Categories
Archives
HELP US KEEP YOU BETTER INFORMED ABOUT THE TRICKS OF THE RADICAL PROGRESSIVE REVOLUTION PLEASE DONATE ANY AMOUNT YOU CAN
target="_top">

Archive for the ‘Donald Trump’ Category

TRUMP’S MESSAGE OF HOPE, GROWTH AND GLORY

A plan to bring America back from Obama-Clinton stagnation.

trump_1470696270262_4833273_ver1.0
Republican nominee Donald Trump delivered a message of hope to Americans on the campaign trail yesterday in a major economic policy speech that ought to finally make Hillary Clinton’s campaign management team break out in a cold sweat.

Trump is no Ronald Reagan but some of the Gipper’s legendary optimism oozed out of the candidate as he provided details of his “America First” platform that consists so far of ambitious plans for tax reform, regulatory reform, trade policy enforcement and reform, and energy reform. He urged Americans to turn away from the epic continual failures and rampant in-your-face corruption of the Obama era and embrace new leadership. (A transcript of the speech is available here.)

We can’t fix a rigged system by relying on the people who rigged it in the first place. We can’t solve our problems by relying on the politicians who created them. Only by changing to new leadership, and new solutions, will we get new results. We need to stop believing in politicians, and start believing in America. Before everything great that has ever happened, the doubters have always said it couldn’t be done.

America is ready to prove the doubters wrong.

They want you to think small. I am asking you to think big. We are ready to dream great things for our country once again. We are ready to show the world that America is back – bigger, and better and stronger than ever before.

It was no mistake that Trump made the speech in Detroit, once a fabulously wealthy glittering jewel of a city that was incrementally destroyed by decades of one-party Democrat rule and the suicidal left-wing economic policies and social engineering schemes that sprang out of that. Detroit is one of those rare large American cities whose footprint is receding as large swaths of land return to the wild, whether naturally or with help from demolition experts. It is now part ghost town. Where there used to be families and schools there are now feral cats, packs of wild dogs, and large trees breaking through the floorboards and roofs of dilapidated housing. Call 9-1-1 in the inner city and it will take an ambulance an hour or more to arrive if it arrives at all.

Ask a twenty-something or a thirty-something about Detroit nowadays and they’ll recall the Robocop movie franchise or call the place “murder city.” They might know about Devil’s Night, the night before Halloween when nihilistic arsonists would set hundreds of fires in the city — 800 on Devil’s Night in 1984 — contributing to and reinforcing Detroit residents’ feelings of hopelessness. Some desperate homeowners unable to sell their property would use Devil’s Night as a cover to burn their own homes, blame criminals, and collect insurance proceeds.

But the Motor City is also a place of hope. It was in Detroit where Ronald Reagan finally captured the Republican presidential nomination in 1980 after several tries. Reagan’s policies ended the stagflation and malaise of the Jimmy Carter years and unleashed more than two decades of unprecedented economic growth. President Reagan also waged economic warfare against the Soviet Union forcing the eventual collapse of what he dubbed “the evil empire,” a totalitarian behemoth that Democrats like Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Tom Harkin and socialists like Bernie Sanders worked hard to support.

Trump detailed what the Democrats did to Detroit over 60 years.

Detroit is “controlled by Democratic politicians at every level, and unless we change policies, we will not change results.”

Detroit is number one among U.S. cities in terms of violent crime and it has a per capita income under $15,000, roughly half the national average, he said. About 40 percent of Detroit residents live in poverty, which is more than 2.5 times the national average, and the unemployment rate is more than double the national average. Half of all Detroit residents do not work at all, he said.

Detroit is “the living, breathing example of my opponent’s failed economic agenda,” he said. “Every policy that has failed this city, and so many others, is a policy supported by Hillary Clinton.”

Clinton supports “the high taxes and radical regulation that forced jobs out of your community,” the soft-on-crime policies “that have made you less safe,” the open-borders immigration policies that strain local budgets, flawed trade deals that export jobs, and “education policies that deny your students, choice, freedom, and opportunity.”

Class-warrior Clinton wants “another massive job-killing $1.3 trillion-dollar tax increase” and let it slip that she plans to hike taxes on the middle class, he said.

Trump said he wants “the biggest tax revolution since the Reagan tax reform, which unleashed years of continued economic growth and job creation.” He called for “an across-the-board income tax reduction, especially for middle-income Americans,” that will create millions of new good-paying jobs. “The rich will pay their fair share,” he said, “but no one will pay so much that it destroys jobs, or undermines our ability to compete.”

The Carried Interest Deduction and “other special interest loopholes that have been so good for Wall Street investors, and people like me, but unfair to American workers” will be eliminated,” he vowed.

Taxes will be simplified, he said.

Our current tax code is so burdensome and complex that we waste 9 billion hours a year in tax code compliance. My plan will reduce the current number of brackets from 7 to 3, and dramatically streamline the process. We will work with House Republicans on this plan, using the same brackets they have proposed: 12, 25 and 33 percent. For many American workers, their tax rate will be zero.

Trump vowed to allow businesses “to immediately expense new business investments” and said he would slash “the highest business tax rate among the major industrialized nations of the world, at 35 percent,” which he added was “almost 40 percent when you add in taxes at the state level.” The current policies punish businesses for making products in the U.S. and give them an incentive to ship products into the U.S. tax-free if they move overseas.

“This is backwards,” he said. “All of our policies should be geared towards keeping jobs and wealth inside the United States.”

He vowed that no U.S. company will pay more than 15 percent of their business income in taxes. Clinton, by contrast, would as much as triple taxes paid by small businesses, he said.

“I will also immediately cancel all illegal and overreaching executive orders,” Trump said. “Next, I will ask each and every federal agency to prepare a list of all of the regulations they impose on Americans which are not necessary, do not improve public safety, and which needlessly kill jobs. Those regulations will be eliminated.”

Trump pledged to reduce the cost of childcare by allowing parents “to fully deduct the average cost of childcare spending from their taxes.” He said he would “bring back trillions of dollars from American businesses that is now parked overseas,” taxing it lightly at the rate of 10 percent. He promised to drive a stake through the heart of the hated death tax. “American workers have paid taxes their whole lives, and they should not be taxed again at death – it’s just plain wrong. We will repeal it.”

The well-received aggressively pro-growth speech comes after a series of public statements by Trump that the media tried through saturation coverage to transform into world-historic mistakes on the same level as Napoleon’s ill-fated decision to invade Russia in wintertime.

Despite the oceans of bad press, there is a good chance that the creepy Islamist immigration lawyer Khizr Khan and the ejected crying baby hoax will not doom Trump’s campaign if he can manage to stay on-message long enough for people to see the real Hillary Clinton: venal, vicious, corrupt, pathologically dishonest, and in such precarious health — including apparently permanent brain damage, convulsions, coughing fits, blinding headaches, and difficulty climbing stairs that there is good reason to believe she could not withstand the rigors of the presidency.

Nonetheless for the time being Clinton continues to lead Trump. At time of writing the Real Clear Politics average of presidential polls puts Clinton ahead of Trump by about the same margin whether pollsters assume it is a 2-way, 3-way, or 4-way race. Versus Trump alone she’s up 7.2 percentage points. Add Libertarian Gary Johnson and her lead over Trump rises slightly to 7.3 points. Add Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein and Clinton is still 7.4 points ahead of Trump.

The speech was “a game changer,” Trump adviser Stephen Moore told Larry O’Connor yesterday on WMAL talk radio in the nation’s capital. Moore praised Trump for proposing “the biggest tax cuts since Ronald Reagan” and for promising to reinvigorate the coal industry, a move that would create jobs.

“Wow, this is a race again,” said the Heritage Foundation scholar.

America First!

I was raised by people who believed in “My country right or wrong.”  I was taught that America never started a war and never lost a war.  Reading Burry My Heart at Wounded Knee and an honest appraisal of the War of 1812 disabused me of those two notions.  While the jingoist attitude of blind acceptance and unreflective loyalty and unquestioning support for a sacred homeland are not descriptive of my life I am devoted to the enlightenment ideas enshrined in the Constitution.

I am a vocal proponent of the nation founded on the proposition that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.  I am a proud supporter of the federal republic founded in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

I am an avowed non-interventionist capitalist who believes passionately in individual liberty, personal freedom, and economic opportunity.  I was a Republican all my life, working my first campaign ringing door bells for Nixon in 1960, supporting Goldwater, Reagan for Governor and then for president in 1976, 1980, and 84.

George H.W. Bush with his compassionate conservatism and new world order turned me off.  Bob “It’s my Turn” Dole discouraged me and after the Contract with America Congress veered off the rails and started pushing bigger government and crony capitalism I quit the party and became an independent.  George the Second pushed me over the edge.  I could no longer consider myself a Conservative because there was nothing left to conserve, so I began to style myself as a radical who believes in a return to limited government, individual liberty, personal freedom, and economic opportunity.

The Clinton interlude between the Bush bookends and the Obamanation I have viewed as akin to the Vichy regime in France during WW II.  They were and are mere figureheads for the multinational corporations and international organizations to which they surrendered our independence doing their best to institutionalize the Corporate State.

I have long believed and advocated for the following policies.

Moratoriums on all immigration until those who are already here are assimilated.   Initiate policies which will induce those who are here illegally to self-deport.  These policies would include a cut off of public assistance and an E-verify law with teeth meaning significant fines for people who employ illegals and incarceration for those who have multiple offenses.   In foreign policy, resigning as the policeman of the world by ending our far-flung system of bases in more than a hundred countries, leaving Europe and Korea to defend themselves, bringing our troops home, securing the border and our defenses with the strongest military in the world and stop intervening in places that are not in our national interest.

Yes, I know that these proposals will be called racist, xenophobic and anti-American by the open borders clique; however, to quote Ronaldus Magnus, “A nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation.”  They will also be opposed by the neo-con hawks as isolationist.  I stand with Ron Paul when he says, “The Founders and all the early presidents argued the case for non-intervention overseas, with the precise goals of avoiding entangling alliances and not involving our people in foreign wars unrelated to our security.”

Yes, I know tariffs will make prices rise for many goods.  However, I also know that we need to rebuild our industrial base if we are to remain an independent nation capable of providing jobs for our people that support a middleclass lifestyle and a nation that can provide for its own defense.

Yes, I know that a non-interventionist resignation from being the policeman of the world is portrayed as a retreat and as abdicating our leadership of the world.  I call it jettisoning the empire to save the republic.

These positions have been heretical within the globalist interventionist neo-con Republican Party of Bush, McCain, Krauthammer, and the National Review.  However, today is a new day and perhaps there is a chance to right the Ship of State and resurrect the greatest experiment in human freedom in History before we plunge into the dustbin of History as another centralized collectivist utopia that will inevitably end up a dystopian nightmare.

Now we face a choice of historic proportions.  Do we want Hillary “The Nail in Our Coffin” Clinton to complete the transfer of American sovereignty to international globalist cabals such as the WTO and the UN?  Or are we willing to vote for the first candidate since Reagan with the courage to even say, “America First”?

I am still an independent.  I will not rejoin the Republican Party unless and until it has been purged of its globalist leadership.  However, I have waited my entire life to hear a politician say what The Donald said in his speech of June 28, 2016 “Declaring America’s Economic Independence.”  In this speech he outlines a program I can endorse 100%.

Mr. Trump said in that speech,

This wave of globalization has wiped out our middle class.

It doesn’t have to be this way. We can turn it all around – and we can turn it around fast.

But if we’re going to deliver real change, we’re going to have to reject the campaign of fear and intimidation being pushed by powerful corporations, media elites, and political dynasties.

The people who rigged the system for their benefit will do anything – and say anything – to keep things exactly as they are.

The people who rigged the system are supporting Hillary Clinton because they know as long as she is in charge nothing will ever change.

The inner cities will remain poor.

The factories will remain closed.

The borders will remain open.

The special interests will remain firmly in control.

Hillary Clinton and her friends in global finance want to scare America into thinking small – and they want to scare the American people out of voting for a better future.

My campaign has the opposite message.

I want you to imagine how much better your life can be if we start believing in America again.

I want you to imagine how much better our future can be if we declare independence from the elites who’ve led us to one financial and foreign policy disaster one after another.

This is the message I have been waiting for all my life.  This message is clear and direct.  Trump often speaks off the top of his head.  He speaks his mind and often says things which offend the politically correct media and by extension those who slavishly believe and follow the Progressive’s multi-mouthed Pravda.  However this speech was scripted.  He used a teleprompter to deliver it and its text has been released as an official campaign document.

I know that in the divided America of the 21st century many who have followed the History of the Future for years will be angry with what I have to say next. Some may be surprised and some may be disappointed.  However I have to do what I believe is the best for my country.  Therefore, I have decided to endorse and support Donald Trump.  Some may say you can’t believe what he says.  A man I greatly respect says, “All politicians lie.  The good ones do it convincingly.”  That may be true.

Just as Eve did not sin because she believed the serpent and just as if you donate to a charity that you honestly believe will do good and they waste the money that is not your responsibility that is on them.  I believe Donald Trump.  I believe he honestly wants to make America great again, and I am 100% for that.

While I encourage everyone to read the entire speech or listen to it on YouTube and it is too long to include verbatim in this article I want to end by sharing his trade program for rebuilding America.

A Trump Administration will change our failed trade policy – quickly

Here are 7 steps I would pursue right away to bring back our jobs.

One: I am going to withdraw the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which has not yet been ratified.

Two: I’m going to appoint the toughest and smartest trade negotiators to fight on behalf of American workers.

Three: I’m going to direct the Secretary of Commerce to identify every violation of trade agreements a foreign country is currently using to harm our workers. I will then direct all appropriate agencies to use every tool under American and international law to end these abuses.

Four: I’m going tell our NAFTA partners that I intend to immediately renegotiate the terms of that agreement to get a better deal for our workers. And I don’t mean just a little bit better, I mean a lot better. If they do not agree to a renegotiation, then I will submit notice under Article 2205 of the NAFTA agreement that America intends to withdraw from the deal.

Five: I am going to instruct my Treasury Secretary to label China a currency manipulator. Any country that devalues their currency in order to take advantage of the United States will be met with sharply

Six: I am going to instruct the U.S. Trade Representative to bring trade cases against China, both in this country and at the WTO. China’s unfair subsidy behavior is prohibited by the terms of its entrance to the WTO, and I intend to enforce those rules.

Seven: If China does not stop its illegal activities, including its theft of American trade secrets, I will use every lawful presidential power to remedy trade disputes, including the application of tariffs consistent with Section 201 and 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.

President Reagan deployed similar trade measures when motorcycle and semiconductor imports threatened U.S. industry. His tariff on Japanese motorcycles was 45% and his tariff to shield America’s semiconductor industry was 100%.

Hillary Clinton, and her campaign of fear, will try to spread the lie that these actions will start a trade war. She has it completely backwards.

Hillary Clinton unleashed a trade war against the American worker when she supported one terrible trade deal after another – from NAFTA to China to South Korea.

A Trump Administration will end that war by getting a fair deal for the American people.

The era of economic surrender will finally be over.

A new era of prosperity will finally begin.

America will be independent once more.

Under a Trump Presidency, the American worker will finally have a President who will protect them and fight for them.

We will stand up to trade cheating anywhere and everywhere it threatens an American job.

We will make America the best place in the world to start a business, hire workers, and open a factory.

This includes massive tax reform to lift the crushing burdens on American workers and businesses.

We will also get rid of wasteful rules and regulations which are destroying our job creation capacity.

Many people think that these regulations are an even greater impediment than the fact that we are one of the highest taxed nations in the world.

We are also going to fully capture America’s tremendous energy capacity. This will create vast profits for our workers and begin reducing our deficit. Hillary Clinton wants to shut down energy production and shut down the mines.

A Trump Administration will also ensure that we start using American steel for American infrastructure.

Just like the American steel from Pennsylvania that built the Empire State building.

It will be American steel that will fortify American’s crumbling bridges.

It will be American steel that sends our skyscrapers soaring into the sky.

It will be American steel that rebuilds our inner cities.

It will be American hands that remake this country, and it will be American energy – mined from American resources – that powers this country.

It will be American workers who are hired to do the job.

We are going to put American-produced steel back into the backbone of our country. This alone will create massive numbers of jobs.

On trade, on immigration, on foreign policy, we are going to put America First again.

We are going to make America wealthy again.

We are going to reject Hillary Clinton’s politics of fear, futility, and incompetence.

We are going to embrace the possibilities of change.

It is time to believe in the future.

It is time to believe in each other.

It is time to Believe In America.

This Is How We Are Going To Make America Great Again – For All Americans.

We Are Going To Make America Great Again For Everyone – Greater Than Ever Before.

I don’t know about anyone else but that is a program I can believe in and one that I believe will lead to a rebirth of the American economy.

Hopefully I won’t end up living out the words spoken by a character in a book I wrote many years ago who when asked why he supported a disreputable candidate running for president who was a plain-speaking non-politician and the richest man in the world said, “I know he’s a liar but I like what he says.”

So far I like what he says.

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion.  He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2016 Contact Dr. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com  Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens

 

 

Founder of Home Depot Strongly Supports Trump

gmarcus
Bernie Marcus, the co-founder of The Home Depot, wanted Jeb Bush to be the Republican nominee. But even though Bush himself may not be able to support the eventual winner of the primaries, Marcus himself believes it’s time for all conservatives to get behind Donald Trump.

“The fate of the nation depends upon sending him, and not Hillary Clinton, to the White House,” Marcus said in a Tuesday editorial. “I stand ready to help him at every turn.”

To Marcus, the choice is easy. Unlike many prominent conservatives, he doesn’t feel obligated to hedge his Trump endorsement with a list of grievances he’s choosing to overlook. Surely, for someone who voted for Bush, those grievances are there. But Marcus isn’t so insecure about his reputation that he needs to sugarcoat his message.

Why does Marcus find it so easy to support Trump? Because unlike many elitist and ideologically dogmatic Republicans, he recognizes the real sickness ailing the country.

“I have never seen our government as hostile to free enterprise, especially small business, as it is today,” Marcus writes. “It is driving over-regulation, over-taxation, over-litigation, and over-spending. These ‘overs’ are killing small businesses, which create the majority of new jobs in America.”

Marcus believes that his empire’s humble beginnings would have been impossible in today’s economic climate, destroyed by decades of left-wing policy. “I genuinely believe that if we started The Home Depot today, we would fail because of the hurdles government, especially the current administration, places in front of small business owners.”

Perhaps, given the chance to go back and personally select the Republican nominee, Marcus would still choose Jeb(!). Even if that’s true, he deserves all the credit in the world for recognizing the difference between fantasy and reality. It’s sad that we’ve lowered the political bar to the point where this can be considered a triumph, but what can you say? People like Bill Kristol still seem to think they can “Stop Trump.” What can you call that other than delusion?

Better still, he recognizes that the fate of this country depends less on the “presidential manner” of our candidates and more on their policies. As unusual and sometimes shocking as this election season has been, November will once again be a choice between liberalism and conservatism. Sometimes that distinction is stark, sometimes it’s subtle, but it’s always there. Do we want more Obama-esque leadership or do we want a new direction?

Easy choice.

THE FALSE COMPARISON OF TRUMP TO HILLARY

Unveiling the false equivalence.

th

Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center

A lot of Republicans still upset over Donald Trump winning the nomination resort to a false equivalence between Trump and Clinton in order to justify sitting the election out or even voting for Hillary.

Take a recent example by the National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru. First he lists Hillary’s manifold sins that Trump is innocent of: lying to the parents of the Benghazi victims, promising to nominate hard-left jurists to the Supreme Court, and supporting Obamas’ high-tax economics and unconstitutional amnesty of illegal aliens.

Then Ponnuru offers a catalogue of Trump’s sins Hillary hasn’t committed: mocking a reporter’s disability, indulging a preposterous conspiracy theory about Ted Cruz’s father and Lee Harvey Oswald, threatening a trade war with China, or threatening war crimes against the families of terrorists. Trump’s list presumably balances Hillary’s flaws, in order to make the point that both Trump and Hillary are equally distasteful, thus making the election a Hobson’s choice for principled conservatives.

But this comparison is false and misleading, for Trump and Clinton have had very different careers with different obligations and responsibilities.

Most obviously, Donald Trump is a private citizen who has never held public office. He is a businessman in a world where decorum and class often aren’t as important as sharp elbows and tough negotiating skills, where making a profit is more important than consistency or sparing people’s feelings. His goal is to make money, and his flamboyant life-style is our culture’s sign of his skills and success at doing so. Moreover, his flaws of personality and character, like his rude bluster and outrageous claims, are not, alas, that exceptional or different from those of millions of other private citizens, which may explain his populist appeal. And in his line of work, especially as a reality television star, such braggadocio and insensitivity may be assets. Intellectuals of more delicate sensibilities and refined manners may not like such déclassé qualities or grubby dealings, but most of them don’t live in a hard, risky world of tough negotiations and profit and loss.

Hillary Clinton is in a very different line of work from Trump’s. Her whole life has been spent as what we laughably call a public servant. In other words, she is supposed to be working not for profit or her own status and enrichment, but for the public weal. For progressives, that means striving for “social justice,” income equality, the abolition of prejudice and bigotry, the emancipation of women, the improvement of the middle class, and the salvation of the planet from the merchants of death by carbon. This is what she tells us over and over, and this is her case for why she should be president.

But while Trump’s character flaws have been assets in his profession, Hillary’s arrogant sense of entitlement, relentless money-grubbing, chronic mendacity, and obvious dislike of people other than her minions all undercut her claims to be a public servant, and help explain why she has serially failed at that role.

Of course, some presidents have shared the same flaws as Hillary, but they at least showed some restraint in exploiting their position for private gain, and at least could pretend to be a warm “people person,” as the ghastly phrase goes. Even Richard Nixon appeared on Laugh In. But Hillary has been inept at camouflaging her unseemly ambitions and even pretending to be a caring tribune of the people––in contrast, say, to Elizabeth Warren, who is just as much a hypocritical one-percenter as Hillary, but manages to come across as sincerely passionate. With Trump, however, you know exactly what you’re getting.

Finally, if a businessman like Trump fails, he reaps most of the damage. But if a “public servant” like Hillary fails, the security and interests of every single one of us are damaged, even as she advances her own political and fiscal interests as much as Trump does. Trump’s alleged shenanigans with Trump University are nothing compared to Hillary’s exploitation of her position as Secretary of State to steer money to her foundation, which is to say to herself, her husband, her daughter, her friends and political cronies, no matter the damage to America’s interests. Trump’s inconsistencies and alleged exaggerations about his net worth or charitable contributions are a dog-bites-man story compared to Hillary’s lies about Benghazi and her private email server. Nothing Trump has publicly said or done is as self-servingly despicable as Hillary’s implications that the grieving families of the four dead Americans in Benghazi are not telling the truth about her personal promise to them to “get” the obscure producer of the on-line video supposedly responsible for the attacks, when she knew that claim was untrue.

In short, Trump has been accountable to the bottom line. Hillary has been accountable to the people. Trump has succeeded in his job; Hillary has failed abysmally at hers. Making the two equally unpalatable to the principled voter is making a false equivalence between two different kinds of public life.

Perhaps Trump’s flaws would make him a bad president. But other presidents who had flaws equally distasteful––such as Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, or Bill Clinton––managed to do some good things as president regardless. With Trump there’s at least a chance he could turn out to be a better president than his bluster and insults suggest. Hillary, on the other hand, has a long public record of using her position for personal gain, and putting her ambition ahead of her responsibilities to the country she supposedly serves. Her role as First Lady was marked by bungling health care reform, indulging silly fantasies of a “vast right-wing conspiracy,” and allowing herself––an “I am woman hear me roar” feminist––to be publicly humiliated by her satyr husband while attacking his victims. Her tenure in the Senate lacked any substantive legislative achievements, and her stint as Secretary of State furthered Obama’s destruction of America’s global influence, power, and security from Syria to the South China Sea. It may be possible that she could experience a road-to-the-White House conversion and become a good president, but given everything we know from her 25 years of public “service,” the probability is close to zero.

With Trump, in contrast, we know that at least he won’t be as destructive to our political order as Obama has been. With Hillary the odds are much higher that she will continue Obama’s “fundamental transformation” of our country into an E.U.-like technocratic regime of smug elites whose aim is to erode individual freedom and compromise our country’s sovereignty. Worse yet, if she becomes president, she will most likely nominate two or three Supreme Court justices, creating a court that will gut the and First and Second Amendments and legitimize further the dismantling of the Constitution’s divided powers and limited executive. And don’t put your faith in the Republican Senate that confirmed Loretta Lynch to shoot down every one of Hillary’s picks, even if that means eight years of an eight-member court.

The November election is not a choice between two equally bad candidates. It’s the moment when we reject the candidate who we know, based on her long public record of corruption, lying, and grasping for power and wealth, will take us further down the road to political perdition

Donald Trump isn’t doomed with women. Here’s how he can turn things around.

by Andrea Tantaros

AP_16125065434315_0

Donald Trump has a perceived problem with women.

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee lags 23 points behind Hillary Clinton with women, according to an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll taken in April. It’s become conventional wisdom that the combination of Clinton’s gender and Trump’s spotty record with women will lead to him getting crushed with female voters in November. But that’s not necessarily the case.

First of all, Clinton isn’t as strong with women as she looks. Bernie Sanders beat Clinton by seven points among women in New Hampshire. A full 82 percent of women under 30 supported the male Sanders over the “feminist” former first lady. Last month, a Fox News poll showed Clinton’s support among women had nose-dived by 11 points, while Sanders jumped nine points. A report last week revealed that Clinton’s internal polling on “gender talk” — the kind she uses at every turn — wasn’t working. Believe it or not, Trump has a real opening to make a play for women voters.

How can he do it? Here are four ways.

1. Remember the ’90s.

Trump has already demonstrated that bringing up Bill Clinton’s past infidelity is an effective tactic. And much as Democrats might cry foul, pointing out Hillary’s various reactions to her husband’s dalliances highlights a huge hypocrisy for a woman who prides herself on being strong and independent. When Bill cheated, many women hated Hillary for sticking with him. That hasn’t changed. Trump should remind people.

Many voters over the age of 35 have heard all about these Clinton scandals and allegations before, and brush them aside as old hat. But to millions of millennials, these stories are new.

In the ’90s, the Clintons insisted that Bill’s behavior was a “private matter.” Sex in our society today is anything but. These days, people’s sexual indiscretions are front page news. Our oversharing, voyeuristic culture has made it so. And while the millennial generation may appear to be the most sexually liberated since the ’60s, they aren’t big on sexual misdeeds by powerful men. Nor do they take well to women who allow the bullying of other women, as we saw in the backlash after Madeleine Albright warned that there was a “special place in hell” for female Sanders supporters if they didn’t back Hillary.

2. Reach out to Midwestern suburban women.

Suburban women swing elections. Whether you call them “soccer moms” or “security moms,” this group is critical to a Clinton victory. Some will be swept up in making history by voting to see the first female in the Oval Office. But plenty of others are up for grabs. And guess what? Trump is already making major headway in suburbs that traditionally trend blue, like the ones surrounding Philadelphia, which Obama won handily. Trump is clearly making a play for women concerned about national security and terrorism.

Trump must make safety a cornerstone of his campaign, and hammer home the security angle in Midwestern swing states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Wisconsin. And while he’s at it, he should remind suburban women of Hillary’s infamous insult to stay-at-home moms: “I suppose I could have stayed at home and baked cookies, but I decided to pursue a career.” That one still stings among the non-working woman set.

It’s one thing for Trump to tell us he loves women. It’s another to show us. We haven’t heard all that much about the women who work at Trump’s vast organization. It’s time we learned what they have to say about their boss. Retention and promotion of women at Trump’s ventures is reportedly quite strong — a huge selling point. Every female knows that finding a workplace that can adapt to a woman’s ever-evolving life changes (marriage, kids, etc) is a rarity. The fact that many women have thrived working for Trump speaks volumes. The DNC has desperately tried to ding the Donald personally for how he handles women. Before they make a move to define him professionally, he’s got to learn from the mistakes of Mitt Romney and have his campaign articulate through real-life examples how he values females for more than just their looks.

4. More Ivanka!

Universally well-liked and respected by people of all political stripes, the highly successful and loyal Ivanka Trump is by far the campaign’s best surrogate. Having your brilliant and successful daughter stump for you, and speak for you, is a sign of a shrewd candidate, and good parenting. A strong bond between father and daughter is exactly what Trump needs to show America — and women in particular — that he isn’t the boorish businessman the media claims. To young women, hearing Ivanka tout how her dad elevated her to the highest levels of the Trump organization and entrusts her with far more than just his American Express is the best evidence that he puts his faith in females who earn it.

Trump has already defied conventional wisdom, proving the pundits wrong by sealing the GOP nomination, but make no mistake: If Trump is going to win the White House, he’s going to need the help of women. Throughout his life, Trump has prided himself on women relying on him. Now, in a twist of political irony, it’s Trump relying on them.

Andrea Tantaros is a political analyst for the Fox News Channel and author of the bestseller Tied Up in Knots: How Getting What We Wanted Made Women Miserable.

WHAT A TOOL

Trump-Tool-600-CI
NEVER TRUMP AMNESTY TOOLS HELP TRUMP MORE THAN HURT HIM.

Sex and the Citizens: Trump Edition

He has exposed illusions—mine, anyway—about gender relations in the U.S.

BN-OG227_galsto_J_20160531100812

By WILLIAM A. GALSTON
May 31, 2016 6:37 p.m. ET Wall Street Journal June i, 2016

Donald Trump doesn’t speak the truth so much as reveal it. His campaign has ruthlessly exposed the illusions of well-educated middle-class professionals—people like me.

We believed that changes in law and public norms had gradually brought about changes in private attitudes across partisan and ideological lines. We thought that longstanding racial and ethnic prejudices had been marginalized. We hoped that the most religious population in any Western democracy would deal compassionately with the suffering of refugees from war-torn nations, whatever their religion. We assumed that some beliefs had moved so far beyond the pale that those who continued to hold them would not dare to say so publicly.

Mr. Trump has proved us wrong. His critique of political correctness has destroyed many taboos and has given his followers license to say what they really think. Beliefs we mocked now command a majority in one of the world’s oldest political parties, and sometimes in the electorate as a whole.

Nowhere is that truer than in gender relations. Mr. Trump’s attitudes toward women are a throwback to the Rat Pack. His past on-air conversations with shock-jock Howard Stern make Don Draper of “Mad Men” sound like a feminist. His response to the familiar critique that these attitudes “objectify” women is, in effect: That’s what men do. The difference is that I don’t hide it. You’ve tried to make us feel guilty, and we’re not going to take it anymore. In my America, men will be free once again to be men, and the country will be better off.

Surprising numbers of Americans seem to agree with him.

In April, survey researchers at the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) asked a blunt question: Do you agree or disagree with the statement that “Society as a whole has become too soft and feminine.” Fifty percent of men agreed, as did 34% of women. Whites and Hispanics gave the statement identical 42% support, with African-Americans a few points lower. Whites had the largest gap between men and women (20 points), with the African-American gap close behind at 17 points. The Hispanic gap stood at only six points—Hispanic women were significantly more likely to agree with the sentiment than were their white and African-American counterparts.

Forty-five percent of respondents with a high-school education or less agreed with the “too soft and feminine” proposition; so did 48% of those with some college education, compared with only 31% for those with a bachelor’s degree or more.

Age made less difference than might have been expected. In fact, Americans in the 30-49 age range were somewhat more likely to agree than were those 50 and older, with only the youngest adults registering a significantly different view.

By contrast, partisanship and ideology made a big difference. Sixty percent of Republicans felt that American society has become “too soft and feminine,” compared with 43% of independents and only 29% of Democrats. Support among conservatives, moderates and liberals stood at 58%, 44% and 24%, respectively.

Gender and partisanship interact. Seventy-two percent of Republican men endorsed the statement, compared with 46% of Republican women. Although Democratic men were less than half as likely as their Republican counterparts to agree, they were 10 points more likely to do so than were Democratic women.

As one might expect, Mr. Trump has mobilized the most passionate opponents of America’s current gender regime: 68% of his supporters believe that society has become “too soft and feminine”—74% of men backing him, and 59% of the women. (Females in the Trump camp are 25 points more likely to express this sentiment than are women as a whole.)

So Mr. Trump’s supporters want a tougher, more masculine America. But what does this mean, exactly? The PRRI survey, conducted in partnership with the Atlantic magazine, offers some clues. Although only 39% of Americans believe that society is better off when men and women hew to traditional gender roles, the figure rises to 50% among Mr. Trump’s backers.

Women are often seen as more compliant with established rules than are men, and more inclined to pursue progress through compromise within these rules. But large majorities of Americans think the country is on the wrong track, and in the PRRI poll nearly half—45%—have concluded that to set things right, we need a leader who is willing to break the rules on their behalf.

Among Mr. Trump’s supporters, 65% endorse this view. My interpretation: They think it will take a “real man,” indifferent to respectable opinion and procedural niceties, to blow up the entire corrupt system and get the country back on track.

The general-election contest between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton will bring gender to the center of American politics, with consequences that are no more predictable than any other dimension of this astounding year.

Trump Makes Sense on Energy

From the mouth of The Donald comes wisdom on America’s climate dissonance.
by Holman W. Jenkins, JR June 1st Wall Street Journal
BN-OG230_bw0601_J_20160531101557
From the mouth of The Donald comes wisdom on America’s climate dissonance.
After delivering an energy-policy speech in Bismarck, N.D.,

Political markets are weird: They cry out for something and yet politicians, with their enslavement to conventional wisdom and careerist caution, are unwilling to supply it.

Then along comes Donald Trump.
Mr. Trump, in his set-piece energy speech on Thursday, did something that might outlast his presidential hopes. In his anti-intellectual way, he made an intellectual contribution. For decades, poorly justified scientific fears of future warming have hovered as an incubus over U.S. energy development. These fears, you’ll notice, have not actually blocked much of anything: Fracking happened. The U.S. continues to export coal to China. But these fears fill America’s leadership class with guilt and cognitive dissonance.

Give Mr. Trump credit for trying to break the spell.

In a speech the media has done its best to ignore or debunk, he said, “From an environmental standpoint, my priorities are very simple: clean air and clean water.” With these words, he relegated back to the land of abstraction the abstraction known as climate change.

His was a model political speech, one that Hillary Clinton might learn from. It set an agenda, with a minimum of windy rationalization, that voters can assess. Mr. Trump, as all politicians do, offered a prayer to the false deity of energy independence but he also offered a perfectly serviceable vision of Americans freely competing in global energy markets based on our own natural and (note) renewable resources and technology.

Mr. Trump hit the climate moment squarely.

By now, it should be obvious that a succession of “fraudulent” (to borrow a word used by out-of-school climate activist James Hansen) agreements like Kyoto, Copenhagen and Paris are not paving the way for a non-fraudulent agreement to impose costly climate actions the public would never support.

The climate policy that actually gets enacted by now has a track record: It consists of ludicrous gestures and policies of cost-without-benefit like Tesla subsidies, whose driving force is the desire of influential pre-Trumpian elites for handouts.

As for the $100 billion spent on climate research, it has yielded one certainty: A human impact is hard to disentangle from a welter of natural variables.

What’s more, science can’t deny its nature forever. New information, based on actually measuring and understanding things like temperatures, emissions and cloud formation, is increasingly rewriting our hazy understanding of atmospheric processes. This data suggests our computer models have overstated the warming risk.

Also ripe to be revisited are the “business as usual” scenarios presumed by the climate alarmists, in which patterns of energy production and consumption don’t change in the absence of heroic government central planning efforts.

The emergence of fracking, which has played the major role in upending the U.S. coal industry, was not the product of climate policy.

The rise of the lithium-ion battery and explosion of battery-powered devices in our lives, of which even Tesla is but a flamboyant and overrated derivative, was not the product of climate policy.

Climate movement types, meanwhile, have increasingly turned to vilifying nonbelievers as a substitute for dealing sensibly with a possible human impact on climate. A minority movement is on its way to becoming a cult, increasingly anti-science. Know them by their talk of “saving” the planet: Even under the worst scenarios, global warming does not endanger the planet. It poses an inconvenience to human communities that have become accustomed to stacking their wealth at the water’s edge.

Perhaps it took Donald Trump fully to exploit the fish-in-a-barrel vulnerability of Democrats on climate. Democrats love citing a pending climate catastrophe but want to live in the land of the real politically, never taking ownership of policies actually commensurate with the alleged crisis. Al Gore, when he was running for president in 2000, wanted Bill Clinton to open the strategic reserve to keep gas prices low.

In his speech, Mr. Trump tweaked Hillary Clinton for promoting U.S fracking technology to China as secretary of state, then proposing to regulate fracking out of existence at home. He tweaked President Obama for seeking to block Canada’s energy exports by killing the Keystone pipeline even while enabling Iran to open its spigots.

Mr. Obama, proving again that he makes a better representative of the countries he visits than the one he comes from, said from Japan on Thursday that foreign leaders are “rattled” by the rise of Donald Trump.

Good grief. What endorsement could carry less weight with the American people? These are the same foreign leaders who’ve been marching America’s major allies into permanent decline, not least with massive renewable-energy subsidies that have produced no benefit for their societies. If anything survives as a monument to the great Trump boom of 2016, let’s hope it’s a turn toward realism on energy and climate.

N. Korea Gushes Over Candidate Who Called Its Leader ‘A Maniac’

trump_kimjongun_0

.. a “wise politician” and “far-sighted candidate.”
In yet another twist to an election season that has torn up every political script ever written, the nation Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has said is ruled by “a maniac” is coming out on his behalf to endorse his candidacy.

North Korea’s official state-run DPRK newspaper showered praise on Trump — who has said he wants to meet North Korean ruler Kim Jong-un — calling the presumptive GOP nominee a “wise politician” and “far-sighted candidate.”

“The president that U.S. citizens must vote for is not that dull Hillary – who claimed to adapt the Iranian model to resolve nuclear issues on the Korean Peninsula – but Trump, who spoke of holding direct conversation with North Korea,” the newspaper said Monday.

“In my personal opinion, there are many positive aspects to the Trump’s ‘inflammatory policies,’” wrote Han Yong Mook, who called himself a Chinese North Korean scholar. “Trump said ‘he will not get involved in the war between the South and the North,’ isn’t this fortunate from North Koreans’ perspective?”

The piece referred to Trump’s proposal that the United States should re-evaluate its commitment to defend South Korea if South Korea does not shoulder more of the costs.

“Yes do it, now … Who knew that the slogan ‘Yankee Go Home’ would come true like this? The day when the ‘Yankee Go Home’ slogan becomes real would be the day of Korean Unification.”
The article even urged Seoul not to pay its defense costs so that U.S. forces would eventually withdraw.

In April, when Trump talked about getting more support from South Korea for its defense, and referred to Kim Jong-un as “a maniac,” he also noted that North Korea might not benefit from his concept.

“Frankly, the case could be made to let (Japan) protect themselves against North Korea, they’d probably wipe them out pretty quick,” Trump said then.

In January, Trump said the nuclear ambitions of North Korea need to be controlled.
You have this madman over there who probably would use it,” Trump said then. “And nobody talks to him, other than of course Dennis Rodman. That’s about it.”

“We got to close it down, because he’s getting too close to doing something,” Trump also said then. “Right now, he’s probably got the weapons, but he doesn’t have the transportation system. Once he has the transportation system, he’s sick enough to use it. So we better get involved.”

One analyst said the pro-Trump comments are aimed at gaining influence with Trump and Washington in general.

“(Trump is) the Dennis Rodman of American politics — quirky, flamboyant, risk-taking. At the moment he’s also an outsider. But Pyongyang is hoping that either he’ll be elected (and follows through on his pledges) or that his pronouncements will change the political game in the United States and influence how the Democratic party and mainstream Republicans view Korean issues,” said John Feffer, director of Foreign Policy In Focus.

CONSERVATIVE ICON: TRUMP WILL HAVE ‘BLOWOUT ELECTION’ IF HE DOES THIS

‘He could get 40% of vote or 60% of vote. It largely depends on him’
Trump-TW18
Donald Trump is now the presumptive presidential nominee for the Republican Party, and a longtime conservative leader says whether Trump can unify the party or win in November is almost entirely up to him – and it involves at least two crucial decisions.

Richard Viguerie has been a prominent figure in the conservative movement for almost 60 years. He is chairman of ConservativeHQ.com and the author most recently of “Takeover: The 100-year Fight for the Soul of the GOP and How Conservatives Can Win It.”

Viguerie was an active Ted Cruz supporter, but said Trump won the Republican field by acknowledging and responding to the deep frustration Americans have toward Washington.

“How he did it was to ride the anger that a high percent of Americans feel toward the political establishment, Republicans and Democrats,” Viguerie told WND and Radio America.

He said that anger burned especially hot among Republican primary voters.

“There is white-hot anger among conservatives at the grassroots level toward Republican leaders who have lied to them and betrayed them for too many years,” Viguerie said. “This campaign was an opportunity to send them a message.”

But now that Trump has a clear path to a first-ballot nomination, Viguerie said the first and most important priority is to unite the party, which he says has not truly happened since 1988. Fifty-one percent of Indiana primary voters who did not back Trump told exit pollsters they would never vote for him. Polls in other states have shown similar numbers, and the #NeverTrump movement vows to oppose the presumptive nominee throughout the campaign.

Richard Viguerie sees a winning formula for the U.S. How to “TAKE OVER” the GOP – and the country!

Can the GOP come together?

“The most important moves coming up here in the period between now and the Republican convention is pretty much up to Trump,” Viguerie said. “If Trump takes the moves to unite the Republican Party, and it’s pretty much up to him to do that, I think he stands a strong chance of being elected president. We have to see if he’s serious about being the leader of a united party.”

Those unknowns, Viguerie said, could be the difference between a landslide win or a crushing loss.

“I can believe that Trump could get 40 percent of the vote, and I believe he could get 60 percent of the vote. It largely depends on him,” he said. “If he runs a good campaign and campaigns on issues that conservatives and Middle America is concerned about and he has articulated very well in this campaign, he could have a blowout election.”
For those insistent that Trump is unacceptable on ideological or personal grounds, regardless of whether he wins, Viguerie said the impact of a President Trump on the future of conservatism is also a blank slate.

“If he governs as a principled conservative, he has the ability to set the left back 50 or 100 years here. He really has the ability to do serious damage to the progressives,” Viguerie said. “But he could also do serious damage to the conservative cause. It’s very, very much up in the air right now.”

Viguerie said the first and most important step toward bringing the GOP together is the selection of a running mate.

“It’s less important what certain conservative leaders say or do,” he said. “The real test is how the grassroots respond to it. We saw in this election that the grassroots had a mind of their own.”

What do YOU think? Whom should Trump pick for vice president? Sound off in today’s WND poll!

That being said, Viguerie does have a name at the top of his running-mate wish list.

“On that short list should be Newt Gingrich. I think Newt Gingrich is an intriguing idea,” he said. “There are others who should be on that list, including Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, but I’m particularly intrigued with the idea of Newt Gingrich.”

But he warns Trump that the wrong pick could be devastating.

“If he goes to the Republican establishment, a Paul Ryan type or Kasich, I think it’s going to be very, very difficult to have a united party, and without a united party they lose,” Viguerie said.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/05/conservative-icon-trump-will-have-blowout-election-if-he-does-this/#rc2tYHbkslIrsAYS.99