Posts Tagged ‘Newt Gingrich’

Special Counsel Mueller Hires Dem Donors. Is This an Investigative Staff or a “Firing Squad”?

June 13, 2017

untitled (148)

“This seems more like an effort to prosecute Donald Trump.”
“What the hell are we investigating?” “Why are we going through with this charade?” –  U.S. Representative Sean Duffy (R-Wis.)

Laura Ingraham’s website, lifezette.com reports that

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich sparked a mini-meltdown in the media Monday with a tweet challenging the fairness of the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Gingrich, who also appeared on “The Laura Ingraham Show,” pointed to the early hires special counsel Robert Mueller has made.

“Republicans are delusional if they think the special counsel is going to be fair,” he tweeted. “Look who he is hiring.check fec [sic] reports. Time to rethink.”

He’s not wrong about the donations. Four top lawyers hired by Mueller have contributed tens of thousands of dollars over the years to the Democratic Party and Democratic candidates, including former President Barack Obama and President Donald Trump’s 2016 opponent, Hillary Clinton.

One of the hires, Jeannie Rhee, also worked as a lawyer for the Clinton Foundation and helped persuade a federal judge to block a conservative activist’s attempts to force Bill and Hillary Clinton to answer questions under oath about operations of the family-run charity.

Campaign-finance reports show that Rhee gave Clinton the maximum contributions of $2,700 in 2015 and again last year to support her presidential campaign. She also donated $2,300 to Obama in 2008 and $2,500 in 2011. While still at the Justice Department, she gave $250 to the Democratic National Committee Services Corp.

Rhee also has contributed to a trio of Democratic senators: Mark Udall of New Mexico, Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.

James Quarles, who worked on the Watergate investigation as a young prosecutor, has an even longer history of supporting Democratic politicians. He gave $1,300 to Obama in 2007 and $2,300 in 2008. He also gave $2,700 to Clinton last year.

He has supported a number of other Democratic candidates, including Van Hollen, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), former Rep. John Spratt (D-S.C.), former Vice President Al Gore, 2004 presidential candidate John Kerry, former Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), and Colorado congressional candidate Gail Schwartz.

In addition, Quarles gave money to former Sen. John Walsh (D-Mont.) and three current Democratic senators — Ron Wyden of Oregon, Ed Markey of Massachusetts, and Robert Menendez of New Jersey. He chipped in $300 to the DNC Services Corp. $300 in 2012.

Quarles did donate to a couple of GOP politicians — $250 to then-Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) in 2006 and $2,500 to Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) in 2015.

Andrew Weissmann, a former Justice Department lawyer who now is at Jenner & Block, contributed $2,300 to Obama in 2008 and $2,000 to the DNC Services Corp. in 2006. Weissmann served as chief of the Justice Department’s criminal fraud section and worked on the Enron fraud case.

A fourth lawyer on Mueller’s staff, Michael Dreeben, donated $1,000 to Clinton 2006 and $250 to Obama in both 2007 and 2008. He was deputy solicitor general and has appeared many times before the Supreme Court.

Media pundits generally dismissed concerns over the Democratic Party ties of the staff Mueller is building. Several Trump critics noted that Gingrich previously had tweeted that Mueller was a “superb choice to be special counsel” and that his reputation was “impeccable for honesty and integrity.”

Journalist Paul Vale, who has written for the Huffington Post and The Times of London, tweeted, “Boiled cabbage Gingrich lays out the White House plan to discredit career lawman Mueller — all in the service of his babbling paymaster.”

CNN anchor John King on Monday asked the network’s chief congressional correspondent, Manu Raju, if it should be a concern.

“No, because Bob Mueller is the one who’s in charge of this investigation and will ultimately decide how to proceed, and there is some oversight over him by [Deputy Attorney General] Rod Rosenstein, even though there is a special counsel,” he said.

When a representative of The Huffington Post or CNN defends someone’s integrity, the little hairs on the back of your neck should stand straight up.

The thing is Muller was appointed FBI Director by George W. Bush whom he served under for 10 years.

When Barack Hussein Obama became President, Mueller served under him for 2 more years.

His past, plus his present staff activity has lead me and others to throw up a red flag about this guy, fearing that he may be another Establishment Political Weasel like James Comey, who followed Mueller as Director of the FBI.

Why would a Special Counsel hire so many financial supporters of the Democratic Party to assist in investigating a matter which the Democratic Party has erroneously linked to a President?

Is Professional Bureaucrat Mueller putting together an Investigative Staff or a Firing Squad?

Trump rode the crest of an ever-growing anger over the inaction of Professional Politicians, whom, after being voted into National Office by their constituents back home, literally bit the hand that fed them, tossing Ma and Pa Kettle aside for Big Money Donors and the Political Prestige of “reaching across the aisle”, i.e.. “selling out”.

Conversely, Trump has always been a “people person”.

That is the reason that, when he was still a contributor to Fox news, he would speak to everyone in the building, from the maintenance crew, on up the ladder.

As Sam Walton, the Founder of Walmart, knew, you don’t inspire people by acting imperious and above it all.

“Mr. Sam”, until his health would no longer allow him to do so, would travel to Walmart Stores in his old pickup truck, with a tie and a baseball cap on, visiting the employees, in order to find out how his stores were doing.

He knew that the only was to be successful and to stay in touch with the public, was to be out among them, and speak to them honestly and directly, as one would speak to a friend.

The Political Establishment, of both parties, lost that concept, a long time ago.

Bypassing the borders to communication, historically determined by both political parties and the Main Stream Media, is a concept which I first witnessed being employed by a Presidential Candidate in the 1980 Presidential Election, named Ronald Wilson Reagan.

While I am not comparing the two, I am noting that this strategy has proved and is proving effective.

Trump is still striking a resonant chord in the hearts of Average Americans, living here in the part of America, which the snobbish Political Elites refer to as “Flyover Country”, but which we refer to as “America’s Heartland”, or, quite simply, “HOME”, despite what the purveyors of Fake News at Liberal Propaganda Factories like The Huffington Post and CNN might wish for you to believe.

It appears to this average American that Mueller, being well-connected in the Washington Establishment may be cut from the same cloth as Comey.

President Trump needs to go ahead and fire Mueller and appoint a new Special Prosecutor.

One Former FBI Director/Washington Establishment Political Weasel on his staff caused enough trouble already.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

 

Advertisements

Trump Vs. the Activist Media: Newt Lays a Verbal Smackdown on Megyn Kelly

October 26, 2016

14731251_10205385959927806_8491863673114560831_n

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I remember when the Fox News Channel first burst on the scene on October 7, 1996, setting the Liberal Establishment and the Main Stream Media on their heels, by offering “Fair and Balanced” News Reporting.

Nowadays, it appears that at least one of their Evening “Anchors” has joined the ranks of the Main Stream Media, and has gone from reporting the news, to attempting to shape it.

Breitbart.com reports that

Tuesday on Fox News Channel’s “The Kelly File,” former House Speaker Newt Gingrich took on host Megyn Kelly for what Gingrich described to be a fascination with sex and that she didn’t care about policy.

Exchange as follows:

NEWT GINGRICH: Let me point out something to you: The three major networks spent 23 minutes attacking Donald Trump that night, and 57 seconds on Hillary Clinton’s secret speeches. You don’t think that is a scale of bias worthy of Pravda?

(CROSSTALK)

MEGYN KELLY: If Trump is a sexual predator, that is–

GINGRICH: He’s not a sexual predator. You can’t say that. You could not defend that statement.

 
KELLY: I have not taken a position on it.

GINGRICH: I’m sick and tired of people like you using inflammatory language that is not true.

KELLY: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, you have no idea whether it is true or not. What we know–

GINGRICH: Neither do you.

KELLY: I’m not taking a position on it.

GINGRICH: Yes you are. When you used the words, you took a position. It is very unfair of you to do that, Megyn.

KELLY: Incorrect.

GINGRICH: That is exactly the bias people are upset by.

KELLY: I think that your defensiveness on this speaks volumes, sir.

GINGRICH: Let me suggest to you —

KELLY: No let me make my point. What I said if if Trump is a sexual predator, than it is a big story. And what we saw on that tape was Trump himself saying he liked to grab women by the genitals, and kiss them against their will. Then we saw 10 women come forward after he denied it at a debate … He denies it all, which is his right. We don’t know what the truth is. My point to you is, as a media story, we don’t get to say the 10 women are liars. We have to cover that story.

GINGRICH: Sure, so it took 23 minutes for the networks to cover that story. And Hillary Clinton had a secret speech in Brazil to a bank that pays her $225,000 saying that her dream is an open border where 600 million people could come to America, that is not worth covering?

Do you want me to go back to the tapes of your show recently? You are fascinated with sex and you don’t care about public policy.

KELLY: Me, really?

GINGRICH: That’s what I get out of watching you tonight.

KELLY: You know what, Mr. Speaker? I’m not fascinated by sex, but I am fascinated by the protection of women and understanding what we’re getting in the Oval Office.

GINGRICH: And therefore, we’re going to send Bill Clinton back to the East Wing, because you are worried about a sexual predator. Do you want to comment on whether the Clinton ticket has a relationship to a sexual predator?

KELLY: We on ‘The Kelly File’ have covered that story as well, sir.

GINGRICH: I want to hear you say the word. Say “Bill Clinton is a sexual predator.” I dare you. Say “Bill Clinton, sexual predator.”

(CROSSTALK)

KELLY: Mr. Speaker, we have covered that. We on “The Kelly File” have covered the Bill Clinton story as well. We’ve hosted Kathleen Willey. But he is not on the ticket.
Kelly ended the segment by telling Gingrich he needed to take his “anger issues” and “spend some time working on them.”

Ms. Kelly is not alone in her quest to bring down the Republican Candidate for President.

According to newsbusters.org,

In the twelve weeks since the party conventions concluded in late July, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has received significantly more broadcast network news coverage than his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, but nearly all of that coverage (91%) has been hostile, according to a new study by the Media Research Center (MRC).

In addition, the networks spent far more airtime focusing on the personal controversies involving Trump (440 minutes) than about similar controversies involving Clinton (185 minutes). Donald Trump’s treatment of women was given 102 minutes of evening news airtime, more than that allocated to discussing Clinton’s e-mail scandal (53 minutes) and the Clinton Foundation pay-for-play scandals (40 minutes) combined.

For this study, the MRC analyzed all 588 evening news stories that either discussed or mentioned the presidential campaign on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts from July 29 through October 20 (including weekends). The networks devoted 1,191 minutes to the presidential campaign during this period, or nearly 29 percent of all news coverage.

Our measure of campaign spin was designed to isolate the networks’ own slant, not the back-and-forth of the campaign trail. Thus, our analysts ignored soundbites which merely showcased the traditional party line (Republicans supporting Trump and bashing Clinton, and vice versa), and instead tallied evaluative statements which imparted a clear positive or negative tone to the story. Such statements may have been presented as quotes from non-partisan talking heads such as experts or voters, quotes from partisans who broke ranks (Republicans attacking Trump or Democrats criticizing Clinton), or opinionated statements from the reporter themselves.

Additionally, we separated personal evaluations of each candidate from statements about their prospects in the campaign horse race (i.e., standings in the polls, chances to win, etc.). While such comments can have an effect on voters (creating a bandwagon effect for those seen as winning, or demoralizing the supports of those portrayed as losing), they are not “good press” or “bad press” as understood by media scholars as far back as Michael Robinson’s groundbreaking research on the 1980 presidential campaign.

The results show neither candidate was celebrated by the media (as Obama was in 2008), but network reporters went out of their way to hammer Trump day after day, while Clinton was largely out of their line of fire.

Our analysts found 184 opinionated statements about Hillary Clinton, split between 39 positive statements (21%) vs. 145 negative (79%). Those same broadcasts included more than three times as many opinionated statements about Trump, 91 percent of which (623) were negative vs. just nine percent positive (63).

Even when they were critical of Hillary Clinton — for concealing her pneumonia, for example, or mischaracterizing the FBI investigation of her e-mail server — network reporters always maintained a respectful tone in their coverage.

This was not the case with Trump, who was slammed as embodying “the politics of fear,” or a “dangerous” and “vulgar” “misogynistic bully” who had insulted vast swaths of the American electorate. Reporters also bluntly called out Trump for lying in his public remarks in a way they never did with Clinton, despite her own robust record of false statements.

As for those “horse race” assessments that we excluded from our “good press/bad press” measure, those were decidedly anti-Trump as well. Out of 569 such statements about the health or prospects of Trump’s campaign, 85% (486) were negative, vs. 15% (83) that were positive. For Clinton, the spin was reversed: out of 432 assessments of her status in the race, 62% (268) were positive, vs. just 38% (164) that were negative.

Thus, judging by their own coverage, network reporters have consistently painted Clinton as the most likely to win, but they have inexplicably spent most of their time trying to dismantle the underdog in the race while giving the frontrunner much lighter scrutiny.

Overall, the networks spent about 40 percent more airtime covering Trump (785 minutes) than they did on Clinton (478 minutes). Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson received just over nine minutes of coverage, while Green candidate Jill Stein and independent conservative candidate Evan McMullin each received less than one minute of airtime.

As noted above, more than half of Trump’s coverage (440 minutes, or 56%) focused on the various controversies surrounding his candidacy, while only about 38 percent of Clinton’s airtime was spent on her controversies (185 minutes).By far, the top topic since the party conventions has been the issue of Donald Trump’s treatment of women, especially the 2005 Access Hollywood tape (which received nearly 50 minutes of evening news coverage) and the unproven allegations from several women that he engaged in inappropriate conduct in the past (26 minutes).

Add it all up, and Trump’s alleged sexist behavior or rhetoric has totaled 102 minutes of news coverage since the conventions. In contrast, references to Bill Clinton’s past treatment of women, and Hillary Clinton’s role in covering up her husband’s wrongdoing, amounted to less than seven minutes of coverage during this same period, a roughly 15-to-1 disparity.

Other Trump controversies were given robust coverage: the issue of his tax returns (33 minutes), his concern that the November election could be “rigged” (27 minutes), and suggestions that Trump and his aides are too close to Putin’s Russia (22 minutes).

In contrast, controversies involving Hillary Clinton received far less attention. Her “basket of deplorables” comment received just seven minutes of total coverage, while barely two minutes (134 seconds) was spent talking about her handling of the 2012 attack in Benghazi when she was Secretary of State.

Bill Clinton’s crack that ObamaCare was a “crazy system” was limited to just 140 seconds of evening news coverage, even though it signaled the kind of intra-party split that would surely have received far more coverage if it had been a Republican vs. a Republican.

Just last week, a Quinnipiac poll found that more than half of all voters (55%) thought the media’s coverage had been biased against Trump. With coverage like this, the question is, what are the other 45 percent thinking?

Evidently, they’re not paying attention.

For years, the Main Stream Media has been in bed with corrupt politicians and those who walk roam the Halls of Power with impunity (Mr. Soros to the Courtesy Desk, please.)

While touting objectivity, they have often fallen way short of that goal.

The Media really came into its own during the 80’s, with the advent of Cable Television, the Iranian Hostage Crisis, and the ascension and election of President Ronald Wilson Reagan.

The advocacy of all things Liberal by every Cable News Channel, became very apparent, as they attacked the greatest president of this generation, mercilessly, giving no quarter.

I believe that Reagan’s election was a wake up call to the MSM. They realized that, if left to their own devices, the American Public would elect a Conservative as President, every time. And, they just couldn’t have that. They were already in too deep to their Democratic, Progressive Masters.

So, America’s Media forsook their objectivity, choosing to help to shape current events, instead of just reporting on them, in an effort to produce outcomes which would be most beneficial to the Progressive Cause.

The Fox News Channel filled a void that had been created by the Main Stream Media’s own biased hubris.

Later, after propping up Barack Hussein Obama and getting him re-elected, this hubris gave the Main Stream Media an exaggerated sense of self-importance, as to their role in our society.

Their Achilles’ Heel , the before-mentioned hubris, blinded them to the potential of the New Media…and, that has been their undoing.

As has been affirmed to me lately, during my surfing of the web, including Facebook Political Pages and websites, Modern American Liberals, including those in the Main Stream Media, constantly live in a state of denial.

They respond as if you have told them that you shot Ol’ Yeller, when you inform them that Liberalism is still the minority political belief in America, even (and especially) after the 7 1/2 year reign of King Barack The First.

This salient fact explains why CNN and MSNBC constantly trail Fox News in the television ratings polls.

It also explains their ongoing massive propping up through the use of blatant propaganda of the Presidential Campaign of Hillary Clinton.

Just like the cockamamie idea to allow biological men in women’s public restrooms, the idea of allowing a morally and ethically challenged congenital liar with obvious serious health issues, who is as far removed philosophically from the overwhelming majority of Americans, that she might as well be the President of China, XI Jinping’s Handmaiden, makes average Americas out here in America’s Heartland want to hurl.

Which, by the way, is quite evident when you compare actual images of the size of Donald J. Trump’s overflowing Campaign Rallies , numbering in the thousands, compared to the under-attended ones of Hillary Clinton, which are lucky to draw one hundred.

Principled reporters, such as the late Andrew Breitbart and Michelle Malkin, now working for Conservative Review, turned up the heat on the MSM, by providing an alternative source through which Americans can receive news, unfiltered by those in the Halls of Power.

Unfortunately for the MSM , as the last several months have shown, and as I have documented, Americans have become our own “reporters” thanks to the “New Media”. Americans are now living in a  time when the Main Stream Media’s blatant propaganda is no longer believed at face value, as the evidence which refutes it is appearing in the live videos and photographs being shared on Facebook and other Social Media.

And, like the little Dutch Boy, the MSM does not know which hole to plug, in the leaking dam, first.

In their frenzied desperate attempt to stop what now appears (judging from the size of his Campaign Rallies and the information gleaned from Early Voting across the country) to be the inevitability of a Trump Victory in November, the Main Stream Media has chosen to verify blatantly false Liberal Opinions as being “Facts”.

Megyn Kelly, since the Political Ascension of Donald J. Trump, has chosen to eschew the “Fair and Balanced” Reporting that vaulted Fox to the top of the Cable News Ratings, instead, opting to join the baying “newshounds” of the Main Stream Media in their quest to bring down the Republican Candidate by any means necessary.

Unfortunately for Ms. Kelly, her strategy has backfired on her miserably, costing her rating points and allowing Sean Hannity to take over the lead among Fox News’ Evening Programs.

Just like the Internet Trolls, who invade Facebook Political Pages and Political Websites, in order to disrupt conversation and call attention to themselves, the MSM, including Ms. Kelly as well, through the creation of their own facts, have permanently damaged their own credibility, quite probably beyond all repair.

Because, to put it quite simply, once you torque off the American Public, you never get them back.

Just ask the Dixie Chicks.

Until He Comes,

KJ 

 

 

Thoughts From a “Deplorable”: Liberal Intolerance By Any Other Name…

September 15, 2016

deplorable-me-600-ci

“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables,” she said. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic—you name it.” – Hillary Clinton, Democratic Candidate for the Presidency of the United States of America

Yesterday, Fox News posted the following commentary from Former Speaker of the House and Fox News Contributor, Newt Gingrich

Last week, Hillary Clinton broadened her personal attack campaign from its focus on Donald Trump to include the tens of millions of Americans who support him, claiming, “You could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. […] The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it.”

The political press treated the remarks as a gaffe, and Hillary dutifully issued an “apology,” confessing that in her string of insults, there was one word she really shouldn’t have said: “half”.

The media saw the remarks as a gaffe because our elites overwhelmingly agree with Hillary about the “deplorables” in the rest of America–and they believe that in politics, as the saying goes, a gaffe is when someone inadvertently tells the truth.

Hillary’s remarks were clearly not a mistake, however. She made them at least twice, the second time after they had already received significant media attention.

The Democratic nominee’s slander of tens of millions of Americans was part of a deliberate strategy to shame and suppress her opponent’s supporters. That strategy relies on allies in the commanding heights of culture and the media to echo her charges and make it too painful for voters to support Trump in public.

Hillary might have been indelicately explicit in attacking those who disagree with her as racist and xenophobic, but she hardly invented the tactic. Her remarks Saturday reflected the attitude that most of the modern left has taken toward its opponents since long before the Trump campaign began.

Anyone who doesn’t agree with the left’s prescriptions or who challenges its assumptions gets labeled a racist, a sexist, a homophobe, an Islamophobe, or in some cases, a science-denier.

The tactic is familiar to anyone who has spent time on college campuses in the past generation. But as in college debates, the reckless, ad-hominem attacks are not a sign of confidence about the argument, but of weakness and insecurity.

The reason we are seeing this kind of campaign is that the left has done such a terrible job at a practical level that they can’t have a discussion about policies in the real world. They know that if we get into a debate about what’s gone wrong, they will lose.

So instead of debating, they shout down opponents with ugly accusations.

That’s why when Donald Trump went to Detroit–a city where the schools are failing so badly that only 7 percent of eighth graders are proficient in reading–and he offered the community a chance at a better future, the left had to call him a racist. They couldn’t debate the facts, because the city has been under their control since 1961 and the facts are appalling.

We see the same phenomenon with respect to Chicago. That city has instituted almost every policy the left could want. And this year on average, one person has been shot there every two hours. In fact, more Americans have been killed in Chicago since 2001 than have been killed in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

Trump has pledged to restore safety to our cities, and one of his top advisors has actually done it: Mayor Giuliani cut the rate of violent crime by 56 percent in New York with effective policing. The left, for its part, has no solution to the Chicago crisis. So it calls Trump and his supporters racists.

On national security, Trump points out a bipartisan failure to secure the border, properly screen the people coming into the U.S., or develop a strategy to win the war with Islamic supremacism 15 years after 9/11. Hillary has no good answer for these failures, and she is deeply implicated in them–so she suggests that any criticism is a mark of Islamophobia.

What the left can’t call racist or Islamophobic, they label something else. Clinton has lately been fanning fears of sexism and homophobia as though America has not changed in 50 years, and as though this is not the best time and the best place in history to be a woman or to be gay. (In Clinton’s case, the charges are especially galling considering the amount of money her family has taken from violently anti-women and anti-gay regimes.)

Finally, when ugly accusations fail (as eventually they do) the left must simply lie about reality. This is why the Obama administration made a conscious decision to lie to the American people when it said that if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. It is why the administration conspired to lie about the attack on our consulate in Benghazi. And it is why they lie to Americans knowingly about the threat of Islamic supremacism.

If they didn’t lie, they’d lose.

Hillary’s dishonesty, which is rampant and complete, arises from this basic necessity. The calculation is almost as cynical as labeling half of her fellow citizens “deplorables”– and perhaps even more likely to backfire.

And, of course, her and her handlers, including her well-paid doctor, are not telling the truth about the state of her health.

But, I digress…

Isn’t it funny how those who claim to be the most tolerant among us, are actually the most intolerant of all of us?

According to a Gallup Poll, published on January 16th of this year, Conservatives are still the leading Political Ideology in America at 37%, followed closely by “self-described” Moderates at 35%. Liberals remain the Minority Political Ideology in America, comprising only 24% of our population.

That is why I call the actions of these insufferable idiots, like the ones on full display in their desperation to prevent Donald J. Trump from becoming the next President of the United States of America, “The Tyranny of the Minority”.

So, anyway, here we are…with a bunch of paid and unpaid “useful idiots”, as represented by “The Queen of Mean”, Hillary Clinton, telling all of us normal Americans, living out here in the Heartland, how stupid and intolerant we are, for actually holding on to Traditional American Values and wanting to “Make America Great Again” through the election of Donald J. Trump to the office of the President of the United States of America.

I have heard this kind of garbage before.

Back in 2011, I got into a discussion on Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government website with some Cheetos-munching, Mom’s basement-dwelling Lib with no home training, who proceeded to tell me that he would be proud to defecate on the American Flag.

If I could have reached through my computer monitor and throttled that useless, ungrateful spoiled brat, I would have.

That “dude” was yet another example of the useful idiots of this present generation, such as Miley Cyrus, that seem to be garnering a lot of national attention for their outrageous, disrespectful…and, yes, intolerant, behavior.

Just as we have been bearing witness for the last couple of years, through the glorification of thugs and the vilifying of our local police departments by the Obama Administration and the local “communities” which they lay their lives on the line for, every day they put on their uniforms, the effects of LBJ’s “Great Society” on American Culture and the Black Family Unit, so are we witnessing, through the egocentric behavior of this present generation, what happens when children are left to “their own devices”, instead of being raised “in the way in which they should go”.

These “spoiled brats”, like Hillary Clinton herself, do not care about the “Will of the People”, but, rather, they are intent on implementing and enforcing their Far Left Political Ideology, resulting in a “Tyranny of the Minority”, which we are seeing play out, as paid and unpaid protestors disrupt Trump’s Campaign Rallies, in an attempt to stifle Free Speech and to hold on to their “FREE STUFF” bestowed upon them by the “benevolent masters” of the Democrat Party, in a vain attempt to block Donald J. Trump’s pathway to the Presidency.

If you have ever attempted to debate a Liberal on a Facebook Political Page or a Political Website, they always attempt to present their opinions as facts, with nothing by Political Rhetoric to back them up.

The use of Karl Marx/Saul Alinsky-inspired “Class War Politics”, including “Racial Rhetoric”, promising a continuance of Barack Hussein Obama’s own “share the wealth” failed Domestic Policy, has inspired these self-absorbed Modern American Liberals leading to a divided nation, the likes of which has not been seen since “The War of Northern Aggression”.

When our Founding Fathers sat down to provide form and substance to the laws and procedures for governing this new country, which they had fought and won a bloody war over, by pledging their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, they were very aware of the price of tyranny.

They determined that this new nation would be a Constitutional Republic, having had their fill of monarchies.

And, that Sacred Document, our United States Constitution, gives each of us the right, including Trump, to speak our minds and be heard.

It gives the protestors at Donald  J. Trump’s Campaign appearances that right, too…but, not at the expense of others, by strong-arming their way into Political Rallies, or by blocking access to them, for the expressed purpose of denying someone their First Amendment Rights.

It also allows ungrateful NFL Players, making millions of dollars to disrespect our Sovereign Nation and those who died for our flag to refuse to stand during our National Anthem.

Our Constitution, in fact, allows Democratic Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton to call all of us who believe in Traditional American Values and the preservation of American as the Greatest Country on God’s Green Earth “Deplorables”.

However, that same Constitution, which Americans have fought and died for to preserve, also gives me the right to label Hillary’s Self-entitlement-driven condescending Political Ideology for what it actually is:

“INTOLERANCE”.

Until He Comes,

KJ.

The GOP Elite Wants the Primary Over With…Now.

March 20, 2012

The new message from the Republican Establishment is that a long Primary Battle is not in the best interests of “the Party”.

Well…duh.  However, it is in the best interest of the American people…especially the Conservative ones.

Politico.com has the story:

Republican strategist Karl Rove argued Monday that the long GOP nomination process has switched from an asset to a burden for the party, calling recent weeks some of the “worst moments for the Republicans.”

“I think, overall, you’d have to say that the scales have moved from the long process being a positive to being a negative,” he said on Fox News.

Rove joined former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, a former Republican National Committee chairman, in that assessment.

“I don’t think anybody in their right mind thinks that this way the primaries have played out has been good for the Republican chances,” Barbour said on ABC News’ “This Week” on Sunday.

Rove also agreed with Barbour’s point that Republican infighting should have given President Barack Obama a boost in the polls, which hasn’t materialized.

“Hayley made [an argument] in addition that I thought was very much on point, which is: given the fact that the Republicans are cutting each other up and it’s an unpleasant picture to look at, the president ought to be, as Hayley said, soaring in the polls and he’s not,” said Rove.

“We had ABC/Washington Post and CBS News/New York Times [polls] last week showing the president is in terrible shape, even at one of the worst moments for the Republicans,” the strategist added.

The GOP Elite should be as fine as frog hair split four ways, shouldn’t they?  I mean, their candidate, Mitt “The Legacy” Romney, just captured all the delegates in Puerto Rico (Si. Si puede.).

So, why are they upset about how long this coronation…errr…Republican Primary is taking?

Perhaps, they are starting to think ahead to the General Election.

Dr. Thomas Sowell explains:

The biggest single reason why Governor Romney is the front runner is that he has had the overwhelming advantage in money spent and in “boots on the ground” running his campaign in states across the country.

Romney has outspent each of his rivals — and all of his rivals put together. His campaign organization has been operating for years, and it has put his name on the ballot everywhere, while neither Santorum nor Gingrich had a big enough organization to get on the ballot in an important state like Virginia.

In the general election, President Obama will have all the advantages against Romney that Romney currently has against his Republican rivals. Barack Obama will have boots on the ground everywhere — not just members of the Democratic Party organization but thousands of labor union members as well.

Incumbency alone guarantees the president plenty of money to finance his campaign, not only from enthusiastic supporters but also from businesses regulated by the government, who know that holders of political power demand tribute. And the mainstream media will give Obama more publicity than Romney can buy.

How does anyone ever defeat a sitting president then? They do it because they have a message that rings and resonates. The last Republican to defeat a sitting president was Ronald Reagan. He was the only Republican to do so in the 20th century.

He didn’t do it with polls. At one point during the election campaign, President Jimmy Carter led Ronald Reagan with 58 percent to 40 percent in the polls. So much for the polls that so many are relying on so heavily today.

The question is not which Republican looks better against Barack Obama in the polls today, before the general election campaign begins. The question is which Republican can take the fight to Barack Obama, as Reagan took the fight to Carter, and win the poll that ultimately matters, the vote on election day.

The biggest fighting issue for Republicans is ObamaCare. Can the author of RomneyCare as governor of Massachusetts make that an effective issue by splitting hairs over state versus federal mandates? Can a man who has been defensive about his own wealth fight off the standard class warfare of Barack Obama, who can push all the demagogic buttons against Mitt Romney as one of the one-percenters?

Rick Santorum, and especially Newt Gingrich, are fighters — and this election is going to be a fight to the finish, with the fate of this country in the balance. Mitt Romney has depended on massive character assassination advertising campaigns to undermine his rivals. That will not work against Barack Obama.

Even a truthful account of the Obama administration’s many disastrous failures, at home and abroad, will be automatically countered by the mainstream media, 90 percent of whom voted for Obama in the 2008 election.

It is truer in this election than in most that “it takes a candidate to beat a candidate.” And that candidate has to offer both himself and his vision. Massive ad campaigns against rivals is not a vision.

Some, like President Bush 41, disdained “the vision thing” — and he lost the presidency that he had inherited from Ronald Reagan, lost it to a virtual unknown from Arkansas.

The vision matters, more than the polls and even more than incumbency in the White House.

As of right now, the only vision that Romney and the GOP Establishment seem to be relating is “You HAVE to vote for Romney.  He’s inevitable! …And let’s end this Primary quickly before Republicans figure out that he’s not a Conservative.”

Whatever happened to “May the best man win?”