Rent-a-Mob

Premeditated Chaos by the Left

The radical Left is well-versed in mob mentality, with a resume full of violence and treachery going back decades in this country. They own the tactics of organized mayhem and manufactured chaos.

In San Jose, California last week, thugs rioting outside a Donald Trump rally screamed epithets at a woman in a “Trump” shirt, assaulting her with eggs. After being hit by a bottle she realized how dangerous her position had become and ducked back into the building where the rally was held.

Signs waved by thugs called out “Reconquista!” and “F*** Trump!” Mexican flags were hoisted high and American flags were burned. Criminally attempting to squash the First Amendment, young Latino males, faces covered by bandanas, flashed gang signs; others threw punches at Trump supporters exiting the venue who were attempting to make it to their vehicles.

As rioters chanted “Make California Mexico again!” the damage done to our civil society by our open borders policy was vivid. San Jose Police officers stood by, motionless, nightsticks held in abeyance as they observed the mayhem. They did nothing to stem the violence. After the melee, San Jose’s Democrat mayor blamed Donald Trump as the cause of the civil unrest.

Fox News Channel covered similar leftist riots earlier in May in Albuquerque, New Mexico and San Diego, California. Several of their barely-informed program personalities persisted in asking the question, “Who’s behind this?”

“Democracy Spring” is a consortium of George Soros-funded “troublemakers and other miscreants” as recently defined in The Washington Times. This hard-left “consortium” would rather destroy civil society than let anyone hear what Donald Trump, or any other GOP candidate, has to say.

Yet we continue to see headlines like “Trump’s rally erupts in violence.” The rally didn’t “erupt” into anything except enthusiasm. The RIOT staged outside the rally was violent. And who are some players we can expect to see participate in these staged riots from the Soros consortium?

SEIU and other unions will take part, as they have in the past, pushing for power and control, and suspension of free speech. Even though Trump intends to bring manufacturing jobs back to this country, the unions now profit from the flow of illegals.

Black Lives Matter will be represented, of course. The $30+ million that Soros threw into Ferguson as seed money for BLM wasn’t wasted. They’ll be active because Trump wants to reform the education system to help black families succeed, enlisting help from Dr. Ben Carson. If black children can be educated to be independent instead of indoctrinated to be dependent, there goes the future power-base of the perpetually racially aggrieved.

Occupy Wall Street, the Obama Regime supported amalgam of socialists, fascists, communists and anarchists, naturally opposes Trump; he’s a capitalist and wants smaller government, so OWS will be there.

MoveOn.org will participate wholeheartedly, their policies as radically left as Soros’ (and funded by him). Founded in the Clinton Era, the organization’s purpose was to protect political plans of the Clintons.

College Students will be included in the mob’s membership thanks to indoctrination by Marxist professors, who taught them to despise Capitalism. Besides, they have politically correct “safe zones” to protect!

Finally, Code Pink will disrupt as many Trump events as they can. He wants to rebuild the military; that can’t be allowed

We have a stark choice offered this fall. Choose your sovereign nation and the ideas it was founded upon, or take the path of the invaders and the tyranny their mentors will bring. The Soros consortium does not believe in the First Amendment – or any others. “The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution.”

Renewed prosperity or Dark Ages 2.0?

It’s going to be a long, leftist summer.

EnoughReadTheConst

Originally Published June 6, 2016

Advertisements

Return Fire

Punching Back at the State-run Media

Last Tuesday, in a press interview at Trump Tower in Manhattan, Republican Party presidential candidate (and likely nominee) Donald Trump laid away the state-run media as the poseurs they are. (And please, let’s dispense forever with the notion of “mainstream media” – there’s nothing mainstream as to where the media sits on the American political spectrum.)

For decades, particularly the last two presidential contests and the prior two Republican administrations, conservatives and traditional Republican Party members have begged GOP leadership to defend themselves; return fire to the corrupt media.

At this “presser,” Donald called out one reporter as “sleazy,” and proceeded to knock down one accusation after another.

Unlike other Republican presidential candidates in recent primary seasons, Trump does not politely duck and cover under media pressure. He meets it head-on. There’s no Karl Rove slithering here; Donald is not afraid of the media, nor does he think he owes them explanations. If anything, he knows he builds their market share.

Confronting media accusations over his fundraiser for American military veterans, held during a skipped debate in Iowa earlier this year, he laid out the details of how much he collected and how much went where of the $5.6 million donated so far.

The unreported contrast is what Mr. Trump gives to veterans’ groups vs. what Mrs. Clinton and Senator Sanders give. This was not mentioned to any appreciable degree by the press in their coverage after the event at Trump Tower. The difference in charitable activity is so stark, in the interest of protecting their own, it went largely unreported. The state-run media simply whined at what they perceived was an unfair attack on them by Donald Trump. (The press should know by now that if it’s foolish enough to set a match to Donald’s tent, he will torch theirs with a flamethrower.)

Donald Trump’s personal contribution and those he solicited at his veterans’ charity event back in January went 100% to the veterans’ groups chosen for funding. Zero percent was eaten up by administrative cost; Trump covered that himself.

By contrast, the Clinton Foundation appears to give 0% of its vast wealth to veterans’ groups, as far as is known. (This may change to delay the inevitable, adverse exposure.) Broadly, however, the family’s money-laundering operation, known as the Clinton Foundation, donates roughly 10% of its funding to charitable causes, versus 90% that goes to “administration” (Bill & Hillary’s expenses, i.e., living, travel, etc.)

The Bernie Sanders Campaign has not stepped forward to offer an accounting of his contributions to charities (or veterans’ groups). Of course, ardent socialists, like most activists on the Left, do not support charities that hold traditional values, such as veterans’ organizations. The objective of Socialism is to create more need, not lessen it; they thrive on increasing dependency not alleviating it. So their lack of charitable conscience is true to form. They believe in government redistribution of wealth, not the selfless act of personal “giving.”

Donald Trump will make many more converts after his “return fire” last week. Now if the media chooses to scrutinize Hillary’s cash flow, like raking in $21 million in speaking fees in just two years, the playing field could be leveled. Until then, Trump should continue to question the media’s integrity, and gather more support.

Thankfully, he won’t listen to RNC or Romney advisors telling him to back off. And it’s refreshing to see a Republican who understands why it’s the “state-run media.”

Originally Published June 6, 2016

Patriot’s Side

I find it odd that the state-run media thinks it’s more important to have the endorsement of a popular basketball coach, who knows little about the national or international issues that would face a president, rather than any organization representing a portion of the voting populace; say, the NRA or VFW or FFA.

What does a famous coach know about national security? What does he know about a rapidly crashing culture and the steps needed to rescue it from oblivion? Can the coach voice his beliefs in the virtues of smaller government, reduced spending to match tax revenue, military preparedness, or welfare and entitlement reforms? Maybe.

The coach is a celebrity because, as many believe, he was a legend in his field of endeavor. Extremely proficient at what he did, in this case coaching a formidable sports team, he remains beloved and revered among Hoosiers. In the eyes of those who treasure the game of basketball he is an icon. And Donald Trump is fortunate to count Bobby Knight as a friend.

And Donald Trump’s acceptance of Bobby Knight’s endorsement simply means Donald likes basketball. That’s it.

Where I will part company with some who believe in “celebrity endorsements” is in the realm of voter education. There are those who say, “If Bobby Knight votes for Donald Trump, why, that’s all I need to know. I’ll vote for Donald too.” That’s a problem unless you know the coach personally.

Electing officials based on their expertise and proficiency, to represent citizens in their local, state or federal government, should not be based on celebrity endorsements. If I were on the Left, I would not cast my vote for Hillary Clinton because George Clooney “endorsed” her candidacy.

I didn’t hear news of any endorsements of candidates made by the VFW, the FOP, American Legion, or other organizations that represent the beliefs and values of their members, and would vouch for a candidate who shares those… Maybe I missed them.

We have enough “celebrities” in America without making them acceptable spokesmen for presidential candidates.

Originally Published May 2, 2016

Promises, Promises

We heard it back in 2000, in Bush vs. Gore. And again in 2004, the voices were raised when Kerry challenged Bush.

The same celebrities repeated the oath in 2008… If Barack Obama lost to John McCain in the presidential election they would flee the country.

Now, in 2016, if Donald Trump wins the presidency many celebrities swear they will emigrate to Canada: Whoopi Goldberg, Cher, Rev. Al Sharpton, Rosie O’Donnell, John Stewart, Samuel L. Jackson, and Lena Dunham have all made the promise: “Trump wins, we’re gone!”

If only they will keep their word this time. (Don’t hold your breath, they are progressives!)

Originally Published May 2, 2016

Tepid Two-step

A mild-mannered governor almost takes a stand

Later that day, George F. Will, columnist and media pundit, described the  governor’s understated behavior as “tardy, timid, late and inconsequential.”

Earlier, Indiana governor Mike Pence had been at the microphone of WIBC in Indianapolis. A lack of excitement in the governor’s statement that afternoon, unfortunately, is typical; standard fare for Hoosiers hearing pronouncements from their mild-mannered chief executive.

“Well, this is a very exciting time for Indiana…” he sighed, dispassionately.

Ostensibly, Governor Pence went on air to tell the residents of his state which presidential candidate in the Republican Party he would support. That is, almost.

“I like and respect all three of the Republican candidates in the field…” He opened by heaping praise upon Donald Trump. “I particularly want to commend Donald Trump, who has given voice to the frustration of millions of working Americans… and I’m also particularly grateful that Donald Trump has taken a strong stand for Hoosier jobs… I’m grateful
for his voice in the national debate…” He acknowledged his admiration for neighboring Ohio governor John Kasich, but was really grateful for Trump. Then Governor Pence admitted who he would vote for; matter-of-factly, as if an afterthought.

“I’ve come to my decision about who I’m supporting and I’m not against anybody, but I will be voting for Ted Cruz.”

When I viewed the video coverage from the WIBC studio, I discerned no appreciable change in expression on the governor’s face; just the same concerned look he always wears; no enthusiasm.

Pence went on, in the course of the radio interview, to praise Ted Cruz for his unwavering stands on principle and “the courage of his convictions.” The same conservative principles, Pence said, that drew him to “the party” so many years ago.

One would get the impression, however, if one listened while preoccupied, that Governor Pence was actually supporting Donald Trump for the Republican nominee. After the time spent lauding Trump versus the time he used to highlight the case for Cruz, it would be an obvious conclusion.

“I respect the views of every Hoosier… I urge every Hoosier to make up their own mind… I wanted to make my decision known.” He offered to support “our party’s nominee, whoever that might be.” When prompted, “Who can beat Hillary Clinton?” Pence responded, “I’m for anybody.”

Contrast the lukewarm behavior of Governor Pence regarding Ted Cruz and the genuine enthusiasm of Wisconsin governor Scott Walker, toward the same candidate, and the difference is stark. When Governor Walker used the word “endorse” it was emphatic, no explanation necessary. Pence, however, never intended to use it.

Indiana’s primary election on May 3, at least in the presidential sense, may very well decide the “presumptive” nominee in the Republican Party’s presidential race. And this is the level of excitement a sitting
Republican governor of that state exhibits?

Governor Pence reminds me of the old, Cold War Potemkin Village concept so favored by the masters of the once-enslaved Eastern Europeans; presentable frontage, but when you peer behind the façade there’s
little structure; sometimes none at all.

His failures to take “Alamo” positions on critical issues over the last four years (Common Core, natural marriage, the RFRA, and this session, the SO/GI debacle) exemplify his reticence toward endorsement… or a tepid non-endorsement. But then, he did say, “I’m not against anybody.”

Originally Published May 2, 2016.

 

The Panic Persists

Desperate Times at the Party of Accommodation

Over the last seven years (and the G. W. Bush years prior) conservatives have watched Republicans in Washington cut deals with Democrats, violating our Founding Principles and ignoring the Constitution. Weakening our nation causes them no discomfort.

They break promises repeatedly, yet continue to make promises they have no intention to keep. They abandon their responsibilities under the Constitution, offering no actions to check the growing power of an increasingly dictatorial president. Although they have constitutional authority to check activist courts that redefine or invent law and can override the Supreme Court, no effort comes from a Republican Congress.

Yet, when an election comes around, the RNC extends its hand, asking for our support to fund the continuance of the status quo and careers of moderate incumbents.

Washington, DC will never be free from the corruption of progressive, incumbent Republicans, who are the crux of the problem, if we keep electing them. These careerists are more interested in “cutting deals” with Democrats than defending our Constitution or restoring of our culture.

The last thing constitutional conservatives need is the perpetuation of establishment Republicans who now hold office; who daily betray our principles in the pursuit of expediency of an agenda. And the RNC plans to do all within its power to preserve the “Party of Accommodation.”

Depending on how far the RNC wants to go, they can again ignore voters (as the RNC has in the past, rewriting rules at the 2012 convention in Tampa to shut out Ron Paul supporters and Tea Party activists), rewriting the rules as often as necessary.

But, in the world of the RNC and their consultant dependency, the donors fuel the machine, literally. Trump can complain about “rigging the election” and Cruz can scoop up available delegates every day, but the donors feed the RNC.

The “American Unity Fund” is a consortium of political donors to the Republican Party who are pressing that the official
party platform accommodate liberal inventions such as same-sex “marriage” (or, more accurately, mirage) and other immoral issues that are certain to widen the party’s growing chasm between establishment (moderate) party stalwarts and the evangelical (and conservative) base. You know, the base Jeb Bush loved to loathe. Platform writers at the RNC are heavily influenced by the donors. Principles are sidelined in favor of accommodation. So, in essence, it’s business as usual for 2016.

The middle-class bulk of the electorate is looked upon as an economic negative. As some RNC consultants proclaim, it’s just the “angry, white middle class.” Repeating from the Democrat script, “It’s all those uneducated, Bible-thumping hicks.”

RNC fear of Trump and Cruz is palpable. They are afraid that, if either of them is elected in the primary, their nomination will cause an electoral backlash in the 2016 general election, handing Mrs. Clinton a resounding win. GOP leadership is even afraid that a Hillary victory will have a landslide effect; an avalanche that will also return control of the House and Senate to the Democrats in 2018. No proof of this exists; it’s all conjecture. But they’re in panic mode; grasping for excuses.

On April 26, Trump took primaries in all five states that day; all 60 counties, some with wins as large as 60% of votes cast. GOP consultants dismissed it as “expected.”

Even Ken Cuccinelli with the Cruz campaign, when asked about the 5-for-5 Trump sweep, excused it as, “We don’t win in those states anyway.” No big deal…

The anti-Trump forces at the RNC are becoming desperate; they still think the outsider phenomenon is temporary, that they can “ride it out.”

News for the RNC… this isn’t just a splash in the ocean.

It IS the ocean. And high tide is Cleveland.

Originally Published May 2, 2016

Confusion and Chaos

This headline appeared on March 12, a day after the anti-Trump protests at the University of Illinois, Chicago: “Fascists v. Leftists: Chicago, America at the Boiling Point

The problem is that it was not found on a confused liberal website or taken from a Bill O’Reilly “Talking Points Memo.”

It was the headline on the RedState/The Morning Briefing!

Once more, even some on the Right are confused by the Left, or the difference between the two. Fascism, Marxism, and Communism are ALL varieties of Socialism; all totalitarian systems to benefit elite leftists.

So, how can Leftists be against themselves, unless it’s simply to confuse the Right?

Oh, I get it; more chaos…

Originally Published March 14th, 2016.