Posted tagged ‘Donald Trump’

Report: Belgian Muslims Refuse to Help Police Find Terrorists

March 25, 2016

Report: Belgian Muslims Refuse to Help Police Find Terrorists, Truth RevoltTiffany Gabbay, March 24, 2016

(Here’s a video of Donald Trump addressing Muslim lack of cooperation with police to identify terrorists.

— DM)

 

brussels_terror_neighborhood_mail

There is a reason why Israel razes the homes of terrorists. It is because Israelis know that a terrorist cannot plot and carry out an attack without the knowledge and help of his or her immediate relatives, and further, the entire community. Punitive home demolition is meant to serve as a deterrent, the idea being that a would-be terrorist’s family will fear losing their home and thus persuade him or her against the attack.

In fact, knowing that it “takes a village” to aid and abet a terrorist is precisely why the terrorists responsible for the Paris and recent Brussels bombings could operate “right under the noses” of their victims. And it is why some are calling for heightened scrutiny of Muslim communities across the West, and right here in the U.S., despite cries of Islamophobia.

The MailOnline reports that police in Molenbeek — a district known for spawning jihadis like the France and Brussels attackers — have pleaded with local Muslims for help in finding the terror suspects only to have their pleas rebuffed:

The seeds of the terror blasts that shook Europe were planted by a brotherhood of childhood friends who grew up just a few doors away from each other in a part of Brussels dubbed the ‘crucible of terror’.

Police following the trail of the terrorist murderers behind the atrocities in France and Belgium have repeatedly arrived at a single block of housing in Molenbeek, a district of Brussels known as a hotbed of jihadism.

The centre of the deadly network is the Abdeslam family home, a first floor apartment on Gemeenteplaats, behind the local police station – and just round the corner from the home of Abdelhamid Abaaoud, the brains behind the Paris attacks. Abaaoud, the linchpin of the terror cell, was killed in a furious shootout with police in Saint-Denis, Paris, in the aftermath of the November massacres. He has emerged as the group’s ringleader, along with Salah Abdeslam.

Brothers Salah and Brahim Abdeslam were involved in the carnage in Paris, in which Brahim, 31, was killed in a suicide attack on the Comptoir Voltaire restaurant. It is understood that Salah, 26, went on the run without detonating his suicide vest.

Salah, who is accused of making the bombs used in the attacks, was arrested last week round the corner from the family home in a frantic police raid after four months on the run. He is also thought to have been involved in the Brussels attacks with a ‘new network’ of fanatics.

Just a few doors down from the Abdeslam and Abaaoud apartments is the family home of Mohamed Abrini, 30, who drove the Abdeslam brothers to Paris to carry out the attacks and is accused of being involved with the Brussels plot. He remains at large, and police are desperately trying to track him down.

Abrini is a childhood friend of Salah Abdeslam, and it is thought that the two became radicalised together. Moreover, Abrini’s younger brother Souleymane, 20, died in 2014 in Syria while fighting in the same ISIS military unit as Abaaoud, [sic] […] The tight-knit network doesn’t end there. A short distance from the Abdeslam and Abrini residences is the home of Ayoub El Khazzani, the terrorist who launched the botched gun and bomb attack on the Amsterdam-to-Paris express train in August last year.

The above passage is just meant to provide insight into how entrenched these terror networks have been and how interconnected members of the community truly are.

Police meanwhile are running into a brick wall because Muslims in the towns of  Molenbeek, and also nearby Schaerbeek, where the bomb factory used by the el Bakraoui brothers is located, simply refuse to help.

During a recent raid near the Ahl Allah mosque following the Brussels attack, police were met not with cooperation, but rather, hostility. They were verbally assaulted and taunted by throngs of angry young Muslim men.

“There is no terrorist on this street. The police are making it up to make Muslims look bad,” said 27-year-old Mohammed.

“It is a set-up.” The Mail continues:

The local community there views police with contempt, they added, and are unlikely to report terrorists to the authorities even if they do not have jihadi sympathies themselves.

‘Frankly I wasn’t surprised,’ a policewoman who wished to remain anonymous told MailOnline. ‘Nobody takes what happens in this district seriously. Every day we arrest well-known criminals and the next day they are back on the streets.

‘It is frustrating that we are doing our work but the justice system doesn’t back us up.

‘These people are not being prosecuted or fined, they are just being released. We arrest them and nothing happens to them.

‘One or two hours later they smile and mock us, believing they are on the winning side.’

The ‘lack of respect for police and for Belgium’ in the local multicultural community meant that the terror cell could operate without fear of being reported, she added.

This made Schaerbeek – which has been ‘off the radar’ for terror police – the ideal place for a deadly jihadi to hide out.

‘We have been asking for the higher authorities to take this district more seriously but it hasn’t happened,’ she said.

Her commanding officer, who also did not want to be named, agreed. ‘We have not been blind to the fact that something serious has been going on here,’ he said.

‘We have several people under surveillance but there are others that are unknown and blending in with the wall.

‘They are deeply embedded in the local community. They know each other and have family here, but nobody says anything.

According to Mohammed Abdeslam, one of the suspect’s brothers, speaking to reporters or authorities will get a community member into “very big trouble.”

“I can’t tell you if my brother was supposed to be involved in today’s attack because if I told you I knew, I’d be in very big trouble right now,” the man told The Mail before speeding off in his BMW.

And that, folks, is why the myth of the “small minority” is just that, a myth. Terrorism and radicalism goes far beyond just the person willing to the pull the ripcord him- or herself; it goes also to those who aid and abet those who pull the trigger. It extends even to those who simply turn a blind eye and refuse to help authorities stop the carnage when they’ve valuable information that can save lives. There are few innocents here in these Muslim enclaves, despite what the apologists will tell you. How our respective leaders chose to deal with that truth will make the difference in thwarting or not thwarting future attacks.

Gingrich: When will our leaders realize we are at war?

March 24, 2016

Gingrich: When will our leaders realize we are at war? Fox News via You Tube, March 23, 2016

 

Emory To Hunt Down Those Who Chalked Support For Trump On Sidewalks and Walls

March 24, 2016

Emory To Hunt Down Those Who Chalked Support For Trump On Sidewalks and Walls, Jonathan Turley Blog, Jonathan Turley, March 24, 2016

(Please see also, American Fascists. — DM)

495px-donald_trump_by_gage_skidmore

We have been discussing how colleges and universities are expanding the range of micro aggressions and hostile or hate speech to troubling levels in terms of free speech and associational rights. Now the expression of political views in the presidential election has been added to speech that students have declared threatening. Someone at Emory chalked the name of Republican candidate Donald Trump around campus. Nothing unusual about that. Students often chalk up statements on sidewalks for causes or candidates. It would not be seen as in any way unusual and the next rain brings a clean slate. However, the statement of support for Trump has led to a protest calling for the supporter to be punished or expelled and for the President to express condemnation of such political affiliations. The students want a statement of support for Trump to be treated as the same as the writing of a swastika. The students have said that they feel threatened in the wake of the statements of political support for Trump.

Students organized immediately after seeing the statements of support and had a meeting with Emory President James W. Wagner to demand action. Students demanded to know “Why did the swastikas [on the AEPi house in Fall 2014] receive a quick response while these chalkings did not?” They were not happy when Wagner reportedly responded that that was a case of an outside threat. The questions reportedly became more pointed like “What do we have to do for you to listen to us?” One student demanded that Emory send out a University-wide email to “decry the support for this fascist, racist candidate.” To his credit, Wagner refused to denounce a presidential candidate. The students then demanded diversity hires into the “higher positions” of the University, including the Board of Trustees and the faculty in general.

What was particularly chilling is the demand for action on faculty members who have not publicly denounced Trump or his views under the view that “[Faculty] are supporting this rhetoric by not ending it.” This failure, the students insisted, have created a threatening environment and that “people of color are struggling academically because they are so focused on trying to have a safe community and focus on these issues [related to having safe spaces on campus].”

Wagner is reportedly preparing an email and has launched an investigation to find the culprit. University police are looking at security cameras. What will they do if they find some student with the incriminating chalk? Will she or he be expelled or disciplined or publicly denounced?

I have some obvious concerns about such action. My primary concern is whether this is the truly the first time in the history of Emory University that students or faculty made political statements on sidewalks. I doubt it. Would the same effort to hunt down the writers occur if the writing referred to Sanders or Black Lives Matter or Greenpeace? If not, this would seem a content-based effort that raises serious issues of free speech. Moreover, the expectation of some of these students that faculty should be pushed to denounce Trump like some Pol Pot reeducation camp is chilling.

I have written previously how free speech is under attack in the West and we appear to be raising one of the most anti-free speech generations in the history of our country. In the name of “tolerance,” we are treating free speech as the scourge of society and a right that must be carefully controlled to “protect” others. These students believe that political views are now within the gambit of threatening speech. We have come full circle from the sixties where baby boomers discovered political and social activism on campuses — a time of great upheaval but also great exploration. However now that students and staff are embracing a conservative, the desire is to have official condemnations and investigations. Trump has clearly generated both great support and great opposition. His views, however, (particularly on immigration) are shared by millions of citizens. Indeed, those same views are prevailing in part of Europe. This is a wonderful opportunity to have a passionate and substantive debate. Why not let all political flowers bloom on campuses? Rather than immediately seek to silence those with countervailing views, the first inclination should be to engage in the debate and value the exchange of ideas.

Before Wagner takes action, the faculty should at a minimum ask for the university to address how it has previously addressed chalk art and political statements. If all chalking is now going to be treated as an offense, will the university be distinguishing art but not political art? The problem with chalk crimes is, forgive the pun, drawing lines on what is prohibited or permitted speech.

What do you think?

Hashtag: We Are Neville Chamberlain

March 24, 2016

Hashtag: We Are Neville Chamberlain, Front Page Magazine, Ann Coulter, March 24, 2016

brussels-airport

Immigration is the new “No Nukes/Save the Whales” movement, only with more body bags.

After the mass murder committed by Muslims in San Bernardino, which came on the heels of the mass murder committed by Muslims in Paris, Donald Trump proposed a moratorium on Muslim immigration.

Explaining the idea on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” he talked about how Muslim immigration was infecting Europe: “Look at what happened in Paris, the horrible carnage. … We have places in London and other places that are so radicalized that the police are afraid for their own lives. We have to be very smart and very vigilant.”

Trump’s reference to London’s no-go zones was met with a massive round of sneering, which is what passes for argument in America these days. Jeb! said Trump was “unhinged,”

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) called him “foolish,” and former vice president Dick Cheney said Trump’s remarks went “against everything we stand for and believe in.” (Based on Trump’s crushing primary victories, Cheney is no longer qualified to say what “we” believe in.)

To prove Trump wrong, reporters called British authorities and asked them: Are you doing your jobs? They responded, Why, yes we are! The head of London’s police said, “Mr. Trump could not be more wrong,” and London mayor Boris Johnson called Trump’s comments “utter nonsense.”

Within days, however, scores of rank-and-file London policemen begged to differ with their spokesmen, leading to the following headlines:

UK Daily Mail: ‘TRUMP’S NOT WRONG — WE CAN’T WEAR UNIFORM IN OUR OWN CARS’: Five Police Officers Claim Donald Trump Is Right About Parts of London Being So ‘Radicalised’ They Are No-Go Areas

The Sun: ‘THERE ARE NO-GO AREAS IN LONDON’: Policemen Back Trump’s Controversial Comments

UK Daily Express: ‘TRUMP IS RIGHT!’ Police Say Parts of Britain Are No-Go Areas due to ISIS Radicalisation

Then, in January of this year, Trump talked specifically about the Muslim invasion of Brussels on the Maria Bartiromo show. “There is something going on, Maria,” he said. “Go to Brussels. … There is something going on and it’s not good, where they want Sharia law … There is something bad going on.”

The New York Times headlined a story on the interview: “Donald Trump Finds New City to Insult: Brussels.” News is no longer about communicating information; it’s about imparting an attitude. Trump is rude, so whether he’s right is irrelevant. As the saying goes, “Better dead than rude.”

Indignant Belgians took to Twitter, the Times reported, “deploying an arsenal of insults, irony and humor, including images of Belgium’s beloved beer and chocolate.” Liberals have gone from not understanding jokes to not understanding English. When Trump talked about unassimilated Muslim immigrants demanding Sharia law, I don’t think he was knocking Belgium’s beer and chocolate.

Rudi Vervoort, the president of the Brussels region (who evidently survived this week’s bombing), rebuked Trump, saying, “We can reassure the Americans that Brussels is a multicultural city where it is good to live.”

After multiculturalism struck this week, Vervoort said, “I would like to express my support to the victims of the attacks of this morning …” Twitter bristled with supportive hashtags, the Belgian flag and professions of solidarity. The Times editorialized: “Brussels, Europe, the world must brace for a long struggle against this form of terrorism.”

All this would be perfectly normal if we were talking about an earthquake or some other natural disaster — something humans have no capacity to prevent. But Muslims pouring into our countries and committing mass murder isn’t natural at all. It’s the direct result of government policy.

It’s as if the government were dumping rats in our houses, and then, whenever someone died of the plague, those same government officials issued heartfelt condolences, Twitter lit up with sympathetic hashtags and the Times editorialized about effective rodent control, but no one ever bothered to say, Hey! Maybe the government should stop putting rats in our houses!

When people are killing in the name of their religion, it’s not an irrelevancy to refuse to keep admitting more practitioners of that religion.

But this is the madness that has seized Europe and America — a psychosis Peter Brimelow calls “Hitler’s revenge.”

Apparently, what we have learned from Hitler is not: Don’t kill Jews. To the contrary, the only people who openly proclaim their desire to kill Jews are … Muslims.

What we’ve learned from Hitler is not: Don’t attempt to seize hegemonic control over entire continents. The only people vowing to conquer the world are … Muslims.

And what we’ve learned from Hitler is not: Beware violent uprisings of angry young men. The only hordes of violent, angry young men are, again … Muslims. (And Trump protesters.)

But instead of learning our lesson and recoiling with horror at this modern iteration of Nazism, we welcome the danger with open arms — because the one and only lesson we’ve learned from Hitler is: DON’T DISCRIMINATE!

American Fascists

March 24, 2016

American Fascists, Bill Whittle Channel via You Tube, March 23, 2016

(What will America be like in a few years? It’s unpleasant to contemplate. — DM)

 

AIPAC’S pathetic apology to Obama

March 24, 2016

AIPAC’S pathetic apology to Obama, New York Post, Seth Lipsky March 23, 2016

Trump at AIPACDonald Trump Photo: AP

‘Unprecedented” is the word the Washington Post is using for the apology issued by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee for the applause given to Donald Trump at its conference this week.

AIPAC is shocked — shocked — that The Donald criticized President Obama from the lobby’s stage. And that Trump’s jibe was greeted with a gleeful ovation from thousands of pro-Israel activists.

It happened when Trump was marking the betrayals by the United Nations, which, he said, is “not a friend of democracy, it’s not a friend to freedom.” It’s not even, he added, a friend to America or Israel.

“With President Obama in his final year — yay!” The Donald exclaimed. “He may be the worst thing to ever happen to Israel, believe me, believe me. And you know it, and you know it better than anybody.”

That’s what prompted AIPAC’s president, Lillian Pinkus, to apologize. “We are deeply disappointed,” she said, “that so many people applauded a sentiment that we neither agree with or condone.”

Forgive me, but the right word for AIPAC’s apology is “chickens – – -.” And it’s not just because Hillary Clinton’s address, with her jibes at Trump and other Republicans, was the most partisan speech at AIPAC.

It’s also because AIPAC has always been a stage for putting things into sharp relief. Of course President Obama isn’t literally the worst thing that’s ever happened to Israel (we Jews have had more than our portion of woe).

It’s hard, though, to think of a presidency as disappointing to Israel as Obama’s has been. Who, after all, was that “senior Obama administration official” who used “chickensh – – -” to describe Benjamin Netanyahu?

The insult was reported by The Atlantic not long before Netanyahu addressed a joint meeting of Congress. The magazine reckoned it marked the moment when, as its headline put it, “the crisis in US-Israel relations is officially here.”

No one is placing bets on this driving Jewish voters out of the Democratic Party and into the arms of the GOP.

The landscape is littered with erroneous predictions that Jews are going to start voting Republican, a fact that I’ve learned from personal experience in the newspaper line.

It’s not too soon, though, to say that we’re at a remarkable moment. Before Trump made his appearance at AIPAC, after all, there were warnings of all sorts of protests and walkouts.

In the event, the man who’s been endorsed by David Duke (and belatedly repudiated it) received a warm reception, marked by standing ovations. It prompted the editor of one Jewish newspaper, Jane Eisner of the Forward, to write that she was “ashamed.”

“The applause,” she wrote, “began after he uttered his very first sentence.” Soon some in the crowd were standing and clapping. “And, when he threw the red meat that he brilliantly feeds his other crowds, there were cheers as they gobbled it up.”

And no wonder. Trump railed against the articles of appeasement on which the Obama administration agreed with Iran. And this is not a Likud-versus-Labor thing. Both Netanyahu and the opposition’s Isaac Herzog opposed the pact with the ayatollahs.

As does every GOP candidate who addressed AIPAC this year, including Ted Cruz most forcefully. John Kasich declared that in the wake of Iran’s latest missile tests he would suspend the agreement.

The only candidate at AIPAC who actually supports the Iran appeasement is Hillary Clinton. Her chutzpah is so thick that it could be carved up with a chain saw and used to make bomb shelters — a point well-marked in The Post’s editorial Wednesday.

At AIPAC, she warned against the Republicans. She said the GOP would give them a “glimpse of a potential US foreign policy that would insult our allies, not engage them, and embolden our adversaries, not defeat them.”

If AIPAC’s delegates seemed momentarily confused, it’s no doubt because they thought she was talking about herself again. Or the reset with Russia, the war she plumped for in Libya or her victories in Afghanistan.

No wonder Trump, Cruz and Kasich got so much applause. AIPAC knows deep down that the Democrats have been a disaster in foreign policy. If any apologies are owed, they’re by the Democrats — even if that would be “unprecedented.”

AIPAC Rebukes Trump’s Obama Truth telling, Ignores Hillary’s Insult to AIPAC

March 24, 2016

AIPAC president admonishes Trump and AIPAC audience for “attacks” on Obama, but Hillary love for Iran Deal was no problem.

By: Lori Lowenthal Marcus

Published: March 24th, 2016

Source: The Jewish Press » » AIPAC Rebukes Trump’s Obama Truth telling, Ignores Hillary’s Insult to AIPAC

Lillian Pinkus, president of AIPAC speaks at the Policy Conference. March 21, 2016.
Photo Credit: YouTube screen capture

On Monday, Mar. 21, four Americans who are competing to be the next President of the United States spoke to the thousands gathered in Washington, D.C. at the policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

In what should be considered a shocking breach of etiquette, the morning after those speeches, the president of AIPAC gave a verbal spanking to one of the speakers.

The four speakers on Monday were the Democratic frontrunner, Hillary Clinton, and the three remaining Republican candidates in the race, Donald Trump, Sen. Ted Cruz (TX) and Gov. John Kasich (OH).

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders chose not to attend the AIPAC conference.

It’s hard to come up with a more familiar face at AIPAC than Clinton. Her speech was warmly applauded by the crowd and she threw out lots of the standard tropes: “defending our ally in the Middle East” and the “unbreakable bond between Israel and the U.S.”

The audience also responded appreciatively when Clinton repeatedly attacked Republican frontrunner Trump. Nor did they boo when she spoke positively about perhaps the most important – and detested – foreign policy issue of the past year, the Nuclear Iran Deal.

AIPAC spent an unprecedented nearly $30 million in advertising and lobbying efforts to kill the Iran Deal. That was because AIPAC leadership decided the deal was far too dangerous for Israel and for the United States for them to sit on the sidelines. There are many who believe AIPAC badly – perhaps permanently – damaged its reputation by pouring so much money and other resources into fighting the terrible deal, and losing.

And yet, Hillary Clinton praised the deal during her talk to the AIPAC policy conference on Monday. Of that Iran Deal, Clinton said,: “I really believe the United States, Israel and the world are safer as a result.”

Lillian Pinkus, AIPAC’s president, did not chide Clinton for, essentially, rubbing AIPAC’s nose in its loss on the Iran Deal. Nope, that would be bad form.

But what Pinkus did go after was criticism of President Barack Obama, who was, of course, the architect and chief cheerleader of the disastrous Nuclear Iran Deal. It was also Obama who said in words and later in deeds that he wished to put daylight between the U.S. and Israel.

According to reports, Pinkus was tearful when she gave a statement, flanked by her top officers, apologizing for one of the speakers who dared to actually call Obama on his misdeeds towards Israel.

In the context of rumored threats that the President was going to impose a “solution” on Israel in a U.N. Security Council Resolution, Donald Trump said to the AIPAC policy conference that Obama was “in his last year in office.” He then extemporaneously added “yay.” The audience responded with a roaring cheer and thunderous applause. Trump continued with: “Obama may be the worst thing to ever happen to Israel,” which was met with more, albeit subdued, applause.

Near the end of his talk, Trump said what so many pro-Israel Americans fervently believe, which is that “Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have treated Israel very, very badly.”

That so many in the audience applauded those statements by Trump – though he is not generally a favorite in the American Jewish community – should have lifted the blinders from the eyes of the firmly-cemented-in-the-Democratic-party AIPAC leadership. It didn’t.

Instead, Pinkus and her team decided to attack Trump for making his statements, thereby injecting their own political orientation to the mix.

No harsh words for Clinton who praised the Nuclear Iran Deal, AIPAC’s sworn nemesis, but a “tearful condemnation” of Trump for daring to speak from his heart about the current president, and an admonishment for those in the crowd who dared to applaud Trump’s temerity.

This was the statement made by Lillian Pinkus, president of AIPAC:

Standing before you are the lay and professional leadership of this organization.We speak on behalf of the Board of Directors and professional staff.

From the moment this conference began, until this moment, we have preached a message of unity.

We’ve said, in every way we can think of, “Come Together.”

But last evening, something occurred which has the potential to drive us apart. To divide us.

We say unequivocally that we do not countenance ad hominem attacks, and we take great offense to those that are levied at the President of the United States of America from our stage.

While we may have policy differences, we deeply respect the office of the President of the United States and our President, Barack Obama.

We are disappointed that so many people applauded a sentiment that we neither agree with nor condone.

Let us close this conference in recognition that when we say we must “Come Together,” we still have a lot to learn from each other. And we still have much work to do—because broadening the base of the American pro-Israel movement is essential and our unity is our strength.

Let us pledge to each other that in this divisive and tension-filled political season that we will not allow those that wish to divide our movement—from the left or the right—to succeed in doing so.

Thank you.

There are many in the pro-Israel and Israeli community who believe that the Nuclear Iran Deal is opening the door to another Holocaust. But at AIPAC, “Come Together” was the priority, rather than “Never Again.”

Too Late For GOP Moderates to Unite

March 23, 2016

Too Late For GOP Moderates to Unite, Commentary Magazine, March 23, 2016

(Another member of the Trump Hater’s Club appears to concede defeat. — DM)

Jeb-Cruz-TrumpImage by © ERIK S. LESSER/epa/Corbis

Had anyone told you a couple of months ago that Jeb Bush would endorse Ted Cruz, you’d have said they were crazy. But that old cliché about politics and strange bedfellows is as true today as it ever was. Bush’s support for the Texas senator would have been a really big deal had it been announced at any point prior to Super Tuesday. But after Donald Trump’s impressive run of victories over the last several weeks that continued last night in Arizona, the grudging backing of the Bush clan for Cruz is a classic case of too little, too late.

Coming on a day after Trump issued a vile threat about “spilling the beans” about some dirt he would throw at Cruz’s wife Heidi, this might be considered a moment when Republicans of all political stripes might rally around the cause of stopping a candidate that seems bereft of a shred of common decency. Though some have expected Trump to start behaving like a future president now that the nomination is within his grasp, it is clearly too much to ask for him to act like anything other than a vulgar thug.

But given the fact that a host of other similar statements — all of which individually should be treated as disqualifying Trump for the presidency — the latest infamous Trumpism isn’t likely to shake his hold on the affections of a plurality of GOP voters. That’s why the Bush endorsement changes nothing about the race. The same can be said of the endorsement of the Club for Growth.It’s the first time the influential libertarian advocacy group has picked a favorite in a presidential race and would have been a big boost to Cruz earlier in the election cycle. But the Bush move and the willingness of GOP moderates like Senator Lindsey Graham to host a Washington fundraiser for the scourge of the Senate Republican caucus, these developments are meaningless when set beside Trump’s stunning ability to keep winning Republican primaries.

Cruz could take some solace in winning Utah by a landslide as Mormon voters registered their disgust with Trump’s vulgar style as well as his insults of Mitt Romney’s faith. But even though he managed to win all 40 Utah delegates, Trump’s sweep of all 58 delegates from Arizona puts him that much closer to the 1,237 he needs to secure the GOP nomination.

The next big test will come two weeks from now in Wisconsin but even if Cruz wins there — a big if considering that he will face competition from John Kasich for the anti-Trump vote — the rest of April will be filled with primaries in Northeastern states where both the Texan and the Ohio governor — whose lack of a rationale for staying in the race becomes more obvious with every passing day — may not be competitive. Though Cruz may keep fighting until California votes on June 7, his quest to deny Trump a majority and keep the hope of a contested convention alive may be done long before then.

But the Bush endorsement and the behind the scenes maneuvering that sought to also get Marco Rubio behind Cruz illustrates everything that was all wrong about the effort to stop Trump. According to Politico, some in the Cruz camp — including Utah Senator Mike Lee — reached out to Rubio about the possibility of a joint ticket. But Rubio wasn’t interested. Just as Bush wasn’t interested in backing his former friend after he dropped out when Rubio might have benefitted from that endorsement before the Florida primary.

Given that Bush was a total flop as a presidential candidate despite raising and spending record amounts of money, his endorsement doesn’t carry much weight with GOP primary voters. Nor is there any reason to believe that a Rubio endorsement of Cruz would change the electoral map. The so-called establishment lane for which Bush, Rubio, Kasich, and Chris Christie were all competing didn’t turn out to have as many votes as many of us thought. It’s obvious that GOP voters wanted an outsider — whether a complete outlier like Trump or a Tea Party rebel like Cruz — not someone that could be depicted as a successor to Republican moderates like Romney or John McCain.

But all this back and forth involving Bush’s hurt feelings toward Rubio and Rubio’s possible resentment of Cruz just shows how clueless mainstream Republicans have been about the 2016 campaign. It was clear to some of us as early as last August that the GOP primary schedule could allow Trump to romp to the nomination by winning pluralities while his rivals divided the vote of Republicans that wanted a more qualified candidate. Yet throughout the campaign, the so-called moderate wing of the party was too caught up in the egos of the individual candidates and their delusions about Trump fading to draw some obvious conclusions.

Had counter-factual scenarios that involve an early Bush endorsement of Rubio or Rubio and Bush backing Cruz before Super Tuesday come to pass that might have produced a different result than Trump’s current ascendancy. But what’s misleading about this thinking is that it ignores the strength of Trump’s appeal to a critical mass of voters who don’t care about his lack of knowledge about the issues, his substituting empty slogans for serious positions, his lack of a presidential temperament or the fact that he is clearly bereft of any sense of personal honor (I’ll concede that’s an antique concept in our day and age, but it is one that the signers of the Declaration of Independence took seriously).

The notion of Trump inevitability is a narrative that was probably only enabled by the fecklessness of his opponents. There might have been a moment in this campaign when the squabbling band of GOP moderates could have made peace with Cruz and joined forces in a manner that might have made a difference. Bush, Rubio, Kasich and other Republicans that didn’t want their party to be led by a thug to a disastrous November rout should have put aside their egos and joined forces weeks, if not months ago. But to expect a consolidation of his opponents to alter the direction of the contest now that Trump is clearly on track to win the nomination outright is to engage in wishful thinking. When Trump ascends the podium in Cleveland to accept his party’s nomination — an event that seems more likely than ever today — GOP leaders will have no one but themselves to blame.

Brandon Tatum Tucson Police Officer Blasts ‘Hateful’ Anti – Donald Trump Protesters – Full Interview

March 23, 2016

Brandon Tatum Tucson Police Officer Blasts ‘Hateful’ Anti – Donald Trump Protesters – Full Interview, Fox News via You Tube, March 23, 2016

(Please see also, VIRAL VIDEO: Black cop tells the TRUTH about Trump rallies. — DM)

 

Poll: Most Republicans want the GOP to unite behind Trump

March 23, 2016

Poll: Most Republicans want the GOP to unite behind Trump, Washington ExaminerGabby Morrongiello, March 23, 2016

More than half of Republican voters believe the GOP is best off choosing Donald Trump as its 2016 presidential nominee if he arrives at the convention with the most delegates, according to a new poll.

In the latest Monmouth University national poll of Republican voters, 54 percent say their party should nominate the current GOP front-runner if he continues to lead the delegate count come July. Another 34 percent would prefer a contested convention in which someone other than Trump emerges as the nominee.

Of the voters who oppose Trump’s candidacy, 55 percent want someone other than the billionaire nominated at the convention, while 31 percent of that group still believe the party should nominate Trump if he has the highest delegate count.

The candidate most Trump opponents want as their nominee is Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. Thirty-three percent of voters in favor of a contested convention would like Cruz to be the GOP nominee, 23 percent would like Ohio Gov. John Kasich, and 10 percent want Florida Sen. Marco Rubio.

Slightly more GOP voters would want former Republican nominee Mitt Romney to again represent the party in the general election than would former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.

Should the Republican National Convention include multiple rounds of voting on the convention floor and lead someone other than Trump to secure the nomination, a combined 47 percent of Trump supporters would either vote for a third-party candidate or likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, or not vote at all in November.

Only 43 percent said they would commit to backing another candidate as the GOP nominee in the general election.

“A majority of non-Trump supporters seem to be in favor of a brokered convention process at this point in the campaign,” Monmouth University polling director Patrick Murray said in a statement. “That would probably throw the party into turmoil with many Trump supporters abandoning the party.”

The same survey shows Trump holding a steady lead nationally over his remaining two opponents. The real estate mogul, who won the Arizona primary Tuesday night but lost to Cruz in Utah, draws 41 percent support among Republican voters. Cruz draws 29 percent – double what it last December – and Kasich draws 18 percent support.