Posted tagged ‘Donald Trump’

Arrest the Thugs

March 15, 2016

Arrest the Thugs, Front Page Magazine, The Editors, March 15, 2016

(Please see also, How Not to Fight Our Enemies. — DM)

gh

First the Left unleashed anti-war rallies against President Bush in support of Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Then it brought out Occupy Wall Street to push the radical Marxist agenda that Bernie Sanders is now riding like a red wave through the Democratic Party. Finally, it unleashed the racist hate mobs that looted and burned neighborhoods and cities, singled out white people for harassment over the color of their skin, terrorized campuses and incited the murder of police officers.

The common agenda of all these hateful campaigns was to radicalize, intimidate and terrorize Americans into submitting to the totalitarians of the Left. From the inner city neighborhood to the Ivy League campus, from a couple having brunch in the morning to a police officer on patrol being shot in the head, from a political rally to the Thanksgiving Day parade, these thugs of the Left are out to enforce their tyrannical Party Line through political terror.

While the media call these so-called protesters “non-violent,” they completely ignore the fact that suppressing someone else’s free speech is an act of intimidation. To prevent someone else from speaking is not a debate. It’s the refusal to have a debate. Protesters have the right to be heard, but silencing views you disagree with is not a protest. It is the exercise of totalitarian power. And the Left’s organized efforts to prevent opposing points of view from being heard have now migrated from the campus to the city. The media call these crybullies the victims. But they are not victims. They are thugs who are using brute force to suppress the free speech and political freedoms of others.

Donald Trump has as much right to hold a rally as Bernie Sanders. His supporters have as much right to come out to hear him speak. The Left’s refusal to accept this is a definitive rejection of freedom of speech and democracy.

For all his faults, Donald Trump is to be commended for standing up against all this, and for his cool under fire. When a leftist fascist attempted to attack him recently at a rally in Dayton, Ohio, and succeeded in grabbing his foot before he was subdued by Secret Service agents, Trump quipped: “I was ready for him but it’s much easier if the cops do it, don’t we agree?”

Trump’s opponents, both Republican and Democrat, and the Obama administration should realize what’s at stake – if, that is, they have any interest in preserving the American tradition of non-violent political disagreement. The unseemly haste of Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and John Kasich to blame Trump’s rhetoric for the violent shutdown of his Chicago rally is extraordinarily disappointing: they should realize that the same violence can and will be turned against them if they stray too far from the thugs’ idea of what constitutes acceptable political discourse.

There is only one answer to a movement that is determined to thuggishly shut down the speech of others. And that is prison. We can either have speech democracy or speech tyranny in which the biggest thugs and the nastiest bullies decide who gets to speak and who has to shut up. The leftist fascists who shut down Trump’s Chicago rally should be arrested and energetically prosecuted. Barack Obama, so quick to issue statements about black and Muslim victimhood, should (if he cared at all about the principles that allow for a republic) immediately issue a statement stressing the importance of civility and respect for political dissent, and decry the shutdown of the Trump rally.

Obama won’t issue any such statement, of course, and that’s a large part of the problem. Much, much more is at stake in the shutdown of Trump’s rally than most Americans realize. As it becomes increasingly perilous to dissent from the leftist line in America, we can only hope that a sufficient number of Americans will awaken to what is happening in time to hold today’s political and media elites to account for the damage they have done and are doing to the American public square.

The political thugs of the Left cannot be allowed to hijack freedom of speech for an entire nation. Either we arrest the thugs or we will all exist confined in a prison where a handful of thugs can tell us what to we may say and what we may think.

 

Rush, Andrew, Donald, and the Republican Reconquista

March 15, 2016

Rush, Andrew, Donald, and the Republican Reconquista, American ThinkerJack Cashill, March 15, 2016

“Most of my friends were graduating that year,” writes Barack Obama in Dreams from My Father. “Hasan off to work with his family in London, Regina on her way to Andalusia to study Spanish Gypsies.”

Ah yes, “Andalusia!” That, of course, is left-speak for “Spain.” For anti-colonialists like Obama, Andalusia is more than an historical place. It is a metaphor for a progressive golden age, one in which wisdom ruled and peace reigned. “Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance,” affirmed Obama at Cairo in 2009. “We see it in the history of Andalusia.”

True, after the invading Moors brutally ripped the Iberian Peninsula from its indigenous Latinos, peace of a sort did reign. It came at a price, specifically the jizya, a tax non-Muslims had to pay to secure their dhimmi status, the Islamic equivalent of Jim Crow.

The Moors arrived in the year 711. The Christians started reconquering their homeland in 721. It would take them seven centuries to finish the job. In all of Obama’s musings about Andalusia, he has spared scarcely a word for the “Reconquista,” a Republican variation of which has hatched on his watch.

A few days ago, casually searching YouTube, I came across a short video I had not seen in five years called “The Media Reaction to Jack Cashill’s Deconstructing Obama.” In seven compact minutes producer Chris Kusnell sheds some unexpected light on the Republican Reconquista in embryo.

 

 

What makes the video particularly relevant is that it features on-screen appearances by some of the leading figures in this movement — Rush Limbaugh, the late Andrew Breitbart, and, most intriguingly, Donald Trump.

Kusnell’s piece begins with a video of candidate Barack Obama boasting to a crowd of Virginia schoolteachers in July 2008, “I’ve written two books. I actually wrote them myself.”

Obama was comfortable making this claim for one reason: the left dominates America’s culture as thoroughly as the Andalusian Muslims did the culture of Iberia. From experience, Obama knew that the nation’s cultural imams were willing to enable his fraud if it advanced a cause close to their hearts.

And a fraud it most certainly was. By September 2008, I was 100 percent certain Obama did not write Dreams from My Father or Audacity of Hope by himself, and I was 90 percent certain that terrorist emeritus Bill Ayers co-authored Dreams.

Knowing Obama’s media allies would have zero interest in my evidence, I tried to find an influential forum on the right. Yet when I knocked on insider doors to advance my thesis, they remained firmly shut. Human Events punted on my research. The National Review did too. The FOX producers downstairs showed interest, but the suits upstairs did not.

The managing editor of the Weekly Standard referred me to the magazine’s literary editor, whose response was myopic to a fault: “An interesting piece, but I’m rather oversubscribed at the moment, the length is considerable, and cutting would not do it justice.”

A Weekly Standard cover that read “Who Wrote Dreams from My Father?” might have changed the outcome of the election, but the editor, alas, was “oversubscribed.” Like the other high profile dhimmis, he had made his “peace” with the progressive establishment. Whether Obama won or lost, he still had his job and the grudging tolerance of his overlords. He was not about to risk either to advance an idea someone might call “racist.”

On October 9, 2008, the American Thinker gave me the space I needed to make my case. Rush Limbaugh amplified the American Thinker piece that same day. As the Kusnell video shows, he gave it a good airing.

To keep Limbaugh’s influence in check, the cultural imams fought back with the most potent weapon in their arsenal — shame. “This may not have been Limbaugh’s most racist insinuation of the campaign,” said New Yorker editor David Remnick, citing others he liked less. He concluded, though, that our collective “libel about Obama’s memoir — the denial of literacy, the denial of authorship — had a particularly ugly pedigree.”

During the next four weeks, despite Limbaugh’s overture and my best efforts, not a single “respectable” conservative, either in the media or in the McCain campaign, dared explore this issue. On the up side, no one called our respectable friends “racist.” On the down side, Obama was elected president.

When McCain lost, the dhimmis blamed “Internet zanies” like me for his defeat. The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto singled me out by name as among those who “engaged in irresponsible rumor-mongering and conspiracy-theorizing.” The National Review’s Jonah Goldberg sniffed, “I think trying to claim some sort of literary conspiracy is a bridge too far.”

In the fall of 2009, without ever talking to me, bestselling celebrity biographer Christopher Andersen confirmed my thesis in his book, Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage. Although the apolitical Andersen spent six pages on Ayers’s involvement with Dreams, the mainstream media simply pretended he didn’t. And once again, the conservative media enabled the pretense.

In 2011, Simon & Schuster published my book, Deconstructing Obama. In it, I make a case for Ayers’s role as Obama’s muse so compelling that only a liberal or a dhimmi would deny it. As the Kusnell video shows, Andrew Breitbart was neither.

“Let’s get on to the racism of today,” Bill Maher asked Breitbart on his HBO show. “You do not believe Obama wrote his own book?” Breitbart was not surprised by this line of attack. Martin Bashir had already tried to shame him for defending me on his MSNBC show.

Breitbart, however, did not offer the expected apologies. A true culture warrior, he was taking conservatism one step beyond Limbaugh, out of the Dhimmi ghetto and right into the pinkest of parlors, fully impervious to their ritual defamation. His unexpected death in March 2012 stalled the Reconquista and his left his heirs fighting over his legacy.

The Kusnell video held one more surprise for me. In 2011, as the video shows, the only other major figure to support my thesis publicly was Donald Trump. Said Trump about Obama to a gathered crowd, “His whole aura was caused by the genius of the first book which was written by Bill Ayers.”

At the time, the media, Democrat and dhimmi, gleefully took Trump to task for questioning Obama’s birth certificate, but they dared not question him on the authorship issue. By 2011, even if the major media refused to admit it, most of them sensed Obama was a fraud. True to form, our dhimmi friends refused to raise the authorship issue in 2012 and once again helped elect Obama president.

What Limbaugh, Breitbart and Trump have in common is less a shared belief system than a refusal to accept their dhimmi status. They want to take the culture back. If Trump has attacked the dhimmi establishment from outside, Ted Cruz has attacked it from within. Calling the Senate majority leader a liar on the Senate floor is a sure way to get its attention.

Ordinary Americans are “mad as hell about political correctness and the havoc it has wreaked for 40 years — havoc made worse by the flat refusal of most serious Republicans to confront it,” writes David Gelertner in the Weekly Standard, a dhimmi publication hostile to Cruz and apoplectic about Trump. Yet Gelernter nails the issue.

In a June 10, 2015, column, I wrote, “The Republican nominee for president will be that candidate who best learns that there is no future in apologizing.” This was a week before Trump declared. I did not even know he was running.

Nine months later, Republican voters have rejected all the apologizers, all the collaborators, all the dhimmi candidates. Ready or not, they will be asked to join the first full scale battle in the Republican Reconquista behind either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz, and the dhimmis are atwitter.

Shame has not stopped either candidate. Violence won’t work either. The one force that will stop the Reconquista is division. There was much of that in Christian Iberia, so much of it, in fact, that it took seven centuries for the Christians to win their country back. Here is hoping the Republicans can do a little better.

 

 

Cartoons of the Day

March 15, 2016

H/t  Vermont Loon Watch

a-wall

 

H/t Freedom is Just Another Word

ws (1)

“Flip Flopper” Trump addresses Tea Party rally in 2011

March 14, 2016

“Flip Flopper” Trump addresses Tea Party rally in 2011, Dan Miller’s Blog, March 14, 2016

(The views expresses in this post are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)

Here are five video segments of Donald Trump’s remarks at a Florida Tea Party rally held in 2011. There appear to be few if any significant differences between what he said then and what he says at his current rallies, although he his minimized the “birther” attacks on Obama because that matter is now of little relevance. Trump’s remarks seem to have been received as well in 2011 as now.

H/t The Last Refuge

The video segments appear to be in proper sequence.

Congressman Allen West introduced Trump at the beginning of this video:

 

 

 

 

 

Blame Game

March 14, 2016

Blame Game, Hope n’ Change, March 14, 2016

Blame Game

Hope n’ Change is still no fan of Donald Trump, but we won’t stand idly by while he’s blamed for the increasingly violent protests being waged by the well-funded and entirely-orchestrated Left.

What we’re seeing is the culmination of over seven years of anti-Republican hate speech from the Democrats and media. Members of the GOP have been compared to terrorists and hostage takers. Hillary Clinton, no stranger to “Youtube videos which inspire violence,” can be found on Youtube hysterically shrieking that Republicans “want to take away everybody’s rights! Women’s rights! Gay rights! Civil rights! Human rights!”  Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders blames billionaires like Trump for the woes of the world, then calls on his young supporters to commit themselves to revolution.

Watching the disruptive tactics of groups like MoveOn.org, Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall Street, Code Pink, and other Soros-funded puppets begs the question of how many devils can dance on the head of a campaign pin. And all of this is happening in the context of a White House which has long demonized the police, promoted racial and class hatred, flooded our nation with illegal aliens (and released thousands of violent offenders onto our streets), scoffed at the threat of terrorism while actively curtailing our liberties in the name of fighting terror,  and unilaterally ripped the Constitution to shreds.

In a nutshell, the Left has deliberately broken our government and the last semblances of national unity – and is now actively working to deny the American people even the illusion of having a voice in restoring that government to functionality. No wonder there is anger. And no wonder so many people – in both parties – no longer believe that the government can be fixed with anything short of a metaphorical hand grenade thrown into its midst.

The increasingly uncivil dissent we’re seeing now, and which we expect to grow worse in the coming weeks and months, is solely the creation and inevitable consequence of the policies fomented by Barack Obama and those on the Left.  So while they’re accusing Trump of being a monster, never let us lose sight of the fact that they’re the ones who created him.

BONUS: THE SANDERS OF TIME

The Sanders of Time copyAnd EVERY year will be leap year, damnit.

 

Fact Check: Media claims that Trump is anti-immigrant

March 14, 2016

Fact Check: Media claims that Trump is anti-immigrant, Sharyl Attkisson, March 13, 2016

(Here’s a link to an excellent article by Victor Davis Hanson on California’s experiences with illegal immigrants. — DM)

trump_clemson_low_res_9__preview

This morning on ABC’s This Week, Univision‘s Jorge Ramos once again claimed Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump called all Mexicans “rapists.” It’s a theme often forwarded by opinion reporters, as well as supposedly unbiased journalists. Other common narratives include that Trump is “racist,” “anti-immigrant,” “anti-Muslim,” “anti-Hispanic,” and “anti-Mexican.”

For his part, Trump claims to be pro-immigration and says he loves Hispanics and Muslims.

One can take issue with the accuracy of many statements made by Trump and other presidential candidates, both Democrats and Republicans. But in this instance, journalists are claiming to know what’s in the candidate’s heart and mind, and are stating their opinions as if it’s fact. Are the portrayals of Trump by news reporters accurate?

Discussion

The news media often conflates illegal immigration and legal immigration, as if they are one in the same. But for the sake of accuracy, the distinction must be noted. The nation is split on many immigration questions yet decisive on the general issue of illegal immigration: in a CBS News poll, 84% of Americans viewed illegal immigration as a “very serious” or “somewhat serious” problem. In other words: most Americans support legal immigration and oppose illegal immigration. That’s the same view Trump has expressed.

Is it fair for the press to call Trump (and, by implication, 84% of Americans) “anti-immigrant” for opposing illegal immigration, while supporting legal immigration?

The media makes a similar conflation when it comes to Trump’s remarks about criminal illegal immigrants in the U.S. Referring to illegal immigrants from Mexico, Trump stated, “They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.” On another occasion, Trump said he was not only singling out illegal immigrants from one country. “I’m not just saying Mexicans, I’m talking about people that are from all over that are killers and rapists and they’re coming to this country.”

On these points, Trump’s statements are factually indisputable, according to the Obama administration’s own figures. For example, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) reported that 2013 and 2014 alone, it set loose in the U.S. more than 66,500 illegal immigrant criminals who had been arrested in the U.S. for additional crimes and had over 166,000 convictions among them: 30,000 for drunk or drugged driving, 414 kidnappings, 11,301 rapes or other types of assaults and 395 homicides. In a fairly short time period, ICE reported 2,423 of those illegal immigrant criminals had already been rearrested and convicted of new crimes in the U.S.– including felonies and gang offenses. These are difficult statistics to face, but there’s no reason to doubt the Obama administration’s veracity in providing them. Yet, the news media do not accuse the Obama administration of being “anti-immigrant,” “racist,” “anti-Hispanic” or “anti-Mexican” in reporting these statistics. Is it fair to use those pejoratives against Trump when he refers to the trends?

Further, the press often ignores or dismisses Trump’s own pro-Mexican statements as he repeatedly differentiates between illegal immigrants and legal immigration, and states that not all illegal immigrants are criminals. For example, referring to illegal immigrants, after Trump stated, “They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists,” he added, “And some I assume are good people.” He has also said of Mexicans: “The good people come, and they’re great people. They’re better than good people. I love the Mexican people. They have tremendous spirit. They have tremendous vibrance and life,” and “Many fabulous people come in from Mexico and our country is better for it…I am proud to say that I know many hard working Mexicans—many of them are working for and with me…and, just like our country, my organization is better for it.”

The case of Muslims is less clear. Trump has singled out Muslims in advocating for a temporary ban on immigration into the U.S. Does that qualify him as being unequivocally “anti-Muslim,” as the press often states? That may be a matter of opinion. But Trump has not advocated to remove or ban Muslims who are already in the U.S., and has stated that his proposed temporary immigration ban would be with the goal of resuming Muslim immigration once screening deficiencies acknowledged by the FBI can be corrected. “I love the Muslims. I think they’re great people,” Trump has said.

While media portrayals might have one believe Trump holds fringe anti-immigration views, polling consistently shows a majority of Americans often align with his views on key issues. A Rasmussen Reports survey last month found sixty-one percent (61%) of voters think the government is not aggressive enough in deporting those who are in this country illegally, consistent with surveys of years. Sixty-seven percent (67%) of voters who consider border control to be more important than providing a pathway to citizenship believe that providing that pathway for illegal immigrants will just encourage more to come illegally. Most voters continue to believe the current policies and practices of the federal government encourage people to enter the U.S. illegally. Most also continue to oppose President Obama’s plan to exempt millions of illegal immigrants from deportation. Seventy-two percent (72%) believe the federal government is not aggressive enough in finding those who have overstayed their visas and sending them home.

Conclusion

Because he singled out Muslims for a temporary immigration ban, it’s fair to question whether Trump has expressed some anti-Muslim-immigrant views. But fair reporting is obliged to include the context that Trump has said the ban would be temporary; and that he has not proposed action against all Muslims, against Muslims already in the U.S. or against Muslim Americans; and he has stated that he loves–not hates–Muslims. The public can draw its own conclusion.

On other key points: Trump is correct when referring to some illegal immigrants as “rapists” and “murderers.” Many in the media lampoon his statements without acknowledging that they’re factually correct, and they allow others to incorrectly characterize Trump’s comments, unchecked.

Trump distinguishes between legal and illegal immigration, supporting the former and opposing the latter, as do most Americans. The press often advances a false narrative as if there’s no distinction.

Finally, Trump’s mother was an immigrant, his ex-wife is an immigrant born in Czechoslovakia, his current wife an immigrant born in Slovenia, and his children are children of an immigrant parent. It’s difficult to rationally claim Trump is anti-immigrant. It would be accurate, however, to state that he’s anti-illegal-immigrant.

Trump’s opponents and critics are generally free to offer their opinions as to his leanings. However, reporters have jumped onto the opinion bandwagon at times, making mischaracterizations that are contrary to the evidence. To advance an agenda, the press seeks to falsely equate protecting the U.S. border with being anti-immigration. Regardless of how reporters personally feel about Trump, it’s important that they remain true to the facts in order to preserve the integrity of journalism.

For failing to do so, these cumulative claims about Trump are given Two Little Devils.

Devils

From Ferguson to Chicago

March 14, 2016

From Ferguson to Chicago, Front Page MagazineMatthew Vadum, March 14, 2016

Chicago rally

The riot planned and executed by the Left at the canceled Donald Trump campaign rally in Chicago on Friday was just the latest in a long series of mob disturbances manufactured by radicals to advance their political agendas.

Even so, it is a particularly poisonous assault on the American body politic that imperils the nation’s most important free institution – the ballot.

“The meticulously orchestrated #Chicago assault on our free election process is as unAmerican as it gets,” tweeted actor James Woods. “It is a dangerous precedent.”

This so-called protest, and the disruptions at subsequent Trump events over the weekend, were not spontaneous, organic demonstrations. The usual culprits were involved behind the scenes. The George Soros-funded organizers of the riot at the University of Illinois at Chicago relied on the same fascistic tactics the Left has been perfecting for decades – including claiming to be peaceful and pro-democracy even as they use violence to disrupt the democratic process.

Activists associated with MoveOn, Black Lives Matter, and Occupy Wall Street, all of which have been embraced by Democrats and funded by radical speculator George Soros, participated in shutting down the Trump campaign event. Soros recently also launched a $15 million voter-mobilization effort against Trump in Colorado, Florida, and Nevada through a new super PAC called Immigrant Voters Win. The title is a characteristic misdirection since Trump supports immigration that is legal. It’s the invasion of illegals who have not been vetted and are filling America’s welfare rolls and jails that is the problem.

Among the extremist groups involved in disrupting the Trump rally in Chicago were the revolutionary communist organization ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism), National Council of La Raza (“the Race”), and the Illinois Coalition of Immigrant and Rights Reform. President Obama’s unrepentant terrorist collaborator Bill Ayers, who was one of the leaders of Days of Rage the precursor riot at the Democratic convention in Chicago in 1968, also showed up to stir the pot.

The goal was to help reinforce the media narrative that Trump is a dangerous authoritarian figure who needs to be stopped now before he upsets too many people and proclaims himself emperor, or some fevered fantasy like that. The organized rioters who showed up at UIC to taunt and bait Trump supporters, hoped to generate compelling TV clips that could be used to attack the Republican front-runner.

The people who infiltrated the Trump rally and attacked his supporters weren’t mere protesters and were not nonviolent. By now, after decades of getting away with lawlessness and mayhem, nonviolent left-wing protesters are as rare as four-leaf clovers.

They are violent agitators, trained in Alinsky-style disruption, aiming to shut Trump and his supporters down by any means they can get away with. These modern-day brownshirts use force and the threat of force to harass and intimidate, and to provoke people who have come to a peaceful assembly to hear their candidate speak.

“Many of these people come from Bernie [Sanders],” Trump said, pointing out how since the 1968 riot at the Democratic convention street radicals and party radicals have become a seamless force. On “Face the Nation” Trump called them “professional disrupters” a polite name for incipient fascists.

Since the liberal media was already blaming him for the anti-Trump thuggery, he told them, “I don’t accept responsibility,” Trump said on Sunday TV. “I do not condone violence in any shape.”

In speeches since Friday Trump regularly invokes Bernie Sanders when an activist disrupts. He calls them “Bernie’s people.” At one stop, Trump said, “Get ’em out. Hey Bernie, get your people in line.”

Although Sanders supporters are well-represented among the anti-Trump thugs, the self-described socialist senator from Vermont denied the charge. But Bernie’s campaign is so focused on demonizing the rich and blaming them for America’s problems, the hatred he is retailing can reasonably be called an incitement to those who buy his propaganda and support him.

Sanders after all is a lifetime admirer of Communist states like the Soviet Union and Cuba where this kind of thuggery is a political norm.  So even if he’s telling the truth and did give the orders to his followers to be there, he’s lying. They came because they hate rich people too.

Major organizations of the left who are backing Sanders, like Moveon.org openly bragged about trampling on Trump’s free speech rights in Chicago, and promised more of it.

Incredibly, instead of blaming the Left for the attacks on Trump, all three of Trump’s remaining rivals for the GOP nomination are joining the left in blaming him for the violence that unfolded. If the roles were reversed, leftists would call it blaming the victim.

Continuing the scorched earth policy that has damaged his campaign Marco Rubio laid the blame at Trump’s door. “This is what a culture and a society looks like when everyone goes around saying whatever the heck they want. The result is, it all breaks down. It’s called chaos. It’s called anarchy and that’s what we’re careening towards.”

Breaking of ranks on the right in order to blame Trump is a betrayal that has ominous implications for the future of the conservative cause.

Rubio and John Kasich have gone even further, wavering on their pledge to support Trump if he wins the party’s nomination.

Rubio downplays the fact that it’s the activist Left that is generating chaos, not Donald Trump and his supporters, a dagger aimed right at the heart of the Republican coalition.

Robert Spencer reflects that these Republican attacks “have tacitly encouraged the rioters by claiming that Trump is at least partially responsible for what they did.” It’s a re-imposition of political correctness. Spencer explains: “In that scenario, you see, it becomes incumbent upon Trump not to say anything that Leftist thugs might dislike, or he will bear partial responsibility for what they do. Cruz, Rubio and Kasich, of course, will also have to be careful not to ‘create an environment’ that might force the Left-fascists to shut them down as well. But unless they become clones of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, they will inevitably end up creating that ‘environment’ anyway, despite their being more decorous and careful than Trump. And then they will be responsible for what they get, won’t they?”

The left didn’t need a Trump provocation. For the left, the issue is never the issue: the issue is always the revolution, that is, the war against Amerikkka, as an SDS radical put it many years ago. Everything is an excuse to advance the radical cause.

Meanwhile, leftist Alex Seitz-Wald wrote a glowing review at NBC.com of the activists’ anti-democratic efforts in Chicago, as if silencing candidates were a legitimate form of political activity as American as apple pie. “What made Chicago different,” Seitz wrote, were its scale and the organization behind the effort. Hundreds of young, largely black and brown people poured in from across the city, taking over whole sections of the arena and bracing for trouble. And as the repeated chants of ‘Ber-nie’ demonstrated, it was largely organized by supporters of Sanders, the Democratic presidential candidate who has struggled to win over black voters but whose revolutionary streak has excited radicals of all racial demographics.”

Seitz urged his readers to “‘Remember the #TrumpRally wasn’t just luck. It took organizers from dozens of organizations and thousands of people to pull off. Great work,’ tweeted People for Bernie, a large unofficial pro-Sanders organization founded by veterans of the Occupy movement and other leftist activists.”

Chicago is overrun by radical leftists and is in a constant state of turmoil nowadays so throwing together a demonstration against anyone to the right of Che Guevara wasn’t too difficult a task. Sanders backers and Black Lives Matter thugs were easy to find on social media. At the UIC campus, the Black Student Union and a group called Fearless and Undocumented got to work recruiting disrupters.

Illegal alien Jorge Mena, a graduate student at UIC, started a petition at MoveOn.org demanding the school cancel the event. It garnered in excess of 50,000 signatures including UIC faculty. MoveOn paid for signs and a banner and emailed its Chicagoland members, urging them to get involved.

On the night of the rally, activists snuck into the venue and assembled at “designated multiple rallying points around the venue to avoid arousing suspicion of authorities with large congregations,” Seitz-Wald writes.

“As activists slipped into the lines, they were told to blend in with the crowd and act natural. Inside, about 100 protesters received coveted orange wristbands allowing them access to the floor. Even as organizers tried to maintain calm, some scuffles with Trump fans started right away, and police began removing people.” And that was all that was necessary. The powder was in place and the fuse was lit. But then Trump consulted with his security people and cancelled the event.

This is only the beginning, regardless of whether Trump secures the GOP nomination for president. Socialism is coming to America – at the ballot box and in the streets.

Editors’ note: The Freedom Center is a 501c3 non-profit organization. Therefore we do not endorse political candidates either in primary or general elections. However, as defenders of America’s social contract, we insist that the rules laid down by both parties at the outset of campaigns be respected, and that the results be decided by free elections. We will oppose any attempt to rig the system and deny voters of either party their constitutional right to elect candidates of their choice.

How Not to Fight Our Enemies

March 13, 2016

How Not to Fight Our Enemies, Front Page MagazineDavid Horowitz, March 13, 2016

(An excellent article by David Horowitz. — DM)

cdtobckueaez4sp

The mob that came to disrupt the Trump rally in Chicago was neither spontaneous nor innocent, nor new. It was a mob that has been forming ever since the Seattle riots against the World Trade Organization in 1999, whose target was global capitalism. The Seattle rioters repeated their outrages for the next two years and then transformed itself into the so-called “anti-war” movement to save the Saddam dictatorship in Iraq. Same leaders, funders and troops. The enemy was always America and its Republican defenders. When Obama invaded countries and blew up families in Muslim countries, there was no anti-war movement because Obama was one of them, and they didn’t want to divide their support. In 2012 the so-called “anti-war” movement reformed as “Occupy Wall Street.” They went on a rampage creating cross-country riots to protesting the One Percent and provided a whipping boy for Obama’s re-election campaign. Same leaders, same funders and troops. In 2015 the same leftwing forces created and funded Black Lives Matter and lynch mobs in Ferguson and Baltimore who targeted “white supremacists” and police.

Behind all the mobs was the organized left – MoveOn.org, the public sector unions runby Sixties leftovers,  and the cabal of anti-American billionaires led by George Soros. The mobs themselves were composed of the hate-filled foot soldiers of the political left. Now these forces have gathered in the campaign to elect the Vermont communist and are focusing their venom on Donald Trump. The obvious plan is to make Republicans toxic while driving a wedge through the Republican Party. The plan is defeat Republicans in November so that the destructive forces they have set in motion in the Democratic Party can finish the wrecking job that Obama started.

One of the professionally produced signs at the Chicago mob scene proclaimed, “This is what democracy looks like.” Actually it is exactly what fascism looks like. As every student of the Thirties knows, the break up of democratic forums by Nazi and Communist thugs paved the way for Hitler’s election. Just like the mobs of the Thirties, today’s left is driven by racial and class hate, and is utterly contemptuous of the democratic process – hence the effort to hang the Ferguson cop before the trial and to prevent Trump from expounding his views in Chicago.

And what has been the reaction of the presidential candidates, particularly those who propose to save the country? It is to blame Trump as though he and not the left had instigated the riot. If you play with matches like Trump did, opined Hillary Clinton, you’re likely to start a fire. This is the same Hillary Clinton who has compared Republicans to terrorists and called them racists, and who once accused a “vast right-wing conspiracy” of inventing her husband’s paramour. The Democratic Party has officially endorsed the Black Lives Matter racists and rioters. But it is not only the left who is attempting to blame Trump for the Chicago debacle.

According to the proudly positive John Kasich, it was Trump who created the “toxic environment” that led to the riot – not the fascist movement that has been metastasizing in our universities and streets for more than a decade. In other words, when you finally go on the attack, attack a Republican rather than a Democrat. That way you get a pass.

Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz and their spokespeople piled on Trump as well. “Ted Cruz Claims Trump Is To Blame For Violence At His Rallies,” ran a headline in the leftwing New York Times. His Republican attackers attempted to shame Trump for speaking to the anger of his conservative supporters instead of bringing everyone together – those who claim we live in a white supremacist society and the whites they are attacking, those who claim that Republicans are terrorists and racists and the victims of this abuse. As though you can create unity with people who hate you because you are white or rich, or believe that America is a nation worth saving. The fact is that Trump’s anger is pretty controlled, considering the hate-filled environment of Islamic terrorists, illegal immigrants, event disrupters and rival candidates openly smearing him.

He is often guilty of over-reach – “punch him in the nose” directed at one disrupter, but this is hardly the sin his detractors suggest in comparing him to Mussolini. That is a much great violence to the man who is its target. Aside from Trump’s compulsive over-reach what is wrong with anger in the current political context? Is it wrong to be angry at what Obama and the Democrats and the progressive mobs are doing to our country? How is this dissociation from Trump mob attack not the same surrender to political correctness that conservatives like Rubio and Cruz claim to reject? Aren’t Cruz and Rubio angry at what is being done to our country? Why are they willing to validate the hypocritical slanders of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, two architects of our disasters?

This is the reality we must never forget: There is an anti-American radical in the White House who – with the support of his party – has delivered nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles and a hundred billion dollars to our mortal enemies in Teheran who have declared their intentions to kill us. This suicidal deal was not an oversight, as Rubio has correctly observed, but the result of decades of thinking that America and Israel are adversaries, and our enemies are their victims. The extremists of #Never Trump exemplify the malaise Republicans have been prisoners of for years, which is what the primary revolt is about. Why was there no #Never Obama movement in 2012? For Republicans such a movement would be unthinkable. It would be too angry. It would be called racist. On the other hand, no one will call us racist for attacking a fellow Republican. So let’s join the left in smearing one of our own and hope that we can scrub off the stigmas that Democrats have tarred us with in the process. We’re not racists. Let’s not fight Obama, which will prove that we are. Let’s have respectful words for the lynch mob left.  If we capitulate the disaster unfolding before us, maybe it will go away. That is what the Trump crowd is angry about and mainstream Republicans should be too.

At the outset of the presidential debates all the Republican candidates pledged to support the party’s choice in November. Extra pressure was put on Trump to do so and he did. But now that millions of Republicans have cast their ballots for Trump, Rubio and Kasich are threatening to renege on their pledge, and destroy both the party and the country in the process. And Cruz, while sniping at Trump’s alleged role in inciting the leftists is notably non-committal about whether he will support a Trump primary victory. None of them explain how you can fight fascist leftists without actually fighting them and opening yourself to the charge of anger.

Perhaps it is money from the #Never Trump crowd – the extremists who want to thwart the popular vote and fatally split the party – that is behind this perfidy. But as someone who until very recently held high opinions of Rubio and Cruz, I am hoping that it is not too late for somebody to wake them up. I am hoping that somebody says: Cut it out. Come to your senses. Your scorched earth warfare is threatening the very existence of the right. Trump isn’t the enemy. Like you he is opposed to the Iran deal, supports a secure border, recognizes the Islamist threat, wants to reduce taxes and make the country solvent, and is greatly expanding the Republican base. Attempt to beat him at the polls if you think he shouldn’t be president but let the voters decide the result, and respect their decision. The alternative is a fratricidal war that could drive large numbers of conservatives away from the polls, and whose beneficiaries will only be America’s enemies at home and abroad.

Donald Trump to storm convention just shy of delegate threshold for nomination

March 13, 2016

Donald Trump to storm convention just shy of delegate threshold for nomination

By Ralph Z. Hallow – The Washington Times

Wednesday, March 9, 2016

Source: Donald Trump to storm convention just shy of delegate threshold for nomination – Washington Times

NEWS ANALYSIS:

Donald Trump is on track to hand the Republican establishment an unprecedented defeat at the national convention in July, despite being outspent 3-1 by party leaders and their associates in their all-out effort to turn primary and caucus voters against him, according to a state-by-state delegate allocation analysis by The Washington Times.


By the time California and three other states count their votes from the last four primaries June 7, the brash billionaire businessman and TV star will be 74 or so delegates short of the 1,237 majority needed for the nomination, the analysis shows.

With so large a plurality in the offing, it is increasingly unlikely that the Republican establishment, fronted by 2012 presidential nominee Mitt Romney, will carry through with plans to change the convention rules to wrest the nomination from Mr. Trump and hand it to an establishment-approved candidate such as Marco Rubio or John Kasich, or even a noncandidate like House Speaker Paul D. Ryan, who is expected to be named the convention’s chairman and has the adoration of the party’s power brokers.

“I cannot imagine him not getting a majority on the first ballot if he’s only 74 delegates short of a majority,” said Republican superlawyer and Constitution scholar James Bopp Jr.



“Even if he were 174 short, if he had a substantial lead in delegates, it would likely be politically unacceptable for the anti-Trump forces to deny him nomination,” said Mr. Bopp, also a former Republican National Committee vice chairman.


SEE ALSO: Donald Trump: ‘I think Islam hates us’


The vast majority of the 2,472 delegates are bound by the rules of their state parties and in some cases by state law to vote on the first ballot for the candidate who has won a required percentage of votes in that state’s primary or caucuses.

“To win a first-ballot victory solely on the basis of delegates bound to him on the basis of all the primaries and caucuses, Trump will need to sweep the two March 15 winner-takes-all states of Florida and Ohio,” said delegate allocation analyst Jim Ellis, who was a political adviser to former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

Those wins would add 165 delegates to his column, and that would put him within easy striking distance of a majority, assuming the rest of the electoral calendar plays out as projected in the accompanying chart. Only 10 states award all their delegates to a single candidate who takes a plurality of the votes.

In addition, there were originally 247 unbound delegates, including the 168 members of the Republican National Committee, who are generally party loyalists and do not support a Trump candidacy. The number of unbound delegates, however, continues to grow as candidates drop out of the race. Delegates are automatically unbound if their candidate suspends a campaign.

If not Trump, then who?

“If he’s only 70 or 80 votes short, it’s hard to imagine his not getting the unbound delegates he needs,” said American Conservative Union Chairman Matt Schlapp, who served as a political director in the George W. Bush White House.

“Interesting that in the last 48 hours the ‘never Trump‘ crowd has trouble saying his name, but they have come to find Ted Cruz as the only viable alternative to Trump. They don’t like it, but he’s the only option,” he said.

Mr. Cruz’s viability is questionable in The Times’ analysis, which has the senator from Texas winding up with only 636 delegates — 601 short of the needed 1,237 delegates.

The Times’ analysis has Mr. Rubio amassing a total of 336 and Mr. Kasich only 119.

“Going to a contested Republican National Convention remains a real possibility if Trump is denied one of the two big winner-takes-all states of Florida and Ohio on March 15,” Mr. Ellis said.

Mr. Trump doesn’t appear to have any overt support from the Republican National Committee — made up of each state’s party chairman and an elected national committeeman and woman. But that lack of RNC support could change.

“There are multiple reasons why some RNC members would go to Trump on the second ballot, and even on the first ballot if he’s only a few short of a majority,” said Mr. Bopp. “He can offer them immediate or future rewards. So my guess is as many as 50 of the 168 RNC members could go for Trump, especially if they thought it was the way to save the party from self-destruction if the establishment tried to hijack the convention to stop Trump.”

Diluting the vote

It behooves the “stop Trump” forces to keep Mr. Rubio and Mr. Kasich in the contest through last four primaries because they dilute Mr. Trump’s vote and keep him from winning an outright majority.

But if Mr. Rubio and Mr. Kasich lose their respective states’ primaries and suspend their campaigns, then Mr. Trump almost surely will go the Cleveland convention with a majority of delegates and a first-ballot nomination victory, The Times’ analysis predicts.

“Everything shifts even further in his favor,” said Mr. Ellis, the former DeLay adviser. “In a two-man Trump-Cruz contest, for example, by the time New York holds its primary on April 19, Mr. Trump is likely to get as many as 80 of the 95 delegates available in the state. He’ll also win most of California’s 172 delegates.”

The Times’ analysis projects Mr. Trump will win a plurality of 72 delegates in California if Mr. Kasich and Mr. Rubio stay until the bitter end.

Then there is the barrier of the “Romney Rule,” which would make it difficult, if not impossible, to hand the nomination to someone besides Mr. Trump or Mr. Cruz. The rule requires a candidate to have won a majority of delegates from each of eight states before the candidate may be nominated and put to a vote at the convention. The old rule required only a plurality of delegates in five states.

Pushed by the party establishment’s chief attorney, Ben Ginsberg, at the 2012 convention, it was designed to keep Ron Paul from having his name on the convention ballot and allowing him to address the delegates.

But it has backfired on the party’s establishment as Mr. Trump is projected to corral delegate majorities in 16 states and Mr. Cruz is expected accumulate at least five such majorities and probably enough to allow his name to be put into nomination at the convention. No establishment favorite — Mr. Cruz is hardly better-liked than Mr. Trump in such circles — is likely to come close to that eight-state requirement.

The rule is not likely to be changed in Cleveland come July, unless the establishment wants to risk a bloody battle between the national party and grass-roots voters, Mr. Bopp said.

Mr. Bopp also said he read the convention’s procedural rules to determine whether there is a possible parliamentary trick, such as changing the rules. He said any rules can be changed any time, but only by a two-thirds vote of the delegates present.

Judge Jeanine Pirro Opening Statement – Attack On 1st Amendment and Trump Rally

March 13, 2016

Judge Jeanine Pirro Opening Statement – Attack On 1st Amendment & Trump Rally, Fox News via You Tube, March 12, 2016