary [that]... there are very few politicians or former politicians who are successful at this."
Staying relevant is a challenge for former campaign operatives, too, after their boss drops out of a presidential race.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/candidates-who-have-dropped-out-of-race-face-long-hard-fall/ar-BBqWWkG?ocid=spartanntp

Candidates who have dropped out of race face long, hard fall
Jonathan Swan
March 26, 2016

Camille Paglia Changed Her Mind About Trump

[From article]

Nevertheless, Trump’s fearless candor and brash energy feel like a great gust of fresh air, sweeping the tedious clichés and constant guilt-tripping of political correctness out to sea. Unlike Hillary Clinton, whose every word and policy statement on the campaign trail are spoon-fed to her by a giant paid staff and army of shadowy advisors, Trump is his own man, with a steely “damn the torpedoes” attitude. He has a swaggering retro machismo that will give hives to the Steinem cabal. He lives large, with the urban flash and bling of a Frank Sinatra. But Trump is a workaholic who doesn’t drink and who has an interesting penchant for sophisticated, strong-willed European women. As for a debasement of the presidency by Trump’s slanging matches about penis size, that sorry process was initiated by a Democrat, Bill Clinton, who chatted about his underwear on TV, let Hollywood pals jump up and down on the bed in the Lincoln Bedroom, and played lewd cigar games with an intern in the White House offices.
Primary voters nationwide are clearly responding to Trump’s brand of classic can-do American moxie. There has been a sense of weary paralysis in our increasingly Byzantine and monstrously wasteful government bureaucracies. Putting a bottom-line businessman with executive experience into the White House has probably been long overdue. If Mitt Romney had boldly talked business more (and chosen a woman VP), he would have won the last election. Although the rampant Hitler and Mussolini analogies to Trump are wildly exaggerated–he has no organized fascist brigades at his beck and call—there is reason for worry about his impatient authoritarian tendencies. We have had more than enough of Obama’s constitutionally questionable executive orders. It remains to be seen whether Trump’s mastery of a hyper-personalized art of the deal will work in the sluggish, murky, incestuously intertwined power realms of Washington.

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/10/i_was_wrong_about_donald_trump_camille_paglia_on_the_gop_front_runners_refreshing_candor_and_his_impetuousness_too/

THURSDAY, MAR 10, 2016 06:01 AM EST
I was wrong about Donald Trump: Camille Paglia on the GOP front-runner’s refreshing candor (and his impetuousness, too)
Yes, he remains thin-skinned and easily riled. But his fearlessness and brash energy also seem necessary and rare
CAMILLE PAGLIA

Ted Cruz, JD Harvard Law School, Campaigns For President

[From article]
Congratulations to Ted Cruz for winning his fourth primary! Usually Donald Trump wins the primaries — where you go and vote, like in a real election. Cruz wins the caucuses — run by the state parties, favored by political operators and cheaters.
Until now, the only primaries Cruz has won are in Texas (his home state), Oklahoma (basically the same state) and Idaho (where Trump never campaigned).
[. . .]
Cruz has flipped to Trump’s side on every important political issue of this campaign — which only ARE issues because of Trump. These are:
— Quadrupling the number of foreign guest workers to help ranchers and farmers get cheap labor: Cruz was for it, and now is against it.
— Legalizing illegal aliens: Cruz was for it, and now is against it.
— The Trans-Pacific Partnership deal: Cruz was for it, and now is against it.
— Building a wall: Cruz was against it, and now is for it.
These are all positions Cruz has changed since being a senator — most of them he’s flipped on only in the last year. I’m supposed to believe that U.S. senators can sincerely change their minds about policies it was their job to know about, but a New York developer can never change his mind about pop-offs he made more than a decade ago.

[. . .]
These are the kinds of lies that used to drive conservatives crazy when the Clintons did it. Not anymore. All’s fair in smearing Trump.
[. . .]
Trump has said a million times that he’d scrap Obamacare and replace it with a free market system (which, by the way, he explains a lot more clearly than Washington policy wonks with their think-tank lingo). Merely for Trump saying that we’re “not going to let people die, sitting in the middle of a street in any city in this country,” Cruz accuses him of supporting “Bernie Sanders-style medicine.”
[. . .]
Cruz and his cult-like followers lie about Trump wanting a health care system akin to Canada’s and Scotland’s. They lie about his supporting Obamacare. They lie about his supporting partial-birth abortion. They lie about his ever having been a Democrat. They lie about his campaign manager assaulting a female reporter.
[. . .]
But — as with the Clintons — you offer these Cruz-bots an olive branch and they bite off your hand.
[. . .]
If James Carville and Paul Begala had a baby, it would be a Cruz supporter.
[. . .]
Trump is the only presidential candidate in my lifetime who will build a wall, deport illegals and pause the importation of Muslims. He’s the only one who cares more about ordinary Americans than he does about globalist plutocrats.
[. . .]
Mostly, I was under the misimpression that honesty was still a conservative value.

http://humanevents.com/2016/04/06/moonies-for-ted-cruz/?utm_source=coulterdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Moonies for Ted Cruz

Ann Coulter

Wednesday Apr 6, 2016 4:33 PM

Trump And The Farmer's Mule

[From article]
Just a few days ago, B.H. Obama, former cocaine snorter, blamed white folks for the crack epidemic in black neighborhoods. Apparently B.H doesn't see the irony of his own in-your-face drug use and damning white folks as being responsible.
It shows how far we have tumbled from the quaint idea of personal responsibility. In the 1970s, Flip Wilson, one of the first major black comics, made it big with the punchline "The Devil made me do it!"
It was a reliable punch line because it was funny. Everybody got it.
Today's Ivy League indoctrinees would never laugh at a Flip Wilson joke. They have been abused so often by the humorless commissars of P.C. that they'd be afraid to laugh. Or maybe they just wouldn't get why "The Devil made me buy this dress!" is funny. Certainly Barack and Michelle would flash their famous rage faces. No genuine laughter for them.
Such is our moral and mental decline from the innocent days of Flip Wilson to our guilt-ridden mass cult today.
Obama comes out with that "white folks made me do it!" line at least once a day and twice on Sunday. Everybody in the Party Media falls for his constant rage and blaming, because the media are afraid of him.
I wonder if Donald Trump is popular because he stands up to the massed ranks of P.C. commissars. Our colleagues at National Review seem to despise Donald Trump, but they haven't really told us why. Instead, we are seeing a kind of undifferentiated rage, like the ed board of the New York Times: full of contempt, fear, and anger for people stupid enough to think that Trump is on to something.
Which is not really "mental," as the estimable Ann Coulter just told us, but rather a rational response by white, male, heterosexual, hard-working, child-raising (etc., etc.) Americans:
who feel sick and tired of being lied to every single day by the Big Media and
who are finally hearing their lives and their values being expressed in public by Trump, who doesn't bother to use legally defensible words.
Those words would never make it through the media firewall. After all, who reports accurately on Ted Cruz?
Trump gets through the barrier precisely because the media are always sure they've finally scored drawn blood. He'll never get away with this! Trump shocks the commissars, so they end up amplifying his words, always expecting to kill him this time.
To people who are used to being media scapegoats, Trump is coming through loud and clear.
Take the latest shock and outrage from the usual suspects — a few seconds of videotaped hassle between "journalist" Michelle Fields and Trump's campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski. The WaPo has pronounced Lewandoski guilty of battery, which is enough for the libs to believe it.
But here is British journo Piers Morgan writing in the Dail Mail:
Crucially, DailyMail.com has now established from a member of Trump's Secret Service detail that in the process, she (Michelle) touched Trump twice and was warned by agents to stop.
Lewandowski, walking a few steps behind his boss, saw this happening (he may well have heard the warnings too) and raced forward to prevent her asking more questions and put himself between Trump and the reporter. …
Lewandowski can be seen putting his arm up to block the journalist. In doing so, he also appears to grab her arm for less than a second as he moves on.
This is all rather different from what Ms Fields herself claimed had happened when she wrote about it for her then employer, Breitbart.com: 'I was jolted backwards. Someone had grabbed me tightly by the arm and yanked me down. I almost fell to the ground but was able to maintain my balance. Nevertheless I was shaken. Campaign managers aren't supposed to try to forcefully throw reporters to the ground.'
Oh puh-lease.
I've watched the video multiple times and cannot conceive any sensible interpretation that he is committing any kind of deliberate assault.
I don't know who's right. Piers Morgan is a predictable socialist, but in this case, he may be committing an act of…journalism. I don't trust a few seconds of video when people are interacting very fast. Professional sports referees can't even be sure, based on a few seconds of tape.
But the WaPo thinks it's got him, and so do all the party line media.
But then we've seen outrageous media lies every single day since Bill Clinton. If you're one of the scapegoated Americans, all you bother with is the headline. But you've learned not to believe news headlines. When you hear Trump accuse the reporter the next day, you might rationally think she's lying.



Which is possible, given everything we know about journos.
I'm not saying who is right or wrong. I also get the willies when Trump seems to cross another line, only to take it back the next day. The great majority of people will not remember this incident in a few weeks. They'll have a vague feeling that Trump hates women. I'm waiting for Trump to "pivot" to show he's a warm and cuddly guy. I'll bet he's got this strategy taped out.
A guy who can sign million-dollar contracts that have to be studied down to the last detail doesn't act impulsively — not if he doesn't want to. He can be shooting his mouth off when his lawyers are going over the contract word by word in a back room.
Right now we're seeing Trump blabbing anything that comes to his mind, as long as it's provocative, and dammit, he always gets big headlines. I would have zigged or zagged to build a better impression weeks ago.
It's like the farmer and the mule. (This is not a P.C. story, but keep in mind what mules do to each other). The farmer hits the mule over the head every time he wants the animal to go somewhere. He hits him — okay, let's make it a foam baseball bat — every time, even before the mule can even move.
Some kind soul is watching this horrible behavior and asks the farmer, "Why do you hit that poor animal before it can even move?" And the farmer chews his 'baccy for a few seconds, spits it out, and says, "First you gotta get his attention."
That's Donald Trump and the U.S. media. So far he's better at getting their attention than any Republican in the last half-century. I keep waiting for him to pivot to a more sensible strategy, and still he's doing the same thing. It's like watching a tightrope walker without a net.
Ann Coulter is getting antsy, and so am I. But Trump has done this stunt in most of his TV shows. First he provokes his audience, to get them mad, and twenty minutes later he's got them laughing and liking him.
It's a well practiced trick.
The big question is whether he can get away with it this time, when the stakes are about as high as they can get.
I don't know, but I can't stop watching it.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/04/donald_trump_and_the_farmers_mule.html

April 3, 2016
Donald Trump and the Farmer's Mule
By James Lewis

Trump and Cruz Can Prevent Establishment Taking Control of Party Convention

Trump and Cruz Can Control Republican Convention

[From article]
The Wisconsin primary could be an axle-breaking speed bump on Donald Trump’s road to the nomination.
Ted Cruz, now the last hope to derail Trump of a desperate Beltway elite that lately loathed him, has taken the lead in the Badger State.
Millions in attack ads are being dumped on the Donald’s head by super PACs of GOP candidates, past and present. Gov. Scott Walker has endorsed Cruz. Conservative talk radio is piling on Trump.
And the Donald just had the worst two weeks of his campaign.
[. . .]
New to elective politics, Trump is less familiar with the ideological and issues terrain than those who live there. But the outrage of the elites is all fakery.
Democrats do not care a hoot about the right to life of unborn babies, even unto the ninth month of pregnancy. And the Republican establishment is grabbing any stick to beat Trump, not because he threatens the rights of women, but because he threatens them.
The establishment’s problem is that Trump refuses to take the saddle. Again and again, he has defied the dictates of political correctness that they designed to stifle debate and demonize dissent.
Trump has gotten away with his insubordination and shown, with his crowds, votes, and victories, that millions of alienated Americans detest the Washington establishment and relish his defiance.
Trump has denounced the trade treaties, from NAFTA to GATT to the WTO and MFN for China, that have de-industrialized America, imperil our sovereignty and independence, and cost millions of good jobs.
[. . .]



The unstated premise of the Trump campaign is that some among the Fortune 500 companies are engaged in economic treason against America.
No wonder they hate him.
As for Trump’s call for an “America First” foreign policy, it threatens the rice bowls of those for whom imperial interventions are the reason for their existence.
[. . .]
Yet, a loss in Wisconsin would make Trump’s climb to a first-ballot nomination steeper.
Still, if Trump goes to Cleveland, having won the most votes, the most states and the most delegates, stealing the nomination from him would split the party worse than in 1964.
The GOP could be looking at a 1912, when ex-President Theodore Roosevelt, who won the most contested primaries, was rejected in favor of President Taft. Teddy walked out, ran on the “Bull Moose” ticket, beat Taft in the popular vote, and Woodrow Wilson was elected.
[. . .]
If the nomination is taken from Trump, who will be 70 in June, he has nothing to lose. And as “Julius Caesar” reminds us, “such men are dangerous.”
Trump and Cruz, though bitter enemies, are both despised by the establishment. Yet both have a mutual interest: insuring that one of them, and only one of them, wins the nomination. No one else.
If the nomination is taken from Trump, who will be 70 in June, he has nothing to lose. And as “Julius Caesar” reminds us, “such men are dangerous.”
Trump and Cruz, though bitter enemies, are both despised by the establishment. Yet both have a mutual interest: insuring that one of them, and only one of them, wins the nomination. No one else.
[. . .]
All Trump and Cruz need do is instruct their delegates to vote to retain Rule 40 from the 2012 convention. Rule 40 declares that no candidate can be placed in nomination who has failed to win a majority of the delegates in eight states.
Trump has already hit that mark. Cruz almost surely will. But no establishment favorite has a chance of reaching it.
With Cruz and Trump delegates voting to retain Rule 40, they can guarantee no Beltway favorite walks out of Cleveland as the nominee — and that Ted Cruz or Donald Trump does.
No matter who wins in Cleveland, the establishment must lose.

http://buchanan.org/blog/lock-establishment-cleveland-125077

Lock Out the Establishment in Cleveland!
Thursday - March 31, 2016 at 8:09 pm
Patrick J. Buchanan

White Votes Matter

[From article]
The only question for Republicans is: Which candidate can win states that Mitt Romney lost?
Start with the fact that, before any vote is cast on Election Day, the Democrats have already won between 90 and 98 percent of the black vote and 60 to 75 percent of the Hispanic and Asian vote. Unless Republicans run the table on the white vote, they lose.
If there’s still hope, it lies with Trump and only Trump. Donald Trump will do better with black and Hispanic voters than any other Republican. But it’s with white voters that he really opens up the electoral map.
A Republican Party that wasn’t intent on committing suicide would know that. But Stuart Stevens, the guy who lost a winnable presidential election in 2012, says it’s impossible for Republicans to get one more white vote — and the media are trying to convince the GOP that he’s right.
tevens says Romney tapped out every last white voter and still lost, so he says Republicans are looking for “the Lost Tribes of the Amazon” hoping to win more white votes: “In 1980, Ronald Reagan won 56 percent of white voters and won a landslide victory of 44 states. In 2012, Mitt Romney won 59 percent of whites and lost with 24 states.”
Apparently, no one’s told Stevens about the 50-state Electoral College. The national white vote is irrelevant. Presidential elections are won by winning states. (Only someone who got his ass kicked running an eminently electable candidate might not know this.)
[. . .]
If Trump wins only the same states as Romney, but adds Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Illinois — where Romney’s white vote was below his national average — Trump wins with 280 electoral votes. (Romney wasn’t an ideal candidate in the industrial Midwest.)
[. . .]
I haven’t even mentioned Florida, where Trump recently trounced Stuart Stevens’ dream candidate, Marco Rubio, a sitting senator — and a Cuban! — in a 20-point rout. Republican primary voters outnumbered Democratic primary voters in that election by more than half a million votes.
If Trump wins Florida, he needs to win only two or three of the 10 states where Romney either lost the white vote outright or won a smaller percentage of it than he did nationally.
Stevens’ analysis assumes that there will be no new voters — and, again, there isn’t a mammal on the North American landmass who knows less about winning presidential elections than Stuart Stevens.
It’s as if we’re only allowed to divvy up the pile of voters from 2012. Unless you voted in 2012, you can’t vote in 2016! Use it or lose it, buddy.
That’s not how it works.
Trump is saying he’ll bring in lots of new people, as he has throughout the primaries. In the Florida GOP primary, for example, Trump got nearly half a million more votes than Romney did in 2012 — about half a million new people voted. Trump may be wrong, but it’s insane to say that it’s impossible for him to bring out new voters.
[. . .]
Maybe 50 years of Third World immigration means it’s too late, and even Trump can’t win. But it’s an absolute certainty that any other Republican will lose.

http://humanevents.com/2016/03/30/its-only-trump/?utm_source=coulterdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

It’s Only Trump

Ann Coulter

Wednesday Mar 30, 2016 4:59 PM