The Swamp


The Swamp

We knew quite clearly, that going into the next four years, Trump vowed to “Drain the Swamp”.  But I’m beginning to wonder which “swamp”?  Of course, DC as a whole, can be considered run with swamp rats.  But there may be more to this than I first thought.  Perhaps the “swamp” Trump was referring to was not necessarily Congress and the career politicians, but rather the Obama Administration.  In an article published on April 5, author Lee Smith  (click on the image to read the story) takes us through a very convincing sequence of events, which implicate the past administration in corrupt abuse of intelligence.  One of the most glaring statements in that article follows:  “Increasingly, I believe that my conclusion in that piece was wrong (December 2016 article). I believe the spying was real and that it was done not in an effort to keep the country safe from threats—but in order to help the White House fight their domestic political opponents.

Corruption and scandal began early on in the Obama administration.  Of course, with the help of the media, things have been buried and kept out of the eye of the public.  Though they’d like us to forget, there is that little issue of Obama’s first Attorney General who was held in Contempt of Congress over the Fast and Furious scandal.  Did we ever see a call for Eric Holder or Loretta Lynch to recuse themselves from anything?  Ever? (I know, not a single scandal under Obama…).

We should also never forget the continuing IRS saga (scandal).  IRS Commissioner, John Koskinen is still on the hot seat as details continue to emerge.  This entire scandal also erupted under the watchful eye of the Obama administration and Lois Lerner.

And, there’s a whole lot more going on.  Perhaps it’s not just the exposure of the corruption of the Obama administration.  Perhaps there is also a matter of incompetence.  Just this past week, Dr. Ben Carson (jeered by the left as being incompetent) uncovered serious accounting errors at the Department of Housing and Urban Development.  These accounting errors amounted to over $500 billion!  According to a Daily Wire article, “‘In one of his first acts as HUD Secretary, Carson ordered an audit of the agency. What he found was staggering: $520 billion in bookkeeping errors.  The total amounts of errors corrected in HUD’s notes and consolidated financial statements were $516.4 billion and $3.4 billion, respectively,’ the auditors wrote.”

Obama’s circle of incompetence runs deep.  It’s not just the people who worked in his administration.  Obama himself has demonstrated his share of incompetence and deception.  Of course there’s the obvious.  Like, “If you like your healthcare, you can keep your healthcare.”  But more recently, his lie of ridding Syria of chemical weapons has been exposed.  (Hat tip:  The Washington Free Beacon).

What’s clear is that the Obama administration is the administration riddled with corruption, deception, and incompetence.  What is also becoming clearer is the efforts undertaken by the previous administration to derail Donald Trump were in part to avoid being exposed.  It began during his campaign, and continued through the transition period.  The media has once again been complicit in driving this narrative.  As the Tablet article above points out, the Obama administration leveraged the media to “leak” information to the public.  Unfortunately for them, it is beginning to backfire.  Americans are waking up and are becoming increasingly aware of this deceit.

The Trump/Putin collusion story is appearing more and more like a smokescreen, designed to draw our attention away from the truth.  Current events in Syria and tensions between the US and Russia don’t support that false narrative.  The Obama administration and the media have been working overtime to sell their false narrative because they fear being exposed.  Yes, the media also fears being exposed because it was the media who made Obama who he became.  It was the media who took a virtually unknown community organizer and helped him land the White House.  The media propped him up on a pedestal and sang his praises from day one.  They fear the truth as well.

Though Russia and Vladmir Putin make for a sexy story, what we are learning is that it was our own government under Obama (with the aid of the main stream media elites), who sought to undermine the election, not Russia.   Yes, we should be concerned about Congress and the career politicians who are very much beyond their time.  They too are very much a concern.  But it is beginning to appear the initial “swamp” to drain is not Congress.  The “swamp” draining is commencing with the past administration.


Please follow and like us:

Journalism or Sensationalism?


Media Craftiness

Journalism:  “writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation”*

Sensationalism: “empiricism that limits experience as a source of knowledge to sensation or sense perceptions”*

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are approximately 324 million people in the USA.  (  This population likely includes several hundred thousand individuals who could be described as being very intellectual, savvy, experienced, and upstanding.  It includes doctors, historians, economists, scientists, and an abundance of other scholarly individuals.  How then, did we ever get to this point in this election cycle, where an extraordinary number of US citizens are not voting for the candidate of their choice, but rather against a candidate they despise?


I place a lot of the blame directly on the shoulders of the media.  It doesn’t matter which source.  You name them, Huffington Post; FOX News; CNN; ABC, etc..  They are all complicit in the deception that led us to the path we now travel.  This isn’t to say that the populace is free from any responsibility.  Far from it.  However, the media has been entrusted with a great responsibility.  A responsibility built on journalistic integrity.  And, to their detriment, the populace have placed their trust in the media, failing to question what is being fed to them.

It’s no secret that Hillary Clinton has been the media darling for a long time, despite her transgressions.   Just this week, CNN’s Chris Cuomo unabashedly admitted so much. (See below).

In October 2015, Clinton finished her testimony before Congress.  Immediately afterwards, the media praised her “performance” and spent little attention on the content of the hearing.  The Washington Post listed these as reasons “Hillary Won the Benghazi Hearings” (I didn’t know it was a competition, did you).

  • “Clinton looked like a fighter, something the Democratic base craves.”
  • Clinton became a sympathetic figure when the Republicans badgered.”
  • Clinton committed no made-for-TV gaffe.”
  • “The 67-year-old showed impressive stamina.”

Other news outlets published the following:

Not only has Hilary received a pass from the media, but she’s received a pass from our own government  as well.  As you are aware by now, our own FBI testified before Congress, telling them that Hillary lied under oath about her email and the classified nature of those email.  Yet, nothing was to come of it.Hillary-Clinton-email

For that matter, “The Donald” is not exempt from media bias either.  He rode free a wave of free publicity all the way to the Republican nomination.  Why was he able to boast that he spent far fewer dollars than any other candidate in the primary?  It’s because he didn’t have to.  Every time he sneezed, it became a news story.


He garnered attention by labeling his opponents as “Lying Ted”, “Little Marco” and more.   His insults earned him front page news and he kept his name in the spotlight.  His insulting nature was sensationalized and with the help of the media, he successfully excused his actions by playing the role of the victim during the primary season.

So…here we are today.   We have these two candidates out of 324 million people.  One of them can’t get out of his own way.  The other can’t stop lying.  One says stupid stuff.  The other does stupid stuff.  But the media has failed us!  They are not presenting facts.  They are not presenting issues.  They are more concerned with who is going to do or say something stupid.  This seems to sell.  It is an indictment on our society for sure.  But the media built this.  They perpetuated it.

Journalism is a thing of the past.  It’s become apparent that a candidate can do and say whatever they want, and the media will sensationalize it.  The media has allowed these candidates to become masters of deception and distraction.  In a sense, the media has crafted this election cycle into the circus that it has become.

Please follow and like us:

Stop the Nonsense


C’mon Donald!

I came across an interesting read on contested conventions which you can find below.   The republican convention process has been in place for over 150 years and a contested convention goes all the way back to Lincoln’s winning of the nomination in 1860. It gets tiring having to listen to today’s front runner go on and on about how the process is “rigged” and “unfair” towards him.

There are a couple of other facts that seem to get in the way, thus they are never mentioned by The Donald.  Recently, Trump was outspoken about the unfairness of the Colorado delegate process. The process in Colorado was a form of a caucus where coloradoregistered republicans had the opportunity in March to caucus locally and send representative delegates to the state. Those delegates were then elected to become national delegates to represent Colorado at the RNC convention. This process was well known to all of the candidates, but only one took advantage of it. Donald Trump didn’t even so much as go to Colorado, yet he claims the process was unfair saying that the people should have voted.

Funny we didn’t hear anything about this when Trump won the Nevada caucus, and the Kentucky caucus, and the Hawaii caucus. Nor did we hear about how unfair it was that Trump received 45% of the vote in Florida, yet received all 99 delegates. Trump also has approximately 37% of the popular vote to date in this primary process, but has earned 45% of the delegates thus far. I don’t hear him complaining about that either. You see, the states have their own rules. If you believe in the US Constitution, if you believe in Federalism, you don’t whine when you lose according the rules, because sometimes you will win. And right now, based on those statistics, it looks like the rules are actually stacked in your favor Donald!

I for one am tired of all the whining coming from that campaign when things don’t go their way. We hear crickets when they win according to the rules, but incessant whining when they don’t. And Donald, here’s more bad news for you. You need 1237 delegates to win the nomination. You need a majority of the delegates, not be the one with the most delegates. A baseball player isn’t owed a home run because he hits a ball that gets close to the outfield wall.  It has to go over the wall to earn it.

Donald, you wrote the “Art of the Deal” and claim that you can work with anyone. artof dealSo here’s your chance to prove yourself. If this goes to the convention and you don’t have 1237 votes, then show us your deal making skills. And if you can close that deal, good for you! If not, then it’s time to shut up and stop your whining. I am not part of the “Never Trump” club, but your whining and complaining is making it harder for me not to submit an application.

Dear Trump supporters, I understand your emotional connection to Donald. I understand how angry you are with Washington and how all of the things he’s promising sounds terrific. But you cannot let emotion get in the way of compromising our Constitutional Republic. He can yell and scream all he wants about the process, but if you believe in our system, you have to dismiss and decry his tactics. If corruption taints the results, that is a different story. But up until now, that has not happened. Though we should be weary about it happening, we cannot allow one person to persuade us that what has worked for hundreds of years is broken because that one person whines that it is unfair.

Please follow and like us:




Here were are, just a couple of months away from the Republican National Convention in Cleveland.  rncNot long afterwards we will find ourselves in the midst of the general election.  For conservatives, the hour is dire and the consequences of losing the general election to either candidate of the democratic party may be too great for us to ever reverse course and restore the Republic.

Considering all that is at stake, to what have the republican electorate been subjected?  Tweets, tweets, more tweets, and tabloid BS!  I’ve had about all I can stand of this tweeting nonsense and the media’s incessant obsession with it!  We have one presidential candidate who is obviously addicted to being a nocturnal tweeter and has taken being “politically incorrect” to a whole new level.  Instead of hearing candidates addressing critical policies and issues, we are instead subjected to garbage!

trump1The leading candidate, Trump, couldn’t wait to get the field dwindled down to two or three candidates so he could talk about issues without having to deal with how “unfairly” he’s being treated.  Now that we have achieved that point in this primary, where is he?  He’s running away.   We finally have an opportunity to give the electorate what they deserve, a substantive debate.  But that doesn’t appear as though it’s going to happen.  And, quite frankly it’s not only sad, it’s disgusting!

Instead, “the Donald” finds it necessary to take this primary season even deeper into the proverbial gutter.  As a result, Ted Cruz has now had to resort to defending his family and saying things he wished need not be said.  To his credit, today Cruz has decided to take the high road (see below).

I ask you, are we deserving of all of this?  Is this what we wanted?  Hell no!  And, we have only one person to thank for this, Donald Trump.  Yes, that’s right!  So all of you Trump apologists can try and do what your candidate hasn’t been able to do, act respectfully.

It cannot be said that I am simply one of those “anti-Tump” movement types.  As a matter of fact, if you read some of my past posts, you will see that I was initially a supporter of Trump.  I defended him against those who I felt treated him unjustly, and against those who called him Hitlerian.  I gave him every benefit of the doubt and opened my mind up to what he had to say.  Unfortunately as time passed, Trump has become a political Don Rickles.    If he’s been consistent and clear on anything, it’s that he has never hesitated to lob insults at anyone who becomes a political threat to him.

First on Trump’s chopping block was Ben Carson.  Trump wasted little time comparing that man to a pedophile, and then ridiculed Carson’s attempt at stabbing a classmate when he was a troubled young man.  Also on Trump’s list was Rubio, who weeks prior to the Republican Primary in Florida, posed a legitimate threat to Trump.  Trump mocked Rubio’s height, referring to him as “Little Marco”.  And, candidates aren’t the only ones on the Donald Trump train of insults.  megynMegyn Kelly was an honored recipient as well.  Referring to a GQ photo shoot that Megyn Kelly once did, “the Donald” called her a “bimbo”.  (In hindsight, an interesting choice of words considering that Trump’s wife Melania also did a photo shoot as a model which was considerably more revealing and less tasteful.)

But then there’s Ted Cruz, the one candidate who has a legitimate chance of dethroning Trump’s bid for the Republican nomination.  The single candidate who is a clear Constitutional Conservative.  To Trump’s credit, he must have realized early on that Cruz was a viable candidate.  He wasted no time in labeling Cruz, “Lying Ted”.   A little over a week ago, Trump marched into Utah prior to the Utah caucus, his guns loaded with Cruz insults referring to him as “Lying Ted”.  He stood in front of the people of Utah and addressed them, proclaiming that “Utah doesn’t like liars”.  Well, let’s just say he was right about that.  Cruz earned almost 70% of the vote in Utah, with Trump finishing last, behind Kasich with only 14%.

cruz-presidentCalling Cruz, “Lying Ted” is one thing.  But Trump pushed the envelope too far last week when his insults took on a personal tone, attacking Heidi Cruz (wife of Ted Cruz).  His intentions were clear.  His tweet insulted Heidi Cruz’ physical appearance and then blamed his tweet on Cruz, stating it was a reaction to a campaign ad for which Cruz was responsible.  There’s only one problem with Trump’s excuse, Cruz’ campaign had absolutely nothing to do with the ad and Trump knows it!

If this goes to the republican convention without any republican candidate receiving the necessary 1237 delegates, things may just get even more ugly.  We don’t need a crystal ball to predict how things may go.  Should Trump not receive the 1237 delegates, he won’t become the nominee on the first ballot in Cleveland.  He’s already attempted to politicize this, telling the public that should he end up with most (not majority) of delegates, that he is owed the nomination.  He is attempting to get the people behind him to develop enough outcry to have the rules of the convention altered in his favor.  Well, I’m sorry Donald, but that’s not how it works.  You see, you need a majority of the delegates, not the most delegates to win the nomination.   Trump has received a little more than 35% of the popular vote during this primary.  That means that approximately 65% (a majority) voted against him.

I know…the same can be said for Ted Cruz.  And, you would be correct in saying that.  Cruz, will also not have a majority of the delegates, which is why we are likely to see an open convention.  And should that happen, the insults will continue to fly and chaos may ensue.

So here we stand.  This is how it’s apparently going to be.  We conservatives are not going to have the opportunity to see the primary play out with any integrity.   The media sensationalize all of this nonsense and they feed on it like hungry sharks playing right into “the Donald’s” hands.  The republican primary has become one big joke!  Hillary-Bernie-handshakeYou can almost see Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders laughing it up and dancing the Foxtrot together.  We are at a critical time in the history of this country, and this is what the republican primary process has given us.  It’s embarrassing and I for one, am disgusted!


Please follow and like us:

Free Market Economy


Natural Laws

One of the most dangerous and fruitless efforts made by man is to attempt to alter the natural order of things.  These things can include the economy, social norms, morality, and even nature.  Venezuela is a textbook case of a country in collapse, which was the direct result of a government’s attempt to alter the course of natural events.  How did they do this you ask?  One word:  Socialism.

venezuelaIn a Washington Post article from over a year ago (found here),  they address some of the failed policies of the Venezuelan government.   If you read this article, as an American it should be somewhat frightening to you.  Below are a few excerpts which support my statement:

  • “(Venezuela) doesn’t have an economy, so much as a poorly run oil exporting business that isn’t enough to subsidize everything else.”
  • “(Venezuela thinks) it can print as much money as it wants without stoking inflation by just saying it won’t.”
  • “The trouble is that while it has tried to help the poor, which is commendable, it has also spent much more than it can afford, which is not. Indeed, Venezuela’s government is running a 14 percent of gross domestic product deficit right now, a fiscal hole so big that there’s only one way to fill it: the printing press”

Is any of this starting to sound familiar?  So here we are.  In the good ol’ US of A.  The “Teflon” country.  We are resilient, right?  None of this could ever happen here, right?  Our economy is doing well under Obama, right?  Wrong!

Here is an image of the US Deficit as a percentage of GDP:defecit

Folks, we aren’t that far off from where Venezuela is!  And we are printing Cassidy-Bernie-Sanders-Loud-and-Clear-1200money, increasing our debt, and no one has made any effort to decrease federal spending.  To make matters worse, we have a presidential candidate in Bernie Sanders, who is an unapologetic socialist!  Hillary Clinton is just an “in-the-closet” socialist, who is close enough to Sanders to “feel the Bern” of socialism.  What happened in Venezuela is not a coincidence.  And, if we think it can’t happen here, we are dead wrong!

The free market economy is the remedy to our own pending economic collapse.  The free market economy is guided by “spontaneous order“, a natural law, if you will.  Government is an obstruction to this order.  It cannot dictate this order.  It cannot subsidize industries and still maintain this order.  It cannot pick and choose winners in the economy and maintain this order. It cannot enforce egalitarian policies and maintain this order.  It cannot impose socialist policies and maintain this order.  It cannot print money to influence the economy and maintain this order.  It cannot raise minimum wages and maintain this order.  Government can do nothing to effectively improve on this.  Government can only detract from it.  economy

People and the free market make up the natural order of things.  Not the government.  It is neither possible, nor responsible to impose policies to improve on this.  No good can come from that.  There is a reason this country has historically been the greatest nation on earth.  There is a reason people from impoverished, socialist economies desire to leave these places and come to America.  Our free market system provides hope and opportunity unlike anything they have ever seen before.

We cannot allow for our political leaders to get in the way of what is the greatest bastion of opportunity and prosperity.  For when we do, we will lose it all.  The law of nature always wins!

Please follow and like us:

Is This the Best We Can Do


Is This the Best We Can Do?

Here we are, fresh off the heels of Super Tuesday, and to this point America has told us that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are on a collision course to contend against one another in the presidential election.    I know there are a lot of delegates yet to be decided.  But the concept of Trump v Clinton is troubling.  And what troubles me most is what it says about America.

lead_960On one  hand we have Donald Trump, a candidate that has endeared himself to a large contingent of Americans who are disgruntled with the current state of politics in this country.  No one has ever accused “The Donald” of being stupid.  He’s discovered that his path of least resistance to the presidency is by being a newfound voice against the current political establishment in the Republican party.

What makes all of this work for Trump is that he is wealthy and savvy enough to make his mark without relying on financial support from outsiders.  Oddly enough, the candidate that has raised the most “outside money” is Hillary Clinton.  According to, as of February 22nd, Hillary Clinton has raised over $57.7 million from outside donors compared to $1.9 million raised by Donald Trump, a difference of 1/30th compared to Hillary.

But personal wealth is not the point of this article.  Trump, thus far has run a winning campaign based on rhetoric and insults.  Rhetoric which riles up those who follow him.  Insults which demonstrate he’s a master of deflection.  He’s so much as admitted that when a speech isn’t going well, all he has to do is talktrumpwall about the “wall” he is going to have built on the southern border.  And when that doesn’t have as much of an impact as he wants, he simply adds to it by saying he will get Mexico to pay for it.

Donald is an entertainer for certain.  But his constant barrage of insults towards other candidates, calling Cruz “nasty” and calling Rubio, “Little Marco” and a “light-weight”, are very unbecoming of someone aspiring to become president.  And so is his choice of language.  I find it appalling that as a presidential candidate, he hasn’t made any effort to censor his language.  He’s supposed to represent America, not embarrass us.

It’s also evident that Trump is starting to get confused with all of his insulting. FL_StateIcon In recent days, instead of using the label on Cruz, he’s now started calling Rubio “a very nasty man”.  But perhaps he’s really not confused at all.  Perhaps it’s because Texas is behind him and Florida is now in his sights.  And, this is indicative of what we’ve seen all along from Trump.  He is a weathervane, who will lob insults, rhetoric, and alter policy to whichever direction the wind is blowing at the time.

Sadly, I bought into the Trump hype early on.  He spoke about issues that were important to me.  He said all of the things I wanted to hear.  But then I started wanting something more.  I wanted to see some substance behind all of his words.  waiting-2I waited, and waited, and waited, but nothing.  The only thing I saw was more of the same.  It was time for me to move on.  I just wished my other conservative friends saw the same thing.   He’s turned the primary process, what should be one of the most deliberate and no-nonsense events for Americans, into a circus.   A blemish on our country.

And then there’s Hillary Clinton.  Where to begin and where to end?  But for purposes of keeping it short and simple, she’s the leading candidate for the Democratic Party and is possibly on a track towards being indicted by the federal government.   This woman has a trail of lies, scandals, and even mysterious deaths, that follow behind her that is longer than the Chesapeake Bay Bridge.

hillaryAmong her scandals include Whitewater, accepting donations to her US Senatorial campaign from the family of Marc Rich (who was later pardoned by her husband Bill Clinton before he left the Office of President), claim of landing in Bosnia under sniper fire, being fired from the House Judiciary Committee as an attorney because she lied during the Watergate investigation, Beghazi,  Uranium Oneand the un-secure use of her private email server for official State Department business.  There are several more scandals, but the details stemming from many of those listed above could be considered treasonous.  

As recent as today, a news report came out regarding the FBI Director James Comey being called before a House Judiciary Committee regarding the investigation into her email scandal.  (See video below)

And following last evening’s Super Tuesday results, Hillary had the audacity to say, “I believe what we need in American today, is more love and kindness.”  This meme below provides a perfect response to that statement:

love and kindness

The Office of President of the United States should be one of the most respected and coveted jobs in the world.  Instead we have two leading candidates who are truly undeserving of that office.  Look above.  Look at the character of these two and then take pause to think clearly about it.  But the bottom line is  this. It’s our own fault.  Yes, it’s the fault of Americans that we find ourselves in this position.  We have lost our moral compass.   We have been fooled by lies, and smoke and mirrors.  We need to be smarter than this!

It is very sad that in a country as great as the US, we can’t find two people more qualified than these two individuals.  Among all of the great thinkers, innovators, and countrymen who reside in this country, is this the best we can do?   I hope and pray that we become enlightened before it’s too late.  God bless us.


Please follow and like us:

Tired of the Propaganda


Follow the Money Trail

I need to get something off of my chest before I dig too deep into this.  And I would suspect that most of you probably share similar feelings of frustration and anger.

I am tired of being told “who” and “what” I should vote for by the media and establishment types!  I am tired of the Republican National Committee (RNC) Z7Mri5KHplaying favorites and trying to influence primary and election processes!  I am tired of listening to the supposed “fair and balanced” network praising a favored candidate in hopes that it will persuade the uninformed to vote for “their” candidate or against another!  I am tired of the establishment republican leadership on Capitol Hill!  They don’t rule over us, and it’s time we got loud and pushed back!

The first step in fighting back is to make an educated decision.  We need to take a look into who these candidates are and what they stand for.  It’s critically important that one avoids the temptation to be swept away by a wave of popularism.  Being popular and making news because you are a loudmouth is not what we are looking for in a conservative candidate.  We are looking for someone who is principled.  Someone who can not only articulate conservative values, but prove they are equipped to deliver on what they say.

Unfortunately, far too many buy into the propaganda. There are a lot of signs that voters often overlook when choosing a candidate.   It’s been said, “if you ConservativeReviewwant to know about someone, take a look at the company they keep.”  Just this afternoon I read an excellent article from  The article, entitled, 2016 GOP Endorsements: Quality v Quantitydoes an outstanding job of breaking down the endorsements received by the 2016 GOP candidates.  

Every smart salesperson knows, it’s far more important to have fewer customers who you can trust to pay, than to have many customer who don’t.  This article demonstrates that this same principle holds true regarding presidential endorsements.  Though I very much encourage you to read the article (as I can not do justice to how well it was composed), I have included a recap of the article in a table below.  The table identifies each of the top three GOP candidates, the number of congressional endorsements received, the average Conservative Review Liberty Score® of these endorsements, the Conservative Review Liberty Score® Rating for these endorsements, and the number of endorsements from congressmen with an “F” rating.

 Candidate      Endorsements  Avg Conservative Review Liberty Score® of Endorsement Rating   # of F ratings
Donald Trump  40  56%  F  20
Marco Rubio  56  54%  F  36
Ted Cruz  24  83%  B  1

As I mentioned above, “if you want to know about someone, take a look at the company they keep.”  The table above certainly paints a much clearer picture of these candidates.  Half of those who endorsed Donald Trump, and more than halftrump1rubio
who endorsed Marco Rubio have Liberty Score® ratings of “F”.  Rubio does not have a single endorsement from an “A-rated” congressman.  Pretty telling, don’t you think?  And these two candidates are using propaganda to discredit Cruz?  As a conservative, and based on these findings, I’m quite comfortable placing my trust in Ted Cruz over these two.  

Endorsements are part of the story, but donors also play a role in helping define the candidates.  To his credit, I’m going to take Trump out of the equation because he’s made it clear (and rightly so) that he is mostly self-funded.  However, when we compare Cruz to Rubio, another interesting bit of information comes to light.

According to (a self-proclaimed leader in research of political financing),  as of January 2016 approximately 58% of the individual contributions to Ted Cruz’ campaign came from large donors.  Likewise, 70% of individual contributions to Marco Rubio came from large donors.

But the real story comes from the individuals behind these contributions.  Let’s look at the one of the top donors for each of these two candidates.  Starting with Rubio, one of his major contributors is Larry-EllisonLarry Ellison, Executive Chairman and Chief Technology Officer of Oracle Corporation.  Why is that important?  Oracle is a major player in silicon valley and Ellison has unapologetic-ally supported amnesty and Rubio’s Gang of Eight Bill.  Even as Rubio verbally flip-flops on immigration and amnesty, knowing where the money is coming from seems to makes it quite obvious as to which side of that issue Rubio will fall.

On the other hand, one of Ted  Cruz’ major supporters is Robert Mercer, co-CEO of Renaissance Technologies  According to, Mercer has “…spent tens of millions to advance a conservative agenda, investing in think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation, (and) the media outlet  Groups he funds have attacked the science of global warming,  (and) published a book critical of Hillary Clinton.”   Again, we see quite the contrast between Cruz and Rubio.

If you want a quick education on who the candidates are and what they stand for, look at the people who surround them and follow the money trail.

Please follow and like us:

Federal Elections


Federal Elections

Assume for the moment that you are a homeowner in a sub-division where you reside, and the Homeowner’s Association (HOA) is about to hold their annual meeting, including the elections of homeowner-clipart-hoa-lettersHOA officers.  All of the homeowners are asked to sign in and provide identification as homeowners prior to the start of the meeting.  As the meeting gets underway and election ballots are handed out, fifteen strangers walk in on the meeting, fail to sign in, and request ballots for the election of officers.  None of the homeowners in attendance, including yourself, recognize any of the fifteen individuals.  As a homeowner, which of the following would you suggest?

a.  Assume they are homeowners and provide them with ballots 

b.  Out of fear of discriminating against them, give them ballots (no questions asked)

c.   Require them to provide identification and proof of HOA membership before giving them ballots

The answer to this question seems pretty straight forward doesn’t it?  The only reasonable answer is “c”.  I can’t imagine any homeowner granting a potential outsider the ability to cast a ballot if they are not an HOA member.  It is not only wise, but an example of due diligence to require proof of ownership before allowing them access to the meeting and election process.

Take another example.  (This is for my friends in academia, many of whom are surprisingly liberal…not.)  Imagine you are a member of the faculty in the College of Engineering and you are attending the annual faculty meeting of the college where such things as committee appointments and other policy decisions are up for a vote.  All of a sudden, faculty from the College of Business enter and sit in academicon the meeting.  Having attended many of these types of meetings over the years, I can assure you that heads will turn faster than a yellow traffic lights turns red when you’re approaching an intersection.  Faculty in the College of Engineering will be falling all over themselves in attempt to throw the infidels (College of Business faculty) out on their butts!  And quite honestly, I wouldn’t blame them.  Would you?  Again, it’s the reasonable thing to do in that situation.  Why?  Because whether it’s a faculty meeting or an HOA meeting, it’s imperative to protect the integrity of the proceedings!

Unfortunately, for matters of even greater importance to society, we are told that due diligence means otherwise.  We are also told that the right thing to do is quite the opposite of what we just proved to be the reasonable thing to do.

Under current law in the United States, non-citizens are NOT allowed to vote in federal elections. When applicants complete a federal voter registration form in brian_newbythe states of Kansas, Alabama, and Georgia, the executive director of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), Brian Newby, told elections officials in these three states that they could require proof of US citizenship.  No big deal, right?  Wrong!

Apparently a coalition of activists filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia this past week requesting a restraining order blocking the requirement for proof of citizenship.  One has to wonder why?  It’s certainly not to protect the integrity of the election process.  It couldn’t be.

To make matters worse (and to no great surprise), this administration’s Department of Justice headed by Loretta Lynch consented to the injunction filed against the EAC (one of the administration’s own federal agencies)!  gavelThis is just another example of this feckless administration’s selectivity when it comes to enforcing federal law.  Again, it goes against reason to not enforce proof of eligibility in ANY form of election!  And if you believe in taking a lawful and reasonable approach, you are going to be labeled as “extreme”.

I know it is not going to bother the leftists, but if you believe in American sovereignty, you can not be in favor of this type of tyrannical behavior.  It is utterly unjust and regardless of your political affiliation, you should stand up to this.  Since when is following the law and being reasonable extreme?  This nonsense has to stop and it has to stop now!


Please follow and like us:

What’s at Stake


What’s At Stake

Below is an excerpt from Ted Cruz’s book,  A Time for Truth:  Reigniting the Promise of America.

The example below underscores how important it is for us to elect a true conservative.  It is ironic, scary, and sad all in one, that we now find ourselves with a current president who will more than likely nominate that one radical justice who could turn this into reality.  And if you’re like me, I don’t trust the current republican leadership to stop it!


“Of course, protecting gun ownership isn’t just a matter of good public policy.  It is also required as a matter of constitutional law.  So when the constitutionality of D.C.’s gun control law arrived at the Supreme Court for argument in 2008, I was optimistic that Solicitor General Paul Clement would argue for a robust interpretation of the Second Amendment. 

Sadly, the Bush Administration did not allow him to do that.  The department of Justice refused to support Dick Anthony Heller, a federal law enforcement officer and D.C. resident who was challenging the city’s prohibition of handguns.  Instead, the administration argued that “reasonable restrictions” are constitutional if they protect “important regulatory interests” – whatever that means.  The District of Columbia’s attorney general went even further, audaciously consenting that the Second Amendment offers no protection whatsoever to individual gun owners, because according to the district, it protects only the “collective right” of militias.

I was dismayed with the Bush administration’s attempt to water down the Second Amendment and incensed with D.C.’s attempt to write the Second Amendment entirely out of the Constitution.  So was Bush’s own vice president, Dick Cheney, who as president of the Senate signed on to a robustly conservative brief filed by 55 senators and 260 congressman.

Texas took the lead among the states defending the Second Amendment.  In the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, I presented oral argument in the companion case to Heller. And, before the Supreme Court, we wrote an amicus brief joined by thirty other states, in support of Heller’s challenge to the district’s laws.

Texas was willing-indeed, eager-to say that those laws violated the plain language of the Constitution.  Unlike the District of Columbia, we did not believe the Second Amendment applies only to militias.  And unlike the Bush administration, we did not believe the laws infringing Americans’ rights to “keep and bear arms” become constitutional whenever a federal judge finds them “reasonable”.  That’s not what the Constitution says; instead it says, ”the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  In my view, “shall not be infringed” means exactly that.*

In June 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with Texas.  It explained that “the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily take certain policy choices off the table.”  Among those unconstitutional policy choices was D.C.’s “absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.”  The merits of gun control may be debatable, “but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”

The decision was 5-4, which meant that four justices had agreed with the District of Columbia’s radical position: not merely that some forms of “reasonable” gun control laws are permissible, but rather that nobody has any rights whatsoever under the Second Amendment.  In other words, four justices would  have held that the Second Amendment protects no individual right at all, that it establishes merely a “collective” right and is hence unenforceable by any American.  Under that extreme interpretation, Congress could pass legislation making it a criminal offense for any American to own a firearm, and no man or woman in the land could challenge that law.  And, ominously, we are just one vote away from the Supreme Court adopting that position, effectively erasing the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights.  If that doesn’t highlight the importance of the next president’s Supreme Court nominees, I don’t know what does.”

*That does not mean that there can never be any restriction on gun ownership.  For example, all of the amici states (and all nine justices) agreed that the long-standing prohibitions on felons owning firearms are consistent with the original understanding of the Second Amendment.   But any restriction must meet a strict standard, consistent with the Constitution.


Please follow and like us:

Stay Focused Conservatives


Open Primary this Weekend

If you read some of the stories coming from some of the media, you would think that tomorrow’s primary in South Carolina is make or break for the republican candidates.  While that may be true for the likes of John Kasich, Ben Carson, and even Jeb Bush, it doesn’t hold water for the others.  Let’s be honest, John Kasich is not likely to do well with any southern AP_jeb_bush_2_jt_150218_16x9_992state, and Jeb Bush says he’s staying in the race despite reports that his campaign is running out of money.  And Ben Carson, though likable, has not had the support needed to sustain his campaign for much longer.

Donald Trump has had a commanding lead in South Carolina from the start.  But should he lose South Carolina, does that signal something bigger is brewing?  His support nationwide is still pretty solid, though recent polls suggest he has lost his lead on a national scale.  However, if anyone suggests that a loss in South Carolina could spell the end for Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio,  tell them that it’s simply not the case.

What much of the nation may not realize is that South Carolina is one of many south-carolina-06states that employ an open primary process.  This means any registered voter, independent or registered with either political party, may vote in either the republican primary tomorrow (2/20) or the democratic primary next week (2/27).  What is unique about South Carolina, is that these two party primaries are held on different days, a week apart.  (A complete schedule of the primaries for 2016 can be found here.)

Critics of states with open primaries are generally concerned with “crossover voting” or “party crashing”.  Since South Carolina’s primary does not coincide with primaries in any other state, these concerns are more prominent and noticeable.  In short, a strategic endeavor could occur in which a candidate or more likely a Super-Pac of a candidate, in one party influences their supporters to vote for a particular candidate in the other party for a variety of reasons.  And since South Carolina is one of the early voting states, one of these reasons could very well include sending a signal to a candidate and their supporters, that their campaign is in trouble.

Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, speaks during a campaign stop on Wednesday, Jan. 13, 2016, in Dorchester, S.C. (AP Photo/Rainier Ehrhardt)Republican candidates that would seemingly be a target of “crossover voting” would include the leaders, Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.  Though Trump would be a formidable opponent for both Hillary and Sanders, he also has the highest unfavorability rating among the republican candidates. Therefore, it’s quite possible that Cruz may pose the greatest and most immediate threat to the democratic candidates and their Super-Pacs.  (Yes, I’m aware that Bernie claims to have no Super-Pac.)  As a result, Marco Rubio could be the beneficiary of such crossover tactics by receiving votes, that would not have otherwise gone to Trump or Cruz, but would have gone instead to a democratic candidate.

Given the heated primary environment this year, the winner of the republican primary this weekend in South Carolina may label their victory as a mandate.  Be careful not to get drawn in.  Though the winner of the republican primary in South Carolina often goes on to be the nominee, that is not always the case.  As winning this primary is clearly not a mandate for any one candidate, losing the primary in South Carolina is clearly not the end of the road either.

The real indicator will come on Super Tuesday,  March 1st.  I am asking that all of my fellow conservatives who will vote this weekend in South Carolina, and more importantly, those who will vote on March 1st, Super Tuesday Primary 2016to take stock of those things that truly matter to us as conservatives.  Don’t get caught up in the lies and the banter.  Consider what is truly at stake: liberty; Constitutional rights, Supreme Court nominations, and religious freedom among many other things.  Do not fall prey to what may or may not happen in South Carolina this weekend.  Keep your eyes, ears, voices, and hearts focused on those things that really matter, and keep up the good fight.

Please follow and like us: