Wednesday, June 29, 2016

Contradiction: Feminists Fight for Abortion but Enable Islam

This was going to be a long, detailed argument for liberals to explore with links to examples of horrendous treatment, sexual assault, and relegation of women at the hands of Islamic men as they spread around the world. For the sake of my blood pressure, I stopped researching after around a dozen links. The crimes were saddening. The willful ignorance and outright enabling by liberals across the globe and especially in western societies infuriated me, so the research portion is up to you.

Women are inferior within Islamic societies. In western societies such as Europe where they are getting a foothold, women are objectified in ways should never be tolerated. In America, the news is being hushed in an effort to placate the sensibilities of the left. After all, American liberals have plenty of babies to kill; why would they want a distraction such as the existential threat of Islam?

Ayaan Hirsi Ali of Harvard University and the folks at Prager University did a nice job of highlighting these issues. Here’s the transcript followed by their video.

Culture matters. It ‘s the primary source of social progress or regression. Nowhere do we see this more clearly than in the status of women. The Judeo-Christian culture —and perhaps a more apt word is civilization—has produced over time the law codes, language and material prosperity that have greatly elevated women’s status.

But this progress is not shared everywhere.

There are still hundreds of millions of people that live in a culture—the Islamic, for instance—that takes female inferiority for granted. Until recently, these cultures—the Western and the Islamic—were, for the most part, separated. But that is changing. Dramatically so.

Large numbers of immigrant men from the Middle East, South Asia and various parts of Africa have brought a different set of values to the West, specifically Europe.  More than a million arrived in 2015 alone. More are on the way.

As a result, crimes against girls and women—groping, harassments, assaults and rape—have risen sharply. These crimes illustrate the stark difference between the Western culture of the victims and that of the perpetrators.

Let me be clear: not all immigrant men, or even most, indulge in sex attacks or approve of such attacks, but it’s a grave mistake to deny that the value system of the attackers is radically different from the value system of the West. In the West women are emancipated and sexually autonomous. Religiosity and sexual behavior or sexual restraint is determined by women’s individual wishes. The other value system is one in which women are viewed as either commodities (that is, their worth depends on their virginity), or on the level of a prostitute if they are guilty of public “immodesty” (wearing a short skirt for example).

I do not believe these value systems can coexist. The question is which value system will prevail. Unfortunately, this remains an open question.

The current situation in Europe is deeply troubling: not only are Muslim women within Europe subject to considerable oppression in many ways, such norms now risk spreading to non-Muslim women who face harassment from Muslim men.

One would think that Western feminists in the United States and Europe would be very disturbed by this obvious misogyny.  But sadly, with few exceptions, this does not appear to be the case.

Common among many Western feminists is a type of moral confusion, in which women are said to be oppressed everywhere and that this oppression, in feminist Eve Ensler’s words, is “exactly the same” around the world; in the West just as in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

To me, this suggests too much moral relativism and an inadequate understanding of Sharia law. It is true that the situation for women in the West is not perfect, but can anyone truly deny that women enjoy greater freedom and opportunities in the United States, France and Finland than they do in Iran, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia?

Other feminists have also argued that non-Western women do not need “saving” and that any suggestion that they “need” help from Western feminists is insulting and condescending to non-Western women.

My perspective is a practical one: any efforts that help Muslim women—whether they live in the West or under Islamic governments should be encouraged. Every effort to pressure these governments to change unjust laws should be supported.

Western feminists and female Western leaders have a simple choice to make: either excuse the inexcusable, or demand reform in cultures and religious doctrines that continue to oppress women.

Nothing illustrates this better than what happened in Cologne, Germany on New Years Eve, 2015. That night, during the city’s traditional celebrations, numerous German women (467 at the last count) reported being sexually harassed or assaulted by men of North African and Arab origin. Within two months, 73 suspects had been identified, most of them from North Africa; 12 of them have been linked to sexual crimes. Yet, in response to the attacks, Cologne’s feminist Mayor Henriette Reker issued an “arm’s length” guideline to women. Just “keep at an arm’s length” distance between you and a mob of Arab men, she advised Cologne’s female population, and you will be fine.

Mayor Reker’s comments underline the seriousness of the problem: a culture clash is upon us. The first step in resolving it is to unapologetically defend the values that have allowed women to flourish. Feminists with their organizations, networks and lobbying power need to be on the front lines on this battle. Their relevance depends on it. And so does the well being of countless women, Western and non-Western.

I’m Ayaan Hirsi Ali of Harvard University for Prager University.



via Soshable http://ift.tt/29omdSM

Tuesday, June 28, 2016

Benghazi Must Not Be Brushed Aside

Hillary Clinton should have been removed from office within a month after Benghazi. Then, she should have been thoroughly investigated along with anyone in the State Department, CIA, and U.S. military who allowed it to happen as it did.

I’m saying these words from a perspective of limited information. We only know what we’re allowed to know and the rabbit hole goes deeper than any of us likely imagine. Someone is being protected (other than Hillary) and there is an active cover-up in play as we speak. The fact that the Benghazi report reveals tidbits of wrongdoing is just a ploy by the government to make us believe that their investigation was comprehensive.

There won’t be a slap on the wrist. One of the primary perpetrators of the acts that led to the death of four Americans is likely going to become President of the United States unless Donald Trump can be removed from the nomination. The President will brush it aside as an unfortunate footnote that could have derailed his reelection campaign. The media will tell us that the issue is dead. Politicians on both sides of the aisle will use it to prop up their pulpits for a day or two before letting it fade into the footnotes of some Wikipedia pages.

This cannot be allowed to stand. The American are being sold a story that hides the real corruption behind this incident. It should never have happened. I’m not just talking about the attack itself. I’m not talking about the lack of a response that allowed it to continue. I’m talking about the actual events that led to the incident. Why were defenses in one of the hotbeds of hatred towards Americans so insufficient? No, it wasn’t carelessness by the administration or lack of funding by the Republicans in Congress. This was deeper. There’s a conspiracy here and we’re never going to be told about it, not for several decades at least.

At this point, the powerlessness of a people that is subservient to our public servants will prevent any further information from coming out. Conspiracy theory sites will continue spreading rumors. Judicial oversight groups will request more information. At the end of the day, nothing more of substance will come of it. It’s up to American patriots to keep up the pressure and keep the story alive. We cannot let the government brush this aside in our minds. By the time you’re reading this, it’s probably old news. We’re told to move along to the latest news. In this particular situation, the news must remain fresh even when others would have it stagnate.

Keep asking questions. Do not accept the report as an answer. We deserve to know what was really going on. Incompetence and poor judgment are in play with nearly every government action, yet people usually don’t die as a result. In this case, there is more to the story. Don’t let it get buried with the bodies of those four men who served a country that wants to forget them.



via Soshable http://ift.tt/29akZhK

The Left Promotes ‘Undue Burden’ in Texas. What About the Undue Burden on the Unborn?

The argument that the left is making as the Supreme Court prepares to release their ruling on the Texas health safety law regarding abortion clinics is one that we should all have been able to predict. They say that there’s an undue burden on those who seek to have an abortion.

This would be an acceptable argument if there was nobody else involved. For any American to have to jump through hoops to receive the type of medical care they require is truly an undue burden, but there’s a catch, here. There’s another life at stake. There’s another human who is being affected by their desire to remove the undue burden. That life is the person who is getting murdered.

It’s very likely that the court will rule to strike down the law. Unless Anthony Kennedy can be persuaded to shift his view, it’s going to be a 5-3 loss which means that Antonin Scalia would not have been able to make a difference in this case. The argument is going to focus on undue burden. Nobody will be speaking for the undue burden on the unborn.

The post The Left Promotes ‘Undue Burden’ in Texas. What About the Undue Burden on the Unborn? appeared first on Conservative Haven.



via Conservative Haven http://ift.tt/29aUjun

Politicians React to SCOTUS Abortion Ruling, Though One was Notably Silent

Donald Trump isn’t very good at gender politics. He never has been and often confuses himself on his own changing stances. Today, he’s pro-life with exceptions and that should have been enough to get him to release a statement, make a comment, or at least send out a Tweet on the issue. As the new day dawns, Trump and his campaign have said nothing about the devastating blow the Supreme Court laid on the pro-life movement.

His main competitor had some words on her website and Twitter…

Most of his former GOP competitors had something to say about it…

What was Trump’s big Tweet of the day? It wasn’t about the setback in the fight to protect millions of American lives. It was about Donald J. Trump being treated unfairly. The broken record of Trump playing the victim is unrelenting.

Most in conservative media were active in their attacks on the decision, but very few made note that the leader they helped to choose for their party was notably silent. We have to look to liberal rag Slate for a possible reason for Trump’s silence.

“The obvious answer is that Trump is either unwilling or unable to quickly sum up his thoughts on a topic that he has expressed so many conflicting views on in the past and that has caused him so many problems in the present….”

Unfortunately, this might actually be the truth. Is Trump simply so bad at the whole abortion, gay marriage, and gender identity grouping of issues that he’s better off saying nothing? For someone who is so vocal on just about everything, the fact that he said nothing is telling. Some might even go so far as to say that his lack of an opinion betrays his true motives which are to do absolutely nothing for social conservatism if he’s elected President.

Trump won’t be able to stay silent for long on this issue. We expect to see something from him or his campaign very soon, but on the day when the controversy raged and conservatives looked for leadership, he was nowhere to be found.

The post Politicians React to SCOTUS Abortion Ruling, Though One was Notably Silent appeared first on Conservative Haven.



via Conservative Haven http://ift.tt/293YqsX

Sunday, June 26, 2016

Republicans Running for Office: It’s Easier to Jump on the Trump Train Late than to Jump Off

To every Republican running in any election in 2016, it’s imperative that you think about the current political atmosphere through a lens of discernment and logic. Attachment to Donald Trump will have no positive effects on your own campaign by endorsing him or even giving him lukewarm support now. On the other hand, the potential negatives to your campaign are clearly present and there’s a good chance that it will get even worse between now and election day.

It doesn’t matter whether you’re a straight-ticket GOP true believer who bleeds Republican red no matter what or if you’re one who takes every issue at face value. From now until very close to the election, you must keep your distance from Trump. I’ll go over the many logical reasons for doing so, but let’s first look at the potential negatives of showing even the mildest form of support.

If Trump Doesn’t Implode, You’re Not Safe

One would be hard-pressed to find a major Presidential candidate who’s had as much potential for disaster as either Trump or Hillary Clinton. Clinton’s disasters are tied to her past crimes and in many ways it’s out of her hands whether or not she suffers an implosion-by-indictment. Trump is different. Throughout the campaign, he’s done and said things that will be used against him until November. One does not have to go back to his history to find damning statements; he’s been able to accumulate ammunition for Democrats to use against him and those who support him.

If you’re a Republican candidate for any office, imagine your competitor running an ad that shows Trump making fun of POWs, mocking a disabled reporter, insulting Mexicans, insulting women, questioning the integrity of a judge over his heritage… you get the point. Now, imagine the ad ending with a sound bite of you supporting or even endorsing him. At that point, it wouldn’t matter what your policy proposals were. It wouldn’t matter how many things you’d accomplished or how often you’d helped your constituents. Your opinions will no longer matter. Your opinions would now be associated with Trump’s opinions and there’s nothing you could do to diffuse it. What’s worse is that your future would not be tied to Trump’s because outside of battleground states, many Trump-supporting Republican candidates will lose by association regardless of how Trump does in the state.

Many believe that Trump will continue to accumulate negatives. He seems to get bored every time he acts “more Presidential” and inevitably reverts back to his modus operandi. Let’s say for the sake of argument that he turns over a new leaf and acts like an adult rather than a petulant child for the remainder of the campaign. The negatives are still there. The sound bites will still be used against you.

If Trump Implodes, You’re Toast

What if Trump goes too far as he’s almost done on several occasions. What if a scandal rears its ugly head shortly before November; there are stories that are likely being held by liberal mainstream media that won’t be released until it’s too late for the Republicans to recover. What if Trump’s tax returns get leaked? What if he’s made to sound like a fool during debates? What if…

There are so many potential disasters that could be lurking around the corner. If any of them out, candidates in tight who have supported or endorsed him might as well hang up their political ambitions now. The sad part is that if Clinton is indicted and the country has to choose between her scandal and Trump’s scandal, he could still end up winning. However, those who supported him will be irrecoverably damaged.

The Pragmatic Road

Utah Congresswoman Mia Love is taking the pragmatic approach. She’s not speaking ill of Trump any more (even though she voted for Ted Cruz in the primary), but she’s giving up her delegate slot and not going to the GOP convention.

“I don’t see any upsides to it,” Love said Friday. “I don’t see how this benefits the state.”

It isn’t about benefiting the state. It’s about avoiding the questions that will come at the convention where she will be cornered into endorsing Trump. Rather than risk it, she’d rather sacrifice the potential national spotlight in favor of not attaching her name to Trump’s. It’s the smart move for someone in her position as a rising star who is locked in a tight battle for reelection. It’s the type of move that every GOP candidate should consider based upon their current race. If they’re going to be cornered at the convention, don’t go. If the question about Trump pops up elsewhere, prepare a good answer. That’s the first stage of the pragmatic approach. We’ll get to the next stage shortly, but first let’s look at some of the reasons that it makes sense to NOT endorse, support, or attach to the Trump campaign in any way… for now:

  • The anti-Hillary vote is not necessarily anti-Democrat: There are currently a large block of Trump “supporters” who are claiming that Trump might not be perfect but at least he’s not Hillary. This is a righteous perspective for a voter, but it’s dangerous for a candidate. Even lukewarm support for Trump is support for Trump that can and will be used against candidates. Hillary-hating Independents or moderates might vote for Trump out of fear, but they won’t necessarily vote for those who supported him.
  • The anti-Trump vote WILL BE an anti-Republican vote: The reverse of the previous bullet is not true. Those who oppose Trump will not only oppose him but will also oppose those who support him. There is a real fear that’s associated with Trump, so candidates who give him even the slightest level of support will be associated with being in his camp. Many of the anti-Trump voters will try to completely obliterate his political existence. That existence extends down-ticket.
  • Your endorsement will not help Trump: Presidential candidates do not need endorsements from those running down-ticket. It doesn’t help them unless it’s a cross-party endorsement, while a lack of those endorsements doesn’t hurt them. Endorsements and support from down-ticket candidates is for the sake of the down-ticket candidate. It’s about riding on the coattails of the Presidential candidate’s support.
  • Trump will likely not reward you for your endorsement: Unless you’re Jeff Sessions, Chris Christie, Newt Gingrich, or any of a handful of supporters who have a spot waiting for them in Trump’s administration, you’re not going to get anything from Trump for your support. He won’t be helping you win. He won’t remember you if he wins. If you’re a big-enough name, you’ll get a press release and a mention during a speech. If you’re not, well, you won’t.
  • By focusing strictly on your constituents, you’re own campaign can shine: The moment that a candidate supports Trump in any way, their opinions no longer matter as much. They will get asked to react to this thing that Trump did or that faux pas that Trump made. Their entire candidacy gets framed by their attachment to Trump. By withholding support, they retain their independence.

The Biggest Reason to Withhold Support

Which has more impact: supporting Trump today, in July, or even in September, or throwing your support his way in the week or two prior to election day? Think hard before you answer that question, though the answer should be obvious. Let’s look at the scenarios…

If you withhold your support and Trump implodes, you’ll be seen as the type of candidate that makes smart decisions, that follows your conscience rather than the mandates of the party, and that puts your constituents ahead of the national narrative.

If you withhold your support and Trump doesn’t implode, you can make a big announcement just prior to election day that you now feel comfortable supporting him for President. Here’s the thing about support: in this society of short attention spans, the impact of support for any candidate, in particular one like Trump, will be strongest in the one or two weeks following the endorsement. His supporters will instantly embrace you for seeing the error of your ways. In fact, they might embrace you even more fervently than if you’d been a Trump supporter from the beginning.

Withhold Properly

I’ve heard dozens of attempts to not support Trump. Almost all of them are poor. First and foremost, not supporting Trump will be seen as supporting Hillary if it’s not worded properly. You have to get that out of the way immediately. Second, you have to give a reason for not supporting Trump at this time that doesn’t sound like you’re scared of attachment to him. Finally, you have to leave the door open in a way that puts the onus on Trump to earn your support. No matter what, you cannot appear to be indecisive.

Here’s a quick example of an answer to the question, “Do you support Trump for the Presidency?”

I am opposed to Hillary Clinton, the liberal agenda, and most importantly to [insert Democratic candidate’s name]. Trump is our party’s nominee but I am going to do what’s best for the people I hope to represent. I agree with some of what Trump is saying and I disagree with others. From now until the election I will be watching him very closely to see if his ideas and his ability to deliver on them are aligned with what’s best for the people of [insert city, district, or state].

The follow up question will be something like, “So you won’t vote for Clinton and you might not vote for Trump unless he changes his ways?”

At this point none of the candidates have demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that they will be a great President. I’m hopeful that Trump will demonstrate the ability to become a great President but as of today he still needs to put out a platform that he sticks to and that he can deliver on for the most part.

The “gotcha” question where they’ll try to paint you into a corner will be, “If the vote were today, who would you vote for?”

Thankfully I live in a world where election day is in November and hypotheticals are resigned to the journalists and Democrats, but if the vote were today there’s not enough information to make a decision. It wouldn’t be Hillary. Trump’s positions haven’t been locked in yet, so in the fantasy world you envision I likely wouldn’t vote for the Presidency.

Once a candidate decides to hop on the Trump train, they’ll get all of the negatives associated without the benefit of any positives. If they withhold their support properly and use it to leverage Trump towards a more conservative perspective, more Republicans will win their elections regardless of what happens to the Presidency.

Image Credit: Trump Train USA



via Soshable http://ift.tt/290GP6Q

Friday, June 24, 2016

FYI: David Cameron Didn’t Necessarily Resign

Following the “Brexit” vote to leave the European Union, British Prime Minister David Cameron announced that he would be stepping down following a transition period of a few months. He expects to have a new leader announced in October before the Conservative party’s conference. Whether he intends to step down or not, the Brexit loss meant that he would have to announce his resignation.

For most Americans who don’t know a ton about the way a parliamentary Democracy works, his resignation sounded definitive. The reality is that this is a purely political move to buy himself time. If he didn’t announce his resignation, he would have media outlets, UK citizens, and members of his own party urging him to do so. By resigning, he puts all of those criticisms and political embarrassments behind him. Now, he’ll have to deal with the repercussions of being on the wrong side of the vote, but at least he’ll be doing so as an alleged lame duck.

This gives him the freedom to position himself properly regardless of how the exit from the European Union plays out for Great Britain over the next few months. If the transition simply suffers a short-term economic hit on the country but allows them to recover over the next few months, he’ll be able to say that he beat expectations and stabilized the country following its most important political move in decades. If things go south, he’ll be able to say, “I tried to warn you.”

In both scenarios, he’ll be able to declare why it’s no longer in the best interests of the country for him to step down. If things are going well, he’ll be able to say that achieving success in spite of the break from the EU means that he shouldn’t rock the boat by resigning. If things go poorly, he’ll say that the nation is ill-equipped to handle self-inflicted wounds from the vote; in such a scenario, he’ll be the guy who was right all along as well as being the stability that the country needs. If things go badly, he’ll say that now is not the time for him to step down because the challenges caused by the results of the referendum requires a steady, consistent hand to fix it.

While I don’t know for sure that he won’t resign, I do know that nothing is set in stone until he actually steps down. That’s how Cameron works. Whatever his intentions are, announcing his resignation was the natural next step following his Brexit failure. It’s not a true resignation. It allows him to test the winds and follow the results.

He may or may not step down in the near future, but he definitely didn’t step down the day after Brexit. Calling it a “resignation” doesn’t mean that he’ll follow through with his promise. Saying one thing and doing another is part of Cameron’s nature.



via Soshable http://soshable.com/fyi-david-cameron-didnt-necessarily-resign/

The tables here are charming, artsy. #LunchDate


via Facebook http://ift.tt/28TVb6l

Thursday, June 23, 2016

Woah.


via Facebook http://ift.tt/28P4l1l

Woah.


via Facebook http://ift.tt/28P4l1l

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

Texas Poll Shows Ousting Trump at the Convention Might Be a Good Idea

My initial assessment of the calls by many prominent #FreeTheDelegates supporters to oust Donald Trump at the GOP convention may have been mistaken. I’ve been saying that it would be a mistake because the party is rallying behind Trump. I had assumed that the majority, which is comprised of the same go-along-to-get-along folks that gave us John McCain and Mitt Romney, would fall in line with Trump regardless of how bombastic or liberal he became. A new poll shows that there may be much more passion against Trump than I realized.

When one thinks Republican, they think Texas. This election will likely mark four decades since the state has voted for a Democrat. With Trump’s position on immigration, Texas should be one of the first states to go all-in for him as the nominee. Instead, only 36.8% want him. That’s great compared to 29.7% wanting Hillary Clinton and 2.6% wanting Gary Johnson, but the scary part for Trump is that 31.0% are unsure or want “someone else.”

To put that into perspective, Mitt Romney was at 57% in 2012.

Establishment tool Karl Rove may have had an explanation back in 2013 when he said that 40% of the Latino vote in Texas goes to Republicans. That’s not going to happen with Trump regardless of how many times he says, “The Mexicans love me.”

On the other hand, it could be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Since many are saying that Trump should be ousted, others are jumping on that bandwagon rather than accept the liberal policies of Trump. Another explanation could be the voting motivation. In the poll, the most important issue for undecided voters was “honest and integrity” at 34.0% following by “the economy and jobs” at 24.6%. With choices like Trump and Clinton, it’s easy to see why undecided voters are so skeptical.

My preference would be for Trump to implode and a universally accepted coup (or an outright withdraw by Trump) takes place within the current rules. In such a situation, Ted Cruz would be the nominee. My second option until seeing the recent trends and this poll was for a third-party conservative to run with a very specific 7-state plan to victory. As things continue to get worse for Trump and nearly half of Republicans would vote for someone other than him, I’m more comfortable with a coup. A third-party conservative would need to emerge in the next week to be viable.

The fourth option, if the Republican party cannot be saved, is to start a new party. I’m not looking forward to those prospects because it would mean that either Trump or Hillary Clinton are occupying the White House for the next four years, but if that’s what it has to be, we’re ready.

At the end of the day, it’s still Trump’s race to lose. All he has to do is not mess up and he should sale through the convention relatively unscathed with a reluctantly united party behind him.  Unfortunately, the likely outcome of that scenario is a Clinton Presidency.

Photo by Gage Skidmore



via Soshable http://ift.tt/28WS38Q

Sunday, June 19, 2016

After the Convention, It May Be Time to Start a New Conservative Party

The Republican populist party is officially here. There’s likely no going back. There’s likely no way to salvage it. The underbelly of the Republican party has united with the moderate Establishment wing to form the party of Trump, a formidable force that has no room for Reagan conservatives, the Judeo-Christian right, or Constitutionalists. It’s just about time to stop fighting for the GOP and unite under a new umbrella.

Tea Party patriots no longer have a home. Fiscal conservatives that believe in smaller government, a balanced budget, and greatly reduced tax and spend policies cannot look to the GOP for support. Social conservatives who believe in preserving religious liberties, protecting the sanctity of marriage, and defending the life of the unborn have been pushed aside.

We no longer have a party. Sure, there are much smaller parties to look at, but they’re powerless. We’ve stuck around with the GOP for 30 years waiting for the next Ronald Reagan. A few have popped up such as Ted Cruz, but the GOP was overcome by nefarious forces of stupidity in the year that we actually had a chance to nominate a conservative.

Now is not the time to wait around, but we’re going to have to wait until the GOP convention. There’s still a chance that sanity may win over. What’s more likely is that Donald Trump will do something to disqualify himself. I’m one who believes that he never really wanted to be President and now that he’s on the verge of getting the nomination, he wants the Presidency even less. He wants to lose, but he doesn’t want to do so in a way that makes him seem to be a loser. He’d rather win and begrudgingly move into the White House than to be considered a loser. For this reason, I think there’s a chance something will “leak” before the convention.

The other two options are for a conservative to run third party or for a convention coup. A third party candidate hasn’t materialized and if one doesn’t pop up in the next two weeks, there won’t be one. A coup is doubtful unless Trump does something dumb (okay, dumbER than he’s already been doing).

As eager as I am to start contacting conservatives, posting to various publications, getting things rolling on social media, and contacting the conservative parties that are already existing in an effort to consolidate, I’ll wait. The urge is there but patience must rule for now. If Trump is officially nominated, we’ll get this rolling. In the meantime, we must allow the Republican party to hold us hostage.

Conservatism from a Constitutional originalist perspective is the only thing outside of divine intervention that can save this country from the disastrous turn we’re in the process of taking. The road that the last four Presidents have sent us down is horrible, but it’s not too late to correct the course. We’ve waited this long. What’s a few more weeks?



via Soshable http://ift.tt/21uD4qn

No, a Partial Transcript of Orlando 911 Calls Isn’t Good Enough

The Obama Administration is allowing the public to hear and see the transcripts from Orlando terrorist Omar Mateen’s 911 calls. The problem is that they’re scrubbing every mention of Islam, including the jihadist’s pledge to the Islamic State.

According to RealClearPolitics:

This is worse than it sounds. The thinking (at least what’s being told to the public) is that there can be further damage done if the shooter’s pledge of allegiance is heard. The problem with this narrative is that those who are already radicalized or near radicalization are only going to be further emboldened by not releasing the information from the calls. Their imagination is now allowed to run rampant. They can’t hear the fear in the shooter’s voice if there was any. They won’t hear him sounding like a crazed maniac. They will imagine him boldly committing an act of jihad for an organization that is reaching into the United States.

This is all about narrative. They want the narrative to be about guns, so any discussion of terrorism, Islam, or radicalization can only hurt the sales pitch they’re giving to Americans. It’s just another example of this administration’s desire to put ideology over the welfare of Americans.

The post No, a Partial Transcript of Orlando 911 Calls Isn’t Good Enough appeared first on Conservative Haven.



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

Credit Where It’s Due: Trump is Right About Profiling

Folks who follow this blog know one thing very clearly: we feel that Donald Trump is a hardcore liberal Democrat with a single conservative perspective, immigration, that he’s using to fool Republicans into voting for him. It’s rare that we agree with him, but when he’s right, he’s right. His renewed call for profiling as an appropriate measure to fight terrorism is a necessary perspective.

With that said, I have absolutely zero confidence that Trump knows what is entailed. This is the type of thing that would require him to hire “the best people…” and not the type of people he’s hired in the past. We’re talking about the absolute best people to fight terrorism and do so in a way that stays within the bounds of the Constitution. Profiling is an extremely slippery slope as it can be abused far too easily.

So far, he hasn’t said much but the media is already going after him for it:

If he sticks with those words and doesn’t expand beyond bringing in people who can initiate profiling in a Constitutionally sound manner, then we’re good. In America, equality is an expectation. People should be treated equally, given equal opportunities to succeed or fail, and granted equal rights within the framework of the Constitution that has made the country great. Profiling can lead to reduction in freedoms if handled improperly, but the “common sense” profiling that Trump mentioned can be done properly without infringing on rights or increasing the powers of intervention granted to the federal government.

If an area in a city has a much higher rate of drug trafficking, it’s not profiling if the police steps up investigations and presence in the area even if there is a particular racial group dominating it. When it comes to religion, there are tendencies associated with particular crimes as well. The goal is to find radicalization within individuals and these tendencies can be used to sniff out potential threats.

The key is to follow the signs and see where radicalization is possible. In many cases, the sign can be gun purchases. Before anyone jumps on me for calling for any form of gun control, I’m not advocating any such thing. However, “common sense” measures can be put into place without infringing on rights, reducing the public’s privacy, or wasting law enforcement resources on wild goose chases.

The signs were there that Omar Mateen might be a problem. He was investigated in the past by the FBI. When he suddenly bought weapons, the sign was apparent. When he started posting publicly in ways that seemed to denote radicalization, the alarm bells should have gone up. Without knowing the details of any investigations on Mateen, it’s easy to jump to conclusions. On the surface, it seems as if he could have been stopped.

Again, it’s a slippery slope, but it’s one that must at least be discussed. The knee-jerk reaction of mainstream media and the politically correct culture that Obama has established will have the majority thinking ill of Trump’s perspective. The facts combined with “common sense” tell a completely different story.

The post Credit Where It’s Due: Trump is Right About Profiling appeared first on Conservative Haven.



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

4 Reasons the GOP Should Take Trump Up on His Offer to Self-Fund Campaign

Donald Trump may or may not want the GOP’s help with his campaign. Depending on the day of the week and who he’s talking to, he either loves the GOP or hates it. He either wants their help or he doesn’t. His latest perspective (as of eight hours ago, so it may have changed already) is that if support for Trump from the GOP continues to waver, he’ll go at it on his own.

There are four reasons that the GOP should accept his offer and none of them include doing it out of spite. It makes complete logical sense for the GOP to put their efforts and cash in other areas while Trump focuses on winning the White House.

Focus on Congress, State, and Local Races

This is going to be a pivotal election for the Senate, House of Representatives, several Governorships, and hundreds of important state, city, and local races. The Presidential campaign has historically been a drain for the parties, leaving the down-ticket races strapped for cash and attention. If Trump can handle his own race, the GOP will have a leg up on the Democrats. This will be crucial if they’re going to keep majorities in Congress where both chambers are in doubt. It would also help tremendously at the local level; the money spent on a single Presidential television campaign through swing states would be enough to win entire districts if spent locally instead.

He (Allegedly) has 10 Billion Important Reasons to Self-Fund

If Donald Trump spent 10% of his alleged money, he would have the best-funded campaign in history when combined with donations and his super PACs. The Republican fundraising machine really isn’t necessary to win the White House if Trump cares enough about the country.

Detachment can’t Hurt, but Attachment Could

By separating the campaign from the GOP itself, those who are down-ticket will have a better chance of winning. Those who will vote for Trump are more likely to be straight-ticket voters. On the other hand, those who oppose Trump would be hard-pressed to vote for politicians who support him. By not attaching to Trump, other Republicans have an opportunity to run their own campaigns free from the Trump distraction. Their message should be that regardless of who wins the Presidency, their going to do everything they can for their constituents.

We Wouldn’t Want Him to Be Attacked as a Liar

He claimed throughout his campaign that he was the only candidate who wasn’t “bought” by special interests. Once he had the nomination locked up, he switched gears and became the guy who wanted to be “donated to” by special interests. If he self-funds, this flip-flop cannot be an attack point used by the Clinton campaign.

The best way for Trump to maintain his integrity is to self-fund his campaign. By working with the Establishment, he’s losing credibility. By taking money, he’s going back on the hundreds of times he’s claimed to be a self-funded candidate. It’s time for the GOP to let him do what he really wants to do.



via Soshable http://ift.tt/1UDC6ri

Friday, June 17, 2016

When Trump Loses, He’ll Blame Me. And You.

A comprehensive look back at Donald Trump’s various failures in his business and personal life tell us one thing: he’s always a victim. It’s always someone else’s fault. It’s always a bad circumstance, a raw deal, or a poor decision by others (never him) that led to dozens of major disasters throughout his life. The same thing is going to happen with the Presidential election.

Donald Trump is going to lose. I held onto hope for a little while after he became the presumptive GOP nominee to see if he would make the pivot for the general election. This pivot would mean that he’d need to be a ferocious fundraiser. He’d need to make friends inside and out of the Republican party. He’d need to slow down on campaign rallies and start getting more personal with the people who can help him to rally for the general election. He’d need to focus hardcore on the battleground states while keeping a close eye for threats to his more secure red states. Most importantly, he’d need to start learning the job, understanding the issues, and proposing real solutions to the problems that have accumulated since Ronald Reagan left office.

He has done exactly zero of these things. Over a month since driving his nomination opponents away and less than a month until the GOP convention, it seems that any pivot we expected (hoped for) has been pushed aside so he can continue to try to win the election through controversy. It worked in the primaries. It absolutely cannot work in the general election.

Why is he going to lose? Because he’s incompetent. Free 24-hour coverage on television, radio shows, and the internet will not carry him to victory. He needs a plan that includes all of the things listed above. He’s more like The Joker in The Dark Knight than a hero; to paraphrase, Trump is like the dog chasing the car – he wouldn’t know what to do if he caught it.

Polling this early is relatively meaningless, but it points to worse numbers at this point than any GOP candidate in decades. He’s on pace to lose every swing state and some red states as well. Why? Because of me and you… at least that’s the narrative he’ll try to spin after the election while he launches his own news channel.

At the end of the day, he’ll blame the #NeverTrump movement for not kissing the ring. He’ll blame the pundits like Mark Levin and Erick Erickson who haven’t embraced him or told their audience to embrace him. He’ll blame those helping in his campaign for being dumb dumbs. He’ll blame mainstream media for exposing things “dishonestly.” He’ll blame the various bloggers and conservative journalists who refuse to abandon our values for the sake of participating in the impossible task of taking down Hillary Clinton. Right now, the only people who can stop Clinton are in the FBI or in her own inner circle.

He’s a professional victim. There are many of those types of people in the Democratic party, but he’s worse than them. He’s not just a victim. He’s a victimizer. He uses psychological project to transfer his own failures onto someone else. That “someone else” in November is going to be us.



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

Sunday, June 12, 2016

Hit ISIS Decisively, Immediately, and Without Remorse

There’s something that the United States could learn from Israel when it comes to dealing with radical Islamic extremism. When Israel is attacked, they find a target affiliated with the attacker and the deliver retribution. When the United States is attacked, we point fingers and call for gun control.

Before anyone calls me out for taking on a hawkish approach as compared to the more conservative approach of limited intervention, it’s important to remember that we were hit. Just like with 9/11, the Orlando attack demands an immediate response. Unlike 9/11, we should select who we attack based upon the circumstance and not political expediency. Iraq was not responsible for 9/11, yet they were selected as one of the two big targets upon which to focus our fury. This was a mistake.

With the Orlando attack, the attacker claimed allegiance to the Islamic State and the Islamic State has taken credit for the attack. The enemy is waving their hands and saying, “we did this.” In other words, the enemy is clear and as a result our actions should be clear.

This has nothing to do with vengeance. This is a message that must be sent immediately. Those who support the Islamic State domestically and abroad must be made aware that the United States will respond furiously. We will respond decisively. We will not delay and we will have no remorse. That doesn’t mean upping air strikes. That means asymmetric warfare. It means sending a furious blitz through some of the lands known to be controlled by the Islamic State and a 10x casualty count. They killed 50 and injured over 50 more. We need to decimate a portion of their forces large enough that they know any attack, lone wolf or not, against the United States will mean major retribution.

It has to hurt. It can’t be a statement by politicians. It must be a show of the only thing that these extremists understand: strength. Right now, we are weak. In their eyes, we weep for the dead and argue over laws. They have zero fear in attacking the United States because they know we will do nothing of substance. This has to change. It needs to change now. It can’t wait for the election. President Obama and Congress must act without hesitation and bring the force of America’s military to bear against our enemies.

Long-term, we should be working towards eliminating ALL forms of radical Islamic extremism. The response I’m describing would not be part of the long-term goal, but it would act as a warning that attacking the United States brings about consequences. They have absolutely zero fear of us. For the first time in a century, the United States does not intimidate our enemies at all. They don’t fear a response because they know there won’t be one. For once, President Obama needs to surprise them. He needs to demonstrate what his office and station as Commander-in-Chief truly means. He must be a leader. I wish it was someone who actually had the capacity to lead sitting in the White House today, but in lieu of such a person, it must be Obama and it must be right now.

If we do not act immediately, we are opening the door to more radicalization and terrorism on American soil. Now is not the time to debate policy issues or gun rights. It’s not the time to discuss hate crimes of ideological unity. It’s a time for action. Will the President step up?



via Soshable http://ift.tt/1PnLrh3

What if Trump Doesn’t Get a “Terrorist Attack Bump?”

Following the San Bernardino terrorist attacks, Donald Trump and his “America First” concept of nationalism received a solid bump in the polls. At least one of his opponents, Rand Paul, was pushed further down as a result. He’s expected to receive a similar bump following the Orlando terrorist attack, but what if he doesn’t?

Is it conceivable that those who would support Trump because of his hardline stance against Islam in general are already maxed? He’ll almost certainly get a lift from those who focus on radical Islamic terrorism, but he might actually lose some Independent support from those who favor gun control and who sympathize with the LGBTQ movement.

Have we reached “peak Trump?”

This is going to be a telling week for the election. No, it’s not definitive; with so many possible scandals combined with faux-pas-Trumpisms and the potential for a Clinton indictment, nothing is certain. However, in a bubble, this should be a springboard moment for Trump following a week that showed him falling far behind Clinton.

Polls today are meaningless other than the movement of the numbers based upon events. The Orlando terrorist attack was a major event that should help Trump. The question is whether or not he’ll get a big lift or a minor one. If he only gets a minor lift, we could truly be seeing the maximum that the presumptive GOP nominee can achieve in the best of circumstances.

The post What if Trump Doesn’t Get a “Terrorist Attack Bump?” appeared first on Conservative Haven.



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

Orlando Terrorist Attack Means We Need MORE Guns, Fewer Gun-Free Zones

I’ll cut straight to the chase and keep it short. Would a radical Islamic terrorist be able to kill or injure over 100 people in a public place that wasn’t in a gun-free zone? What if 2% of the 300+ people in the club were responsible gun owners carrying firearms? Could lives have been saved? Most likely, yes.

Bad guys intent to murder are not slowed by signs declaring an area as a gun-free zone. Terrorists aren’t going to wait for a police response before taking lives. Many terrorists aren’t even worried about the police; they’ll kill as many as they can before armed law enforcement arrives to send them to be with their 72 virgins. In an America where anyone might be carrying, a terrorist would be more reluctant to perform their acts of jihad knowing they could be taken out before killing a single infidel.

America needs more “good guys with guns” present in public places. We need fewer gun-free zones. We need to reverse the course that President Obama and the left has propelled us down because it’s utterly impossible to keep bad guys from having guns. If they want them, they’ll get them. If they can’t get them, they’ll find other means to kill. In particular, radical Islamic terrorists will find ways to kill Americans with or without legal firearms.

The calls for more gun control after the Orlando attack is predictable and completely insane. The government cannot protect us all from terrorists. Heck, the FBI probed Omar Mateen. He was cleared to carry weapons. There’s not a background check being proposed that could have stopped him. Instead, law enforcement should be doing just that – enforcing the law. The problem is that enforcement requires investigation and their investigation into Mateen was apparently flawed.

Train as many Americans as possible on proper gun safety and appropriate actions when situations arise. Then, arm them. I’d feel a lot safer in public knowing that any number of patriotic American citizens around me were properly trained and armed. It’s when we go down the path of increased gun control that the enemies have the upper hand.

We don’t need gun control. We need to stop the terrorists in their tracks. We need to go after the core of terrorism to prevent people like Mateen from being radicalized in the first place. Otherwise, we’re just going to make Americans more vulnerable by blaming everything on the 2nd Amendment.



via Soshable http://ift.tt/24Kos74

Friday, June 10, 2016

The One Path to Prevent a Split GOP and a Hillary Victory: Trump Implodes and Cruz Steps In

Mitt Romney, Bill Kristol, and others in the #NeverTrump pseudo-movement have been looking for a way to derail Donald Trump from being the lone representative of the anti-Clinton opposition. Yes, that sentence was a mouthful, but that’s exactly what we’re dealing with in this strange Presidential election year. They are pushing options that may or may not work. If they don’t do it, the party will be splintered. If they do it, the party will be splintered. The only scenario that could possibly prevent catastrophic losses within and for the GOP is far-fetched and would rely on Trump himself helping out.

It’s 2016. Anything is possible.

The two scenarios currently being proposed by various factions of those opposed to both Trump and Clinton are:

  1. Find a Third Candidate: With the Libertarian nomination of Gary Johnson, any hope of a conservative candidate emerging organically fell to the wayside. David French, writer at National Review, was thrown in as an option and was abruptly thrown back out. Ben Sasse, Romney, Condaleeza Rice, and a handful of generals were floated, but as of now nobody is playing ball. Romney is having a meeting this weekend to discuss, so he may throw his name in the ring, but that wouldn’t bring much hope and would be a guarantee that the party would not survive the election.
  2. Hold a Delegate Revolt at the Convention: The misconception that the political parties are beholden to the voting members across the country would be shattered in this scenario. The veil would be lifted and millions of Republicans, even some who are opposed to Trump, would feel instantly disenfranchised by learning a quick lesson in the reality of party politics.

Both options stink, but if I had to choose one, I’d go for the first. In option two, there’s a pretty darn good chance that Trump would run as an independent. He’d likely end up with more votes than the nominee. In option 1, there’s a chance for success.

The third “option” is one that would rely on Donald Trump being Donald Trump at the right moment. It would require zero meddling by the Republican party; no fancy rules changes ahead of the convention would work. Even if, as Amanda Carpenter suggests, the party unbound the delegates in a vote of no confidence, there would be a revolt if Trump didn’t get the nomination. However, if Trump does his part and implodes as the right moment, the alternative would emerge. That alternative would be Ted Cruz.

Since Cruz is second in bound delegates and is the only other candidate who meets the qualifications of rule 40B to be on the delegates’ ballots,  an implosion by Trump could be enough to get enough delegates to abstain on the first ballot. On the second ballot, Cruz would be the nominee.

Trump has been imploding a little bit at a time for months. The latest problem that’s been causing all of the speculation to oust him is the battle he’s had between Trump University case Judge Gonzalo Curiel. It has caused many to withhold or even reverse their endorsements of Trump. Alone, it won’t stand as a valid reason for delegates to abstain, but one more scandal or major misstep by Trump should do the trick. He’s close. All he needs to do is be himself one more time. The best time for this to happen would be the week prior to the convention, that way the rules committee doesn’t have a valid reason to unbind everyone and start from scratch with Scott Walker, Romney, Marco Rubio, or someone else who would be immediately flung behind the eight ball for not being viable enough to challenge Trump during the primaries. With Cruz, the support and the favorable delegates are already in place.

Don’t get me wrong, I’d take Walker, Rubio, or even Romney over Trump. I’d take any of the original 16 non-Trump candidates over Trump. I’d take just about any true Republican with a pulse over the liberal Democrat from New York. However, there’s still the issue of defeating Clinton, which means that the nominee would need a base of supporters. That’s Cruz.

It should be noted that in this scenario, Carly Fiorina would likely not be the VP nominee. The party, which nominates the VP separately, would likely install either John Kasich or Walker.

It’s a strange scenario that relies on Trump, but let’s call it like it is. The chances of Trump doing nothing idiotic between now and the convention are low. He might be a good boy for a little while since he’s been threatened by the Curiel situation, but it probably won’t last. We can’t rely on an implosion, but it’s the best thing that could happen for the party. It’s the best thing that could happen for the country.

The post The One Path to Prevent a Split GOP and a Hillary Victory: Trump Implodes and Cruz Steps In appeared first on Conservative Haven.



via Conservative Haven http://ift.tt/25PiMyz

Trump v. Hillary is About Who We Fear Less. Sad!

Now that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are the presumptive nominees of the two major political parties, America is pretty much screwed. I try to avoid vulgarities in my articles, but there’s really no polite way to put it. Americans are going to be asked to choose between someone who is certain to make bad decisions and another person who has the potential to make worse decisions.

In essence, we have to decide whether we want to roll the dice with Trump and hope that he won’t do what he’s done with every other endeavor outside of real estate and entertainment, namely crash and burn. The other option is to accept our fate of having a disastrous Clinton Presidency that might be more manageable. Hillary will do great harm without a doubt. Trump might do less harm… or he might destroy us.

That’s the sad state of affairs in Presidential politics. The Democrats did what they always do by nominating an ideologically backwards liberal. That was to be expected. What wasn’t expected is that the responsibility of nominating a competent conservative was completely botched by the Republicans. We can blame the media. We can blame the idiotic wing of the party. We can blame a field that was too big to start and that didn’t thin quickly enough to stop him. At this point, the biggest blame should fall on those of us who have been hesitant about Trump but who didn’t do or say enough before it was too late. Too many pundits failed to warn the party about Trump because they never expected him to make it this far. By the time they realized that his nomination was possible, the momentum was already too much.

The “solutions” are not very appealing. Option one is to find a third-party conservative. For whatever reason, nobody has materialized despite the notion that a run would be effective. Option two is to hold a convention coup and bring in Scott Walker, Mitt Romney, or some other white knight. Both options yield one result: a splintered party.

This sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. It is. As disasters go, it’s the most necessary one I’ve seen in a while. For the sake of the Republic, the GOP must go down one of these paths. Will we be splintered? Absolutely. Are we already splintered? Absolutely. Like a badly fractured bone, sometimes it’s best to give it a clean break so that the different parts can be realigned and healing can be done properly. What we don’t want to happen is for the party to be fundamentally changed and physically morphed improperly by reluctantly accepting that Donald Trump represents who we are as a party. If we have to lose millions of voters in protest or if Trump goes his own way and forms a new party, so be it.

The current path seemed impossible a few months ago. The Republican party simply needed to put up a viable candidate to beat the weakest Democrat to run since Michael Dukakis. Instead, millions of Republicans helped the only candidate with a strong chance of losing to Clinton. The error must be corrected one way or another.



via Soshable http://ift.tt/21cmtaX

Tuesday, June 7, 2016

A Third-Party Conservative’s 7-State Plan to Save the Republic

As with most Presidential elections since 1984, the electoral map can be reduced to around 10 states. Most states are solidly locked to favor one party or the other. This particular election year, we don’t want to take anything for granted, but if the right candidate with a solid election disruption plan can pull things together in the month of June, they would have a very good chance of denying both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton the 270 electoral votes necessary to win the Presidency outright.

This has been talked about before, but I haven’t seen anyone propose a plan. Here it is. When it’s viewed through a lens of determination and hope, it’s not as far-fetched as mainstream media would have you believe. The key is in understanding that to win the Presidency, a third-party conservative would not have to run a national campaign. In fact, they could pull it off by winning as few as seven states. Within that framework, the prospects of getting someone other than the two disastrous choices being put forth to the nation becomes less hopeless.

Let’s look at the plan itself, then we’ll examine the criteria for the right candidate.

Deny 270

It’s been pointed out many times, but just in case… the third candidate would not have to win the general election. They simply need to prevent Trump and Clinton from getting to 270 electoral votes. With no majority in the electoral college, the President is chosen by the House of Representatives from among the top three candidates. Each state gets 1 vote. Republicans control 32 of the 50 congressional caucuses, so in that scenario it would be either Trump or the third-party conservative. Incidentally, the VP is selected by the Senate among the top two candidates, so whoever Trump selects as VP would almost certainly win regardless of who the House selects as President.

The Math

Based upon current projections, Clinton has solid hold on 227 electoral votes while Trump has control over 180. The 10 swing states that will decide the election in a two-person race are Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Hampshire, and Iowa. It’s exceptionally important that Clinton is denied from winning more than a couple of these which is why strategic selection is important. President Obama won eight of them in 2012; only North Carolina and Arizona went to Mitt Romney. I don’t have the research or a team of strategists to select the best opportunities, but based upon the closeness of the vote, the best states to go after would be the ones that Obama barely won in 2012. Obama won Colorado with 51%, Florida, with 50%, Iowa with 52%, Nevada with 52%, New Hampshire with 52%, Ohio with 50%, and Virginia with 51%,

If Trump wins the red states plus Arizona and North Carolina, he’d have 206 electoral votes. If Clinton could lose the seven states listed above, she’d have 247. Trump could win any combination of those states as long as he is kept below the 270 electoral vote threshold. In this very specific and challenging scenario, the President would be selected by the House of Representatives. It’s a scenario that’s nearly impossible.

Nearly. Not completely. If a solid candidate emerges, the math would not be a problem.

Getting on the Ballots

While efforts should be made to get on as many ballots as possible, the seven key states above would be the only required ones. Of those, the only two with challenges in getting on the ballot would be Nevada and Florida. Nevada’s deadline is July 8 and requires 1% of the previous congressional election’s votes, so if a third candidate launches July 1, they’d have a week to get just under 6,000 signatures. Florida is more challenging. The deadline is July 15, but they’d need 1% of total registered voters. Currently, that would mean they’d have two weeks to get nearly 120,000 signatures. Again, not impossible but it would take a strong organization and likely some television ads very quickly. It wouldn’t hurt if Jeb Bush would lend a hand. If they couldn’t get on the Florida ballot, they’d need to steal a blue state. Obama won Wisconsin in 2012 with 53%; Scott Walker would need to go all in to make this happen.

The other five states have deadlines after July.

Raising Money

Pundits have said that a candidate would need to raise between $250M all the way up to $1B to be viable. The lower end of the range is not only more realistic when we consider the need to only campaign in seven states. It’s also achievable. Without the backing of the parties, it’s not an easy task, but with the help of #NeverTrump pundits spreading the word, experienced fundraisers and bundlers getting funds, and an electorate growing more disenchanted with the options every day, it isn’t as daunting as one might believe. Then again, we’re talking about a quarter of a billion dollars, so maybe it truly is impossible. I simply don’t have the experience to know. Thankfully, there are people who know. Thankfully, there are people who would try for the right candidate.

The Right Candidate

Conventional wisdom would say that picking a moderate is the right way to go. After all, Romney won among Independents in 2012. However, it would be a mistake to put up another moderate. Independents aren’t all moderates. A good chunk of them are just as polarized as those registered with a party. With a liberal Democrat from New York going against a liberal Democrat from New York who pretends to be a Republican, the best thing to do is to draw a clear contrast. There’s another reason which I’ll discuss below.

What’s more important than where they are on the conservative/liberal scale is the measure of their perceived character. The biggest weakness of one candidate is being a corrupt liar. The other candidate is just as corrupt and lies just as often. A trustworthy and honorable third-party candidate could win states on integrity alone.

Here are some of the other criteria:

  • Relate With Voters: Year after year, the candidate that relates with voters the best is the one who wins. It’s sad that the parties have chosen a woman who claims to have been “dead broke” when she left the White House and man who had to take out a “small loan” of a million dollars to boost his failing portion of the empire he was born into.
  • Appealing to Females: Those who believe that Trump can win with the male vote need to remember that Romney won the male vote in 2012. Women will decide the election which is why Trump can’t win swing states other than North Carolina and Arizona.  Despite being a woman, Clinton isn’t locked in with female voters. They tend to put more weight on character and Clinton’s character is questionable (and I’m being nice with my choice of words).
  • No Skeletons in the Closet: Trump will do his best to keep his skeletons locked away and Clinton has most of her skeletons in cemeteries. Both of them have skeletons and voters know it whether they come out or not. The third candidate doesn’t have to be a saint, but a major scandal would cling to them like Velcro against two corrupt people made of Teflon.
  • Different on Policies: The attack points would be the ones where Clinton and Trump are similar. The financial message must be that lower taxes for all, free trade, and establishing a business-friendly environment is necessary to grow the economy and bring back jobs. The military message should be one of Reaganesque strength; not isolationism but not adventure through intervention, either. The foreign policy message should be that we embrace our allies and condemn our enemies; no loving on Vladimir Putin. Then, there’s one other policy that must stand out…
  • No Men in Women’s Bathrooms, No Boys on Girls Teams: Trump’s biggest mistake from a policy perspective when it comes to the common voter was not capitalized upon by his competitors. He thinks transgenders should use the restroom of their choice. Since then, he’s backtracked and said that it should be a state issue, but his perspective is on record. The majority of Americans don’t want to see that happen. Pundits and competitors gave it very little attention because they didn’t see it as a voting issue, but if the right candidate pushes hard against it, the voters can be made to care.
  • Not Necessarily Someone Known: When news broke that David French was considering a run, pundits instantly said that he couldn’t win because of name recognition. That’s what the quarter billion dollars is for. The best person for the job would be less like Mitt Romney and more like Ben Sasse or other conservatives that are not big names nationwide. Why? The reason that many are voting for Trump is that he’s not Clinton. The reason that many are voting for Clinton is that she’s not Trump. We need someone who’s not Trump or Hilllary. There are already 24% who are feeling the need for another option and that number would only go up if the right candidate launches a campaign.
  • A Republican: This should go without saying, but if this goes to the House of Representatives, the only way to keep them from selecting Trump is if the third-party conservative was favorable to Republicans. Trump attacks Republicans. The third candidate shouldn’t be an establishment favorite, but it can’t be a Libertarian or an alt right favorite, either.

The odds are slim for all of this to happen. It’s not because it can’t be done. It’s because nobody has been granted the courage and desire to participate. America needs a strong leader to step up and prevent the worst Presidential disaster to befall our nation in the modern era. If the right person makes the right decision, we’ll do everything we can to help them.



via Soshable http://ift.tt/22LGAxQ

Sunday, June 5, 2016

America First… The Right Way

Donald Trump is right about one thing. America should come first. However, he’s very wrong with his approach based upon the policy proposals we’ve heard from him.

Often times, the best move for America is to embrace cooperation outside of the country. Promoting the free market world economy is one of the clearest examples of this. Americans win when we are able to get cheaper products. Tariffs harm Americans more than they hurt other countries. This is not an opinion. This is a clearly demonstrable fact that has played the same tune throughout history.

Too many have confused the proper approach (which isn’t Trump’s approach) to “America first” with globalism. Others have associated Trump’s version of “America first” with the idea of isolationism. Both notions are false. A true “America first” perspective that would be advantageous to the highest number of Americans is one where America is calling the shots and establishing our proper place on the world stage. Sometimes, that means doing things that aren’t very isolationist, but it also means squarely opposing the vast majority of pushes towards globalism.

The way to do this is to make sure that America’s control over situations is beneficial for everyone, especially Americans. We’ll detail what that means, but first let’s take a look at examples of globalism and isolationism that operate contrary to the goals of making sure America and its citizens are taken care of first and foremost. Here are three prime examples:

  • Trade: As discussed briefly above, the way that trade is managed can only be hurt by isolationism. This is where Trump is as wrong as his like-minded cohort on trade, Bernie Sanders. Both believe that the best way to bring jobs back to America is to obey the demands of labor unions and make it difficult for businesses to operate overseas. On the surface, this seems positive. It’s great for getting a big cheer at rallies, but it’s completely untenable. Jobs will not come back to America without major consequences when this form of “America first” trade is utilized. It puts companies in situations where their only two choices are to take a hit by being punished by the federal government for operating overseas or by increasing costs for operating in America. The iPhone is the perfect example. If Trump and Sanders get their way, Apple will be forced to produce their iPhones in America. The result? The potential for hundreds, perhaps even thousands of new American jobs. The other result? A $1300-$2200 iPhone for millions of Americans. The best way to bring jobs back to America is to reduce the cost of business. Remove regulations, reduce taxes, and make it beneficial for companies to want to fulfill their business obligations by hiring people in the U.S. within a reasonable cost structure.
  • Intervention: In an ideal situation, the conservative mentality as it pertains to overseas intervention should be one of extreme caution. That doesn’t mean isolationism, but it also means that the hawks in the Republican party like John McCain and Marco Rubio should not allow overseas interests to require American intervention all the time. Human rights can be defended by assisting other nations. Nation building has failed in every modern attempt. Costly wars have been a waste. However, there also should not be a complete removal of America’s hand over foreign affairs. WWII is an example of this. Had America been following Trump’s version of “America first” back then, there’s a very good chance that the Cold War would have been replaced by a real war with Nazi Europe. Today, that situation is manifesting in the form of the Islamic State, Boko Haram, and other radical Islamic groups who are becoming more than ragtag cells of suicide bombers. If allowed to continue, they will become a bigger threat to America than they already are. No, a border wall will not be enough to keep them out if they’re allowed continued existence.
  • NATO: Those who fear globalization, including the staff of this site, have a righteous opposition to it. NATO is not part of globalization. It could be in the future, but today it is strategically necessary. The way to prevent it from becoming a tool of globalization is to fix it from the inside, not dissolve it or leave it as Trump has proposed. He’s looking at the money and he’s correct to say that it needs to be fixed. We cannot continue to bankroll it the way we have been. However, that doesn’t mean that we should leave or even threaten to leave. Doing so is a show of weakness and one that dissolves the idea of “America first.” Why? Because without NATO, Russian and Chinese alliances are more powerful than us as an individual country. That’s hard to admit, but after years of war and a tanking economy, the combination of the Clinton-Bush-Obama quarter-century has made NATO more necessary now than ever.

With all of that understood, it’s important to realize that there are ways to truly embrace the idea of “America first” without abandoning relationships or causing more harm than good with idiotic policy proposals. First, we have to allow the private sector to make itself flourish. This cannot be done through mandates, regulations, taxes, or tariffs. It can only be done by empowering businesses, particular small- and medium-sized companies, to operate freely. This means reducing taxes, removing regulations, improving trade agreements, and allowing the free market system to do what it does best. We aren’t so far removed from the prosperity of the 1980s and early 1990s to have forgotten what a free market economy can do. Now that the digital age has changed the landscape, it should be easier for free market principles to rule. All the government needs to do is get out of the way.

Regarding the military and foreign affairs, we aren’t being very smart about it. In fact, we haven’t been smart about it in several decades. Ronald Reagan had the best approach in the modern era, but even his show of American muscle without using it very often had flaws. He, too, engaged in regime change, though some claimed it was the trade off with Neocons in Congress for supporting his economic policy. Today, the strategy is downright idiotic. The path that President Obama has taken us down is so poor that others are starting to take our place in the international arena. Trump’s proposals are to the left of Hillary Clinton when it comes to foreign policy. He wanted Russia to handle Syria and ISIS. He’s recommended pulling out of Japan and South Korea and forcing them to defend themselves against nuclear China and North Korea by getting their own nukes. Seriously. We need to be present in these areas. We need to flex our muscles while only using them as a last resort.

The worst part about Trump’s “America first” attitude is in dividing America itself. He’s turning Americans against Americans, particularly when it comes to heritage. We can’t necessarily call it racism since his rhetoric is not isolated to race. His insane attacks against U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who is presiding over one of his Trump University lawsuits, are antagonizing much of the nation against him. By calling into question Curiel’s Mexican heritage, Trump is making an issue of allegiance even for U.S. citizens. Curiel was born in Indiana over six decades ago. He’s never publicly expressed an opinion about Trump’s plans to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, but Trump is calling him out on it nonetheless.

Americans can achieve the goals that Trump has loosely discussed, but to do so would require a different plan of attack than what Trump is offering. Clinton’s policies are no better. Thankfully, there is power within the people of America to accomplish those goals with or without one of the two idiots representing the Republicans and Democrats. It isn’t easy, but we must make DC listen to us. The first step is to recognize the moronic ideas that the candidates are offering and to help others to do the same.

The post America First… The Right Way appeared first on Conservative Haven.



via Conservative Haven http://ift.tt/22GW32c

Friday, June 3, 2016

Trump’s Quotes Show He’s Not a Republican and He’s Legitimately an Unintelligent Person

Donald Trump is rich. That means that he’s not stupid, right? Actually, he is. He’s truly unintelligent. George W. Bush is Albert Einstein compared to Trump. It’s very clear that if he wasn’t born into a real estate empire and given multiple loans by his family when he failed early on, he’d be a salesman today. Granted, he’d be a great salesman, but that’s his only viable skill.

The Republican party has chosen to fall in line with a man who has believed (and possibly still does believe) that his best consultant for foreign affairs is himself. He believes that he knows more about ISIS than U.S. generals. He praises Vladimir Putin and ridicules American POWs who were being tortured while he dodged the draft. He says he knows Russia very well because he held a Miss Universe contest there.

Trump is going to reshape the Republican party. I am part of what I believe is the majority that believes the GOP definitely needs a revamp, but I’m in the minority (apparently) in believing that Trump is too liberal and politically moronic to be the person to do it. Still, millions of Republicans want change regardless of what that change will be. It’s very similar to the Democrats’ mentality about President Obama. The difference is that Trump is not a Republican at all. Other than his views on immigration, he’s more aligned with being a moderate Democrat and has several ideas that are further to the left than Hillary. On trade, he’s in lockstep with socialist Bernie Sanders.

Hillary Clinton would be a disaster as President and I would never support her, but her team did a nice job of putting together insane quotes from Trump, many of which he still denies saying even in the face of evidence proving it. I won’t be linking to her website, but I’ll happily share the quotes that her team put out. Read these as a whole. I actually agree with a handful, but the majority demonstrate that he’s a buffoon. If you still believe that Trump is the answer to all your prayers, you’re praying in the wrong direction.

This is a man who said that more countries should have nuclear weapons, including Saudi Arabia.

ANDERSON COOPER: Saudi Arabia, nuclear weapons?

TRUMP: Saudi Arabia, absolutely.

This is someone who has threatened to abandon our allies in NATO – the countries that work with us to root out terrorists abroad before the strike us at home.

TRUMP: “We don’t really need NATO in its current form. NATO is obsolete… if we have to walk, we walk.”

He believes we can treat the U.S. economy like one of his casinos and default on our debts to the rest of the world, which would cause an economic catastrophe far worse than anything we experienced in 2008.

TRUMP: “I’ve borrowed knowing that you can pay back with discounts… I would borrow knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal.”

He has said that he would order our military to carry out torture…

TRUMP: “Don’t tell me it doesn’t work — torture works… Waterboarding is fine, but it’s not nearly tough enough, ok?”

and the murder of civilians who are related to suspected terrorists…

TRUMP: “The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families”

even though those are war crimes.

TRUMP: “They won’t refuse. They’re not going to refuse me, If I say do it, they’re going to do it.”

He says he doesn’t have to listen to our generals or ambassadors, because he has – quote – “a very good brain.”

TRUMP: “I’m speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things…my primary consultant is myself”

He also said, “I know more about ISIS than the generals, believe me.”

TRUMP: “I know more about ISIS than the generals do. Believe me.”

You know what?  I don’t believe him.

TRUMP: “We don’t even really know who the leader [of ISIS] is.”

He believes climate change is a hoax invented by the Chinese…

TRUMP: “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”

and has the gall to say prisoners of war like John McCain aren’t heroes.

TRUMP: “He’s not a war hero. He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured, ok? I hate to tell you.”

He praises dictators like Vladimir Putin…

TRUMP: “I will tell you, in terms of leadership, he’s getting an ‘A,’ and our president is not doing so well.”

and picks fights with our friends – including the British prime minister…

TRUMP: “It looks like we are not going to have a very good relationship. Who knows?”

the mayor of London…

TRUMP: “Let’s take an I.Q. test… I think they’re very rude statements and frankly, tell him, I will remember those statements.”

the German chancellor…

TRUMP: “What Merkel has done is incredible, it’s actually mind boggling. Everyone thought she was a really great leader and now she’s turned out to be this catastrophic leader. And she’ll be out if they don’t have a revolution.”

the president of Mexico…

TRUMP: “I don’t know about the Hitler comparison [President Nieto made]. I hadn’t heard that, but it’s a terrible comparison. I’m not happy about that certainly. I don’t want that comparison, but we have to be strong and we have to be vigilant”

and the Pope.

TRUMP: “I don’t think [the Pope] understands the danger of the open border that we have with Mexico. I think Mexico got him to [criticize the wall] it because they want to keep the border just the way it is. They’re making a fortune, and we’re losing.”

He says he has foreign policy experience because he ran the Miss Universe pageant in Russia.

TRUMP: “I know Russia well. I had a major event in Russia two or three years ago, Miss Universe contest, which was a big, big, incredible event.”

And to top it off, he believes America is weak.  An embarrassment.

TRUMP: “I think we’ve become very weak and ineffective.”

He called our military a disaster.

TRUMP: “Our military is a disaster.”

He said we’re – quote – a “third-world country.”

TRUMP: “We have become a third world country, folks.”

That’s why it’s no small thing when he talks about leaving NATO or says he’ll stay neutral on Israel’s security.

TRUMP: “Let me be sort of a neutral guy.”

It’s no small thing when he calls Mexican immigrants rapists and murderers.

TRUMP: “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.”

And it’s no small thing when he suggests that America should withdraw our military support for Japan, encourage them to get nuclear weapons…

TRUMP: “And frankly, the case could be made, that let them protect themselves against North Korea. They’d probably wipe them out pretty quick.”

and said this about a war between Japan and North Korea – and I quote – “If they do, they do.  Good luck, enjoy yourself, folks.”

TRUMP: “And if they fight, you know what, that would be a terrible thing, terrible. Good luck folks, enjoy yourself…if they do, they do”

Donald Trump doesn’t know the first thing about Iran or its nuclear program.  Ask him.  It’ll become clear very quickly.

TRUMP: “When those restrictions expire, Iran will have an industrial-size military nuclear capability ready to go.” (Politifact: False.)

There’s no risk of people losing their lives if you blow up a golf-course deal.  But it doesn’t work like that in world affairs.  Just like being interviewed on the same episode of “60 Minutes” as Putin is not the same as actually dealing with Putin.

TRUMP: “I got to know him very well, because we were both on 60 minutes, we were stablemates and we did very well that night. You know that.”

He wants to start a trade war with China.

TRUMP: “These dummies say, ‘Oh, that’s a trade war. Trade war? We’re losing $500 billion in trade with China. Who the hell cares if there’s a trade war?”

And I have to say, I don’t understand Donald’s bizarre fascination with dictators and strongmen who have no love for America.  He praised China for the Tiananmen Square massacre; he said it showed strength.

TRUMP: “When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength.”

He said, “You’ve got to give Kim Jong Un credit” for taking over North Korea – something he did by murdering everyone he saw as a threat, including his own uncle, which Donald described gleefully, like he was recapping an action movie.

TRUMP: “And you’ve got to give him credit. How many young guys — he was like 26 or 25 when his father died — take over these tough generals…. It’s incredible. He wiped out the uncle. He wiped out this one, that one. I mean, this guy doesn’t play games.”

And he said that, if he were grading Vladimir Putin as a leader, he’d give him an A.

TRUMP: “I will tell you, in terms of leadership, he’s getting an ‘A,’

What’s Trump’s [ISIS plan]?  He won’t say.  He is literally keeping it a secret.  The secret, of course, is he has no idea what he’d do to stop ISIS.

TRUMP: “I do know what to do and I would know how to bring ISIS to the table or beyond that, defeat ISIS very quickly and I’m not going to tell you what is… All I can tell you it is a foolproof way of winning.”

Just look at the few things he actually has said on the subject. He actually said – quote – “maybe Syria should be a free zone for ISIS.”  That’s right – let a terrorist group have control of a major country in the Middle East.

TRUMP: It’s really rather amazing, maybe Syria should be a free zone for ISIS, let them fight and then you pick up the remnants.

Then he said we should send tens of thousands of American ground troops to the Middle East to fight ISIS.

TRUMP: “We really have no choice. We have to knock out ISIS. We have to knock the hell out of them… I would listen to the generals but I’m hearing numbers of 20,000 to 30,000. We have to knock them out fast.”

He also refused to rule out using nuclear weapons against ISIS, which would mean mass civilian casualties.

TRUMP: “I’m never going to rule anything out—I wouldn’t want to say [if I’d use nuclear weapons against ISIS.]”

Trump says over and over again, “The world is laughing at us.”  He’s been saying this for decades.

TRUMP (1999): “[Saudi Arabians] take such advantage of us with the oil… and they laugh at this country.

TRUMP (2010): “I know many of the people in China, I know many of the big business people, and they’re laughing at us.”

TRUMP (2011): “We have become a laughingstock, the world’s whipping boy”

TRUMP (2012): “The world is laughing at us.”

TRUMP (2013): “After Syria, our enemies are laughing!”

TRUMP (2014): “Mexican leadership has been laughing at us for many years”

TRUMP (2015): “The Persians are great negotiators. They are laughing at the stupidity of the deal we’re making”

TRUMP (2016): “We can’t afford to be so nice and so foolish anymore. Our country is in trouble. ISIS is laughing at us.”

He bought full-page ads in newspapers across the country back in 1987, when Reagan was President, saying that America lacked a backbone and the world was – you guessed it – laughing at us.

TRUMP (1987): “The world is laughing at America’s politicians as we protect ships we don’t own, carrying oil we don’t need, destined for allies who won’t help… “Let’s not let our great country be laughed at anymore.”

And it matters when he makes fun of disabled people…

TRUMP: “Now the poor guy — you oughta see this guy [imitating disabled reporter] ‘aaah, I don’t know what I said, aaah, I don’t remember.’”

calls women pigs…

TRUMP: “Does everybody know that pig named Rosie O’Donnell? She’s a disgusting pig, right?”

proposes banning an entire religion from our country…

TRUMP: “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”

or plays coy with white supremacists.

TRUMP: “I don’t know anything about what you’re even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists. So I don’t know. I don’t know — did he endorse me, or what’s going on? Because I know nothing about David Duke; I know nothing about white supremacists.”

There has never been a greater need in this country to have better options. Both major candidates are disasters. It’s like choosing between the gas chamber or the electric chair. Libertarian Gary Johnson isn’t the answer, either. An intelligent, conservative challenger must rise very soon. Neither Hillary nor Trump must be allowed to sit in the Oval Office.

The post Trump’s Quotes Show He’s Not a Republican and He’s Legitimately an Unintelligent Person appeared first on Conservative Haven.



via Conservative Haven http://ift.tt/1XWGS4f