Thursday, December 31, 2015

Ted Cruz was Made for this Moment

Presidential candidate Ted Cruz has done some pretty impressive things throughout the campaign. His candidacy was considered pretty much impossible after shutting down the government in 2013. The the GOP took over the Senate in 2014, it appeared that the Republican Establishment and mainstream media had been proven wrong, so Cruz’s name was back in the race. Then, he rightly announced first, knowing he needed time to build up steam, ratchet up fundraising, and start early on his ground game.

These things have combined for his campaign being called the overall best by US News and World Report:

With all of these accomplishments, the most impressive thing he’s done happened recently and isn’t getting much coverage. No, it wasn’t the $20 million fourth quarter of 2015, though that is pretty impressive. The thing that has impressed me the most is that he’s been strategically preparing his campaign and his supporters for the attacks that are coming from every side over the next two months.

It’s subtle. It isn’t the type of action that most would consider to be important. Some would say that it’s a standard move, that anyone can see attacks coming when a candidate starts to make big moves in the polls, but the reality is that they never handle it properly. Hillary Clinton had an insurmountable lead when the attacks came in 2007 and she didn’t prepare her people. A slew of GOP candidates knew the attacks were coming when they hit the spotlight for short bursts in 2011 and none of them survived. Ben Carson was all but destroyed by them this year.

We tried to do our part in warning his supporters with articles calling for preparations against the left as well as against the Republican Establishment in late November. Then, we bolstered these calls for preparedness by exposing the left as well as the Republican Establishment in December. We did this because we expected the Cruz campaign, just like nearly all others before his, to avoid the topic and hope to weather the storm with positive thoughts and big money advertisements.

We didn’t give his staff enough credit. They have been prepared. They saw it coming. They chose wisely. They’re preparing their supporters.

Why This is Important

The way that a Presidential candidate handles their campaign can give us insight into how they would handle their administration. This is why it’s important to note. The rarity of a self-aware campaign hasn’t been seen since the masterful maneuvers initiated by a campaign in a very similar situation – the 1979/80 campaign of Ronald Reagan. They expected attacks because they knew that Reagan was hated by the Neocons almost as much as he was hated by the Democrats. They feared what he could do as President. His accomplishments would represent a threat to their control of the way the party ran during these formative stages of the modern day Republican Establishment.

We’ll do an analysis in the future about how the Republican Establishment lost the battle but extended their life by inserting George H.W. Bush into the administration and eventually into the White House, but for now I want to focus on the parallels with Cruz. Reagan was able to outmaneuver the Establishment nearly every step of the way in a manner that is reflected by the Cruz campaign today. Both had multiple fronts from which to fend off attacks. Both had challenges with breaking unfair raps such as “Reagan/Cruz is too conservative to win in the general election” or “Reagan/Cruz is hated by his own party” or “Reagan/Cruz principles won’t work as Commander-in-Chief.”

We heard these complaints about Reagan. We’re hearing the same complaints about Cruz. We saw Reagan take the savvy he demonstrated during the campaign and apply it to his Presidency. We hope to see the same thing happen with Cruz.

Ted Cruz isn’t supposed to be this savvy. We all know he’s brilliant; even his biggest detractors won’t deny his intelligence and have even tried to us it against him. We simply didn’t expect him to be so seasoned as a candidate. After all, it took Reagan three tries to learn the lessons that Cruz seems to already know today.

All of this brings us to a single conclusion: just as 1980 was the time when Ronald Reagan was chosen to emerge and bring the country back from the brink, so too is now the time when Ted Cruz must be chosen to do the same. The stakes are higher today, which is why a little support isn’t good enough. He needs every conservative’s support as well as the support of those moderates who recognize that Cruz is the best chance the country has at success. This election is the moment when values and cunning must align and united behind the right person. Today, Ted Cruz is the person who was made for this very moment.

The road for Cruz is not going to be easy. The left has been attacking him all along. The Republican Establishment will be throwing everything they can at him in the coming weeks. This is a test for Cruz, but more importantly it’s a test for the Republican party to see if voters will be able to discern the truth about Cruz from the lies that are going to come at him from every angle possible.



via Soshable http://ift.tt/1mU3YKm

The Targeting Data on Trump’s Supporters and Detractors is Eyeopening

In the world of marketing, we have to rely on data. Great ideas are only as effective as the data that supports or refutes their effectiveness. Ask Hillary Clinton what the data showed after her unfortunate “abuela” campaign. Trust me. She has the data.

While targeting Facebook post advertising towards different demographics, I couldn’t lock down the type of people who supported or bashed Trump. We’ve done hundreds of tests so far and he’s the wildcard. He has supporters and detractors across the country regardless of which combination of targeting criteria we use.

The data perplexed me until I started looking at it differently. We separated it out between positive and negative stories and the picture became much more clear. On stories that highlighted a negative about him, his supporters chimed in 5:1 over his detractors. When the stories were positive, his detractors chimed in 6:1 over his supporters. In other words, people tend to be more negative about Trump stories; if the stories pro-Trump, his detractors commented and if the stories were anti-Trump, his supporters chimed in.

We compared this to other candidates and the split was much closer regardless of the temperature of the story. Here’s a quick breakdown comparing the comments as positive:negative in ratio:

  • Ted Cruz – 5:3
  • Marco Rubio – 3:4
  • Ben Carson – 2:1
  • Jeb Bush – 2:7
  • Chris Christie – 1:1
  • Carly Fiorina – 4:3
  • Rand Paul – 2:1
  • Others Combined – 2:7

You might be wondering what this could possibly mean. Scientifically, we have no idea. Speculatively, it means that Donald Trump is polarizing without necessarily being engaging. In other words, his supporters and detractors are more interested in attacking the opposite view rather than supporting their own view.

Unfortunately, we’re not looking at a statistically viable data set because it was never intended to isolate this type of information. It’s anecdotal at best, but we’re going to slightly shift the parameters to make it more valid. Whether that can be done before the primaries start is unknown.

We do know this: the true level of Trump support is still up in the air. Polls are inaccurate but we can’t be sure which direction reality will land. In other words, he might have more support than the polls show for all we know at this point.

The biggest takeaway is this: Trump’s support is different. We won’t know until people the actual caucuses and primaries if this difference equates to being more passionate (and therefore more willing to actually vote) or if it’s a surface support. All we know is that it’s unlike anything we’ve seen before.



via Soshable http://ift.tt/1NXmKqV

‘Make America Great Again’ Parody Video is Actually not Bad for Trump

When people make parody videos against politicians, they’re normally pretty damning. In the case of the parody video “against” Donald Trump, it was entertaining and actually pretty darn positive, at least from a Trump supporter perspective. They take some stabs, but nothing that would convince supporters to abandon him.

It will make liberals laugh at him, but it’s far from damaging. The production value is actually pretty high as well, all things considered. Here’s the video:

The post ‘Make America Great Again’ Parody Video is Actually not Bad for Trump appeared first on Conservative Haven.



via Conservative Haven http://ift.tt/1MIYpmX

Wednesday, December 30, 2015

The Reset Button, the Nuclear Button, and the Eject Button

In the digital age, we’re used to having pretty much everything available to us at the click of a button. In fact, many of us don’t even click actual buttons anymore. Our smartphones have screens that mimic buttons just fine. For the President of the United States, there are symbolic buttons that they can push. For voters in the GOP primaries, each candidate represents a different type of button that will determine the fate of the nation.

The field is too big, so I’m adding a fourth button to the mix: the Placebo Button. With this button, voting for particular candidates will be as effective as voting for nobody at all. While it’s hard to say that about a candidate like Rand Paul who I like, I have no problem with saying that a vote in the primaries and caucuses for the following people would be an empty vote. It won’t help them win because they can’t. It removes your ability to vote for someone who has a chance and who comes closer to your perspectives ideologically. Those people are:

  • Rick Santorum
  • Mike Huckabee
  • John Kasich
  • Carly Fiorina
  • Rand Paul

They are all good people in my opinion. Any of them would have been able to beat Hilary Clinton. Any of them would have been better Presidents than Barack Obama. None of them have a chance of winning a primary or caucus and are therefore a distraction. They should drop out to prevent too many pushes of the Placebo Button.

Now, let’s look at the other candidates who have a chance of getting the nomination (though some of them have chances that are approaching zero).

The Nuclear Button

Those who push the nuclear button want to blow it all up. Washington DC is too corrupt and someone needs to ride into town and get rid of everything.

Nobody can do that, of course. There’s something called checks and balances that have generated a working government for over two centuries. The problem is that anyone with political experience cannot be trusted by those who want to push the Nuclear Button, so it doesn’t matter whether or not they can accomplish what they claim.

These are strange times, though. We need a shakeup. We need something different than the rhetoric and cronyism that has plagued the federal government for decades. We’ve been able to crank out one strong President in most of our lifetimes. If we can’t find another Ronald Reagan, then the Nuclear Button is the only option.

The candidates who represent this button are obvious: Donald Trump and Ben Carson. Their lack of experience is their strength. Their lack of knowledge can be overlooked. They haven’t been tainted and that’s more important to some people than knowledge.

The Reset Button

Most who want to push the Nuclear Button are likely unaware that there’s a Reset Button that will achieve the same basic goals without risking mutual destruction. It’s “Nuclear Lite,” not because it’s less devastating to the Washington Cartel but because it’s more strategic.

There’s no need to even attempt to build suspense. Ted Cruz has made more enemies in the Senate, the Congress, and the White House in less than one term than most Senators make in a lifetime. He represents a political form of anti-establishment that makes them uncomfortable at the least and potentially terrified, particularly if they’re establishment born and bred.

What he can achieve in DC is arguably more potent than the nuclear option. He doesn’t just know the Constitution. He’s memorized it. As crazy as that is to most of us (I had trouble memorizing 12 lines for a high school play), he knows the core document of our country inside and out. More importantly, he’s used this knowledge with cases that he’s argued and won before the Supreme Court. His time in the Senate may be limited, but his ability to navigate the waters makes him the perfect person to engage a Washington DC reset.

The Eject Button

There are two variations of the Eject Button. It is a button that never existed before Barack Obama became President, but he had to inadvertently build that button to because the unthinkable is happening. The country is falling apart. The ship is going down. The engines are stalled and most Americans are too engrossed in reality television to understand it.

The Eject Button represents a complete disregard for change. Pushing it essentially says, “Things are bad but if we change it we might make things worse.” It’s the safe button, not because it represents safety for the country or its citizens but because it means that the status quo can continue on.

Our country has been in the shifting hands between the Democrats and the Republican Establishment since Reagan left office. It’s no coincidence that things have been in a steady spiral since then with the most recent two Presidents pushing us towards the abyss.

While I don’t want to see us push the Nuclear Button, it’s a better choice than pushing the Eject Button.

The two variations of the button are voting for any of the Democrats or voting for the Republican Establishment candidates: Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, or Jeb Bush. They will be business as usual because they only know political expediency and playing to the whims of Neocons. They will continue the country down the Clinton/Bush/Obama path and give us no hope of seeing the Reaganesque change that can come from Cruz for sure and possibly from Trump or Carson.

I know it’s hard to hear the truth, particularly if you’re supporting one of the Eject Button candidates, but this is too important for anyone to let go. This is the most important nomination process in the history of the country. We have to get it right.



via Soshable http://ift.tt/1SnHD3Q

Salon Writer Who Posted False Mosque Fire Story Previously Attacked Media for Jumping to Conclusions

The biggest problem with biased journalists on unabashedly liberal websites is that their rhetoric rings hollow when the tables are turned on them. Such is the case for Salon political staff writer Benjamin Norton in his coverage of the arrest of the alleged Houston mosque arsonist. Before posting (and deleting) a story that turned out to be completely false, Norton had chastised the media for jumping to conclusions a little over two weeks ago.

The circumstances that surrounded his story were pretty compelling. It all started Christmas Day when a mosque in Houston had a suspicious fire. CAIR was calling for law enforcement to treat the incident with a possible “bias motive” as they investigate. In other words, they wanted the police to determine that it was a hate crime. Then, news broke this morning that an arrest was made. The man’s name was Gary Moore, 37, of Houston. Norton proceeded to post an article to Salon that was so biased against the alleged arsonist and anyone who espouses what the left deems to be Islamophobia that most readers would assume that Gary Moore committed a hate crime against Muslims. With no image available, they probably pictured a middle-aged white Texan with tobacco tucked under his lip carrying a Bible in one hand and an AR-15 in the other hand.

It was a perfect story for Salon. The only problem is that Gary Moore is a black man, a devout Muslim, and a regular patron of the mosque that was set ablaze.

The article was taken down once the narrative no longer matched the facts. Thankfully, we have a screenshot of the story for you to read. Before you do, take note that the same author posted on his site an article that attacks the media for jumping to conclusions about anything that relates to Muslims. The golden nugget is in the first sentence when he writes, “You can basically make up anything about ISIS, and the Western media will uncritically repeat it.”

To restate the rhetoric in a different light, you can basically make up anything about Islamophobes, and the liberal media will uncritically repeat it.

Here’s the original story:

Salon Houston Mosque Story



via Soshable http://ift.tt/1TqNlAp

Dr. Ron Paul Addresses Making America Great Again by Abolishing Liberty

One of the most interesting debates that never happened would have been a Donald Trump debate against Dr. Ron Paul if Trump had run in 2012. Rand Paul is interesting to watch against Trump, but his father is more Libertarian than the son. Meanwhile, Trump is more authoritarian than pretty much any viable candidate in decades.

After the last debate, Dr. Paul put out a video that discussed Trump’s desires to take away personal liberties for the sake of protection. While we’re not Libertarians at this site, we do agree that the desire to maintain personal liberties in most situations is the better path towards safety and prosperity than bowing down to an authoritarian government.

Here’s Dr. Paul:

The post Dr. Ron Paul Addresses Making America Great Again by Abolishing Liberty appeared first on Conservative Haven.



via Conservative Haven http://ift.tt/1Ott9JI

Trump supporters deserve to be heard about immigration

When I was a supporter of Donald Trump, I was drawn to the beliefs he espoused rather than the bluster he utilized to deliver those beliefs. I thought I was in the minority, that most of his support was coming from people who enjoyed his straight-talking style and wanted a non-politician to represent them. Now that I’m on the outside looking in, I realize that it really is the issues that drive his support. People aren’t just sick of politicians. They’re sick of the politics itself and they want a change.

In spirit, I’m still a Trump supporter. I no longer intend to vote for him, but I support what he wants to do about immigration and other issues. More importantly, I support his supporters. I can completely appreciate the desire to stop the downward spiral of the country and I know why they think Trump is the person for the job. Their message must be heard and I’m going to try to encapsulate their frustrations here.

Illegal immigration is their biggest grievance. It’s what launched his campaign and it’s what has sustained it throughout despite releases of a liberal tax/spending plan and a poor understanding of foreign policy. Most Americans, whether they want to voice this opinion or not, are upset that illegal immigrants are flooding the country. We’re not against immigration. We’re against those who hurt us when they shouldn’t be here in the first place.

Trump supporters deserve to be heard, particularly on these three immigration topics:

Secure the Border, Reform Legal Immigration, and Restore the Rule of Law

To paint all Trump supporters as “racists” is doing so with a very broad brush. Are there racists that support Trump? Yes. Are there racists that support Hillary Clinton? Yes. Is there a candidate who is not supported by racists? No.

What the bulk of Trump supporters want is common sense measures taken towards illegal immigration. It is utterly insane to believe that people who break the law should not be punished. It is equally insane to believe that we shouldn’t try to stop people from illegally crossing the border. Lastly, it’s foolish to believe that the current legal immigration system is able to protect Americans. Clearly, it is not.

We need to…

  • Build a working wall.
  • Triple the number of border patrol agents.
  • Take advantage of technology to keep eyes on the border at all times and to use a biometric entry-exit tracking system.
  • Increase deportations and end catch-and-release.
  • Fix E-Verify and stop financial benefits from going to those who aren’t supposed to be here in the first place.
  • End birthright citizenship, enforce the public-charge doctrine, halt legal immigration increases, and complete a comprehensive audit of the abused H-1B visa program.
  • Bring an end to sanctuary policies.
  • End the Administration’s illegal amnesty program.

None of these are racist expectations. They’re extremely prudent and they’re all workable. They also represent why I no longer plan on voting for Trump. I’ll always be thankful that he brought these issues to the table, but I switched my allegiance to Ted Cruz because he has the actual plan to make Trump’s goals become a reality. In fact, I pulled pretty much everything listed above from his immigration plan.

Trump supporters aren’t just out there making noise. They have real grievances about the issues, immigration in particular. The reality is this: they are looking for a statesman, not a showman. They want the problems solved.

The post Trump supporters deserve to be heard about immigration appeared first on We Heart World.



via We Heart World http://ift.tt/1SndLok

It’s a Mistake to Attack Bill Clinton (not to mention completely unnecessary)

It seems like the latest strategy coming from Republicans is to target Bill Clinton. Candidates, pundits, and journalists are ready to point out how Bill Clinton was the real monster who victimized women, that Hillary helped him, and therefore her attacks against Republicans and their “war on women” is hypocritical. It’s as if the party is unifying with a message to Hillary saying, “don’t go there.”

Perhaps a better reference would be to channel Star Wars. No, not the new one. I’m pulling out some Episode 4 Obi Wan action when I say it’s “as if millions of conservative voices suddenly cried out in righteous indignation, and were suddenly heading towards a bad strategy. I fear something terrible is starting to happen.”

There are two important points to make about this strategy. It’s a huge mistake and those who head down this road will regret it later. It’s easy to fall into this trap because the voters in the party, for the most part, will react positively to it. We all know that there’s hypocrisy happening within the Clinton campaign. We also know that Hillary’s threats to unleash Bill mean that he’s going to be a centerpiece of her campaigning, but they want us to attack him. They want us to channel our energies towards him. We have to avoid taking the bait. Here’s why:

The Proxy is Not The Target

It’s very clear that a Hillary Clinton White House will be influenced by Bill. However, he’s not the candidate. He’s intended to be the target for two reasons. First, everyone has made up their mind about him. You either hate him for what he did and who he is or you have accepted his actions and allowed them to exist in a distant past while appreciating what he accomplished. Obviously, this is easy to split along party lines, but it’s the Independents who everyone seems to be trying to sway when Bill Clinton shouldn’t be the issue for them.

The second reason is that attacks against Bill, even if Hillary is acknowledged as complicit, are still attacks against Bill. The more we attack Bill’s past, the more that the Hillary campaign will say, “they’re attacking her husband because they don’t want to face her directly.” This is hogwash, of course, but that’s the narrative that they’re intending to spin. The more we focus on Bill, the less we’ll focus on her own shortcomings.

There’s an ethical pull. We feel badly for the women that Bill and Hillary have hurt over the years and we want to see justice done by dragging up those incidents, attaching them to Hillary, and making them both pay. The problem is that the allegations as they pertain to Hillary have never stuck and will never stick. It will not prevent her from playing the “woman card” nor will counterattacks involving Bill have enough of a detrimental effect on her campaign to be truly noticed. It riles up the conservative base but does not influence the undecided voters.

Bill is Bill. Hillary is Hillary. We don’t want to attack Bill. Thankfully, there’s plenty to attack when it comes to Hillary…

Hillary is an Easy Target

The more we focus on Bill and Hillary’s past escapades that had nothing to do with their policies, the more we pull away from the one area we have an easy opportunity to win. Hillary Clinton is a terrible candidate and a weak politician. That should be our focus. Why do we need to attack the husband when the candidate herself is so vulnerable?

Attacking Bill is unnecessary and distracting. Let’s focus on her poor performances in politics. Let’s focus on her failures as Secretary of State when she had a national stage and blew it. Let’s bring up her penchant for political expediency. Let’s point out how weak she is on foreign policy when that should be her strong point. Let’s remind people that Benghazi happened on her watch, that she lied about the YouTube video, and that she doesn’t deserve to be Commander-in-Chief. Let’s point out that her email scandal was at the very least an extremely poor decision unworthy of anyone trying to be President and at worst a gross violation of protocol and national security.

I could go on for literally hours about Hillary Clinton’s shortcomings. So could you. Why, then, are we focusing on Bill’s sexual crimes from decades ago? Republicans have to stop acting like we need dirt to beat Hillary. We don’t. Stick to the substantive policy issues and let the tabloids worry about Bill’s deviancy.



via Soshable http://ift.tt/1P0yKrx

C.S. Lewis on the Importance of Christianity

It may be the biggest challenge facing America today. So many people, perhaps a majority, seem to be heading towards the “mushy middle” that is popular in politics but that has no place in Christianity. It isn’t just the loss of faith that has hurt the country. It’s the willingness of many to accept certain secular aspects of life that belong in the realm of faith.

We do this for convenience. We do it because it’s more popular. We do it to avoid arguments. We do it because some respected pastor or other religious leaders tell us to do so in the names of “tolerance” and “unity.” In reality, the rise of the “lukewarm church” in America is making our problems worse.

The same thing is happening on the other side of the fence. As science advances, so too do the questions that seem to scientifically point to the presence of the Creator. This is causing many atheists and agnostics to turn towards metaphysics, humanism, or other religions in an effort to answer the questions that science cannot. Some are seeing the truth, the Creation as it was intended by the One true God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. These people are realizing that the Bible is true. Unfortunately, the rise of the lukewarm church appears to be progressing more rapidly than the number of those being exposed to the truth.

C.S. Lewis understood how important Christianity is regardless of which side of the fence you’re on. He also recognized that to hold it as either the most important aspect of our lives or a non-issue are the only two viable options. To be moderate about our religious views simply doesn’t make sense.

The visual nature of social media means that from time to time we will be sharing messages that should resonate for our audience. To see more of them, which are great for sharing on social media, simply click on the Messages category.



via Soshable http://ift.tt/1YSlEC1

Tuesday, December 29, 2015

Ted Cruz is the Only Logical Choice for President

This has been the craziest GOP Presidential nomination race in history. It’s upside down, inside out, and perplexing to the point of lunacy. My support for Ted Cruz has never wavered, but I’m about to make an appeal I never thought I’d be able to make. Today, he’s the logical choice for President and quite possibly the only choice that actually makes any sense.

Assume with me, for a moment, that there’s no Democrat who can qualify as a plausible choice, let alone a logical one. With that out of the way, we’re left with several Republicans who can be President. Now, let’s assume that one thing is absolutely correct whether we want to admit it or not. The Republican Party as a functioning entity is on the verge of being destroyed and (hopefully) reborn.

While I don’t like the Washington Post, they made some strong points, albeit from a negative liberal perspective, when they pointed out this fact. I know it’s hard, but I want you to read this article with an open mind:

For better or worse, they are correct (and we’ll get back to the better or worse part in a moment). Donald Trump was created by a willingness within the Republican party to tap into fears – real or imagined – within the conservative wing of the party that enabled them to talk boldly but, in the case of Republican Establishment types that currently sit as a majority of the elected officials in Washington DC, were unwilling to apply.

They talked tough about stopping illegal immigration, but only in theory. Trump forced it to become a tangible goal.

They talked about fiscal responsibility and then tossed it out the window. As Cruz put it, they House and Senate Republican leadership are the most effective Democrats in a long time.

They talked about stopping the Iran Deal, Planned Parenthood, and Obamacare, then did nothing.

George Will told the truth (unfortunately again in the Washington Post) when he said that the conservative party would end with a Trump nomination. I was never one of those pundits who said that Trump shouldn’t be taken seriously or that he couldn’t win the nomination, but it’s a blatantly clear perspective to realize that mainstream media will find so many skeletons in Trumps many closets if he gets the nomination that he pretty much guarantees a Clinton victory if he’s the nominee.

I no longer doubt that Trump believes he can make America great and I’m coming around to the idea that if he were given the opportunity, he would be able to do just that. If I could crown a President, he’d be up there close to Cruz. He will not be given that opportunity. It’s an impossibility. His polarizing effect is working within the party but it ends there. He will not be able to repeat his performance in the general election. His nomination would be a bloodbath that would make Bob Dole look like a strong general election candidate.

There is one major contribution that Trump has given to America that should never be discounted. He forced the party to be true to its base by reiterating what Cruz has been saying as well: the Republican Establishment is neither effective nor practical. Cruz and Trump truth serum has resonated with the reality we’re seeing in Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, and the moderates who have done nothing but given President Obama all that he wants. This combination has made it to where an Establishment candidate like Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, or Jeb Bush no longer have a good chance of winning the nomination.

For that, we can credit Donald Trump eternally.

It’s not impossible for Rubio or Christie to emerge; the Establishment has been as dirty and disastrous for the country as Democrats over the last two and a half decades. Still, Trump, Cruz, and conservative thinkers around the country have done enough damage to the Establishment that we finally have an opportunity to nominate a Conservative without their permission. The last time this happened, of course, was when Ronald Reagan fought against the 70s and 80s Neocons to ride triumphantly to the nomination and the White House.

Here’s where we get to the crux of the matter. This is also where we determine whether Trump’s campaign and the destruction of the Republican party as we know it is “for better or for worse.” Consider:

  • Donald Trump cannot win in the general election, not because he doesn’t deserve to but because the majority of voting sheep will follow the leftwing media’s narrative.
  • Ben Carson is a good, intelligent man who will have an impossible time convincing voters that he can beat the learning curve to be President. He hasn’t done it so far in the nomination process and it will only get harder in the general election.
  • Marco Rubio has trashed his once-bright chances of leading the party by being ineffective as a Senator and even less effective as a campaigner. Considering how much effort he hasn’t put in as a Senator, one would think he would be showing up for more than donor functions. He has a hard path to the nomination and that will weaken him against Clinton.
  • Jeb Bush is Jeb Bush.
  • Chris Christie is mildly surging and might even place well in New Hampshire, but he’s too far to the middle to mount a serious pull from the angry conservatives who only think of him as the guy who hugs Obama and closes lanes on bridges. He’ll go down in history as the guy who could have been the nominee in 2012;
  • None of the other candidates have a remote chance of winning the nomination.

To recap, with Trump and Carson you have men who cannot win the general election and with the rest you have men who cannot win the nomination, at least not without completely destroying the party in the process. I won’t eliminate the possibility that the Establishment won’t try to do just that, but I believe that the voters won’t allow it as easily as we’ve done in the past.

This leaves the only logic choice. Ted Cruz doesn’t have Donald Trump’s skeletons. He is vastly more knowledgeable than Ben Carson. He is superior in every way to Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, and Chris Chistie thanks to what Trump has done to wake up the base conservatives.

There is no doubt that, when looking at everything logically, Ted Cruz is the only chance the Republicans have of winning back the White House. The question isn’t the general election. The question is whether or not Republicans will use logic when going to the primaries and caucuses.



via Soshable http://ift.tt/1NUXp0K

Hapless Jeb Bush falls below Chris Christie in national polls

Jeb Bush and Chris Christie

This time last year, Jeb Bush was considered to be the overwhelming favorite to win the Republican nomination for President and Chris Christie was watching his political future disappear with Bridgegate. What a difference a year can make in the financial fortunes of two Republican Establishment favorites.

For the first time since the nomination process began, Christie has overtaken Bush in the Real Clear Politics national poll average. Granted, they’re both still under 5% and barely considered challengers in their own moderate lane let alone as serious contenders for the nomination, but it’s a good sign for Christie who has been rising steadily in New Hampshire. Bush, on the other hand, may be done before he even made it to his first caucus.

Christie Beating Bush

The former Florida Governor and current New Jersey Governor haven’t been going head-to-head on too many issues, so it’s not necessarily a shifting in the vote. Both have spent considerable amounts of time in New Hampshire, the first primary after the Iowa caucus, and both are still chasing Marco Rubio to win the moderate lane.

The post Hapless Jeb Bush falls below Chris Christie in national polls appeared first on Uberly.



via Uberly http://ift.tt/1UfsArl

Bush Super PAC finally spends money well with attack on Rubio’s record

It’s been depressing watching Jeb Bush and his Super PAC millions fail. I’m not a Bush supporter, but watching the squandered opportunities is still sad since he’s in the best financial position to take votes from the other Republican Establishment patsies Marco Rubio and Chris Christie. Finally, his Super PAC put out an ad that’s worth watching.

It’s too little, too late for Bush who has recently fallen below Chris Christie for the first time in national polls. That doesn’t mean his Super PAC isn’t going out without a fight and they’ve turned their attentions once again towards the junior Senator from Florida.

As the ad contends, Rubio has been a non-factor in the Senate. His only notable accomplishment was failing to deliver the Gang of Eight amnesty bill. This might be a good thing since if he had gotten his way, he might not even be in the lead among moderate Republicans at this point. The ad also attacks Rubio’s absence in Senate committee meetings following the Paris and San Bernardino attacks, a fact that should give pause to anyone who thinks Rubio is tough on terrorism or fighting the Islamic State.

Jeb Bush might be done, but there’s still work to be done in taking down Marco Rubio. Neither should be considered for the Presidency and hopefully Bush will contribute to the country’s future by pointing out the many flaws of his protégé.

Here’s the video:

The post Bush Super PAC finally spends money well with attack on Rubio’s record appeared first on We Heart World.



via We Heart World http://ift.tt/1PvtDEv

Drudge is Hurting Republican Chances

I have always been a big fan of the Drudge Report. In a world where leftist mainstream media rules the airwaves and covers the internet, Matt Drudge and his report has been a strong aggregator of right-leaning stories that help to educate people about the problems with liberalism while highlighting some of the stories that don’t normally hit mass media coverage. Unfortunately, he/they also tend to display poor judgment from time to time when it comes to promoting the right ideas.

The most recent example falls under the category of yellow journalism. They chose to lead with a story about Martin O’Malley’s failed campaign event that only had one voter attend. The headline itself is damning and enough to make anyone considering O’Malley to pack their bags, sigh, and jump on the Hillary Clinton bandwagon. The reality is that the whole story isn’t nearly as sensational as the headline on Drudge makes it seem. Weather in Iowa has been so horrendous that most campaigns have cancelled events. O’Malley’s team made a late decision on cancelling and decided to brave the weather in case anybody did show up. They didn’t think anyone would and that would have been a better outcome than the image you see above of a single person sitting with a hopeless candidate.

As we’ve described recently, headlines are more powerful than the news itself, especially on sites like Drudge. From a purely political perspective, it’s important for as many Democrats to support O’Malley and Bernie Sanders for as long as possible. The sooner they’re eliminated, the easier it will be for Clinton to win the nomination and start working on her general election campaign. As Republicans, we want that race to drag out as long as possible. Drudge knows this. He or his team simply couldn’t resist the juicy headline even if leading with that story hurts the Republican party.

This isn’t the only example. Drudge has been very supportive without outright endorsing Donald Trump. Just as he helped Mitt Romney get the nomination in 2012, he’s trying to help Trump get the nomination this time. It makes sense from a journalistic perspective; Trump is a wealth of headlines waiting to happen whether he’s a GOP candidate, the GOP nominee, or the President. I’m not suggesting that it’s a purely selfish move for Drudge to support him, but it’s conspicuous that he would be throwing his weight in that direction when it also happens to benefit him the most.

Again, I believe that he truly likes Trump. His motives have never been questioned and I wouldn’t try to dredge that idea up. However, I do question his choices from time to time and this is one of them. Yes, Drudge is very opposed to illegal immigration like Trump, but on other issues they seem to diverge. Is Drudge like Ann Coulter in that they both like Trump for his straight talk about illegal immigration? I hope so. The alternative is that he’s latching onto the candidate who would help his site prosper and that’s not the Matt Drudge I want to imagine.



via Soshable http://ift.tt/1QVH6XE

Too. Much. Coffee.


via Facebook http://ift.tt/1YQe2jq

In 2016, ‘Electability’ is not a Valid Reason to Nominate a Moderate

Conservatives have been complaining for years (decades, if you ask some of us) about the way the Republican Establishment forces moderate candidates onto us. They say that they need someone closer to the middle in order to appeal to more conservative Democrats as well as Independents. That hasn’t worked the last two elections, but a case can be made that it was a sound attempted strategy based upon the appeal of Barack Obama.

This year, there’s no such argument that can be made. Hillary Clinton doesn’t appeal to many in her own party, let alone moderates. Bernie Sanders could, but it seems like the chips are stacked against him. Martin O’Malley is pretty much done.

What this means for Republicans is that we have an opportunity to take advantage of an extremely weak and controversial candidate in Clinton. She will not be able to pull in the left and moderate voters the way that President Obama did. In a way, she’s in the same situation that John McCain and Mitt Romney found themselves in the last two elections. They were uninspiring even to many in their own party just as Clinton is uninspiring to Democrats.

Any argument that the Republican Establishment can try to make that we need to appeal to the mushy middle should be tossed out as a desperate attempt to maintain their status quo. That’s not to say that we can’t lose. In fact, one can easily contend that Donald Trump could have won in 2008 and 2012 but can’t win this year given the risk factor he poses for voters. Democrats might not get excited about voting for Clinton, but they could get scared enough to come out and vote against Trump.

This isn’t an attack on Trump by any means and I believe he has a chance of beating Clinton, just not as good as others. If the polls that he promotes so heavily are to be believed, he ranks high against other Republicans but scores in the middle of the pack in the general election and almost always shows a loss to Clinton unlike others. I like a lot of the things that he proposes and I would have supported him in either of the last two elections. Unfortunately for him, this is the election when a wildcard simply isn’t necessary. The same could be said about Ben Carson, though I believe he would have a better chance head-to-head against Clinton because he has the one thing that hurts her the most: credibility.

Unlike previous years when the Republican nominee was chosen by the establishment based upon their moderate perspectives, this is the year when we can finally repeat what happened in 1980 when a conservative was elected. This year, the sentiment towards the Democrats in general and Clinton in particular is weak enough that our choice should be made based upon integrity and credibility rather than some half-baked “electability” factor. They’re all electable. We need principles in the White House to finally return after nearly a three decade hiatus.

When you hear the calls for Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, or even Jeb Bush as being our “best chance” of winning back the White House, ignore them. We don’t need a moderate. This year, we can finally put a conservative back in the White House where they belong.



via Soshable http://ift.tt/1molYvS

Monday, December 28, 2015

It’s Ironic that Trump Supporters Claim to Oppose Cronyism

Donald Trump the real estate mogul. Donald Trump the entertainer. Donald Trump the deal-maker. Donald Trump the salesman. All of these unique components of an intriguing man have one thing in common. They have always embodied the principles of cronyism.

This is notably funny to anyone who has had extended conversations with multiple Trump supporters. I usually end up conversing with one or two new ones every day. It’s funny because invariably they point to the concepts of fighting cronyism as being one of the reasons they support Trump. In some cases, they simply don’t understand the nature of cronyism in business and entertainment, let alone in Washington DC. In other cases, they’re blinded to the distinct use of cronyism that has been a part of Trump’s entire professional life.

The last group is the hardest to understand. They represent the people who believe that because Trump is rich that he would never participate in cronyism as President. This idea doesn’t make me laugh at all. It’s not funny. It fills me with sadness to realize that so many in the Republican party can be so blind to how cronyism works in Washington DC.

It Has Nothing to Do with Money

Trump can’t be bought. That much is true. He’s a billionaire. Nobody can waive a bribe in front of him and have a hope of it affecting his policy decisions.

Unfortunately, money is not what drives the majority of cronyism in Washington DC. Support, endorsements, political favors, and promises of powerful assistance in one for or another are the capital in the game of cronyism in Washington DC. What most people see as cronyism is actually corruption at a local or state level. They hear of bribes. They hear about somebody’s cousin getting a contract from the state. They hear about free vacations on somebody’s private jet. This is what they see as cronyism.

The reality is that this type of cronyism affects local, city, and state governments. It can reach to the national scale with corrupt power brokers or even the occasional Congressman or Senator, but that’s not how it works for the President of the United States. The President doesn’t take bribes. They do, however, have to pay back favors.

Donald Trump thrives on the economy of favors. He has participated more than any other candidate with the likely exception of Hillary Clinton in the use of cronyism to get what he wants out of politicians. They, in turn, have reciprocated by gathering favors owed to them. Trump and Clinton both represent the type of corrupt cronyism that has plagued this and every country since the formation of organized government.

The very nature of his various business ventures demonstrate that he is adept at cronyism. One does not build and leverage the type of brand that he has without the extreme use of cronyism in its most political sense. He’s owed and he owes. It’s what he knows and it works.

Supporting Trump Expands Cronyism

If you are looking for someone who is shrewd with his or her use of cronyism, you can look at Trump and Clinton as your candidates. If you want to see what that looks like in practice, you can look at Presidents like Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, and Richard Nixon, all of whom have been masters of the art. In the case of Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon, it could be demonstrated that they both represented the gold standard for Presidential cronyism, but they would both be eclipsed by either Trump or Hillary Clinton.

Two prime examples of Presidents who fought cronyism and walked their own paths accordingly were Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy. One can argue that Kennedy might not have been assassinated had he played ball in the name of cronyism.

Ted Cruz listed four examples of modern day cronyism in Washington DC.

If you support Trump, that’s your prerogative. Just don’t say that you support him because you’re against cronyism in DC. Such a claim is like supporting Barack Obama because you’re against illegal immigration. Both would be ignorant.



via Soshable http://ift.tt/1PtRqoe

Trump flip-flops on Benghazi after Gowdy endorses Rubio

The most predictable variation of a headline today is this: “Donald Trump attacks ______ after feeling threatened by them.” It’s happening once again, this time in the form of South Caronlina Congressman Trey Gowdy. Before Gowdy endorsed Marco Rubio, Trump commended him on Benghazi. The only thing that’s changed is Gowdy’s endorsement, but it’s enough to rewrite Trump’s opinion on what happened during the Benghazi hearings.

When interviewed by Hugh Hewitt the day after Hillary Clinton had her latest hearing, Trump thought that Gowdy had done a nice job on Clinton:

“You know, when I watched Trey Gowdy on, I think it was Face The Nation this weekend, it sounded to me like he was not going to go after her that much, Hugh, because he was sort of saying well, we have other people, and she’s just a small part of it. It sounded to me like he was pulling back. But as I’m hearing it today, they’re not pulling back at all. They’re really going into it, and I’m just hearing she’s looking very bad. Maybe Biden did the wrong thing getting out yesterday.”

He even went so far as to post a Tweet when someone called for Gowdy to be Trump’s Attorney General:

It doesn’t matter whether someone is good, bad, or indifferent. For Trump, the only thing that matters is how they feel about him. If someone damaging to America, such as Russian President Vladimir Putin, says something nice about Trump, he returns the favor. Just because Putin paid him a very light compliment, Trump called him a “strong leader” among other niceties. If someone is not supportive of Trump, he calls them a loser. It’s the most predictable sentiment in politics.

Don’t get me wrong – I don’t approve of Trey Gowdy supporting Marco Rubio, either. However, his endorsement does absolutely nothing to sway my perspectives on what Gowdy has done during the Benghazi hearings. They’re two completely different things. Trump can’t praise the Benghazi hearings one day then bash them the next day based upon liking or not liking someone involved. It’s childish.

A President cannot take into consideration whether or not someone is being nice to them when it comes to policies foreign or domestic. For Trump to be more swayed by what people say about him rather than their actual actions and perspectives is a dangerous (and juvenile) methodology that doesn’t belong in the White House.

The post Trump flip-flops on Benghazi after Gowdy endorses Rubio appeared first on We Heart World.



via We Heart World http://ift.tt/1OhJeX2

Sunday, December 27, 2015

Yes, Trey Gowdy was Probably Offered the VP Tap by Marco Rubio

Conservatives around the country have been scratching their heads in bewilderment ever since Trey Gowdy came out in support of Marco Rubio for the GOP nomination. He’s been as close as a Congressman has come to folk hero status because of his dogged attacks on Hillary Clinton and her clan during the Benghazi investigations. Why would someone who has been so adamantly opposed to amnesty and immigration reform, who has called for the government to enforce immigration law, support Marco “Gang of Eight” Rubio?

The most likely answer is that Gowdy was made a promise. On the light and less likely end, he was promised to be named Attorney General, a role that fits his experience very nicely. On the heavier and more likely end, he was told that he’d get the Vice Presidential tap if Rubio gets the nomination. As I posted on another site, it makes perfect sense.

There are a few things that should be understood before anyone denounces this conspiracy theory. First, Gowdy has been a strong conservative on most issues, but he’s not exactly at 100% on the Heritage voting scorecard. In fact, he’s at 80%. This alone is not an indicator of whether someone is a true conservative or not, but the aura around Gowdy doesn’t always match his pubilc persona.

More importantly, Gowdy has been notably unambitious in his career. He passed on the Speaker of the House role that he may or may not have been able to win. He has tried to keep the spotlight on Hillary Clinton and not his own team as much as possible. He seems like a humble public servant. However, even the most humble can be pulled down an ambitious road if given the right incentive.

For Marco Rubio, it makes the most sense of anything he’s done in months. Rubio’s strength has always been with counter-punches. When he attacks first, he hasn’t been successful. When he’s deflecting blows from the likes of Jeb Bush and Donald Trump, his stock has risen. Gowdy is, by his very nature, an attack dog. He’s a former prosecutor who knows how to go after someone and will not sit back and wait for people to go after him first. He’s the right counterbalance to Rubio if they make it to the general election.

Gowdy is also loved by conservatives. If Rubio is going to continue his Republican Establishment path to the mushy middle, he’ll need conservative credibility to get the right wing of the party out to the polls. Mitt Romney failed to do this by tapping Paul Ryan. John McCain got him a right-wing attack dog with Sarah Palin, but she proved to have other baggage that turned her into a liability. The only other time a moderate tried to bring a conservative counterbalance into the mix in recent elections was Bob Dole who brought in Jack Kemp, but Dole himself was too weak to mount a real offensive against Bill Clinton.

Here’s a warning to conservatives: the Vice President is not an important part of the government. They do not make policy. They do not vote. They are the backup quarterback that only has an impact in the field when the starter goes down. Some will point to Dick Cheney as a powerful Vice President, but we must remember that Cheney’s power had nothing to do with his position. His Neocon perspectives were propped up outside of the Vice President’s office. Look to Joe Biden, Al Gore, Dan Quayle, or George H. W. Bush under Ronald Reagan as examples of the true impotence of the office.

I still like Trey Gowdy. I just don’t trust his judgment anymore. We can forgive the pull of ambition on a man’s soul, but supporting Marco Rubio is a step that goes too far from the right path.



via Soshable http://ift.tt/1YGP4bx

The Real Reason Trey Gowdy Endorsed Marco Rubio

One of the stalwarts of the conservatives’ quest for truth in Benghazi has been South Carolina Congressman Trey Gowdy. He has a cult following in Republican circles that had many of them calling for him to be the Speaker of the House instead of Paul Ryan. His conservative credentials have been unquestionable… until now.

Following his endorsement of the Republican Establishment’s moderate flavor of the week Marco Rubio, two things have come out into the forefront: Rubio’s own conservative credentials are being reexamined and now Gowdy is being called a puppet of the Neocons that gave us candidates like John McCain and Mitt Romney. As one of the most trusted men in Washington DC, it is baffling that Gowdy would endorse someone who supported amnesty, who believes in big government, and who is quickly turning to the left on many issues to prepare for a general election run against Hillary Clinton.

Marco Rubio rose to power because of the Tea Party. He was their choice to defeat Charlie Crist in 2010. He made a lot of conservative promises, then abandoned most of them once he was in office. His record has been getting more and more moderate the longer he’s in the Senate which goes against the trend that Gowdy has set in Congress. They seem to be diametrically opposed within the Republican party…

…which is why Rubio promised Gowdy that his endorsement would yield either a high cabinet position, most likely Attorney General, or even the grand prize itself: Vice President. It makes perfect sense. The presence of Gowdy on the ticket will help to build strong support from conservatives while Rubio continues his shift towards the mushy middle. Gowdy would be a big plus in the general election in North Carolina and Virginia. More importantly, he’s the ultimate attack dog. Rubio, by contrast, is better on the defense than on the offense.

When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. The concept often attributed to the fictional Sherlock Holmes is the reason that Gowdy’s wholehearted support for Marco Rubio is plausible. It’s impossible to believe that Gowdy truly believes that Rubio is the conservative in this race. It’s also impossible to believe that Gowdy would risk his own credibility unless there’s something on the table for him.

This is all very similar to the way that Bob Dole tapped Jack Kemp in 1996. It didn’t work then and it won’t work now. While we still respect what Trey Gowdy has done in Congress, this endorsement is unacceptable. He can be forgiven, but it won’t be easy. Conservatives will remember this betrayal.

The post The Real Reason Trey Gowdy Endorsed Marco Rubio appeared first on Conservative Haven.



via Conservative Haven http://ift.tt/1MC8UZd

Saturday, December 26, 2015

America should take lessons from Israel about water

It’s easy as a California resident to be a little worried about the future in our drought-torn state. Despite the rains that have been coming through El Niño, we’re still faced with dried lawns and warnings from the water company every time we go over our allotment. It’s not a huge deal yet but if things don’t change, we could be having the environmental crisis that the left has been warning about for a while.

This isn’t a call to bring about more climate change measures. The reality is that there’s enough water in America to fix things. We’re just water novices – watersnobs, if you will. We haven’t had to worry about whether or not we’re going to go thirsty. In California, despite the drought problems, the biggest issue for many is how to keep the lawn from turning brown. Unfortunately, we’re heading down a path towards real water shortages that could affect health and food supplies and the pace is much faster than most realize.

The water erudite scholars of the world are in Israel. Since before the Jewish state officially became a country, some of their greatest minds were at work trying to figure out ways to conserve, reclaim, and preserve their water supplies. They’ve been able to take a desolate desert landscape and turn it into a fertile place that is almost self-sustainable. This feat is not one to ignore; we’re talking about lands that were so barren at one point that most didn’t even want it outside of religious implications. Today, it’s the envy of desert countries around the world.

If the drought in the western United States continues or even spreads to other parts of the country, we’re going to be in big trouble. It’s time to turn to Israel and start adopting their common-sense measures to secure our water future.

The post America should take lessons from Israel about water appeared first on We Heart World.



via We Heart World http://ift.tt/1PpU0tq

Why the Next US President Must Know the Bible, the Constitution… and the Qur’an

History is rife with misunderstandings that caused great hardship for people based upon political and religious ignorance. The worlds of politics and religion are two of the only concepts that affect everyone whether they participate in them or not. Despite the concept of separation of church and state, the two have always been and will always be intertwined. The influence they have on one another can be denied and even ignored for the sake of promoting a secular worldview, but invariably they collide despite all attempts to keep them separated.

These are strange times. Technology has brought nearly all societies together to some extent. Someone in the Middle East does not need to travel to America to have profound knowledge about western culture. Someone in America can become acutely aware of the geopolitical and religious conflicts happening in the Middle East. All it takes is a few keystrokes and some time spent researching. This is why terrorism is thriving. It’s why potential terrorists are being radicalized across the globe. It’s why the next American President must have an intimate knowledge of the Bible, the Qur’an, and the Constitution.

Some would argue that having knowledgeable advisers is enough. This is absolutely not the case. We are in times unlike any other. These three documents will play a larger role in our future than ever before. Scholarly understanding will be necessary for the decision-maker; having an unelected cabinet member or adviser calling the shots on these types of issues is simply unacceptable. Advisers on these issues worked in the past, but today too many things center around the interactions and responses that are driven by religious considerations.

It doesn’t matter whether you’re a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, atheist, agnostic, or believer in any other religion. It doesn’t matter if you’re a Republican, Democrat, Independent, Libertarian, or any other political party. It doesn’t even matter if you’re like most Americans focused on your own circle of influence and unaware of anything happening in the political and religious worlds. The need for the President to be versed in the Bible, the Qur’an, and the Constitution is not negotiable. There’s no time for on-the-job training. Good ideas aren’t enough anymore.

Why the Bible?

President Obama famously butchered sections of the Bible during speeches in his first term when he was trying to appeal to Christians and Jews to follow the secular path he laid out for the country. I was proud of those who denied his callings and saw through his ruse. Then, I became concerned when I realized that his constant attacks started having an effect on the spiritually or intellectually weak.

In the last seven years, we’ve seen the deterioration of our values in this country. As a result, we’ve seen the deterioration of the country itself as political correctness, race wars, crime, and poverty have increased as planned. It’s ironic that his Presidency was supposed to be an awakening for America, a fundamental change in the way the country and its citizens operate. He succeeded and the people cheered. Many of them are still blind to the fact that they participated in hurting themselves and those around them.

Throughout all of this, the silver lining is that the core Judeo-Christian base of the country has been strengthened out of necessity. The numbers are down and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Since it’s no longer as socially beneficial to go to church and act religious, the true believers in the one true God are standing out against a sea of lukewarm religious practitioners. In other words, the acceptance of the secular and agnostic model for American culture has helped to separate the wheat from the chaff in ways that were not visible before.

While President Obama failed to use the Bible as a weapon against Christians and Jews, the next President has an opportunity to use it to further unite believers from a political perspective. It isn’t just about knowing a few Bible verses and defending religious freedoms, though that is important. It’s really about knowing how Christians and Jews can be guided towards a conservative perspective. Even in the church today, there are many who are leaning left. The Bible, when understood by the President, can be his most powerful tool for shifting the mindset of the country at its Judeo-Christian core to a righteous worldview that puts aside the pseudo-conservative principles like racism and embraces a Biblical perspective that is truly conservative and truly beneficial for the nation.

This absolutely must be understood. The Bible can unite this country within the confines of the 1st Amendment by building up the religious right and coalescing them towards the common goal of making America a better place for all. Rather than using certain Bible verses for leftist means like President Obama has done, it can be used to promote conservatism in ways that even those with a secular worldview can embrace. This is only possible with a President who truly, intimately knows the Bible and follows its teachings without question.

No, this isn’t a call for a theocracy. It’s a call for the President to understand the Bible in a way that empowers him to make the right decisions and to guide the nation down a conservative path.

Why the Qur’an?

We are not at war with Islam. We are, however, at war with radical Islamic forces who commit genocide for the sake of their caliphate, who promote terrorism in the United States (or anywhere for that matter), and who strive to destroy the United States by any means necessary. That means understanding Islam front, back, and in-between.

A President as well as the Secretary of State should know and understand the Qur’an if they have any hope of working with or negotiating with Islamic countries and organizations. Again, some will say that they simply need advisers, but in the heat of the moment during discussions or when decisions must be made, the President needs real knowledge, not advice. That doesn’t mean the President must be a scholar of Islam. It simply means they must have intermediate knowledge of what the Qur’an teaches.

The President must read the book in order to understand radical Islam. To paraphrase Sun Tzu, “Know thy self, know thy enemy. A thousand battles, a thousand victories.”

The teachings of the Qur’an shed a great deal of light on the thinking that drives Islam. Unlike other religions, the Islamic faith is as political as it is religious. There is no separation of church and state with Islam. In fact, the Qur’an is the guidebook to everything political in Muslim nations such as Iran and Saudi Arabia. We have enemies and allies who are driven by the teachings of Muhammad. It behooves us to have a President, Vice President, Secretary of State, and Secretary of Defense who have read these teachings.

Why the Constitution?

The requirements for President of the United States are that he or she must be a natural born citizen, a resident for 14 years, and 35 years of age or older. There should be another requirement. The President of the United States should be able to pass a comprehensive test about the Constitution. It’s ludicrous that we would ever allow the leader of the free world to not have intimate knowledge of the document that is the backbone of our country.

Today, it’s more important than ever. President Obama knows the Constitution and has systematically used this knowledge to entangle the country in a web of legal and political loopholes and landmines that undermine the fabric of the Republic. It will take more than a roomful of DC lawyers to clean up the mess when he’s out of office. It will take a leader who deeply understands what can and cannot be done, a leader that is dedicated to defending it with his core. Those who espouse the belief that the Constitution is outdated are the same people who believe students should be protesting about what lunch is served on college campuses. They’re the same people who believe that ObamaCare was somehow supposed to be a good thing. They’re the same people who see no problem with the Supreme Court taking on state issues such as gay marriage.

The 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 10th Amendments have been under attack for three decades. As a result, the Constitution is bleeding. We need the equivalent of a trauma surgeon with embedded knowledge of the Constitution to sit in the Oval Office and make things right again.

As it pertains to religion, we need a President who understands the importance of religious freedoms and who will fight to maintain those freedoms within a society that is becoming tired of them. So many are willfully letting these liberties slip away because they think it won’t affect them. They are sorely mistaken and the President must be a person who understands why.

These arguments are intended for a secular understanding. Even atheists or agnostics can see the importance of this knowledge. If you’re one who believes we may be living in the end times, then the reasons for wanting someone in the White House with knowledge of the religious texts go up exponentially.



via Soshable http://ift.tt/1NQrU7Z

Friday, December 25, 2015

Regarding the Seven Seals

The Book of Revelation describes the loosing of seven seals of a great book held by God. As each seal is broken, amazing things happen, but other than the sixth seal it’s possible for them to broken without anyone noticing on the earth. Have some of the seals already been broken? Are the all broken at the same time?

Here’s an interesting take from 119 Ministries on the subject.

The post Regarding the Seven Seals appeared first on Judeo Christian Church.



via Judeo Christian Church http://ift.tt/1QRvPar

Three Distinct Parallels Between Ronald Reagan and Ted Cruz

Ever since 1988, Republican candidates for all offices, particularly those running for President, have tried to channel Ronald Reagan. The conservative icon is the shining example of how a proper right-wing perspective has the power to make the country prosper domestically and make it respected around the world. In three decades, no candidate has come as close to truly picking up the Reagan mantle and bringing his ideals back to the White House than Ted Cruz.

As The Atlantic points out, the sentiment from voters is very similar to what was happening in 1979 and 1980. The Judeo-Christian right had been dealt several losses through the previous decade and a half, prompting them to coalesce in a way that had never been seen before. It was the start of the religious right movement that had unofficially vowed to not endorse a candidate but rather to endorse an agenda to promote for all politicians in office. Reagan blindsided them with a declaration he made in Dallas in front of 15,000 evangelicals.

“I know you can’t endorse me. But I want you to know that I endorse you.”

This was enough to make him their choice even after they decided not to choose. It also marked the last time that Christian and Jewish conservative leaders got behind a single candidate in full. Today, Ted Cruz is quickly becoming the second such candidate.

Though it’s similar, it’s not a true parallel. The circumstances behind the endorsements are completely different, but the reasons are the same. Most conservative and many moderate Republicans and Independence are sick of the unabashed left-wing ideologies spreading throughout the country. It isn’t just the obvious challenges with gay marriage, immigration, and national security. The general trend towards political correctness are issues that concern people of all political ideologies as it propels us down a dangerous path that could tear the country apart from the inside.

Reagan and Cruz aren’t identical by any means. Reagan passed immigration reform that was necessary at the time but that Cruz would never pass today. However, when comparing the values that guide both the former President and the future statesman, it’s very clear that they share the same guiding principles and passions. It’s even more clear that the only way to bring back what Reagan did for the country three decades ago is through the wholehearted support of Ted Cruz today.

Here are the three distinct similarities between their campaigns and ideologies.

Fear and Hate from Neocons and the Republican Establishment

It utterly offends me when I hear moderates attempting to compare their ideologies to Reagan’s, people like Ed Gillespie, John McCain, Karl Rove, Paul Ryan, Reince Priebus, Mitch McConnell, Mitt Romney… the list of weak pseudo-Republican power brokers goes on and on. It isn’t just that they are blatantly against the ideals that Reagan (and Cruz) use in their policy decisions. It’s the hypocrisy of latching onto a man they wanted to destroy.

Ronald Reagan and Ted Cruz represent everything that the Republican Establishment hates: small government, religious freedoms, focus on small businesses as the heart and soul of the US economy, and military strength without force. It’s this last component that draws the ire from the Neocon branch of the Republican Establishment and we’ll focus on that shortly.

First, let’s take a look at what the Republican Establishment did to Reagan in 1979 and 1980. They painted him as divisive. They threw candidates at him, some of whom were not in any position to win delegates despite massive campaign war chests. John Connally, a former Democratic Governor of Texas and cabinet member for John F Kennedy, was part of the Neocon movement and served as Secretary of teh Treasury under President Nixon. He spent nearly $10 million dollars with the sole purpose of derailing Reagan. He ended up with 1 delegate for his efforts.

We’re seeing the exact same thing coming out today against Cruz and to some extent Donald Trump. The Republican Establishment has such a fear of having another Reaganesque White House that they’re going to consolidate around one moderate candidate and make sure the others under their thumb go after Ted Cruz with all that they have. First Jeb Bush, then Chris Christie, then Marco Rubio appeared to be their candidate of choice, but none of the three have resonated as expected. Now, it appears that Christie may be usurping Rubio, but Rubio still has the inside track acquire the Republican Establishment’s support if he’s able to start making some strong moves.

Whoever the chosen one is, the others will be given a hands-off decree. They will be instructed to attack Cruz and Cruz alone (unless Trump is still a threat by mid-March, in which case they’ll split their attacks). If Rubio is tapped by the Republican Establishment, Christie will be promised Attorney General, John Kasich will be promised an Ambassadorship, and Bush will be pressured by his family to back off on Rubio and to go after Cruz.

They have a plan. It will work unless conservatives deny them for the first time in three decades. It took Reagan getting help from journalists and evangelical leaders for him to survive the onslaught. It will take the same for Cruz.

Military Strength without Adventurism

The belief that democracy must reign at all costs has been demonstrated as futile since the Arab Spring. It has been a complete failure and despite the most recent actions by President Obama being at the top of the lists to blame for the chaos in the Middle East, it was the Neocons under both Presidents Bush as well as under President Clinton that formed the foundation of this geopolitical disaster.

Reagan was different. He didn’t need to invade East Germany to bring down the Berlin Wall. He didn’t have to send troops into battles around the world to bring stability. He ended the Cold War by being a statesman and a principled leader. He represented military strength without adventurism. He was closer in ideology to Rand Paul than to Marco Rubio, but like Cruz he would have rested somewhere in-between isolationism and adventurism. Strong military and fiscal responsibility are not happy bedfellows for the Republican Establishment and so they wanted to destroy Reagan just as they want to destroy Cruz.

People often forget that Reagan had fewer military incursions than any President that followed him. Like Cruz, Reagan believed that you only fought when you had to fight. Otherwise, the threat of action can be more powerful than action itself. Cruz is the only candidate who represents this demeanor towards the military and its place in the world.

Conservative Constitutional Principles Guiding Them

If there’s one thing the RINO (Republican In Name Only) power brokers in DC hate, it’s the idea that the Constitution must be defended above their own power base. The Constitution has stood in the way of Democrats and Neocons for decades. Reagan and Calvin Coolidge were the only Presidents of the 20th century who understood the need for it to supersede all other concepts other than the Bible.

Like President Obama and President Reagan, Ted Cruz understands the Constitution. Unlike President Obama, Cruz sees it as the foundation of the greatest country the world has ever known instead of the roadblock that gets in Obama’s way. Now more than ever, the United States needs a President like Ted Cruz to make the Constitution the indispensable core of our government. Only Cruz can undo the damage the President Obama (and for that matter, Presidents Bush and President Clinton) has done in defiance of the Constitution.

Ted Cruz faces opposition from all sides just as Ronald Reagan did in 1980. The Democrats fear him. The Republican Establishment loathes him. No candidate in three decades has held the values and principles that Reagan brought to the White House like Cruz.



via Soshable http://ift.tt/1NFMREH

Thursday, December 24, 2015

Please Don’t Let the Republican Establishment Crown Another Weak Candidate as Nominee

Very few people truly understand the power that the Republican Establishment holds over the party. Most think that they represent the moderate wing of the party and that’s why weak candidates like Bob Dole, John McCain, and Mitt Romney end up with the nomination. The truth is this: they aren’t looking for moderate candidates. They’re looking for big government and corporate-controlled candidates who can keep their cabal intact behind the scenes.

This isn’t a conspiracy theory. It’s the blatant truth. It’s why they will attempt to destroy Ted Cruz if it appears that he can beat Donald Trump. It’s why they will push either Marco Rubio or Chris Christie in the coming weeks with more ferocity than they pushed their previous champions. It’s why they don’t want to be known or discussed. They don’t believe in moderate ideas. They use moderate Republicans as their base while pushing radical ideas behind the scenes.

Conservatives and moderates alike generally believe in smaller government. They generally believe in lower taxes. They generally believe in the power of small businesses, buying American, and having a strong military. The other issues that often separate moderates from conservatives such as military intervention, gay marriage, religious liberties, and gun rights are usually not enough to push them apart when it comes to the general election. The myth that moderates won’t support a candidate like Ted Cruz was summarily debunked by Ronald Reagan.

What the Republican Establishment really represents is the type of big government corporate cronyism and geopolitical adventurism that does not represent the moderate wing of the party. They don’t talk about these things, opting for common ground and crossing the aisle for progress as the reasons for putting up weak candidates, but it’s an absolute and demonstrable lie. They appeal to moderates through the guise of winning elections because they’ve been able to convince them that either Ronald Reagan was a once-in-a-lifetime fluke or that he was a moderate. What they don’t tell you is that they adamantly opposed him in 1979 and 1980 just as they adamantly oppose Ted Cruz today.

In the coming weeks, we will see hardcore attacks on Cruz and Trump. They are so desperate to see their chosen candidates rise in the polls that they will attempt to utterly destroy the conservative and the wildcard that they don’t control. Wake up. Do the research. Learn what you can about their agenda and don’t be swayed by the fluff they’ll put out there regarding their chosen candidates.

Keep in mind that they put out weak candidates that they can control, not candidates that they think can win based upon their moderate views. They want you to believe that moderation is the key to victory when it’s been demonstrated in every election other than one in the last four decades that the polarizing candidate on either the right or the left always wins. The one exception, George H. W. Bush, only won because he was considered by the electorate to be an extension of the Reagan era. He was not, which is why he only served one term.

Independent voters are not necessarily moderate. The Democrats know this. That’s why Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were both far left candidates that won. It’s why George W. Bush, while moderate in practice, ran on a very conservative platform in 2000 and then ran on the war on terrorism platform in 2004. Polarizing candidates win every time which is why the concept that Ted Cruz can’t win because he’s too polarizing and divisive is utter nonsense.

If you’re reading this, you probably don’t like Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, or Jeb Bush right now. Keep it that way. Don’t believe the hype that’s coming down the pipe. The Republican Establishment will make their move to boost their chosen candidate. If you believe in the future of America, you’ll dismiss their propaganda and chose the conservative candidate.

The post Please Don’t Let the Republican Establishment Crown Another Weak Candidate as Nominee appeared first on We Heart World.



via We Heart World http://ift.tt/1RJJPmP

Ted Cruz on Bank Bailouts

One of the most telling moments of the fourth GOP debate was when Ted Cruz said he would not bail out the big banks if they fell into financial distress again. This was used by both the left as well as the Republican Establishment to paint him as an extremist who would rather see the economy fail rather than helping to stabilize it.

What they don’t understand (or more likely what they don’t want you to understand) is that FDIC would protect the vast majority of Americans from losing a penny in a situation that caused banks to fail. As far as working with the corporate components of failing banks, there are measures that can be put into place in the event of an economic catastrophe that would not require a government bailout of banks. In fact, many are starting to realize that if these measures had been used during the last recession, we would be in a better financial place now.

The visual nature of social media means that from time to time we will be sharing messages that should resonate for our audience. To see more of them, which are great for sharing on social media, simply click on the Messages category.

The post Ted Cruz on Bank Bailouts appeared first on Conservative Haven.



via Conservative Haven http://ift.tt/1NOoDWW

Thomas Sowell on Racism

One of the biggest issues facing the country right now is racism. It’s unfortunate that this plague of a concept had been eased by most accounts for years but that easing was short lived. It has seen a resurgence in the last few years during a time when America was supposed to have experienced an awakening by electing and reelecting its first black President.

Thomas Sowell understands racism from both sides. He’s been the victim of racism and he’s seen other victims taking advantage of it for their own gains. Today, we’re seeing this resurgence manifest itself in colleges around the country, only this time it’s in the latter format that Sowell has described. He rightly sees that Americans must look past our racial divides in order for the world to be a better place, but elements on both sides of the fence are making the situation worse than it’s been in decades.

The visual nature of social media means that from time to time we will be sharing messages that should resonate for our audience. To see more of them, which are great for sharing on social media, simply click on the Messages category.



via Soshable http://ift.tt/1PnvVVZ

The downfall of modern society is already brewing in colleges around the nation.


via Facebook http://ift.tt/1QL9zzn

Dear Huckabee: Please Don’t Wait Until Losing Iowa to Drop Your Failed Campaign

Mike Huckabee had his chance at being the Republican nominee in 2008. He lost to a very weak John McCain. That should be the end of the story for the man who won Iowa before going on to lose pretty much everywhere else. Unfortunately, it’s not. Huckabee really wants to run for President and he’s doing damage to both the Republican party and America by staying in the race.

I like Mike Huckabee. He’s a decent fellow with a handful of good ideas and a relatively strong moral compass guiding him. He is, however, not someone who can win the nomination on his own merits. Now, he’s saying that he’ll drop out if he doesn’t land in the top three in Iowa.

Here’s the thing. If he couldn’t win the nomination against a weak candidate after winning Iowa outright in 2008, what makes him believe he has any business running this year? His stock among conservatives is very low right now. He’s a second-tier debater and has done very little to successful gain attention other than when he says something stupid. His campaign should have ended with his racist joke on Twitter, but thankfully for him he was so far below the radar at that point that very few people even noticed him.

He’s polling under 3% in Iowa. That means he a better chance of finishing 5th then third. What it also means is that he’s going to attack the person who prevented him from being a blip on social conservatives’ radar this year: Ted Cruz. This not only breaks Ronald Reagan’s 11th commandment. It gives more strength to two people that Huckabee should really dislike: Donald Trump and Marco Rubio.

Instead of doing the better thing (attacking moderates and Democrats) or the best thing (dropping out), he’s going to to fight a fellow conservative. That’s not smart. It’s not classy. It should be below him, but Mike Huckabee is apparently willing to go as low as possible to serve his own interests.

The post Dear Huckabee: Please Don’t Wait Until Losing Iowa to Drop Your Failed Campaign appeared first on Conservative Haven.



via Conservative Haven http://ift.tt/1TjEctn

Headlines are More Powerful than the News Itself for Spreading Disinformation

When I was a child, my father warned me to never repeat what I read as a headline in the grocery store checkout line. He told me about tabloids, how they took a smidgen of truth and manipulated it to form a shocking headline attached to a misleading story in order to sell more magazines. The same thing is happening today but for much more nefarious reasons.

In the smartphone-driven, social media enhanced world of modern digital propaganda, the tabloids are alive and well. The problem is that the vast majority of online publications, including journalistic stalwarts like the New York Times and the Washington Post, have invoked tabloid principles in order to sell something. The difference is that they’re not selling magazines. They’re selling ideas. Unfortunately, the ideas are driven by agendas that can do much more harm than grocery store checkout headlines about aliens replacing some celebrity’s brain.

Headlines are extremely powerful. The attention span of western culture in general and Americans in particular has dropped when it comes to digesting the news. We see so much information and there’s so much more to get that we often relegate our fact-finding the a headline and a snippet. In general, people are “reading” more articles but spending much less time doing it. This means that they’re not really reading the articles. They’re just getting a taste of it and forming their opinions accordingly.

A recent example of this comes from Jeff Bezos’ Washington Post. Here’s the headline.

I can already hear it. There are people across the country and around the world who are talking to a relative, friend, or coworker sharing this fact. Some of them are noting that it came from a reliable source. After all, the Washington Post or other old school liberal rags would never mislead, let alone lie. right?

Welcome to tabloid journalism 2016. You may not have bought a magazine. You probably didn’t even click to the story to give them a penny of ad revenue. You did, however, see the Tweet, Facebook post, or the headline itself on the website and added it to your list of facts that support your position on gun control. You were sold.

Here’s the reality of the story. Since 1994, gun homicides have dropped 49% in the United States. Motor vehicle deaths have dropped faster which is why the number of deaths from motor vehicles is now about equal to the number of deaths from guns. Unfortunately, that’s not how the headline reads. That’s not what people will think. They will read the headline and assume that gun deaths have increased to the level of motor vehicle deaths.

That’s exactly what they want you to think.

Forget about safety improvements in vehicles being the reason for the statistical tie. That doesn’t make for a juicy headline. More importantly, it doesn’t achieve the goals of their agenda.

This isn’t just a liberal thing. Conservative publications do the same thing. Heck, we do the same thing here. Anyone who claims that their publication does not engage in this sort of activity is either unfortunately misinformed or willfully glib. One scan through the Drudge Report will show you that agendas are at work even in the news aggregation systems.

That’s the power of the digital age. Agendas aren’t pushed by stories. They’re pushed by headlines. As the election approaches, don’t sacrifice the truth for the sake of someone’s agenda.



via Soshable http://ift.tt/1QKrdDl