The latest polls tell a horrible story for Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, the most persistent presidential candidate of them all. According to the Loras College Iowa poll, released today, Jindal is languishing at 1% support in Iowa, tied for 12th place. Thus, Jindal has received no political benefit from his countless trips, speeches and campaign appearances in the Hawkeye state.
It is even worse news for the Governor in the latest national poll released by Public Policy Polling. In this survey, Jindal is at the very bottom, tied for 14th place with less than 1% support. Nationally, Jindal is going nowhere fast despite innumerable appearances on national cable networks over the past few years.
At this point, it is quite clear that Bobby Jindal is not presidential material. While he has political experience, he has very little real world experience. Today, Republican primary voters are looking for a non-politician to lead the party back to power. Voters are tired of politicians like Bobby Jindal who promise hope and change, but deliver broken promises.
Jindal is the Republican version of President Obama, a politician delivering strong rhetoric, but poor results. Today, Louisiana is in the midst of another budget crisis and Jindal is nowhere to be found. In the last legislative session, he appeared on the opening day and then did not reappear until the closing day. In between, Jindal campaign aggressively for President, but offered almost no legislative agenda and allowed legislators to pass a budget based on smoke and mirrors.
In the last legislative session, legislators used an oil price of $62 per barrel for budget planning purposes. This highly inflated figure was based on wishful thinking, not reality, for the price of oil today is hovering around $40 per barrel. With oil and gas revenue comprising a major portion of our state budget, such a faulty prediction created a major hole in our financial projections.
Barely a few months into our current operating budget and the state is already facing a $19 million shortfall in the TOPS college scholarship program and a whopping $336 million hole in the Medicaid budget. According to Louisiana political and legislative watchdog C.B. Forgotston, “Failing to address these daily budget fissures will result in the exponentially increasing the size of the additional taxes, tuition, fees increases and mid-years cuts.”
In the last legislative session, taxes, fees and tuition were increased by the largest amount in state history, using unconstitutional measures that are being challenged in court. According to Forgotston, all of the legislative decisions were “counter-productive” to growing the state’s economy and did not address the real problem facing Louisiana, the “size” of our state government.
For one important area in the state budget, higher education, spending has already been slashed. According to State Treasurer John Kennedy, Louisiana colleges and universities have already been “cut to the bone.”
Today, none of the budget options for Louisiana are very palatable, so very difficult decisions need to be made. The problem is that Louisiana is suffering from absentee leadership, as our Governor is busy campaigning for President.
With poll results showing his presidential campaign in shatters and a state budget nightmare getting worse, it is time for Governor Jindal to come home and finish his term with a semblance of dignity. He needs to try to solve these difficult problems that he helped create, so the next Governor is not dealing with a total financial catastrophe.
From the very beginning of the first GOP presidential debate, Donald Trump was in the spotlight and under fire from Fox News commentators. The first question asked for a show of hands of all candidates who would not pledge to support the Republican presidential nominee. Only Donald Trump raised his hand, which led to the first of many confrontations during the debate. He was challenged by moderator Brett Baier and lambasted by Senator Rand Paul for “buying and selling politicians.” While Trump declared that he wants to “run as the Republican nominee,” he is wise to keep his options open.
The Republican establishment is terrified of Trump, who can finance a third party campaign and is independent of special interests. They will continue to mercilessly attack him, hence Trump is smart to maintain “leverage” and keep open the third party alternative.
It may also provide a needed choice for the American people. If the presidential nominees are Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Jeb Bush, or another RINO, Trump should enter the race to give voters a real alternative. The last thing the country needs is another Bush or Clinton in the White House.
In fact, in a three way race between Clinton, Bush and Trump, there is a possibility that Trump may win. There is great dissatisfaction with political dynasties and millions of Americans would refuse to vote for either Clinton or Bush, giving a well-funded third party candidate like Trump a chance.
There is certainly precedent for a strong third party candidacy. In 1992, Texas businessman Ross Perot was leading the presidential race before he exited amid claims that he did not want to throw the election into the House of Representatives. He later said he left the race because he was concerned that Republicans were planning to disrupt his daughter’s wedding. When he returned to the campaign months later, his prospects were severely diminished. Nevertheless, he finished with almost 19% of the vote, the highest third party total since Theodore Roosevelt in 1912.
Unlike Perot, who destroyed his chances when he abandoned the race, Trump would be a more formidable third party contender. He has universal name recognition, billions of dollars to spend, and no need to placate special interests or big donors. Clearly, the GOP establishment, and their media lapdogs, will try to destroy his chances. This is exactly what happened during the Fox News debate. After being immediately confronted on the third party question, Trump spent the rest of the debate fending off queries about his bankruptcies, his stand on abortion and Obamacare, his treatment of women, and his previous support of Democrat candidates. Throughout it all, Trump stayed on the offensive and refused to apologize.
This stance was extremely popular with the vast conservative audience of the Drudge Report website. After 531,000 votes were tabulated, Trump was declared the winner by over 45% of the voters, far outpacing second place finisher Senator Ted Cruz who received just 14% of the vote. While the public loved Trump’s performance, so-called experts such as analyst Charles Krauthammer and pollster Frank Luntz panned The Donald’s showing. In true Trump fashion, he blasted Luntz as a “low class slob.”
Clearly, Trump’s best chance for victory would be as the GOP nominee. Obviously, he would prefer to win the Republican nomination; however, he may be subjected to impossible hurdles as the race progresses.
While a third party candidacy is not the ideal scenario for Trump, he definitely needs to keep it as an option as the race progresses. It is too early to determine what will happen, but we do know that since Donald Trump is involved, practically everyone will be watching.
Today, the GOP race for President took a very different turn as real estate billionaire Donald Trump entered the fray. After three decades of flirting with the idea of running for President, Trump finally made the official plunge in front of a crowd of supporters at Trump Tower in New York City. With his entrance, there are now 12 announced candidates contending for the GOP nomination.
In his speech, Trump vowed to “make America great again.” He said he will focus on creating jobs and noted that the official unemployment rate does not come close to reality. During his lengthy remarks, Trump skewered Obamacare; the President’s handling of the war against Isis, our trade policies with China and our country’s lax immigration policies among many other issues. Trump promised to build a fence on the Southern border and “have Mexico pay for that wall, mark my words.” He also pledged to rebuild the military, take a tough stance with Iran and repeal the “disaster” of Obamacare.
The essence of Trump’s speech was that he will restore the American dream. With the elegant backdrop of the Trump Tower, the Donald was showcasing to the American people his accomplishments and promising to achieve greatness for his country as well.
While the political elite have completely dismissed Trump’s chance to win the White House, in reality, there are a number of reasons why he should not be overlooked. First, he has achieved incredible success in his professional life. Trump has built a real estate empire and established a number of very successful businesses, employing thousands of people. Along with his success in the business world, Trump created a very popular television show, “The Apprentice.” This reality TV franchise has been on the air for 14 seasons, no small achievement.
With a net worth of almost $9 billion, Trump will be like no other candidate in the race. He can easily self-finance a serious nationwide campaign for the nomination. Unlike his opponents, Trump will not have to spend any time raising money. He can focus all his energies on campaigning and earning the votes of the GOP electorate.
Over the next few days, he will make numerous media appearances as well as campaign stops in Iowa and New Hampshire. While Trump has never been an official candidate, he is no stranger to public speaking and television interviews. This is one candidate who will not need any media training.
Trump will also not need to deviate from the message he outlined in his announcement speech. On the campaign trail, Trump will be able to easily motivate conservative audiences by emphasizing the signature issues he discussed today.
In business and in the media, Trump has enjoyed massive success. It remains to be seen whether this will translate into victories in the political world, but at least he does not have to worry about building name recognition among the public due to his decades in the public eye. Trump has another significant advantage over some of his rather young opponents as he has years of business and negotiation experience both nationally and internationally.
At the age of 69, Donald Trump is a household name. He has spent a career building wealth and his brand and will now attempt for the first time to build political support. However, based on his business track record, his positions on the issues and his incredible resources, it would be very unwise to discount the Donald’s chances.
This was the horrible week in which millions of Americans paid their taxes to the ever increasing and intrusive federal government. This year, the tax burden has grown with Tax Freedom Day appearing on April 24, meaning that Americans will spend approximately one third of the year working for government before they can provide for their families.
Taxes are certainly oppressive in this country. Compared to last year, tax revenue increased 4.3% to $1.478 trillion in the first 6½ months of the 2015 fiscal year. Even worse, the insatiable federal government continues to spend money with reckless abandon. Through April 1 of this year, the budget deficit was an astounding $439 billion, a significant increase from 2014.
Not only are taxes and deficits increasing, but the actual size of the federal tax code is exploding. When the income tax was created in 1913, the tax code was only 400 pages. It increased to 26,000 pages by 1984 and has tripled in size in the last 30 years. Since the implementation of Obamacare in 2010, the federal tax code has increased another 3,300 pages, resulting in more rules and regulations for Americans to decipher. Today, the federal tax code is over 74,000 pages of bureaucratic nonsense, making it impossible for the average American to complete their own tax return. It is no surprise that 94% of Americans need professional assistance in finishing their tax return.
According to the National Taxpayers Union Foundation, Americans spend $32 billion to prepare ever more complicated tax forms and in the process waste 6.1 billion hours annually. This costs our economy $234 billion in lost productivity. Americans should be using their time and money on more fruitful pursuits, such as providing for the needs of their families.
In the shaky Obama economy, Americans need to be as industrious as possible. While the federal government is expanding and creating massive budget deficits, leading to a national debt exceeding $18.1 trillion, it is a much different situation for average Americans. For the 119 million Americans who are working, most are seeing only minimal wage increases and, in March, the Labor Department reported that their average work week declined to 34.5 hours, below what many need to live comfortably. Thus, it is no surprise that there are 6.7 million Americans who have to work multiple jobs just to pay their household bills.
While the unemployment rate is supposedly at 5.5%, the real situation is reflected in the number of people who have left the workforce. There are over 93 million eligible Americans who are not employed, an all-time high, resulting in a labor force participation rate of 62.7%, the lowest in almost four decades. These unemployed Americans are not paying income taxes, increasing the burden on those in the labor force, who are subjected to oppressive taxes to fund our constantly expanding government.
In this country, the tax man cometh in life and death as we currently impose a draconian 40% estate tax. Fortunately, House Republicans just passed a bill to eliminate this immoral tax, but when it moves to the Senate it faces an uncertain future. Not surprisingly, Democrats claim that eliminating the estate tax will only help the “wealthy.” In reality, it will allow the survival of many small family businesses, and the continued employment of Americans who need those jobs.
Our unfair tax burden should be a primary issue in the upcoming presidential campaign. One candidate, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), has offered a particularly bold solution: close down the IRS and allow Americans to complete their taxes on a postcard. This plan offers tax reduction and simplification, just what America needs after six years of President Barack Obama.
The first two months of the new Republican Congress has been extremely disappointing. The only significant accomplishment has been the passage of the Keystone Pipeline bill. Unfortunately, when the Republicans caved on the issue of stopping President Obama’s executive amnesty for millions of illegal aliens, it sent a strong signal to conservatives across the country that the party leadership will not stop the radical policies of this administration.
This begs the question, why did voters send Republicans to Congress? It certainly was not a mission to be a rubber stamp for the most liberal President in our nation’s history. They were sent to Washington D.C. to stop Obama’s liberal policies and serve as a check and balance to the expansive agenda of the White House.
Next week, the Senate Republicans will have an opportunity to redeem themselves and improve their tattered reputation. To replace the outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder, President Obama has nominated another extreme liberal, Loretta Lynch, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. In testimony before Congress, Lynch expressed support for everything Eric Holder has done. In fact, she told U.S. Senator Richard Burr (R-NC), that as Attorney General she would pursue an agenda that “would not be different” from Eric Holder.
While continuing Holder’s liberal policies is extremely troubling, Lynch’s support of the President’s lawless executive amnesty should be more than enough to disqualify her for the important position of Attorney General. The President decreed, without congressional approval, the halting of deportations for five million illegal aliens, who will immediately qualify for work permits and benefits totaling $35,000 per year.
In testimony before Congress, Lynch made the incredulous statement that all illegal aliens have a “right to work.” The vast majority of Americans would disagree with Lynch. Illegal aliens do not have the right to enjoy benefits or secure employment. Instead, they have a right to return to their country of origin, posthaste.
After receiving approval from the Judiciary Committee with the support of three Republicans, Lynch now has the support of four Republicans in her battle for confirmation. This nefarious “Gang of Four” includes Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Jeff Flake of Arizona, Orrin Hatch of Utah and Susan Collins of Maine.
If nothing changes, those four Republicans will be enough to confirm Lynch if she receives the unanimous support of all 46 Senate Democrats. In the case of a 50-50 tie, Vice President Joe Biden will cast the deciding vote in favor of Lynch.
Along with the four Republican Senators in support of Lynch, there are also several uncommitted Republican Senators including Mark Kirk of Illinois and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee. However, Alexander is somewhat uncomfortable with Lynch, especially her “refusal to put limits on the president’s executive power.”
Another undecided Senator is Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. McConnell previously promised to oppose Lynch if she supported the President’s executive action granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. Now that the vote is nearing, McConnell is non-committal. This is another reminder that the Republicans are so very poorly served by McConnell in the Senate and Speaker John Boehner in the House. Neither of these “leaders” are committed to conservative principles and neither of them have the courage to take on President Obama on issues of substance.
Next week will be an important test for the Republican Party and will determine how the remainder of Obama’s term will progress. Let’s hope Republican Senators finally decide to represent the voters who elected them and reject Loretta Lynch. It is time they stopped being intimidated by the liberal news media, their Democratic colleagues, and, most importantly, the President of the United States.
As predicted by many, it has happened, the world’s first three-way gay marriage. In Thailand, three gay men, known only as Art, Bell and Joke, exchanged marital vows in a wedding sanctioned by the Buddhist church, but not by the government, which officially forbids same sex marriage. While the announcement was just made public, the trio married on Valentine’s Day in the country’s Uthai Thani Province. According to Bell, “Some people may not agree and are probably amazed by our decision, but we believe many people do understand and accept our choice. Love is love, after all.”
Unfortunately, Bell, along with advocates of same sex marriage, has a misguided view of marriage. As noted by Brian Brown, President of the National Association of Marriage, it is “an institution that serves to bind the complementary halves of humanity — male and female — in a publicly declared relationship that is designed to be stable, permanent, exclusive and faithful.” Brown believes the main reason why men and women come “together in holiday matrimony” is that this sacred union “offers the potential for children… and children are why the government is interested in marriage in the first place.”
Sorry, Bell, the institution of marriage is not just about love. Marriage has throughout human history been the best method to not only unite couples together, but also to propagate our species. Advocates of same sex marriage are making a mockery of this precious institution and opening the door for even more creative interpretations such as three-way unions.
Incredibly, the gay threesome in Thailand is not the first “throuple” to become “married.” In August of 2013 in Massachusetts, three lesbian women, Doll, Kitten and Brynn Young were “married” in a commitment ceremony. Through a sperm donor, Kitten became pregnant and the women welcomed their first child last July. Just imagine the weird environment that this poor child will have to navigate throughout life. Ideally, children should have a mother and father and be exposed to both male and female role models during their formative years, not three lesbians, each serving as the child’s mother.
These three-way marriages are only one manner in which the traditional concept of marriage is under assault in 2015. In the United States and other countries, there has been a well funded and highly publicized campaign to extend the definition of marriage to same sex couples. Liberal politicians and popular celebrities have joined together to show strong support for the “right” of gays and lesbians to marry. Today, 37 states recognize same sex marriages, although it has been approved by voters in only a handful of areas. Sadly, judges are disregarding the wishes of the majority of voters in several dozen states to officially sanction same sex marriages.
The mantra from liberal activists is that to deny marital rights to same sex couples is to engage in discrimination. In contrast, it is not discrimination to demand that the definition of marriage be limited to the union of one man and one woman. Homosexuals can have a civil union, a partnership, or whatever kind of arrangement they want, but not a marriage. Once society expands the definition of marriage, where will it end? Can it be expanded to family members, animals or multiple people?
As Joke noted, the acceptance of same sex marriage in Thailand paved the treacherous path for their three-way union. “Now Thai society has a better understanding of sexual orientation as many same sex weddings appear on TV, newspapers and social media, we feel more accepted and able to come out,” he said.
With three-way marriages today in Thailand and Massachusetts, who knows what surprises will be coming to a community near you.
In a recent interview, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said that to fight terrorism, “we need to go after the root causes that lead people to join these groups, whether it’s a lack of opportunity for jobs….”
In other words, we can fight terrorism with a jobs program, sort of a stimulus program for the jihadists. If we only have enough shovel ready jobs for the jihadists, there will be no terrorism. How amazing naïve and how terrifyingly stupid, but this is the mentality that is prevalent throughout the Obama administration.
The history of Islamic terrorism is replete with examples of very rich Muslims, such as Osama Bin Laden, who join the jihad and kill for one basic reason and it is not the lack of a job. They kill the “infidels” because of their commitment to their Islamic faith, their interpretation of Islamic doctrine and their desire to serve Allah. It is why so many Islamic terrorists shout “Allahu Akbar” when they kill innocent people.
Harf either does not understand the threat we face or is purposely ignoring the threat, but, either way, it is troubling. Her “jobs” theory took another hit this week with the revelation of the identity of “Jihadi John,” the masked man seen in Islamic State videos beheading innocent hostages. According to multiple media and governmental sources, the masked man is Mohammed Emwazi, a 26 year old Kuwaiti, who moved to London with his family at an early age.
In London, he attended fine schools, was raised in an upper middle class neighborhood and received a degree in computer programming from the University of Westminster in 2009. In fact, he found employment as a computer programmer, but that job did not stop him from becoming radicalized.
According to Shiraz Maher of the King’s College radicalization center, Emwazi may well have traveled to Syria in 2012, later joining the Islamic State. In Maher’s view, Emwazi’s route to terrorism was not caused by the lack of economic opportunities. He said Emwazi’s case is similar to other jihadists, who are “by and large upwardly mobile people, well educated.” The disclosures about Emwazi and the vast majority of Islamic terrorists should debunk the theory held by Harf and others in the Obama administration “that these guys are all impoverished, that they’re coming from deprived backgrounds.”
Emwazi joined the Islamic State to commit terrorist acts and kill “infidels.” He was not looking for a job; he was looking for a religious crusade. He was motivated by religious fervor, not financial considerations.
Back in 2010, the British government recognized that Emwazi was becoming radicalized and prevented him from traveling to Tanzania. Reports indicate that the government was concerned that Emwazi was going to join the Islamic terror group Al-Shabaab.
Incredibly, some pro-Muslim activists criticized how the British government dealt with “Jihadi John” and blame his terrorist activity on supposed “mistreatment.” In reality, he was only targeted for surveillance due to his radical associations. If the government could have stopped him from traveling to Syria in 2012, possibly he would have been unable to join the Islamic State.
At the current time, “Jihadi John” is not using his computer programming degree; he is engaged in 7th century barbarism, beheading innocent hostages who have the misfortune of being captured by the Islamic State.
Unfortunately, at a time of great crisis, the country is being led by an administration that does not want to recognize this reality and refuses to admit the threat emanating from Islamic terrorism or even call it by its name. They prefer the title of “extremism,” a meaningless term for an administration engaged in a meaningless response to Islamic terrorism.
In a country of 330 million Americans, only 11, 000 people in the key 25-54 year old demographic were watching the afternoon programming on the disaster known as MSNBC in the last rating period. These horrific ratings were the lowest registered by the network in a decade. It was not much better at the other time periods for the early January ratings for the broadcast day on MSNBC averaged only 55,000 viewers.
Compared to last year, total viewership on MSNBC is down 20 percent in the daytime and 23 percent in prime time. The yearly declines are even greater in the key 25-54 year old demographic, the one coveted by advertisers.
While the MSNBC audience is tanking, the viewership on Fox News is strong. In the afternoon, 20X more people are watching Fox News than MSNBC. This means that Fox is the unquestioned cable news giant.
It is so bad for MSNBC that even the controversial start-up network Al-Jazeera had twice as many afternoon viewers. When a network is bested by a competitor known for providing sympathetic coverage to radical Islamists it is time for a programming change.
With plummeting ratings, it was no surprise that MSNBC announced this week the cancellation of two afternoon programs. The shows airing from 1-3 pm Eastern, “Ronan Farrow Daily” and “The Reid Report,” will be cancelled at the end of the month. The changes are part of MSNBC President Phil Griffin’s plan to move toward a “more news focused line-up.” However, such promises ring hollow as the network features a prime time line-up composed exclusively of liberals.
If Griffin wants to grow his audience he should try more balanced programming. The two cancelled programs were hosted by hard core liberals Ronan Farrow and Joy Ann Reid. They will be replaced by Thomas Roberts who will host a two hour program. Unfortunately, Roberts is another liberal who had previously failed in an earlier attempt to host a show.
Currently, MSNBC is officially irrelevant with ratings so low that local community access programs undoubtedly have better audience numbers. Clearly, viewers are shunning the inexperienced and liberal hosts offered by the network. For example, Ronan Farrow was a youngster hired due to his celebrity status. His mother is Mia Farrow, an actress, and his biological father is reportedly Frank Sinatra. Sadly for Farrow his blue eyes were not enough to keep his program on the air.
Farrow had no business hosting any serious show, but MSNBC is the same network that has given programs to the likes of Andrea Mitchell, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, and Rev. Al Sharpton. In America today, few people want to watch leftists apologize for an unpopular President. It should be no surprise that MSNBC is suffering the same fate as Air America, the doomed liberal talk radio network.
Viewers who want liberal programming have options. They can watch CNN, which is not so obvious, or watch a variety of left wing commentators on Fox or tune in to evening news programs on the broadcast networks. News bulletin: Brian Williams and his evening news colleagues are card carrying liberals.
The demise of MSNBC proves again that America is not a liberal nation. The country is not clamoring for liberal anchors pontificating for more government programs, higher taxes, and climate change legislation. Americans want fair and balanced journalism, which is provided by Fox News, and why they are the cable news leader.
To be relevant again, MSNBC should cancel its entire programming schedule. The network should start fresh with a clean slate of hosts. Such a move is not a gamble for anyone who can read a teleprompter can do a better job than Rev. Al Sharpton.
Clearly, the hottest Republican in the country today is Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. After a well received speech to Congressman Steve King’s Freedom Summit, Walker has earned media attention and skyrocketed in the polls. Currently, he is in second place in New Hampshire and is leading in Iowa, while he is gaining ground on Florida Governor Jeb Bush nationally.
With the rise of Walker come the very predictable attacks from the liberal media. This week, the Washington Post decided to investigate Walker’s college years at Marquette University. The supposed scandal is that Walker did not graduate from college and left his senior year to take a job with the Red Cross. He eventually married and started winning elections and was not able to return to complete his courses and earn his degree. However, this is no scandal for it places Walker in line with the 69% of Americans who do not have a four year college degree. If elected, Walker would follow in the footsteps of Harry Truman, who also did not have a college degree, but was a successful President.
Clearly, it is much more important for a President to have Walker’s conservative values, strong work ethic, and common sense than advanced academic degrees. The nation has been suffering through six years of Barack Obama, who has an undergraduate degree from Columbia University and a law degree from Harvard University.
Obama is a well educated man, who has been a disaster as President. Unfortunately, Obama, has precious little private sector experience, but was a “community organizer” who was influenced by an array of radicals such as Rev. Jeremiah Wright and communist Frank Marshall Davis. In contrast, the role model for the supposedly under-educated Scott Walker was Ronald Reagan, one of the most influential Presidents in our nation’s history.
It is no surprise why liberals view Scott Walker with extreme trepidation. He has succeeded in a Democratic state and won three statewide elections in the last few years. He defeated the unions, survived a recall election and espouses strong conservative views. If selected as the GOP nominee, Walker would have a real chance of expanding the Republican coalition and attracting blue collar voters. These are voters known as “Reagan Democrats” who do not identify with traditional establishment GOP nominees like Mitt Romney. These voters can connect with Scott Walker who was not born to wealth, but became successful through hard work, perseverance as well as an adherence to traditional conservative values.
Because of his potential appeal, Walker should expect continuing attacks from the liberals in the Democratic Party and the media who will disparage his educational background. For example, on MSNBC, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean claimed “the issue is how well educated is this guy? And, that’s a problem.” Of course, it is only a problem for liberals trying to sabotage Walker’s presidential campaign.
To show how biased the media is on the issue, just look at their complete disinterest in the academic career of Barack Obama. Americans have never been able to view Obama’s college transcripts, so who knows whether did well or not.
In fact, his college years are full of mystery. Did he apply as a foreign student? Was he admitted due to affirmative action? Did he actually attend class? His former classmate at Columbia University, Wayne Allyn Root, claims that he never met Obama, even though they both studied political science. He also notes that he knows of no one at Columbia who ever attended classes with Obama or saw him on campus.
Obama could be the true Manchurian candidate, but the liberal media does not have time to investigate for they are too busy hounding Scott Walker.
The sports media has been in a tizzy covering the scandal known as “deflate gate.” After it was discovered that 11 of the 12 footballs used by the New England Patriots in their playoff game against the Colts were deflated, the media speculation has been intense about whether the Patriots altered the footballs to gain an advantage. It is amazing that with our immense problems, the media is fixated on such a trivial issue. Instead, a related topic is more important, why do Republican Party leaders suffer from deflated balls, politically speaking? The GOP won a landslide mid-term election, but they have been acting ever since like they lost to the Democrats.
Right after the election, Republican leaders in Congress passed the 1774 page “cromnibus” bill which cost $1.1 trillion and funded the President’s executive amnesty for 5 million illegal aliens and the unpopular Obamacare legislation. This was in direct opposition to the wishes of voters who gave Republicans control of both houses of Congress. The anger was so intense that conservatives swamped congressional offices with demands that John Boehner be replaced as Speaker of the House. Again, due to a lack of courage, only 25 House Republicans voted against Boehner. It seems GOP congressmen do not have the appetite for real change either within their party or throughout the nation.
While the President has been aggressively building his liberal legacy and acting like he won the November election, the real winners have been acting like losers and capitulating to Obama.
After the Boehner revolt, the House finally passed a bill to prevent the Department of Homeland Security from funding executive amnesty, but the bill is now headed to the Senate where it faces an “uncertain” future. Senate leaders say they will “try” to pass the bill but no conservative should ever trust Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. In the official response to the President’s State of the Union address, U.S. Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA) did not mention executive amnesty, even though the majority of Americans strongly disapprove.
Lack of Republican courage as was also evident in a border security bill that Republican House leaders were advocating. Fortunately, a revolt by conservatives postponed a vote on the inadequate measure. The initial bill did not contain enough border security measures to please the newly formed House Freedom Caucus, composed of nine courageous conservatives.
According to U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), the bill is flawed for a variety of reasons including the fact that it “…it does not cut-off access to federal welfare; and it does not require completion of the border fence.” While congrats are due to the conservatives who killed the bill, the episode highlighted how GOP leadership is more comfortable tinkering with a problem than solving it. They want to pursue half measures instead of forceful action.
While Americans overwhelmingly support enhanced border security with more border patrol agents and additional fencing, GOP leaders lack the “cojones” to pass a tough bill. They are afraid of criticism from the media, Hispanic groups and Democratic colleagues. They are scared of being called racists, so, as a result, they are unwilling to pass meaningful legislation.
In the meantime, the 2016 presidential race is starting and conservative Republicans are desperately looking for a nominee who is courageous and will not be intimidated by the media or special interest groups. They want a nominee who is unafraid of criticism and a confident conservative who will move this country in the right direction. Such leaders are in short supply and they stand in stunning contrast to what has been displayed by the GOP’s dynamic duo of deflation: John Boehner and Mitch McConnell.
With 21 months until the 2016 presidential race, the GOP field of candidates is large and impressive. Approximately two dozen prominent Republicans have expressed an interest in running for President. Most of the candidates are strong conservatives with solid credentials. Unfortunately, the field also includes two well known moderates, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who both have the ability to raise large sums of money and become a major factor in the upcoming election.
The most serious establishment candidate is former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, who is the odds on favorite to secure the presidential nomination. Bush is actually leading in the polls with the most name recognition. With a brother and father who served as President, Jeb Bush will be difficult to beat.
In recent weeks, he has been aggressively working to lock up big donors and key activists. His campaign organization has been growing so steadily that it forced former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney to exit the race. In early January, Romney announced to a small gathering of donors that he was interested in running for President a third time. However, when he started trying to build a campaign network across the country, Romney realized that Jeb Bush has already signed up many of the top GOP contributors and consultants. Romney soon came to the realization that he could not raise enough money to seriously challenge Bush for the nomination. Thus, three weeks after floating a trial balloon expressing interest, Romney officially decided not to run for President.
Bush is a good man from a good family, but he is wrong on an array of issues such as taxes, immigration and common core. He made the ludicrous comment that Romney lost in 2012 because he ran too far to the right. The country does not want or need another person with the last name of Bush as President. Even Barbara Bush admitted as much in an interview last year. Unfortunately, too many big Bush donors do not realize this fact, showing how seriously out of touch they are with real Americans.
For those moderates who are not enamored with Bush, they have a viable alternative: New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who is currently in Europe trying to burnish his foreign policy credentials. Christie met with Romney last week, as the former Massachusetts Governor left the race. Christie is considered a moderate on social issues, such as gay marriage. He is soft on immigration and has supported the Dream Act. In addition, Christie is a strong supporter of strict gun laws, which may be popular in New Jersey, but is likely to be very unpopular in the South. Sadly, like Bush, Christie is just wrong on too many issues.
The moderate wing of the Republican Party, otherwise known as the establishment, has controlled the GOP nomination process since the Reagan years. This wing of the party is usually at odds with the more conservative or grassroots wing of the party, which is often associated with the Tea Party movement. Most moderates view the Tea Party activists with disdain and will work tirelessly to prevent a conservative from achieving the nomination in 2016.
The problem with this scenario is that the moderates are very successful at winning the Republican Party nomination, but horrible at winning the presidential election. As evidence, we can view the failed presidential campaigns of George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney. The last true conservative, who won the Republican nomination, Ronald Reagan, won a 49 state electoral landslide.
If the Republican Party wants to win the White House again, a conservative needs to be nominated for President. This should be a foregone conclusion, but it is a subject of much debate within the GOP. The establishment wing of the party believes that only candidates like Bush and Christie can reach the Independent voters who are in play for every presidential election. In contrast, only a conservative nominee can reach the blue collar Reagan Democrats who are not typically Republican voters and unite the various groups within the party such as libertarians and evangelicals. Only a conservative presidential nominee will be able to draw a sharp distinction with a liberal Democrat candidate, such as Hillary Clinton, on the critical fiscal, social and foreign policy issues that will be addressed in the campaign.
In 2016, it will take a strong conservative to win the White House for the GOP and defeat the Democrats. By the next election, our country will have suffered through eight years of a dangerously liberal President. It will be essential for a true conservative to become our next President and rebuild our economy and bolster our national security.
Conservatism works as a framework for both governing and winning elections. Hopefully, a majority of Republican Party voters will come to this realization in time to save their party and, more importantly, save their country.
After six difficult years under Barack Obama, the country is ready for a change in the White House. The President has delivered a continual dose of no compromise liberalism that has divided the races and polarized the political climate.
This has led the presidential campaign to start earlier than ever. Among Republicans there are at least a dozen serious hopefuls who may vie for the nomination. It is a perfect opportunity for the Republican Party to take back the White House and implement conservative policies that will undue the disastrous Obama agenda.
The first step, however, is to win the presidency in 2016 and that is no easy task. Despite his limited experience and very liberal philosophy, Barack Obama was elected President in 2008. He retained the office four years later even though his signature legislation, the Affordable Care Act, was incredibly unpopular.
One of the major reasons for his success was his unimpressive opposition. The Republican presidential nominees, U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) in 2008 and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney in 2012, were uninspiring moderates who were unwilling to aggressively defend the party’s platform and attack the Democrats on the issues.
These defeats continued the losing streak for the moderate, establishment, wing of the Republican Party. History shows that the moderate GOP presidential nominees lose in the general election to the Democrats as it occurred in the presidential races of 1976, 1992, 1996, 2008 and 2012.
With this horrific track record, it would seem that party honchos would be desperate to find a good conservative to win the presidential nomination in 2016. On the contrary, GOP party bosses are moving Heaven and earth to help the upcoming presidential candidacies of the three major moderate candidates: former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and Romney. This is an embarrassment of riches for party’s elites who usually have only one presidential candidate to support in a particular election year.
Last week, Bush indicated his interest in running by releasing thousands of emails, resigning from boards and launching an exploratory committee. This week, Mitt Romney tried to forestall a defection of major donors to Bush by telling donors he is running for the White House a third time. This will be Mitt 3.0, but, unfortunately, this candidate edition will be just as unimpressive as the two previous editions. Finally, Christie is back in New Jersey giving his “State of the State” speech after touring the country raising money and following the Dallas Cowboys football team.
As history shows, none of these moderate candidates can win the presidency. If, sadly, any of them receive the nomination in 2016, they will lose to presumptive Democratic Party presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
The reasons for this predictable result are simple. A moderate presidential candidate will not excite the conservative base of Republican voters who are the party’s backbone. These activists are the chronic voters, who number in the millions. They run the organizations and volunteer their time on behalf of the candidates.
The conservatives are tired of being overlooked and ignored by the establishment wing of the Republican Party. The grassroots cannot match the money of the establishment, but they certainly have more passion and energy and are a needed component for any GOP presidential candidate to win the White House.
It worked for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984. He won 44 states in the first election and 49 states in his re-election, in other words, massive landslides. According to so-called political experts he was too conservative, a wild eyed cowboy who was too threatening to the American people.
Instead of losing, he trounced his liberal opponents by offering a clear contrast to the Democratic Party. He stood on conservative principles and did not waver. This type of statesmanship appealed to not only Republicans, but also Independents and “Reagan Democrats,” who were tired of the failed liberal policies of their party.
In this election, there is a great opportunity for the Republican Party. Voters are ready to seriously consider an alternative to the failed policies of Obama. However, if the GOP offers only the “pale pastels” of another moderate loser and not the “bold colors” of a conservative, the party will surely lose again.
If Bush, Christie or Romney wins the nomination, millions of conservatives will stay away from the polls or vote third party. The days of holding one’s nose and voting for the Republican candidate as the “lesser of two evils.” are over.
It is time for a conservative victory in 2016, which requires a principled Republican Party presidential nominee. However, if one of the three amigos, devoid of conservative values, wins the presidential nomination, the result will be another loss to the Democrats and the eventual dissolution of the Grand Old Party.