Last evening on the Mark Levin Show, Mark fielded a phone call from Senator Ted Cruz. Levin opened the discussions by asking Cruz what he thought about Donald Trump bailing out of the upcoming debate in Iowa.
Initially Cruz positioned himself by saying that Trump was doing an injustice to the voters of Iowa. However, later in the conversation, Cruz laid down the hammer and shocked Levin by challenging Trump to a one-on-one debate prior to the Iowa caucus which takes place on Monday 2/1. Without hesitation, Levin offered airtime on his radio program to hold this debate.
The question remains, will Trump respond to the challenge? Time is running out for him to do it. At this juncture I think it’s a long-shot that he will accept. Should the two go head to head in what Levin called a “Lincoln-Douglas Style” debate, Cruz would likely mop the floor with Trump on policy and Constitutional matters. I don’t think Trump’s rhetoric and attempts to label Cruz as “nasty” will sell very well in a debate on substance.
It appears that Donald Trump has decided to skip this Thursday’s Republican Debate on Fox. (Trump Dumps Fox). This writer says “You Go Donald!” Wouldn’t it be nice to watch a Republican debate (other than the undercard) that doesn’t include this frowning clown? Wouldn’t it be nice to hear qualified candidates actually discuss and debate real issues rather than to engage in personal attacks while making foolish faces and crude comments?
Trump has attacked Ted Cruz stating that he’s not a nice guy….not a good guy. Really? If there has been one individual who has not been a “Nice Guy” and not a “Good Guy” it has been Donald Trump. The Donald clearly told us that the lawyers had looked at Cruz’s citizenship and it is not an issue. Suddenly when Senator Cruz improved in the polls Mr. Trump began to “show his concern” for Cruz on the issue of citizenship. Not because he himself had a problem, but because the Democrats might possibly launch a challenge. Trump has since escalated his attacks and now is openly threatening to file suit against Cruz over the citizenship issue.
Once again this writer says “You Go Donald!” If you really believe this is an issue and you are legitimately concerned, then file suit. Seek a declaratory judgment against Senator Cruz.
You won’t do it, though, will you? You won’t because you know your suit will either (a) be thrown out or ignored; or (b) will be ruled in favor of Senator Cruz. You would much rather hang out there and unfairly attack the Senator with your warped interpretation of the Constitution.
Let’s examine the issue. Among other requirements that are not in contention, in order to be President an individual must be a “natural born” citizen. The last time I checked there are two ways for a person to be a citizen of the United States. You either have to be a “natural born” citizen or you need to be a “naturalized” citizen. A naturalized citizen must go through a very specific process which includes taking a test and swearing an oath. Senator Cruz, clearly a citizen of the United States, did not go through this process because he was already a natural born citizen of the United States. Born in Canada, the son of an American mother (a U.S. citizen born in Delaware) and a father born in Cuba, Senator Cruz is a natural born citizen of the United States.
The bottom line is that Donald Trump can’t stand up to Ted Cruz and has to resort to these underhanded tactics. It’s the same issue with the Fox debate. Trump can’t stand up to Megyn Kelly and would rather threaten a boycott than to face her.
Let me start by saying, conservatism sells. If it didn’t, why would all of the Republican presidential candidates claim to be conservative, especially those who are not? It’s not just presidential candidates who do this. We see it everywhere among the Washington elites. Which leads one to wonder how it is possible for virtually every Republican member of Congress to also be a valid conservative?
Presidential campaigns are one thing, but faking conservatism has reared its ugly head in many elections. In recent national elections, Americans voted for candidates claiming to be conservative which resulted in giving Republicans not just the House of Representatives, but the US Senate. You can go down the list of those who ran as conservatives, but have since acted otherwise when they reached Congress. Even those we KNOW are not conservative, laid claim to conservatism. Mitch McConnell immediately comes to mind. And don’t be surprised to see John McCain start to boast about his conservative ways as he approaches re-election for the Senate.
But it’s not just politicians who claim conservatism. As far back as 2013, Lori Robertson of Factcheck.org authored a story about a group, Americans for a Conservative Direction. The article begins, “The group behind the ad, Americans for a Conservative Direction, is part of Zuckerberg’s FWD.us, a nonprofit group formed to back policies important to the technology sector…“. Sadly, Americans for a Conservative Direction really doesn’t support true conservative values. Members of the board for this group include such names as: Sally Bradhsaw, Dan Senor, and Rob Jesmer. Short bios for these board members can be found on the group’s webpage. Feel free to take a look and see for yourself if you think their bios scream conservatism.
Nonetheless, I was inspired this evening to write this blog because of a post Mark Levin made to his Facebook page. After reading it, I couldn’t help but want to share it with you. The article Mark shared, The Ten Conservative Principles of Russell Kirk, originated from the Heritage Foundation’s website and it can be viewed here.
Not everyone who claims to be conservative is a conservative. As we approach this presidential election, beware of the fakes.
It has been an interesting week to say the least regarding the 2016 Republican Presidential race. As recent as today, John Kasich referred to himself as the “Prince of Light and Hope” during an interview on the Hugh Hewitt show. He also referred to his opponents as “Prince(s) of Darkness“. This was perhaps the most headline worthy comments to come from him during what has been a very boring and lackluster campaign.
Earlier this week, we also saw Sarah Palin, a Tea Party favorite, go to Iowa and endorse Donald Trump. As a long time conservative and Tea Party member, I have to admit that I found the endorsement not only shocking, but mystifying. Let’s face it, The Donald’s presence in this Republican Primary race has had a lot of value. His often abrasive, yet fearless approach to address issues has breathed a sigh of relief into what could have potentially been a boring primary season. He’s primarily responsible for forcing the other candidates to tackle the immigration issue head-on and he hasn’t been afraid to discuss military funding. But all of this doesn’t make him a true conservative. And so it came as quite a surprise to see Palin jump on the Trump bandwagon.
Marco Rubio continued to play the role of a moving target on Amnesty while taking part in an interview on “Meet the Press” over the weekend. The fast talking Rubio said, “If you’re a criminal alien, no, you can’t stay. If you’re someone that hasn’t been here for a very long time, you can’t stay.” He continued, “I don’t think you’re gonna round up and deport 12 million people.” Marco clearly stopped short of saying that all illegal aliens can’t stay. He was very specific about those who he considered “criminals”. There are several problems with Marco’s position. One of which involves those illegals who have entered this country with a visa and have allowed their visas to expire, yet they remain in this country. Rubio did not include this group among those who can’t stay. In reality, staying on an expired visa is against the law, and there is a significant proportion of illegals who fall into that category.
Perhaps the saddest story of the week belonged to Dr. Ben Carson’s campaign. Carson was in South Carolina earlier in the week when he announced that he was going to temporarily suspend his campaign activities so he could return to Iowa where members of his staff were involved in an automobile accident. Sadly, Braden Joplin, 25, of Midland, Texas died as a result of the accident. Braden was a volunteer with the Carson campaign and was a passenger in the vehicle along with two other campaign volunteers. Ben Carson may be the single most decent candidate in the entire presidential race. He is an inspiration to many and has been a valuable contributor to the primary. Though his ideas, policies, and positions are among the best in this pack of candidates, his soft-spoken nature has been his downfall. I can easily see a place for Dr. Carson as a cabinet member for the Republican nominee, where he can continue to be an asset to the conservative cause.
As you know, there are other Republican candidates in this primary race. But there isn’t time to address each of them. However, there is one who stands above the rest. He is the truest conservative among the candidates. As a member of Congress he has a Liberty Score rating of 97% on ConservativeReview.com, where he is second only to Senator Mike Lee, Utah. This candidate has taken on the establishment in Washington DC. He has embodied the spirit and values of conservatism. This summer, he took to the floor of the US Senate and publicly called out the Senate Majority Leader for lying to those he leads. Conservatives applauded this act, while the media and Republican establishment chided him for it.
This candidate is everything the Washington elite are not. This candidate is hated by them and has even caused some of them to warm up to Donald Trump, in fear that this candidate will become the Republican nominee. He is solid on his position on immigration, religious freedom, national security, and the 2nd Amendment. He stood on the Senate floor for over 20 hours in hopes of defunding Obamacare when other phony Republicans only gave conservative Americans lip-service. He has been true to the values and promises he made to his constituents in his State of Texas. There are very few in Washington DC who can even claim to honor half of what they’ve promised. He is a man of action, not just words. He is of course, Senator Ted Cruz.
If the above is not reason enough for Backbenchers.us to endorse Sen. Cruz, the establishment elites in Washington who continue to slam him are. According to a recent study performed by Rasmussen Reports, “just nine percent (9%) of likely U.S. Voters think Congress is doing a good or excellent job. Fifty-nine percent (59%) now think Congress is doing a poor job.” If members of Congress are unworthy of the trust of the American people, then why should we trust any one of them who want to end Cruz’s bid for the presidency. The Washington elite will be among the first to tell you that Ted Cruz is NOT one of them. I say AMEN TO THAT!
Sadly as this election cycle takes shape, there continues to be so much to do about things that don’t matter. Many of us realize that there is a great deal at stake with this next presidential election. With that in mind, there are many who are trying to give serious consideration as to who they believe will be the person best suited to lead our country. This is why it is so ridiculous that we have to put up with such nonsense on a regular basis.
I for one, would like to be able to evaluate the candidates based on things that matter. For instance, I care about a candidate’s abilities, record, credibility, conservative values, likelihood to keep their promises, and commitment to the Constitution. I want to see debates that bring those things to light. I want to be able to read the newspaper or go online and get information on those key issues and current developments. Unfortunately, we are constantly being inundated with trash in the media.
Trusted journalism seems to be a thing of the past. It seems everywhere we turn, we are being fed trash and are being told who and what we should believe. Pardon me for being demanding, but I would like to make those decisions for myself. It’s not the role of a true journalist to push an agenda. It’s not the role of a true journalist to display favoritism. And dare I say it, it’s not the role of a true journalist to be on the D.C. payroll.
I’ve had enough of the flying feces in the media. There are many things that are bothersome, but in hopes that the media might get the message, I’ve put together a short list of things that don’t matter regarding the upcoming primaries/election. And for the record, these are also things I never really cared to hear or read about. Below is a list of 5 Things That Don’t Matter to me.
Donald Trump’s Bankruptcy Filings
Big deal. He’s a businessman who has to take risks to succeed. Not all of his business dealings are going to pan out. During the first Republican Presidential debate Trump said, “I have used the laws of this country … the [bankruptcy] chapter laws, to do a great job for my company, for myself, for my employees, for my family.” No laws broken here and none of this proves that he is not trustworthy. Oh…and stop it with the hair already! Case closed.
Marco Rubio’s Shoes
New York magazine declared that “a vote for Marco Rubio is a vote for men’s high-heeled booties” and they went on to compare Rubio’s fashion choices to those of Harry Styles of One Direction.Honestly, who cares? If you cast a vote for or against Marco Rubio because of his shoes, then you’re an idiot. Case closed.
Ted Cruz’s Goldman Sachs Loan
Earlier this month, the New York Times ran a story about this loan. Ironically,
this political hit piece came out right before the Republican Presidential debate in Charleston. In their story, they imply that Cruz intentionally failed to disclose this loan to the Federal Election Commission for his 2012 Senatorial campaign. They go on to suggest that other campaigns that have failed to disclose financial information have been fined, but Cruz was not. Cruz responded, “Those loans have been disclosed over and over and over again on multiple filings. If it was the case that they were not filed exactly as the FEC requires, then we’ll amend the filings. But all of the information has been public and transparent for many years.” Does this mean Cruz isn’t trustworthy? No. Because he took out the loan from Goldman Sachs also doesn’t make him a hypocrite. Why would it? Don’t many of use take out loans for financial support and don’t we shop for the best deal? Case closed.
Ben Carson’s Painting with Jesus
This past November, People Magazine published an article entitled, Inside Ben Carson’t House: An Homage to Himself (and Jesus). The article begins, “Just when you thought Donald Trump had the market cornered on ego among GOP hopefuls, Ben Carson opened the doors to his Maryland mansion to reveal a house of worship – of himself.” Carson’s life story has very humble beginnings. He is a self-made and self-motivated individual who has many wondrous achievements. So what if he proudly displays those achievements? So what if he is a dedicated Christian who believes that Jesus Christ has been his inspiration and a factor in his success. Carson, himself said the following regarding the painting, “I like the concept that there’s something beside me behind my success.” Should any of this matter? I think not. Case closed.
Hillary Clinton is a Woman
Shocking! Yes, we know you are a woman. We don’t need to hear it from you anymore. We understand you are trying to play that card in hopes of getting the female vote. But we really don’t need the media to remind us. Just as 2015 was coming to a close, David Rothkopf wrote an article for ForegnPolitics.com in which he boldly claims, “Assuming there’s no major shocking plot twist in the story of Campaign 2016 (which, of course is always possible), Clinton will become the first woman to be elected president of the United States. Because the United States remains the world’s richest and most powerful nation, her election will be a resonant statement and will be an historical development—one on a par with, or, given the fact that women are the majority population, perhaps one that will even transcend the election of Barack Obama as America’s first African-American president.”
Weeks earlier, the NY Times had a story promoting moms and daughters who debate how much of a factor gender will play in Hillary’s campaign. I repeat, “we know she is a woman”. There are MANY legitimate reasons to vote against Hillary Clinton, and trust me, her gender isn’t among them. Therefore gender should not be a factor one way or the other in her bid for the POTUS. Case closed.
I ask each of you to help bring this election into focus. Don’t be distracted by all of the nonsense. We are being asked to consider those things that don’t matter. These are important times and this election could be one of the most important in recent history. As Ronald Reagan once said, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.”
Having grown up in New York, I think I am qualified to comment on what has recently become a somewhat controversial issue. Earlier this week, in reference to Donald Trump, Ted Cruz said the following: “Donald comes from New York and he embodies New York values.” Without question, this was going to be a topic of discussion in last night’s Republican Presidential debate in Charleston. Cruz is a very intelligent debater and knew he would need to be prepared to defend his words. In an exchange with Trump during last evening’s debate, Cruz responded by saying, “Everybody understands that the values in New York City are socially liberal and pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage, and focus on money and the media.” You know what? He’s absolutely correct and the truth hurts. However, anyone who doubted Trump’s ability as a debater were proven wrong. Trump successfully turned the tables on Cruz by altering the context of Cruz’s statement and diverting attention to September 11th. He closed this exchange by calling Cruz’s comment “insulting“.
But once again, Cruz was correct. New York State and the City of New York embrace and epitomize the liberal philosophy. In January 2014, NY Governor, Andrew Cuomo had plenty to say about conservatives in NY. He stated, “Their problem isn’t me and the Democrats; their problem is themselves.” He also went on to share his thoughts on how he would welcome conservatives in the State of New York: “Who are they? Right to life, pro-assault weapons, anti-gay — if that’s who they are, they have no place in the state of New York because that’s not who New Yorkers are.”
In essence, Cuomo was telling us what he believes to be NY values. Based on his statements, NY values include being anti-gun and pro-abortion. When Ted Cruz made his initial comment regarding Donald Trump, at the very least he was referring to a 1999 television interview with Trump, where Trump proclaimed that he was “very pro-choice“. I don’t see anything wrong with what Cruz said, nor do I find any of it insulting to New Yorkers.
New York has some of the highest taxes, some of the strictest regulations, and some of the most ridiculous attempts at banning anything and everything than anyone else in the country. A few years ago, then NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg attempted to place a ban on the sale of “sugary drinks” that were greater than 16 ounces in size. Besides this NY value being an example of government trampling on liberty, it also defies logic as there was no proposed ban on refills on so-called “sugary drinks”. So you could not order a size larger than 16 ounces, but you could have as many of them as you wanted. Thankfully there are still a few judges left who are not ideologues and the ban was struck down.
In 2015, another ban went into effect in NYC . This ban was imposed on food containers which were made with expanded polystyrene. In short, this ban refers to styrofoam and some other plastic food containers. A NY Supreme Court Justice also struck down this law, citing, “the city’s (NYC) Department of Sanitation’s order to ban the items was arbitrary, capricious and irrational.”
Under Mayor Bloomberg, he enacted many bans which include such things as banning black roofs, cabs could not be a Nissan model NV200s, and commercial music could not be over 45 decibels. A complete list can be found here. Strict regulations in NY are a threat to a free market enterprise and individual liberty. These are anything but conservative values.
Bans are one thing, but I also referenced another NY value, high taxes. Do you remember Eric Garner? In the summer of 2014, Eric Garner was a black man who died at the hands of white NYPD officer during a take down in what some described as a choke hold. The tragic death of Eric Garner is best known as a racially charged incident between law enforcement and a presumably innocent black individual. But what the media never addressed was what led to this incident.
Garner was suspected of illegally selling “loosies”, which are individual cigarettes that come from packs which do not have tax stamps on them. Reportedly, a convenience store owner called the NYPD to inform them that Garner was outside his business engaging in the illegal sale of “loosies”. Store owners can’t compete with the black market sale of cigarettes because of the incredibly high taxes they must collect for both NY State and the City of NY. So it’s understandable why a store owner would not want someone outside their place of business selling “loosies”.
Now, before anyone jumps to conclusions, I’m not suggesting high taxes caused Garner’s death. But I can tell you that if taxes weren’t so ridiculously high, there wouldn’t be such a thing as a “loosie”. According to NY State’s official Department of Taxation and Finance website, “New York State imposes an excise tax on cigarettes at the rate of $4.35 per package of twenty cigarettes. New York City imposes a local excise tax at the rate of $1.50 per package of twenty cigarettes, bringing the combined tax rate in New York City to $5.85.” The taxes alone in NYC are higher than the cost of a pack of cigarettes in many states. With taxes, a single pack of cigarettes in NYC can cost anywhere from $12/pack and up. According to http://www.gumauctions.com/average-price-of-cigarettes/0/National-Average/the national average price for a pack of cigarettes is $5.95, just $0.10 higher than the taxes alone that are imposed in NY. Take a look at the image below just to see how NY compares to the rest of the nation.
Dear New Yorkers,
Do not buy into the narrative that you should be insulted by Ted Cruz. These are the values Ted Cruz was referring to. What is insulting is not what Cruz said, but rather how your state government and city governments are treating you.
Perhaps you’ve recently seen the story surrounding a list of celebrities who signed their names to a card sent to Emperor President Obama, thanking him for his action on increased gun controls. If you haven’t, you can find the story here.
As is the case with most left-wing activists, these celebrities somehow overlook the hypocrisy of their actions. Let’s take a moment to point out a few of these beloved celebrities who added their signatures to this card.
Judd Apatow was the producer for the 2008 film, Pineapple Express. This film’s plot centers around a marijuana dealer and a corrupt police officer. Immediately, I am thinking there might be a gun battle or two in this film. According to IMDb.com, one of the violent scenes is described in the following manner: “A man is shot in the head, falls against a window, and blood and brain matter splashes on the window.” Sounds like a good wholesome flick with that doesn’t promote gun violence to me. Verdict: HYPOCRITE!
Olivia Wilde, Actress
This actress starred in the role Liza in the 2012 film, Deadfall. In this film, Liza and her brother Addison (played by Eric Bana) were victims of an abusive family environment. Because of this, Addison became very protective of his sister, even shooting their father to protect her from continued abuse. Addison eventually became quite the killer. However, when Addison threatens to kill her boyfriend she takes matters into her own hands and shoots her brother. Verdict: HYPOCRITE!
Edward Norton, Actor
Though Edward Norton doesn’t play the star role in the 2012 film, The Bourne Legacy, this film is not lacking in its share of gun violence. Take a look at one of the official trailers and see for yourself how it glamorizes gun violence. Verdict: HYPOCRITE!
Michael Keaton, Actor
In 2013, Michael Keaton takes to his firearms as a villain named Hollander in the film, Penthouse North. In this film, Hollander and Chad (Barry Sloane) hold a blind photojournalist captive in her home as they search for diamonds they suspect are hidden in her home by her now dead boyfriend. IMDb.co describes one of the scenes this way: “A man is shot repeatedly and then thrown from a building. We see him hit the ground with a sickening thwack. We later see his body on the ground. His leg broken and twisted at an awkward angle and a puddle of blood under his head.” And oh by the way, for the animal lovers out there, Hollander also tosses a cat over the balcony to the ground below. Verdict: HYPOCRITE!
Saving the best signee for last:
Liam Neeson, Actor
Though there are several others who added their signature to the thank you card sent to Obama, this guy tops the list. It’s difficult to recall a Liam Neeson film in which he is not a gun toting, gun shooting, bad ass m-f’er! The list is long, including his popular “Taken” series. Neeson plays a character, Bryan Mills who is a retired CIA agent. In the inaugural film, his daughter, Kim (Maggie Grace) is abducted while traveling to Paris.
When it comes to Hollywood, one can count on an increase in violence from one sequel to the next. After all, they have to outdo themselves to be able to sell the sequel(s) to their audience. At last count, I believe there have been four films in the Taken series. Below is a trailer from Taken 2. Verdict: QUADRUPLE HYPOCRITE!
Golden Globe Awards
In addition to the above mentioned celebrities, this past Sunday evening we were witness to another celebrity spectacle, the Golden Globe Awards. A wonderful piece was posted to Twitchy.com which shed more light on the hypocrisy in Hollywood which you can find here.
If there is an ounce of sincerity in the hearts of any of these celebrities, let them put their money where their mouths are. Until then, get off your soapboxes and shut up!
Tonight’s “Town Hall Meeting” was just another in the long line of left-wing gimmicky efforts in which CNN allowed Obama an opportunity to avoid legitimate concerns, and instead take an opportunity to spew more falsehoods and more rhetoric.
I have but a few short observations that I want to convey to everyone. First up was Taya Kyle, widow of Navy Seal, Chris Kyle. She respectfully discussed the differences between law abiding citizens and lawbreakers. Her point was clear. Those who break the law have no intention of following any laws, new or old. She also made an effort to draw a correlation between declining murder rates and increase in law abiding gun carriers.
Obama took the football she handed off to him and ran around the bases thinking he was going to hit a home run. He continued to try to sell his position on more gun laws, but could not explain how it would stop criminals from breaking these new laws. You can see the exchange below where he dances around the issue.
Obama starts stammering about three minutes into this video when he tries to turn the tables on Taya Kyle. He falsely claims that cities with the strictest gun laws are seeing decreases in violent crime rates while cities with higher legal gun ownership aren’t seeing the same declines.
Chicago, along with New York City and Los Angeles have some of the strictest gun laws in the US. Most cities follow state law when it comes to gun control, however some cities, such as those listed above, impose additional restrictions.
The table below details the rate of increase in murder through August 2015 for some major US cities. Of the cities listed, all but New Orleans and Dallas are in states whose gun laws fall among the strictest top 50%. According to the blog Hey Jackass!, which tracks crime and murder in Chicago, Chicago goes a little more than 20 hours on average in between murders, and 84.6% of those murdered were murdered by gunshots. Given this information, Obama’s claim doesn’t appear to hold water.
Rape survivor, Kimberly Corban also took the microphone to address Obama. That exchange can be seen here. She discussed the importance of being able to protect herself and her family. Obama again falls back on his rhetoric by saying, “You certainly would like to make it a little harder for that assailant to have also had a gun”. (Assumed reference to her rapist.) He continued, “You certainly want to make sure that if he gets released, that he can’t now do what he did to you, to somebody else. And it’s going to be easier for us to prevent him from getting a gun if there’s a strong background system in place.”
I guess he just doesn’t get it. A criminal isn’t going to go through the detailed, legal process to buy a firearm. A dangerous criminal who has been released (something Obama is guilty of doing ) knows he/she is not going to pass a background check. So why would they even try to purchase a firearm legally?
Later in the exchange, Obama takes a left turn and starts questioning whether or not having guns at home is safe. His true colors start to bleed through at this point. He goes on to say, “If you look at the statistics there’s no doubt there are times when someone who has a weapon has been able to protect themselves…but what is more often the case is that they may not have been able to protect themselves, but (pause), they’re(?) end up being the victim of the weapon that they purchased themselves. And that’s something that can be debated.”
Debated?! Please, someone find these statistics that he is talking about! I don’t EVER recall hearing a story where a legal gun owner had their own weapon turned on them during a crime. This is an outrageous claim!
Unfortunately, the media will praise him for attending this “Town Hall Meeting”. No one will question the legitimacy of any of his statements. If he says it, it must be true. What a shame!
“And from(for?) every family who never imagined that their loved one would be taken from our lives by a bullet from a gun.” This was the sentence that started what some are calling “crocodile tears” from Obama in yesterday’s announcement. He then went on to politicize the shooting in Newtown, Ct. saying, “Every time I think about those kids, it makes me mad.”
Obama will continue to promote increased restrictions on guns saying, “We know we can’t stop every act of violence. Every act of evil in the world. But maybe we could try to stop one act of evil, one act of violence.” What Obama chooses to overlook is how his policies have had a hand in the deaths of many men, women, and children in this country. However, he and the media will turn a blind eye to all of this. Though the examples are many, let’s take a moment to point out a few of Obama’s policies that have and may continue to have an impact on the safety of Americans.
Fast and FuriousTwo men, Ivan Soto-Barraza and Jesus Sanchez-Meza, were found guilty of murdering U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry with guns supplied by the U.S. government in a failed attempt to track weapons to Mexican druglords.
Thirty-two year old Kathryn “Kate” Steinle was shot in the back by an illegal immigrant on July 1, 2015 as she was walking with her father along San Francisco’s scenic Embarcadero waterfront. Some have called this a “breakdown of the system”, as an immigrant with an extensive criminal record was set free to roam San Francisco, a city identified by the Obama administration as a sanctuary city.
Bowe Bergdahl/Guantanamo Prisoner ExchangeIn May 2014, President Obama’s administration brokered an exchange of 5 Guantanamo Bay prisoners for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who recently entered no plea at a hearing before his court-martial scheduled for later this month. In return for Bergdahl, Obama released 5 top Al Qaeda prisoners, who have reportedly sought out to renew their terrorist activities.
Unconstitutional Immigration Policies
If Obama were truly interested in saving lives, he ought to reconsider his policies on immigration. He shed tears at the thought of lives being lost during yesterday’s speech, but not a single tear was shed for those lives lost in America due to his conscious effort not to enforce existing immigration law. A long list of of crimes committed by illegal aliens can be found here. But a few of those listed below demonstrate just how heinous some of these crimes were:
December 2015 — A 40-year-old illegal alien, Michael Rodriguez Garcia, was sentenced to four life terms for the rape and sodomy of two children in Alabama. (Breitbart News, December 19, 2015)
June 2015 — A Salvadoran, Mauricio Hernandez, convicted of rape and murder of the baby born to his victim was sentenced to 50 years in prison in Texas and faces deportation when he has served his sentence. (The Dallas Morning News, June 5, 2015)
Before Obama’s followers and the media get all worked up over his tears, they should be putting his feet to the fire. He should be forced to answer the following questions:
If you are so moved by “every family who never imagined that their loved one would be taken from our lives by a bullet from a gun”, why aren’t you equally moved by every family who have lost a loved one at the hands of an illegal alien?
Weren’t you moved enough by the loss of Kate Steinle to speak out against Harry Reid when he blocked a vote on “Kate’s Law“?
Why have you run away from the Fast and Furious scandal?
All federally licensed firearms dealers (FFLs) are already required to request a background check for every gun sale, which is performed by the FBI (another federal agency). Why do your executive actions target law abiding citizens when it is agencies of the federal government who are responsible for approval of all gun sales by FFLs?
I would like to think his tears were a show of real emotion. Unfortunately you can count me among those who question his sincerity and instead believe his tears were just a plain “show”.
Deception, Divisiveness, Diversion, and Dependency
I am certain that somewhere out there exists a handbook on how to be a politician in the Democratic party. In that handbook, there are probably four chapters. Those four chapters are the Four D’s of how to succeed as a democrat. Below I provide you with an idea of what that handbook might look like.
The truth is irrelevant. And a good democrat will take advantage of another “D”, “deny”. If you speak it often enough, a lie will become a fact. You believe it and they will believe it. Repeatedly use expressions like:
“If you like your insurance plan, you can keep your insurance plan.”
“With Obamacare we will reduce your insurance premiums by $2,500, per family per year.”
“I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.”
“With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?”
“But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I’m going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false.”
“It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.”
Divide and conquer. Achieve goals by creating controversy between people, religions, races, and inanimate objects. Preach tolerance, but don’t practice it. Selectively exploit tragedies that could pit individuals against one another. Below are a few practical examples:
Interject yourself into local issues like the Mike Brown shooting and the Freddie Gray case in Baltimore, but purposely ignore attacks against law enforcement.
Demand tolerance of a specific religion while telling another religion they have no right to act in accordance with their beliefs.
Blame a flag for hateful acts of an individual and exploit it to advance your narrative.
Use tactics of diversion to achieve goals. Never admit to being wrong when faced with facts. When faced with an opposing view from someone, call them “bigots”. Take advantage of the media to divert attention away from controversial actions. Examples below:
When faced with opposition against Planned Parenthood atrocities, call their acts a “War against women”
When a university student acts disrespectfully towards another student, demand a “Safe Space” on campus. Hold rallies and blame the student’s actions on the administration or any other party with whom you disagree. Hold anyone accountable, except the individual.
When someone believes in traditional marriage, label them as “homophobic”.
When you face opposition to allowing refugees into the US, call it a “War on Women and Children”, “Racist”, or “Islamophobic”
Give, give, give, and don’t stop giving. Create an environment of dependency so immense, that the switching costs are great. Providing an environment of opportunity is problematic. Create a sense of entitlement so vast that the line between what is a “right” and what is a “privilege” is blurred. Let the conservatives call for a stop to spending. They will be the bad guys who will be seen as wanting to take away those “rights”. Don’t worry about spending. If you face opposition, refer to Chapter 3, Diversion.
If one exists, this might be what the handbook looks like. Now that should clear up a few things, don’t you think?