Advertise/Sponsor TVCM
Keep us on the road filming & sharing your message
Contact: Aileen - tvconservativemedia@gmail.com
Silence is no longer an option...
"Freedom of Speech - Can be lost through Self - Imposed SILENCE"
- Aileen Milton, Founder The Villages Conservative Media & President, The Villages Tea Party
________________________________________________________________________
|
"Vigilant Voters Value - Vocal Visible Victories" - Aileen Milton
|
|
Excerpt from: The Naked Communist - Exposing Communism and Restoring Freedom
by: W. Clean Skousen ...The war between freedom and slavery is not just a fight to be waged by Congressmen, the President, soldiers and diplomats. Fighting Communism, Socialism, and the subversion of constitutional government is everybody's job. And working for the expansion of freedom is everybody's job. It is a basic American principle that each individual knows better than anyone else what he can do to help once he has become informed. No citizens will have to go far from his own home to find a faltering battle line which needs his aid. Communist influences are gnawing away everywhere and thousands of confused citizens often aid and abet them by operating in a vacuum of their own ignorance. The task is therefore to become informed and then move out for action! ... |
Trump Train 2020 by Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American The Debut in March 2020. Due to the medias' anti-Trump bias, a press release distribution company rejected my press release announcing the launch of this music video Please SHARE, RT, email, etc.
|
Most See National Security Danger in Government’s Focus on Coronavirusin Politics
Wednesday, March 25, 2020 Voters strongly believe the coronavirus is a major threat to America’s national security, and most think our enemies are likely to exploit the U.S. government’s focus on the disease. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey shows that 90% of Likely U.S. Voters consider the coronavirus a serious national security threat to the United States, with 57% who say it’s a Very Serious one. Just eight percent (8%) say it’s a not very or Not At All Serious threat. (To see survey question wording, click here.) Sixty-six percent (66%) think it’s likely that U.S. enemies will try to take advantage of our government’s focus on the coronavirus, although that includes just 29% who say it’s Very Likely. Twenty-eight percent (28%) believe America’s enemies will not try to exploit the U.S. government’s focus on the virus, but only six percent (6%) feel it’s Not At All Likely. Among voters who see the coronavirus as a Very Serious threat to U.S. national security, 72% worry that our enemies are likely to try to take advantage of the U.S. government’s focus on the coronavirus, with 37% who believe it’s Very Likely. The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted March 23-24, 2020 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology. Voters divide along party lines when asked if it’s racist for President Trump to describe the coronavirus which originated in Wuhan. China as a “Chinese virus.” Most Democrats say yes; most Republicans say no, and unaffiliated voters are closely divided. The majority of voters in most demographic categories regard the coronavirus as a Very Serious threat to U.S. national security. Republicans (73%) believe more strongly than Democrats (61%) and voters not affiliated with either major party (65%) that our enemies are likely to try to take advantage of the U.S. government’s focus on the virus. Men feel more strongly than women do that U.S. enemies are likely to take advantage of the government’s current focus. Seniors are more likely to believe that than younger voters, although concern is high among all age groups. Seventy-six percent (76%) of voters who Strongly Approve of the job Trump is doing feel that our enemies are likely to make a move while the U.S. government is focused on the virus. That view is shared by 60% of those who Strongly Disapprove of the president’s job performance. Ninety-four percent (94%) of all voters agreed with Trump in late 2017 when he said a strong economy is important to U.S. national security.With the stock market in free fall as the coronavirus spreads here, this helps explain the president’s focus on government aid to boost the economy. Given China’s initial silence about the outbreak of the coronavirus which allowed it to spread worldwide, a sizable number of voters here think the Asian giant needs to pay for some of the losses the virus has caused. Twenty-one percent (21%) consider China a U.S. enemy. Only 10% say it’s an ally, while 61% rate it somewhere in between. North Korea and Iran have long led the list of countries most Americans regard as enemies. ______________________________________________________________ 
February 10, 2020
Trump's Supporters Are Not Cult Members. We're Americans. By Sally Zelikovsky Former one-term Republican congressman and radio host Joe Walsh recently withdrew from running against Trump in the Republican primary. He apparently got the message that his candidacy was dead when the Iowa caucus crowd responded with raucous cheers for Trump to his comment "if you want four more year of the Donald Trump show" and roundly booed his claim that the president "makes every day about himself." Any birdbrain knows that Trump makes every day about us and the U.S. The only reason he has had to talk about himself is because he's been under constant attack, and Democrats demanded his head. Past Republican presidents likely would not have responded, concluding that it was beneath the dignity of the office. Perhaps. But at some point, you have to fight back, or you'll eventually be ousted. When they called George Bush a liar and accused him of starting a war for oil we never got but would somehow benefit him, he just took it and virtually disappeared. When you don't present your case forcefully, the accusations become the truth, no matter how false. Republicans are trained to respond like that. When running for office, you are advised not to address outrageous accusations — because it drives more media and public attention to the issue, keeping it in the spotlight. Instead, candidates are supposed to pivot towards what they can do or have done or what one's opponent hasn't done, etc. The tactic of punching back should be deployed only in very rare circumstances. This might have worked in a more chivalrous period of American politics, but once the Democrats shifted to a strategy of relentlessly lobbing mostly false accusations at their competitors, Republicans should have altered their strategy. But they didn't, and, for too long, the Democrats have been cage-fighting while we pretend-fight with our Rock 'Em, Sock 'Em Robots. Democrats got used to bullying Republicans, and Republicans forgot how to stand up for themselves. That all changed when Trump seismically disrupted the status quo, and Democrats and establishment Republicans went nuts. Democrats lost their stronghold over Republicans, and the Republican establishment didn't know what hit them: they couldn't control someone who burned their playbook and didn't care about perceptions. Taking the high road is admirable, but if you continue to come up short, you are going to have to find another path if you want to win. The new path forged by Trump is that of punching back with whatever you've got — facts, insults, rumors, truths — and, duh! It's working, and Democrats don't like that. Neither does Joe Walsh or Trump's remaining challenger, former Massachusetts governor Bill Weld. Walsh labeled Trump a "dictator" and "king" and said he withdrew from the race because the Republican party had become an unbeatable cult of Trump. Walsh couldn't be more wrong. Cultists follow their leaders with blind faith and, like automatons, comport themselves exactly how the cult leader instructs them. Trump, on the contrary, is doing what we want him to do — what we've wanted every Republican president, presidential candidate, and congressperson to do for decades. That's not a cult; it's literally the definition of a Democratic Republic — we vote for representatives to do what we want them to do. If they don't, we vote for others who will. We are not blindly following a manifesto that Trump drafted in the bowels of his basement, but abiding by a Constitution that has withstood the test of time. Our "Kool-Aid" is the relatively benign patriotism and flag-waving that have been a staple of the American ethos. Cultists see no faults in their cult leaders. They see them as G-d — omnipotent. Omniscient. Trump-supporters see his weaknesses and faults clearly, and, frankly, he doesn't hide them. He's comfortable in his imperfect skin. But — and this is what NeverTrumps, Walsh, the entirety of the left wing, and the Democrat Media Complex still do not fully comprehend — the flawless, slick, well dressed, well spoken, polite presidential candidates of the past who repeatedly let us down (like Romney, who...oops, did it again) and saw compromise versus commitment to conservatism as the only way to govern didn't work for the average American anymore. They alienated vast swaths of our broad middle class and allowed the left-wing fifth column to march into our homes, schools, houses of worship, and workplaces and destroy our families and our futures and trample our civil rights. The intolerance and hate, of which we are daily accused, oozes from the pores of most left-wingers. They call us the most loathsome of names and marginalize us, and we are told to make nice. They try to destroy our president, accuse him of treason, impeach and remove him, tear this country in half for three years, ridicule his supporters, and then we are told to turn the other cheek, call for unity, and move forward. Sometimes. Other times you have to call people out for what they have done and demand accountability. Trump deftly demonstrated this as they escorted Lt. Col. Vindman out of the White House and recalled that colossal boobenheimer Sondland. Democrats are experts at fake outrage, fake sincerity, and transferring all of their insincerity and provocation to the Republicans. Take Debbie Dingle dingling around on Fox News, trying to look sincere and wringing her hands, brow furrowed with fake worry about how divided the country is, insisting she is open-minded about working together, and then she does an about-face as she becomes divisive talking about how divisive Trump's non-divisive State of the Union is. Democrats don't want unity or collaboration. Their messaging post-SOTU and post-acquittal has been It's not over yet, my pretty. Meanwhile, they shredded the Constitution, denying the accused president any due process, and literally shredded the SOTU speech, then promised to continue to investigate, "do oversight," and impeach over and over until they destroy the country, the president, or both. They can't win 2020 on merit, so they have to win with chaos. Like a kid throwing a tantrum knowing eventually he will get his way as long as he doesn't stop screaming, Democrats will keep it up as long as they think we will cave after enough of us have been broken, bankrupted, and canceled. Trump punched back, making clear we won't capitulate, and that has knocked them so far off their game that they are, as we say in Yiddish, vertutzt. When another choice emerged (and it could have been anyone, but this time it was Trump) who understood us, understood we'd been shafted and shivved, it didn't matter if he was a smooth talker, a great rhetorician, an experienced politician, or even groomed in the manner we'd become accustomed to. Trump's entire appeal was I get you, I see what's happened, I see what you want, and I will fight to get you that. I will not be bullied or pushed into compromises for the sake of compromise unless it directly benefits you. I'm not perfect and don't pretend to be. I haven't been consistent in my political beliefs, but I am firmly grounded now. I don't need this job but feel a sense of duty because I see how it can be fixed and no one else seems to get that or be willing to do what has to be done to right this ship. I will work for you every day, and I'm not just saying that like other politicians do — although you will have to take a leap of faith on that. Try me. If I fail to deliver, vote for the next guy. So we went with Trump, with our eyes wide open. We see clearly who he is and how he lived his life and, so far, how he has fought for us. That doesn't make us cultists. It just means we are discerning voters. In a way, I think we have made Trump a better man — a man maybe he never realized he could be. Meanwhile, guys like Joe Walsh and Mitt Romney and their newfound pals Bernie Sanders and Adam Schiff will be relics of the past, residing on the ash heap of history...with the rest of the dirtbags. Former one-term Republican congressman and radio host Joe Walsh recently withdrew from running against Trump in the Republican primary. He apparently got the message that his candidacy was dead when the Iowa caucus crowd responded with raucous cheers for Trump to his comment "if you want four more year of the Donald Trump show" and roundly booed his claim that the president "makes every day about himself." Any birdbrain knows that Trump makes every day about us and the U.S. The only reason he has had to talk about himself is because he's been under constant attack, and Democrats demanded his head. Past Republican presidents likely would not have responded, concluding that it was beneath the dignity of the office. Perhaps. But at some point, you have to fight back, or you'll eventually be ousted. When they called George Bush a liar and accused him of starting a war for oil we never got but would somehow benefit him, he just took it and virtually disappeared. When you don't present your case forcefully, the accusations become the truth, no matter how false. Republicans are trained to respond like that. When running for office, you are advised not to address outrageous accusations — because it drives more media and public attention to the issue, keeping it in the spotlight. Instead, candidates are supposed to pivot towards what they can do or have done or what one's opponent hasn't done, etc. The tactic of punching back should be deployed only in very rare circumstances. This might have worked in a more chivalrous period of American politics, but once the Democrats shifted to a strategy of relentlessly lobbing mostly false accusations at their competitors, Republicans should have altered their strategy. But they didn't, and, for too long, the Democrats have been cage-fighting while we pretend-fight with our Rock 'Em, Sock 'Em Robots. Democrats got used to bullying Republicans, and Republicans forgot how to stand up for themselves. That all changed when Trump seismically disrupted the status quo, and Democrats and establishment Republicans went nuts. Democrats lost their stronghold over Republicans, and the Republican establishment didn't know what hit them: they couldn't control someone who burned their playbook and didn't care about perceptions. Taking the high road is admirable, but if you continue to come up short, you are going to have to find another path if you want to win. The new path forged by Trump is that of punching back with whatever you've got — facts, insults, rumors, truths — and, duh! It's working, and Democrats don't like that. Neither does Joe Walsh or Trump's remaining challenger, former Massachusetts governor Bill Weld. Walsh labeled Trump a "dictator" and "king" and said he withdrew from the race because the Republican party had become an unbeatable cult of Trump. Walsh couldn't be more wrong. Cultists follow their leaders with blind faith and, like automatons, comport themselves exactly how the cult leader instructs them. Trump, on the contrary, is doing what we want him to do — what we've wanted every Republican president, presidential candidate, and congressperson to do for decades. That's not a cult; it's literally the definition of a Democratic Republic — we vote for representatives to do what we want them to do. If they don't, we vote for others who will. We are not blindly following a manifesto that Trump drafted in the bowels of his basement, but abiding by a Constitution that has withstood the test of time. Our "Kool-Aid" is the relatively benign patriotism and flag-waving that have been a staple of the American ethos. Cultists see no faults in their cult leaders. They see them as G-d — omnipotent. Omniscient. Trump-supporters see his weaknesses and faults clearly, and, frankly, he doesn't hide them. He's comfortable in his imperfect skin. But — and this is what NeverTrumps, Walsh, the entirety of the left wing, and the Democrat Media Complex still do not fully comprehend — the flawless, slick, well dressed, well spoken, polite presidential candidates of the past who repeatedly let us down (like Romney, who...oops, did it again) and saw compromise versus commitment to conservatism as the only way to govern didn't work for the average American anymore. They alienated vast swaths of our broad middle class and allowed the left-wing fifth column to march into our homes, schools, houses of worship, and workplaces and destroy our families and our futures and trample our civil rights. The intolerance and hate, of which we are daily accused, oozes from the pores of most left-wingers. They call us the most loathsome of names and marginalize us, and we are told to make nice. They try to destroy our president, accuse him of treason, impeach and remove him, tear this country in half for three years, ridicule his supporters, and then we are told to turn the other cheek, call for unity, and move forward. Sometimes. Other times you have to call people out for what they have done and demand accountability. Trump deftly demonstrated this as they escorted Lt. Col. Vindman out of the White House and recalled that colossal boobenheimer Sondland. Democrats are experts at fake outrage, fake sincerity, and transferring all of their insincerity and provocation to the Republicans. Take Debbie Dingle dingling around on Fox News, trying to look sincere and wringing her hands, brow furrowed with fake worry about how divided the country is, insisting she is open-minded about working together, and then she does an about-face as she becomes divisive talking about how divisive Trump's non-divisive State of the Union is. Democrats don't want unity or collaboration. Their messaging post-SOTU and post-acquittal has been It's not over yet, my pretty. Meanwhile, they shredded the Constitution, denying the accused president any due process, and literally shredded the SOTU speech, then promised to continue to investigate, "do oversight," and impeach over and over until they destroy the country, the president, or both. They can't win 2020 on merit, so they have to win with chaos. Like a kid throwing a tantrum knowing eventually he will get his way as long as he doesn't stop screaming, Democrats will keep it up as long as they think we will cave after enough of us have been broken, bankrupted, and canceled. Trump punched back, making clear we won't capitulate, and that has knocked them so far off their game that they are, as we say in Yiddish, vertutzt. When another choice emerged (and it could have been anyone, but this time it was Trump) who understood us, understood we'd been shafted and shivved, it didn't matter if he was a smooth talker, a great rhetorician, an experienced politician, or even groomed in the manner we'd become accustomed to. Trump's entire appeal was I get you, I see what's happened, I see what you want, and I will fight to get you that. I will not be bullied or pushed into compromises for the sake of compromise unless it directly benefits you. I'm not perfect and don't pretend to be. I haven't been consistent in my political beliefs, but I am firmly grounded now. I don't need this job but feel a sense of duty because I see how it can be fixed and no one else seems to get that or be willing to do what has to be done to right this ship. I will work for you every day, and I'm not just saying that like other politicians do — although you will have to take a leap of faith on that. Try me. If I fail to deliver, vote for the next guy. So we went with Trump, with our eyes wide open. We see clearly who he is and how he lived his life and, so far, how he has fought for us. That doesn't make us cultists. It just means we are discerning voters. In a way, I think we have made Trump a better man — a man maybe he never realized he could be. Meanwhile, guys like Joe Walsh and Mitt Romney and their newfound pals Bernie Sanders and Adam Schiff will be relics of the past, residing on the ash heap of history...with the rest of the dirtbags. Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/02/trumps_supporters_are_not_cult_members_were_americans.html#ixzz6DgcOzRPT Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook Judges Seated by Trump Begin to Transform ‘9th Circus’
July 30, 2019 by The Daily Signal The Trump administration gained a rare victory this summer in the most unlikely of venues—the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is widely viewed as the most liberal federal appeals court. One big reason: President Donald Trump’s appointments to the 9th Circuit have moved it closer to ideological balance. The court, long known for being both liberal and among the most overturned circuits, has been a thorn in Trump’s side, ruling against the president multiple times, mostly on immigration policies. The confirmation of Trump nominee Daniel Bress in July gave the president his seventh judge on the court. It also brought the once lopsided appeals court to 16 Democrat appointees and 12 Republican appointees, with one remaining vacancy. The administration won a 3-0 victory in June regarding a Department of Health and Human Services policy to restrict funding for family planning clinics that perform abortions. While Trump hasn’t flipped the majority on the entire 9th Circuit, his progress increases the likelihood that randomly drawn three-judge panels will have more originalists, said Travis Weber, vice president for government affairs at the Family Research Council. “The new judges will increase the credibility of this court,” Weber told The Daily Signal, noting that it long has been derided by conservatives as the “9th Circus.” “We should have judges that interpret the Constitution rather than activists trying to legislate from the bench, which we’ve seen from the 9th Circuit,” he said. Weber noted that most recently, the 9th Circuit has been the go-to venue for liberal activists seeking to block the agenda of the Trump administration. This includes policies denying federal funds to “sanctuary cities,” which are local jurisdictions that refuse to assist federal immigration agents. The court also has thwarted the administration’s “extreme vetting” policy designed to prevent migrants from failed states, including several majority Muslim countries, from coming to the United States. The California-based 9th Circuit is the nation’s largest appeals court, encompassing California, Alaska, Arizona, Montana, Nevada, Hawaii, and Oregon. It now has more Trump-appointed judges than any other appeals court, according to Bloomberg News. The 9th Circuit is responsible for about 40% of the United States and 30% of all appeals, says Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont., who wants to split up the circuit to produce more fair hearings for Montana residents. Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., commented in January: “I’m very supportive of the nominees submitted by President Trump to serve on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. … These nominations continue a trend by the Trump administration of selecting highly qualified men and women to serve on the federal bench.” Judicial nominees have been one of Trump’s crowning achievements, as he has named more than 40 appeals court judges as well as two Supreme Court justices. While not having as much success at the district court level, the president has secured some 80 confirmations. “It would take a long time, if it ever happens, before the full 9th Circuit has enough constitutional judges for a pattern to take effect,” Thomas Jipping, deputy director of the Edwin Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal. Because of Trump’s prolific filling of circuit court vacancies, currently only five of the 179 appeals court judgeships are vacant, Jipping said. But, of those, four seats were held by Republican-appointed jurists, he added. To flip a court, Trump would have to replace Democratic nominees with Republican nominees. Even then, it’s not a sure thing to secure originalist interpretations, Jipping said. “We tend to focus on the president who appoints the judge as a proxy of who the judges are,” Jipping said. “Republican presidents are more likely to appoint constitutionalists. Democratic presidents are more likely to appoint activists.” “But every case is different,” he said. “Judges don’t make widgets.” ________________________ June 6, 2019
Wreck the Electoral College, Destroy the Country By David Horowitz While you were sleeping, the Democrats (abetted by some deviant Republicans) have been working on a plan that would destroy the diversity of the American political system and bring the nation to the brink of civil war. The plan is called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, and tens of millions of dollars have already been spent over several decades trying to implement it. Fourteen blue states and the District of Columbia have already joined the Compact, which means they are 70% on the way to making their proposal the law of the land. The Democrats' plan is designed to eliminate the influence of the Electoral College in choosing the nation's president, no doubt because while Hillary won the popular vote, she failed to win the necessary votes in the Electoral College. Eliminating the influence of the Electoral College would end the diversity now embodied in the federal system with its division of powers between Washington and the fifty states. The fact that a party that presents itself as a defender of diversity should be leading the charge to eliminate the nation's most powerful source of diversity should be all that is required to understand the threat its agenda poses to what has been the nation's constitutional way of life for 232 years. The Electoral College and the division of powers are features of the Constitution. But the National Popular Vote movement does not propose to amend the Constitution because it doesn't have the votes to do that. Instead, in the name of "democracy," it proposes to circumvent the Constitution and its requirement of large national majorities for amending what has been the fundamental law of the land. Think how Orwellian that is, and how concerning it should be for anyone believing that the Founders created the most practical, realistic, democratic, diverse, and successful polity the world has ever seen. This is how the Democrats' circumvention of the Constitution and its provision for an Electoral College would work. Instead of abolishing the College, which would require the support of two thirds of the states, they are hoping to put together a coalition of states representing 270 electoral votes that would agree to award all their votes to whoever wins the national vote. In other words, if the popular vote is won by 10 votes, every state in the Compact would award 100% of its votes to that party, even if a majority of the voters in the state voted against that party. The bottom line (and goal) of this devious plan is to eliminate the influence of rural voters or "Middle America" and create an electoral lock for the large urban population centers — e.g., California and New York — which would then decide the direction of the country. Currently, the Electoral College forces candidates to campaign in states they might otherwise ignore, and thus forces them to compete for diverse constituencies, and therefore to compromise and moderate their positions. It was designed by the Founders to move the country to the center and to prevent an overzealous majority from tyrannizing the minority. Consider the practical implications of this radical plan to remove an institution that has stabilized our political life for more than 200 years. The urban centers of America, which would become dominant under the plan, are also the centers of America's crime problems and gun homicides, its intractable poverty, its failed public schools, and its political corruption. Do we really want to replicate for all America the failed welfare policies that have created a permanent underclass in cities like Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis, and Baltimore? Or consider California, a one-party state whose government has defied federal law and proclaimed itself a sanctuary for illegal migrants. What will be the consequences for an already deeply divided nation of having an open-borders policy imposed by leftist states led by California and New York on Middle American states who are already fiercely opposed to flooding the country with millions of illegal aliens whom no government agency has vetted? lf New York has legalized the killing of babies already born, how will that go down in states already banning abortions of babies with fetal heartbeats? All the blue states pushing this agenda are fans of the Green New Deal, which focuses on a problem — global warming — that most of the country doesn't consider urgent and calls for crushing new taxes to finance new social giveaways while programs like Medicare and Social Security are already on the brink of bankruptcy. Or consider the Green plan to remove 250 million gasoline-driven automobiles within ten years and replace them with electric cars. If an incredibly costly and unsettling confiscation scheme like this is imposed on the rest of the country, what can we reasonably expect as a reaction? The Founders' scheme to produce compromise between competing factions and to put checks and balances on radical adventures was never more needed than now, when the country is divided in a way that it has not been seen since the Civil War. But apparently this is the perfect time for an out-of-touch and increasingly out-of-control Democratic Party to undermine the constitutional foundations of the nation, push a divisive agenda, and move the nation toward a one-party state. David Horowitz is the author of the newly published book Dark Agenda: The War to Destroy Christian America. While you were sleeping, the Democrats (abetted by some deviant Republicans) have been working on a plan that would destroy the diversity of the American political system and bring the nation to the brink of civil war. The plan is called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, and tens of millions of dollars have already been spent over several decades trying to implement it. Fourteen blue states and the District of Columbia have already joined the Compact, which means they are 70% on the way to making their proposal the law of the land. The Democrats' plan is designed to eliminate the influence of the Electoral College in choosing the nation's president, no doubt because while Hillary won the popular vote, she failed to win the necessary votes in the Electoral College. Eliminating the influence of the Electoral College would end the diversity now embodied in the federal system with its division of powers between Washington and the fifty states. The fact that a party that presents itself as a defender of diversity should be leading the charge to eliminate the nation's most powerful source of diversity should be all that is required to understand the threat its agenda poses to what has been the nation's constitutional way of life for 232 years. The Electoral College and the division of powers are features of the Constitution. But the National Popular Vote movement does not propose to amend the Constitution because it doesn't have the votes to do that. Instead, in the name of "democracy," it proposes to circumvent the Constitution and its requirement of large national majorities for amending what has been the fundamental law of the land. Think how Orwellian that is, and how concerning it should be for anyone believing that the Founders created the most practical, realistic, democratic, diverse, and successful polity the world has ever seen. This is how the Democrats' circumvention of the Constitution and its provision for an Electoral College would work. Instead of abolishing the College, which would require the support of two thirds of the states, they are hoping to put together a coalition of states representing 270 electoral votes that would agree to award all their votes to whoever wins the national vote. In other words, if the popular vote is won by 10 votes, every state in the Compact would award 100% of its votes to that party, even if a majority of the voters in the state voted against that party. The bottom line (and goal) of this devious plan is to eliminate the influence of rural voters or "Middle America" and create an electoral lock for the large urban population centers — e.g., California and New York — which would then decide the direction of the country. Currently, the Electoral College forces candidates to campaign in states they might otherwise ignore, and thus forces them to compete for diverse constituencies, and therefore to compromise and moderate their positions. It was designed by the Founders to move the country to the center and to prevent an overzealous majority from tyrannizing the minority. Consider the practical implications of this radical plan to remove an institution that has stabilized our political life for more than 200 years. The urban centers of America, which would become dominant under the plan, are also the centers of America's crime problems and gun homicides, its intractable poverty, its failed public schools, and its political corruption. Do we really want to replicate for all America the failed welfare policies that have created a permanent underclass in cities like Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis, and Baltimore? Or consider California, a one-party state whose government has defied federal law and proclaimed itself a sanctuary for illegal migrants. What will be the consequences for an already deeply divided nation of having an open-borders policy imposed by leftist states led by California and New York on Middle American states who are already fiercely opposed to flooding the country with millions of illegal aliens whom no government agency has vetted? lf New York has legalized the killing of babies already born, how will that go down in states already banning abortions of babies with fetal heartbeats? All the blue states pushing this agenda are fans of the Green New Deal, which focuses on a problem — global warming — that most of the country doesn't consider urgent and calls for crushing new taxes to finance new social giveaways while programs like Medicare and Social Security are already on the brink of bankruptcy. Or consider the Green plan to remove 250 million gasoline-driven automobiles within ten years and replace them with electric cars. If an incredibly costly and unsettling confiscation scheme like this is imposed on the rest of the country, what can we reasonably expect as a reaction? The Founders' scheme to produce compromise between competing factions and to put checks and balances on radical adventures was never more needed than now, when the country is divided in a way that it has not been seen since the Civil War. But apparently this is the perfect time for an out-of-touch and increasingly out-of-control Democratic Party to undermine the constitutional foundations of the nation, push a divisive agenda, and move the nation toward a one-party state. David Horowitz is the author of the newly published book Dark Agenda: The War to Destroy Christian America. ___________________________ 
The Villages sure did show up strong tonight! The support and enthusiasm to re-elect President @realDonaldTrump is overwhelming! Everyone is ready to #LeadRight and deliver Florida in 2020. @GOP #MAGA
Good Morning Britain
Published on May 21, 2019 Can Anybody Beat President Trump The next U.S Presidential Election will be held in November 2020, and with the growing popularity of President Trump, GMB asks whether or not he can be beaten. The former star of The West Wing and Democrat supporter Richard Schiff and Republican political consultant Frank Luntz discuss the Democrat candidates and what lengths they would need to go to in order to appeal to the general American. Does Science Predict Low Democrat Turnout in 2020?
BREAKING NEWS By Shawn Last Updated Apr 2, 2019 There’s an interesting article in Politico this week about the enormous field of candidates running for the 2020 Democratic nomination and what it might do to voter enthusiasm. Rather than rely on the relative merits of each candidate, the likely turnout among millennial voters, or what President Trump’s popularity – or lack thereof – with Democrats might do to the election, Politico called on a behavioral scientist to study what sheer “choice overload” could do to the election. And if there are any merits to this theory, this embarrassment of riches that voters currently have to choose from on the Democrat side could become…well, just an embarrassment. “Like a music festival where you can have a hard time choosing among all the bands with competing time slots, a surplus of candidates will give Democratic voters what behavioral scientists like me call ‘choice overload,’” wrote Lily Kofler, the U.S. Director of Behavioral Science at Hill+Knowlton Strategies. “Simply put, having too many choices can make it harder to make a decision, and this is likely to have a profound—profoundly negative—effect on the 2020 campaign.” Kofler said that just such a scenario had recently played out. “We saw a demonstration of this so-called ‘cereal aisle effect’ in the Chicago mayoral race, where a crowded, diverse, and qualified field of 14 candidates without prohibitive frontrunners coincided with almost the lowest turnout in city history at 33.4 percent,” she wrote. “This presents an unfortunate reality for the 1 percenters in the field—in this case not the super-rich but the senators, governors and other accomplished candidates who are polling below the margin of error,” Kofler continued. “Some pundits say there’s no downside to a presidential campaign, but the gains to a candidate’s national reputation could come at a cost to the entire field. An abundance of marginal candidates will make it harder for Democratic primary voters to comfortably evaluate the candidates with realistic chances of winning—and paradoxically that will reduce enthusiasm for the party’s eventual nominee.” Without question, Donald Trump benefited from a similar scenario in 2016, when his brash approach to campaigning made it easy for him to stand out in a field of 16 candidates. We’ve lost track of how many Democrats are officially in the race already for 2020, but there are more threatening to run every day. Just this past week, Michael Bloomberg again signaled his willingness to run, and the world is waiting to see what Joe Biden will decide. And that’s not even getting into independent bids, such as the one Howard Schultz is mulling. Trump has already proven his ability to stand out in a crowd. Fresh and unscarred, he will go into the general election against an opponent who is already weary from months of primaries against dozens of contenders. For voters who have spent too long on the cereal aisle, a nice hot plate of MAGA bacon and eggs might seem like just the ticket. __________________________ 
Reparations DecodedCan "40 acres and a mule" solve black America's problems today? Not a chance.
Patrick Hampton · Mar. 18, 2019 The discussion surrounding reparations for slavery has resurfaced in advance of the 2020 presidential race. And while it appears as if most Democrats are aligned with the idea of compensation to black descendants of slaves, not a single person has been able to present a concrete definition of what reparations mean, how money will be distributed, or other parameters that would ensure these funds would reach the intended recipients. The idea of reparations shouldn’t be new to anyone. Germany paid Holocaust survivors in the billions of dollars. Under President Ronald Reagan’s administration, thousands of Japanese people who were kept in internment camps during WWII received $20,000 each. But how does one translate the “40 acres and a mule” that some say is owed to black American descendants of slavery into practical economic terms today? Democrats are toying around and teasing black Americans with the idea that they might be repaid for the hardships of slavery. But if these presidential hopefuls are serious, where is their plan? Say President Trump signs legislation that would make black descendants of slavery entitled to a stipend of $2,500 each. At first glance, leftists would be outraged, stating that this amount is insulting. At the very least, they’d vouch for significant adjustments to accommodate for the vast differences in standards of living across the U.S. By this logic, a black person living in California would need to receive double the amount of a person in Mississippi to be “economically fair.” But then who pays? It wasn’t just white colonizers who benefitted from the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. With any transaction, there must be at minimum two parties, so would West African nations be obligated to drop their coin in the reparations pot? But then what does it mean to qualify for reparations compensation at all? Is it enough to have a “B” on your birth certificate, or would costly DNA testing come into play? If all that’s required is to prove a hint of blackness, then the infamous “one-drop rule” would hold even greater significance and could potentially be exploited. There would suddenly be a lot more people identifying as “African American.” And even if DNA test results prove that a person is indeed of African descent, how should one prove that they are indeed a black African descendant of ancestors who were enslaved? For many black Americans, the branches of their family trees are broken, leaving them with no clues to identify slaves other than a family surname. Hypotheticals aside, if the American government were to sign a reparations act into law, no amount of money will remedy the rampant problems plaguing black communities across the nation. As well-meaning as a reparation’s settlement might be, money can’t buy fathers. Money won’t cure toxic cultural norms, such as lewd hip-hop and rap music that degrades women and encourages beta masculinity. Money alone can’t teach black families how to build wealth for future generations. Money can’t heal the scars created by the welfare state. It’s clear to me that Democrats are dangling the issue of reparations in our faces, hoping that the black voting bloc that they’ve exploited for far too long will jump up to take the bait. These presidential hopefuls will take this issue and run their campaigns with it, only to forget it even existed — at least until 2024. It appears that Left would, in theory, use bribery cloaked under the guise of reparations to maintain the loyalty of black voters — even though our government has had decades to resolve this “unkept promise” if they truly wanted to. Clinton didn’t do it. Obama — our nation’s first black president — didn’t do it. There seems to be a track record of promises unkept within the Democrat Party, and to expect them to come through in 2020 would be horribly naive. Worse, I fear that the risk of exploitation would dig the African American community deeper into the problems we continue to face. So instead of focusing on reparations, let’s examine a future for black Americans that would be more valuable than any big check in the mail. I’m talking safer communities, less crime, stronger families, and equal opportunities to achieve the American dream — this would be priceless. ___________________________ 
Kellyanne Conway delivers knockout blow to 2020 hopeful Cory Booker: ‘What exactly have you accomplished?’
February 2, 2019 by Ben MarquisImage Source: YouTube New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker recently became the latest major political figure on the left to announce a 2020 presidential campaign, joining a rapidly growing field of candidates all vying for their party’s nomination to take on President Donald Trump — but it didn’t take long for one of Trump’s top advisers to start pounding on the critiques. When asked for the Trump administration’s take on Booker’s entry into the presidential race on Fox & Friends on Thursday, Kellyanne Conway questioned the senator’s qualifications and flipped a common Democrat talking point back on him when she asked why, as a man, he felt he should run against women like Sens. Kamala Harris (CA) and Kirsten Gillibrand (NY). “The water seems warm”Conway’s first message to Booker was to welcome him to the ever-growing pack of Democrats vying for the White House. “Welcome, the water seems warm,” she said. “Welcome to dive in with — I don’t know — 10, 15, 30 other Democratic candidates.” But she didn’t play nice for long. “I would ask him a couple of questions today as he runs from my native New Jersey, and one is, what’s wrong with the candidates who are already in there?” she asked. “What’s your objection to Kamala Harris running, [Massachusetts Sen.] Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, these others who have already announced? [Hawaii Rep.] Tulsi Gabbard, maybe?” In fact, according to Conway, Booker should be glad he isn’t being called sexist for entering the race after so many Democrat women. “If he were a Republican running against them, he would immediately be called a sexist for running against these women in the Democratic field,” Conway alleged. Take a look: “What have you accomplished?” But she wasn’t done yet. “But I’d also ask him, what exactly have you accomplished that qualifies you to be the commander-in-chief and president of the United States?” Conway asked, mentioning that Democrats have called Booker an uninspiring, “tinny” motivational speaker and reminding the Fox hosts of his ridiculous “Spartacus moment” during confirmation hearings for then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. “I think people witnessed that when he unloaded, for all of the cameras to see, on now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.” Conway then took to attacking Booker’s political career, suggesting that people “go and look at his record in Newark, New Jersey,” where he served as mayor from 2006 to 2013. Conway also noted that Booker used to be an advocate of school choice, “but the modern Democratic Party in which he is running for the presidential nomination has moved so far to the left that he can’t even bring himself to continue to help those schoolchildren through school choice.” Indeed, it seems Conway was ready to go on the offensive on Cory Booker right from the start. Is this a sign of what’s to come from the Trump administration as they fight to hold onto the White House in 2020? Only time will tell. ___________________________  Getty Images
NFL Legend Jim Brown Backs Trump In 2020, Says Support Will 'Make Me Very Unpopular In The Black Community'
Albert Chau / Contributor ByJOSEPH CURL @JOSEPHCURL August 23, 2018 Nobody messes with Jim Brown. Comedian Richard Pryor, who famously caught on fire while freebasing cocaine, once joked that the same fate would not have befallen Brown. "Fire don’t mean s*** to Jim. Fire jumped on Jim once. He said, 'Hey!' " Pryor joked, brushing the fire off him. Brown, 6-foot-2 and 230 lbs., dominated football as a running back for the Cleveland Browns back in the 1960s. And even at 82 years old, Brown is still a formidable force. Appearing on "The JT The Brick Show" on Fox Sports Radio this week, Brown said he's supporting President Donald Trump in 2020. And he doesn't care what the "black community" thinks. "I should be criticizing Trump on every level because he does certain things that call for criticism but when I look at television I see all these announcers become experts and they're pointing the fingers and they're not doing a doggone thing but pointing their fingers, I find myself really pulling for the president," Brown said. "Now, that would make me very unpopular in the black community, very unpopular with a lot of Americans ... but I think that there are certain good things that are coming out of this presidency because we've never seen anything like it," Brown said, as reported by TMZ. Brown said it's his duty as a good American. "I believe that I have to work on myself first to be as good a person as I could be to back up my country as best as I know how." The NFL legend met with the president-elect in 2016 at Trump Tower to ask how he could best help the black community. Several high-profile athletes — including NBA stars LeBron James and Stephen Curry — have ripped Trump, vowing not to go to the White House if invited. But other prominent blacks, especially rapper Kanye West, have praised the president. "You don't have to agree with Trump but the mob can't make me not love him," West wrote on Twitter in April — setting off a firestorm. "We are both dragon energy. He is my brother. I love everyone. I don't agree with everything anyone does. That's what makes us individuals. And we have the right to independent thought." __________________________ Dr.Rick Rigsby - Make An Impact(MOTIVATION)
|
How the New American Left Plans to Gain Power
Though many factors make the U.S. special, our Republic’s careful balance of the three branches of government protects against the abuse of power and is key to America’s uniqueness. Yet a new cohort of young, uber-progressive Democrats have enthusiastically proposed ideas that would fundamentally change how our government works in ways that will gain them more power. 
 President Donald Trump speaks during an event on energy infrastructure at the Cameron LNG export facility, Tuesday, May 14, 2019, in Hackberry, La. (Evan Vucci / AP)
Trump Scores Major Victory in FL, 3 Stations Planning to Air His Speeches Every Day Till Election
BY BEN MARQUIS PUBLISHED MAY 14, 2019 President Donald Trump recently held one of his famed high-energy rallies in Panama City Beach, Florida, to a jam-packed auditorium of boisterous supporters. His over-arching message was that his administration hadn’t forgotten about the Floridians in the Panhandle — or anyone else, for that matter — whose communities were utterly ravaged in October of 2018 by Hurricane Michael, as well as other destructive hurricanes and flooding. As it turns out, though, Trump’s vow of continued federal aid to the still-recovering region and his message of encouragement for those who live there will carry on for more than just that one night, as it was just revealed that three local radio stations in the area will proceed to broadcast clips from that speech and others by Trump on a daily basis until the day of the 2020 election. The South Florida Sun-Sentinel reported that the three radio stations in question are the Classic Rock-themed WRBA-FM 95.9, Country-themed “HANK FM” WKNK-FM 103.5, and contemporary Adult Hits-themed “BOB FM” WASJ-FM 105.1, all of which are owned by the recently formed company Gulf Coast Media. All three of those stations suffered significant damage to their facilities during the powerful Category 5 storm, which resulted in their absence from the air for several months while repairs were made after Gulf Coast Media purchased them from Powell Broadcasting Company in late 2018. The owner and spokesman for Gulf Coast Media, Samuel Rogatinsky, told the Sentinel that each station would play a two-minute clip of a Trump speech at least once, if not twice, in every broadcast hour of every day until the presidential election next year. “We ran it by a bunch of listeners and people in the area, and nobody’s upset about it. It’s Republican territory,” he said on Monday. “Nobody’s offended by it. It’s not an issue.” Rogatinsky further explained that many Floridians had been more than pleased at the special attention they had received from the president, as many felt they had been forgotten about or overlooked by the mainstream media and the general public in the aftermath of the hurricane. His company announced in a news release that GCM, Inc.’s “senior management acknowledged that broadcasting the President’s speeches may not be consistent with conventional commercial FM radio, but we have taken this approach to show the community’s sincere appreciation for President Donald Trump’s work in Panama City and Bay County.” “People around the world think that Floridians are accustomed to getting battered by Hurricanes and have for the most part ignored the huge losses experienced by people in Panama City and Bay County,” the release continued. “People have forgotten about us and the community is so thankful that President Donald Trump made it crystal clear that he was here to help us.” “After announcing the $448 million relief fund President Donald Trump stated, ‘No games, no gimmicks, no delays. We are just doing it — You’re getting your money one way or the other,'” the statement highlighted. Rogatinsky told the Sentinel of the unconventional decision, “Really, we just want to have inspirational type things because the community is so down. Nobody else is really promising or doing anything. They want to hear what he has to say.” Advertisement - story continues below TheWrap reported that Rogatinsky said, “The community really embraces Donald Trump and we are giving them what they want.” He further added that in the interest of complying with the Federal Communications Commission’s guidelines on equal time for political candidates, he would be willing to offer a similar arrangement to any candidate who asked. RELATED: Stranded Teens Send Up a Prayer, Then the Amen Motors into View Rogatinsky said, “If anybody requests it, it won’t be an issue. If Bernie Sanders wants equal time then we’re going to comply with the law.” Regardless of whether the radio stations end up granting equal time to Democratic candidates or not, this is a huge win for President Trump. In a vitally important swing state, it serves almost as free advertising for his re-election campaign. Advertisement - story continues below The Florida Panhandle is certainly an area that could be classified as “MAGA Country,” and the significant number of votes Trump received from that region of that state in 2016 arguably sealed his statewide victory. With these three radio stations now promoting his concern for the region’s residents for the remainder of the 2020 election season, those Panhandle voters may very well win Florida for Trump once again. ___________________________ 
Preliminary Thoughts on the 2019 Races
April 16, 2019/in Political Analysis, The Hawthorn Group / To Hawthorn Friends & Family -- In the absence of any recent musing by us on the political scene (what, we ask ourselves, could possibly need to be said that isn’t already being said, over and over?), to my utter amazement I’ve been getting emails from folks asking if they’ve been dropped from our distribution lists and actually asking for our current thoughts. I’m not sure there is much to add to what, as noted, is being said, but in the interest of at least highlighting items that we’ve noted recently, let me share:
And that wisdom applies not only to totals, but also to SIZE of gifts and number of true small donors. Not even Bernie Sanders – or Elizabeth Warren, who has eschewed major contributions – can begin to approach 99% small donors. That’s an impressive base of voters and potential volunteers (IF the Trump campaign can figure out how to use them to localize and personalize the Trump message). Where is all this money coming from? Seniors are part of the answer. See this week’s story from Axios where Trump is targeting Seniors on Facebook over other age demographics. I was also reminded of Deep Throat’s wise admonition reading a MoScout story this week about Missouri Democratic State Auditor – and the party’s best hope for a gubernatorial candidate in 2020 – Nicole Galloway’s fundraising. It noted she had “raised $144,194, not too far from the amount raised by Mike Parson, the sitting governor, $198,931.” BUT as MoScout noted – and God IS in the details (of finances AND politics) – “If she dives into this race, Galloway will have to redouble her fundraising because Team Parson holds a big money lead. His campaign committee has more than $1 million cash on-hand (Galloway has $65K COH) and Parson’s allied PAC, Uniting Missouri, has $2.3 million on-hand.” There is a WORLD of difference between trailing in recent fundraising by only $50,000 and trailing in cash on-hand by $3.2 million. In this rapidly changing world of politics, “Follow the money” remains unchanged.
As University of Virginia’s Larry Sabato pointed out recently in his always “must read” Crystal Ball, “almost two-thirds of the total number of pledged delegates will be awarded in the first seven weeks of the nominating season, from February 3, 2020 through March 17, 2020.” Indeed, as he points out (and we highlight the MAJOR states), in only two weeks, between Super Tuesday (California, North Carolina, Texas, Virginia) on March 3rd, thru March 10th (Michigan and Ohio), thru March 17th (Florida and Illinois), 60% of the Democratic delegates will be awarded. It is, of course, NOT certain at all there will be an early winner. Iowa and New Hampshire – grossly NON-representative of the Democrats’ voting base – don’t account for all that many delegates and Sanders or Warren may have a “lock” on neighboring New Hampshire. Minorities start appearing at the polls in Nevada and, massively, in South Carolina (each also in other ways non-representative of the rest of America). Among the big early states, Sen. Kamala Harris may have a lock on California, Beto O’Rourke on Texas and Warren on Massachusetts . . . leaving the big early battleground states of Florida, Illinois, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia. Two other interesting changes this year:
In his last report, the inimitable Charlie Cook viewed NONE of the Republican seats a “Lean Democrat” or “Toss-Up” . . . and only three as “Lean Republican” (the rest being “Likely Republican” or “Solid Republican”). He counts those three “Lean Republican” seats as Arizona (McSally), Colorado (Gardner) and Maine (Collins, whose DEMOCRAT colleague from West Virginia, Joe Manchin, has already endorsed her). Any of the three COULD become a serious race, but not without a serious challenger, which each currently lacks. While Sen. Collins does not have an opponent yet, Democratic fury at her Kavanaugh vote has already raised over $3 million to her future opponent. Of the 13 Democratic seats, Charlie considers 11 of them safe for re-election, two “Likely D” and nine “Solid D.” However, he lists one – Doug Jones’ seat in Alabama – as “Toss Up.” While I’ve learned the perils of disagreeing with Charlie, I’d push it farther to the GOP, to at least “Lean Republican” if not “Likely Republican.” Jones beat the infamous Roy Moore by 21,924 votes in his special election runoff that saw 22,852 write-in votes posted (mostly by Republicans disgusted with Moore, such as the senior Senator, Richard Shelby). It is a state President Trump carried by 62.08% to 34.06%. There are NO Democrats in statewide office. A pathetically weak GOP candidate for governor won in 2018 with 59.5% of the vote. Doug Jones is a quietly but strongly impressive public servant and a solid candidate, but his prospects are dim in that state. So, instead of gaining the two seats they need to take the majority, we believe the Democrats will actually LOSE one seat and the GOP will keep the Senate.
We agree with Charlie and see little change among Governors . . . indeed, we’d call Kentucky as “Likely Republican.” The incumbent seems likely to hold on to Louisiana and we don’t know enough about Montana to have a view.
Of course, President Trump will be ON the ballot in 2020, a HUGE change from 2018. And it’s clear House members – from Speaker Pelosi to the young firebrands – will be major attack targets for the President.
That little town in the tumultuous years before (and just after) the Civil War that was family home to three governors of Missouri, up the road from the farm of the state’s embattled chief justice, and (in the person of one of America’s most famous artists, George Caleb Bingham), home for a state treasurer and state adjutant general . . . all citizens – not professional career politicians – willing to serve in high public office in horribly difficult times. Appealing for similar citizen involvement today, I intend to quote – with apologies for its male-gender foucs, typical of the era in which it was written – a poem by Josiah Gilbert Holland: GOD, give us men! A time like this demands Strong minds, great hearts, true faith and ready hands; Men whom the lust of office does not kill; Men whom the spoils of office can not buy; Men who possess opinions and a will; Men who have honor; men who will not lie; Men who can stand before a demagogue And damn his treacherous flatteries without winking! Tall men, sun-crowned, who live above the fog In public duty, and in private thinking; For while the rabble, with their thumb-worn creeds, Their large professions and their little deeds, Mingle in selfish strife, lo! Freedom weeps, Wrong rules the land and waiting Justice sleeps. John ________________________ 
“National Emergency” By Jon McNaughton
Every year hundreds of thousands of foreign nationals march to our southern border and cross into our country. Who are they? What right do they have to come here? Dangerous drug smugglers, human traffickers, and other criminals enter our country without permission, while many more wait in line legally hoping for the American dream. These law breakers cost the American taxpayer over 100 billion dollars a year and have a disproportionate level of crime in our population. President Trump only asks for 5.7 billion dollars to secure the border, so why won’t the politicians let him do it? In my new painting, the Democrat establishment declares victory against President Trump as he announces a national emergency to secure the border. They proudly hold the flags they represent and cherish. Our politicians have become traitors to this country, in most cases they are more loyal to whichever country, lobbyist, corporation, or special interest group that will keep them in office and line their bank accounts. I’m sick of how they trample our flag and do not seek America’s interests first. Trump stands apart from them with his head bowed contemplating the state of our border situation. He sees a lost doll left behind by a little girl forced to make the dangerous journey. To not build the wall is to allow people on both sides of the border to suffer needlessly. “Tolerance for illegal immigration is “not compassionate,” but “cruel.” – President Trump The storm is rising and responsible Americans support President Trump as he declares a “National Emergency.” Prints available at: http://jonmcnaughton.com/patriotic/n 
How Middle America Is to Be Dispossessed
March 12, 2019 by Patrick J. Buchanan Votes: 4.71 Stars! This post was viewed 1,550 times. Help Wake Up America - Share Pat's Columns! The Democratic Party does not want to close the door to voting on migrants who broke our laws to get here and do not belong here, as these illegals would likely vote for pro-amnesty Democrats. In all but one of the last seven presidential elections, Republicans lost the popular vote. George W. Bush and Donald Trump won only by capturing narrow majorities in the Electoral College. Hence the grand strategy of the left: to enlarge and alter the U.S. electorate so as to put victory as far out of reach for national Republicans as it is today for California Republicans, and to convert the GOP into America’s permanent minority party. In the Golden State, Democrats control the governors’ chair, every elective state office, both U.S. Senate seats, 46 of 53 U.S. House seats and three-fourths of each house of the state legislature in Sacramento. How does the left expect to permanently dispossess Middle America? Let us count the ways. In 2018, over 60 percent of Floridians voted to expand the electorate by restoring voting rights to 1.5 million ex-cons, all of Florida’s felons except those convicted of sex crimes and murder. Florida gave Bush his razor-thin victory over Al Gore. Should Trump lose Florida in 2020, he is a one-term president. If the GOP loses Florida indefinitely, the presidency is probably out of reach indefinitely. Florida’s Amendment 4 is thus a great leap forward in the direction in which the republic is being taken. Gov. Terry McAuliffe of the swing state of Virginia restored voting rights to 156,000 felons by executive order in 2016, calling it his “proudest achievement.” In California and Oregon, moves are afoot to reduce the voting age to 17 or 16. Understandable, as high schoolers are more enthusiastic about socialism. Last week, a bold attempt was made by House Democrats to lower the U.S. voting age to 16. It failed — this time. Have something to say about this column? Visit Pat’s FaceBook page and post your comments…. Some House Democrats apparently feel that with “Medicare-for-all” and the Green New Deal of Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez on the table, they have enough progressive legislation to satisfy the socialist base. Thanks to Gov. Jerry Brown, every adult citizen in California who gets or renews a driver’s license, gets a state ID card, or fills out a change of address form with the Department of Motor Vehicles is automatically registered to vote. Purpose: expand voter rolls to include those who have shown no interest in politics, so they can be located on Election Day and bused to the polls. Ari Berman of Mother Jones writes that Nancy Pelosi’s 700-page For the People Act that did pass the House contains “a slew of measures designed to expand voting rights, which … include nationwide automatic voter registration, Election Day registration, two weeks of early voting in every state … restoration of voting rights for ex-felons, and declaring Election Day a federal holiday.” House Republicans offered an amendment to the bill with language that said, “allowing illegal immigrants the right to vote devalues the franchise and diminishes the voting power of United States citizens.” All but six Democrats voted against the GOP proposal. The Democratic Party does not want to close the door to voting on migrants who broke our laws to get here and do not belong here, as these illegals would likely vote for pro-amnesty Democrats. If the new U.S. electorate of, say, 2024, includes tens of millions of new voters — 16- and 17-year-olds; illegal migrants; ex-cons; new legal immigrants from Asia, Africa and Latin America who vote 70 to 90 percent Democratic, the political future of America has already been determined. California, here we come. As a Democratic insurance policy, Memphis Congressman Steve Cohen has introduced a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College. Some Republicans support statehood for Puerto Rico, which would add six electoral votes that would go Democratic in presidential elections about as often as Washington, D.C.’s three have, which is always. Ben Franklin told the lady in Philadelphia, “We have a republic, if you can keep it.” Our elites today, however, ceaselessly celebrate “our democracy.” Yet John Adams was not optimistic about such a political system: “Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes exhausts and murders itself. There never was a Democracy yet, that did not commit suicide.” Thomas Jefferson, a lifelong believer in a “natural aristocracy” among men, was contemptuous: “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49.” Madison wrote in Federalist 10, “democracies … have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” If one day not far off, as seems probable, tax consumers achieve a permanent hegemony over the nation’s taxpayers, and begin to impose an equality of result that freedom rarely delivers, the question of who should choose the nation’s rulers will be tabled anew. We do not select NFL coaches or corporate executives or college professors or generals or admirals by plebiscite. What is the empirical evidence that this is the best way to choose a president or commander in chief? Peoples are wondering that the world over, as our democracy does not appear to be an especially attractive stock. __________________________ PREDICTION: Democrats in the House will overreach on Trump as Democrats in the Senate overreached with Justice Kavanaugh
November 7, 2018 by Dr. Rich SwierKelsey Harkness and Jarrett Stepman in their article “So Much for a ‘Blue Wave’—4 of the Biggest Midterm Takeaways” noted: “This is not a blue wave,” CNN’s Jake Tapper said while watching early election results come in. What transpired looked more like a blue ripple. Why? Harkness and Stepman list the following as one of the key reasons: 2. The Kavanaugh EffectIt was a rough night for red state Senate Democrats who voted against the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., was the only Senate Democrat who voted to confirm Kavanaugh. He narrowly defeated his opponent, West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, in a state that President Donald Trump won overwhelmingly in 2016. But a significant number of Senate Democrats up for election from states that Trump won in 2016 went down in defeat. Sens. Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D.; Joe Donnelly, D-Ind.; Claire McCaskill, D-Mo.; and Bill Nelson, D-Fla., all lost to Republican challengers. According to the Associated Press, the Kavanaugh issue had a particularly big impact in North Dakota. “[I]n North Dakota, where Republicans picked up a seat that helped them hold onto control of the Senate, voters concerned about Kavanaugh broke toward the GOP by about 2 to 1,” according to AP VoteCast, which is a national survey of the electorate. Will the Kavanaugh Effect become the Trump Effect in 2010?Tristan Justice in the article “7 of Pelosi’s Priorities as Democrats Take Back the House” lists: 1. More Investigations of Trump Democrats will have the power to conduct congressional oversight when they take over the House in January, opening the door to a wide range of investigations of President Donald Trump’s administration. While some Democrats such as Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., have argued for the impeachment of the president, Pelosi has resisted the idea. As House minority leader, she called the word “impeachment” divisive at a mid-October talk at Harvard’s Institute of Politics, the Associated Press reported. Instead, Pelosi told students at the gathering that a Democratic majority would use House committees to conduct additional oversight of the Trump administration and preserve all documents related to special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Trump’s connections with Russia, for congressional follow-up. If House Democrats pillory President Donald J. Trump to the extent that Senate Democrats burned at the stake of public opinion Justice Brett Kavanaugh we may well see serious blow back in 2020. EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Ian Keefe on Unsplash. __________________________ 
Thank You Kent Lamberson
Year of the Woman, 3.0?
by Nathan Estruth | October 17, 2018 10:04 AM There are seven highly accomplished, common sense, pro-life, women leadersvying for the U.S. Senate as GOP nominees. Three of them are leading their races, and another three are within single digits one month out from Election Day. How is it possible we could be this far into this election cycle and not have heard? This fact does not fit the liberal cultural narrative. And the Democratic Party, abortion lobby, and the mainstream media are afraid of how these conservative, thoughtful women would shake up their planned stranglehold on President Trump’s judicial and executive branch nominees for the next two years or more. Just consider how different the past month might have been with a Sen. Marsha Blackburn or Martha McSally or Leah Vukmir sitting on the Judiciary Committee, respecting the accuser, the accused, the Rule of Law, and the Constitution. Imagine how different it could have been with just one of these leaders holding Sen. Dianne Feinstein publicly accountable for exposing the accuser against her expressed desire for confidentiality, while simultaneously sabotaging the committee’s procedure and rules of the Senate. What an opportunity to have one or more of these women explain to Sen. Mazie Hirono why her assertion that the bedrock American legal principle of “innocent until proven guilty” should not apply in sexual assault cases is incredibly reckless and dangerous to women and men alike and indeed threatens to undermine the very fabric of our society and civic virtue. Not surprisingly, as part of their campaigns, all seven of these leaders have been leaning into the important national discussions swirling around the Kavanaugh nomination, the merits and potential pitfalls of the #MeToo movement, as well as the role of the Constitution, the Supreme Court, and the U.S. Senate in preserving and advancing freedom. More importantly, however, we have also seen Karin Housley and others go on the offensive in calling out the blatant hypocrisy of the Democratic Party when it comes to sexual harassment and abuse allegations against Democrat leaders such as Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., and Sens. Tom Carper, D-Del., and Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, to name a few. While no corroborating evidence was ever found in support of any allegation against Justice Kavanaugh, Ellison, Carper, and Brown have all either admitted physical abuse or had affidavits, restraining orders, or doctor’s records created contemporaneously by their accusers, detailing physical abuse when they were all adults. As a dad who counted it a blessing during the earliest days of the #MeToo movement to have additional conversations with my teenage daughters and son about sexual harassment, respect, honor, trust, love, and good judgement, I think what some Democrats have done to try and co-opt this important and legitimate conversation in our society as a political weapon shows they care more about their power than they do about women or the vulnerable. I’m greatly encouraged that at this critical moment we have seven women – Rep. Marsha Blackburn, Rep. Martha McSally, Leah Vukmir, Karin Housley, Susan Hutchison, Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith, and Sen. Deb Fischer – who could very well be in the U.S. Senate come January championing life, caring for the vulnerable, and fearlessly pushing back on the political hypocrisy and shameless attacks threatening families and indeed our republic. Nathan Estruth is a husband of 26 years, father of four including a son with profound cerebral palsy, and was a Vice-President and executive at the Procter & Gamble Co. for 26 years. __________________________ True the Vote
Published on May 11, 2018 Catherine Engelbrecht shares an update on the IRS lawsuit and lays out True the Vote's plans for the days ahead. 
Thank you Kent Lamberson
|
The Word And Phrase Guide the Progressives & Democrats are using here in The Villages ... What they say about Progressives vs Conservatives. Suggested reading... Keep up and learn the different moral concept issues on all sides.
Propaganda is "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view". ... Propaganda is often associated with material prepared by governments, but activist groups and companies can also produce propaganda.
ELECTION 2020 IS COMING
What Free Stuff Cost All of US The folks who are getting the free stuff don't like The folks who are paying for the free stuff , because The folks who are paying for the free stuff can no longer Afford to pay for both the free stuff and their own stuff. And the folks who are paying for the free stuff Want the free stuff to stop. And the folks who are getting the free stuff want even more Free stuff on top of the free stuff they are already getting! Now.. The people who are forcing the people who pay For the free stuff have told the people who are RECEIVING The free stuff that the people who are PAYING for the Free stuff are being mean, prejudiced, and racist. So.. The people who are GETTING the free stuff have been convinced they need to hate the people who are paying for the Free stuff by the people who are forcing some people to pay for their free stuff and giving them the free stuff in the first place. We have let the free stuff giving go on for so long that there are now more people getting free stuff than paying for the Free stuff . Now understand this. All great democracies have committed financial suicide somewhere between 200 and 250 years after being founded. The reason? The voters figured out they could vote themselves money from the treasury by electing people who promised to give them money from the treasury in exchange for electing them. The United States officially became a Republic in 1776 , 238 years ago. The number of people now getting free stuff outnumbers the people paying for the free stuff . Failure to change that spells the end of the United States as we know it. ELECTION 2020 IS COMING A Nation of Sheep Breeds a Government of Wolves!  Hulton-Deutsch Collection/CORBIS/Corbis | Getty Images
Levin: 2020 Dems are getting their platform planks straight out of Stalin’s Soviet constitution
Nate Madden · July 1, 2019 On Sunday night’s episode of “Life, Liberty & Levin” on Fox News, LevinTV host Mark Levin explained why socialism is bad. Levin began his monologue discussing a recent Congressional Budget Office report that the U.S. is set to hit “unprecedented” levels of national debt in the next few decades. Debt will reach 144 percent of America’s gross domestic product by 2049. “Do you care about your kids and grandkids?” Levin asked viewers. “Most of us would give our lives for our kids and grandkids. … And yet we’re destroying their society; we’re destroying their economy.” Levin said that even though current spending levels are already saddling America’s future generations with loads of crippling debt, the current 2020 Democratic presidential candidates want to make that debt problem even worse. High-cost far-left proposals like universal childcare, the assumption of student debt, free college, government-run health care, and the Green New Deal are just further huge additions to the national debt. “Where’s this money coming from?” Levin said, mocking the leftist idea that everything can be funded by taxing the wealthy. “Ladies and gentlemen, there aren’t enough rich; there’s not enough wealth in the entire universe to pay for all this.” Levin added that “this is a destructive program” of new entitlements and programs that “not only will fundamentally transform America; it will fundamentally destroy our economic system.” And the result of a destroyed economic system, Levin reminded viewers, is a government that gets “stronger and stronger and more and more abusive.” However, this slate of proposals shouldn’t be surprising to anyone familiar with the history of the Soviet Republic, Levin explained. Reading from Josef Stalin’s 1936 constitution for the communist nation, the host showed that “this is where the Democrats get their policy ideas.” Levin read multiple sections of the communist document, and the similarities between the language in its articles and in the rhetoric on the 2020 campaign trail are indeed striking. __________________________ 
 President Donald Trump … Photo by Darren Hauck/Getty Images
Expert modelers predict Trump reelection after models all point to one result: ‘Mr. Trump wins in all of them’
admin Three different forecast modelers are predicting that President Trump is on track to win reelection in 2020, according to a Monday New York Times column by Steven Rattner, an Obama-era administration official. The models give credence to multiple factors, but key are jobs, economic data, and advantages that an incumbent carries into an election. However, a deciding factor in the election is likely to be the “poor perception” of President Trump by a large segment of the voting population, to include virtually all Democrats. Rattner’s commentary entitled “Trump’s Formidable 2020 Tailwind,” looks at not only the expectations, but also past performance, which for most has been impressive. One model, according to Rattner is “one of the first–and perhaps still the best,” by Yale professor Ray Fair. Fair finds “that the growth rates of gross domestic product and inflation have been the two most important economic predictors — but he also found that incumbency was also an important determinant of presidential election outcomes.” Another of the modelers’ assessments referenced is by Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics. Zandi has himself looked at 12 models and “Mr. Trump wins in all of them.” Donald Luskin of Trend Macrolytics reaches the same conclusion, examining the Electoral College. Fair’s model accurately foretold Barack Obama’s 2008 popular vote total within six-tenths of a percentage point, predicting 53.1 percent of the vote that actually came in at 53.7 percent. In 2012, the Fair model did even better, estimating a vote share of 51.8 percent that ended up at 52 percent. As for 2016, Rattner reported that Trump’s 2016 advantage was the incumbency factor, which would suggest that after eight years of a Democrat in the White House, voters would normally elect a Republican. Note that since 1952, the only person elected from the same party after eight years of a presidency was George H.W. Bush, succeeding Ronald Reagan. Fair’s model foresaw an electoral victory for Trump in 2016, but overestimated his popular vote share by about 5.5 percentage points. Rattner attributed the discrepancy to Trump’s personal “unfavorables.” “In other words, a more ‘normal’ Republican would likely have won the popular vote by a substantial margin (instead of losing it by three million votes),” said Rattner. The Times piece suggests Trump’s 2020 vote share would ordinarily be as high as 56.1 percent. However, the author said, “that’s before factoring in his personality. As recent polls show, if the election were today, he would lose to most of the Democratic hopefuls by a substantial margin; in the case of Joe Biden, by nearly eight percentage points.” Rattner’s conclusion is that the big question in 2020 will be whether the President can “overcome the majority of voters’ poor perception of him and use a good economy and incumbency to win re-election.” __________________________ 
12 GOP Senators who voted Against Pres Trump's National Emergency for protecting Americans and Border Security - IT JUST SO HAPPENS - These Senators are not up for election in 2020 except Susan Collins and Lamar Alexander who has already said he will not be running for re-election.
TRUMP TO VETO 
2020 Democrats are dropping like flies from pro-Israel AIPAC conference
By Rex Santus Mar 21, 2019 Want the best from VICE News in your inbox? Sign up here. Democrats appear to be moving left on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Just weeks after Democrats had a meltdown over Rep. Ilhan Omar’s criticism of Israel, seven 2020 Democratic presidential candidates have opted to skip this year’s American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) policy conference, which annually convenes prominent Israel supporters. Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Beto O’Rourke, Pete Buttigieg, Jay Inslee, and Julian Castro have all confirmed they won’t attend the pro-Israel conference this year. Democrats started pulling out after MoveOn, a progressive advocacy group, called on Democratic presidential candidates to skip the event, which typically enjoys support from major Democrats. Top Dems, including Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, are speaking at AIPAC this year. "He’s concerned about the platform AIPAC is providing for leaders who have expressed bigotry and oppose a two-state solution,” Bernie Sanders’ policy director, Josh Orton, told the Huffington Post. Sanders has highlighted his Jewish faith as part of his 2020 presidential campaign. Multiple presidential candidates skipping the conference marks another sign that Democrats are being forced to reckon with their years of support for Israel. On Thursday, for example, the House unveiled a bipartisan resolution to condemn boycott movements against Israel. The United Nations and numerous human-rights groups have repeatedly condemned Israel over its occupation of Palestinian territories, which the U.S. doesn’t recognize as an official state. Just last week, the U.N. said that Israel may have committed war crimes in 2018 by shooting at unarmed Palestinians. Israeli forces killed at least 189 Palestinians in clashes last year. Minnesota Democrat Rep. Omar and Michigan Democrat Rep. Rashida Tlaib — the first two Muslim women in Congress — are also the only members in the legislative body that support the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. Since taking office for the first time earlier this year, Omar has become the most vocal critic of Israel and AIPAC’s influence on American politics. But Omar has faced fierce backlash from Democrats and Republicans alike — and even death threats. Critics have tried to paint her comments, which called out AIPAC’s use of money to influence politics, as anti-Semitic. Earlier this month, the House planned to condemn anti-Semitism as a direct rebuke of Omar, though a huge amount of grassroots support manifested for her. Democrats ultimately decided to water down the resolution to instead condemn all forms of hatred, including Islamophobia and white supremacy. Harris, Sanders, Warren, and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand — another 2020 presidential candidate, who has not pulled out of AIPAC — all voiced support for Omar in the wake of her criticism of Israel. __________________________ 
BEN SHAPIRO:
How the Democrats will lose in 2020 February 28, 2018 President Trump is not a particularly popular president. His job approval rating has not crossed 50 percent for a single day of his presidency. He’s currently riding as high as he ever has in the RealClearPolitics poll average — and that’s 41 percent. Statistics guru Nate Silver estimates that “the approval rating at which an incumbent candidate goes from being an underdog to a favorite for re-election is somewhere in the high 40s.” Furthermore, Democrats are favored to retake the House of Representatives in 2018 — they’ve been dramatically outperforming their poll numbers in special elections. And there’s always the possibility that the economy will tank: America has experienced an economic downturn at least once per decade for the past several decades, and our last serious downturn was in 2009. With all of that said, Democrats can still find a way to blow this. They could blow this in the same way they blew 2016: by picking a candidate based on intersectional concerns rather than capacity to unify Americans, and by slandering half the country. Hillary Clinton wasn’t the best candidate for president on the Democratic side of the aisle. Then-Vice President Joe Biden polled better. So, in fact, did loony Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. Clinton’s poll numbers rarely cracked 50 percent and often veered toward 40 percent. And, of course, she was egregiously brittle, supremely inauthentic and tremendously off-putting. Yet the Democratic establishment had determined that it was, in fact, her time — with the emphasis on her. Clinton was a woman; her rivals weren’t. We’d just elected the first black president. It was time for Clinton to break the glass ceiling. And so, the Democrats picked one of the most polarizing figures in American history to carry forward President Barack Obama’s legacy. That was Bad Decision No. 1. Then there was Clinton’s campaign. Clinton spent most of the campaign absolutely bewildered by the fact that a boorish, ignorant reality television star was running neck and neck with her. She could have taken that as a referendum on her own shortcomings. Instead, she took it as a referendum on America’s shortcomings. America, she believed, is filled with racist, sexist, bigoted homophobes. America is a basket of deplorables. If it weren’t, wouldn’t she have been up 50 points? Of course, Clinton lost. And all indicators suggest that Democrats intend to copy her playbook. The single most dangerous candidate to Trump’s re-election is, again, Biden. Despite the fact that Biden is a pathological liar with a history of gaffes challenging Trump’s own, Biden is a popular figure; he’s got blue-collar appeal. But Biden is also an old white man, and the Democratic Party believes that President Obama’s coalition can only be replicated by a member of an intersectional minority. Democrats also think that Clinton was too moderate for her own good — and so, now they’re attempting to oust Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) in favor of someone more radical. Thus Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris and Cory Booker. Good luck, guys. But Democrats have an even worse problem: their obvious disdain for Americans who didn’t vote for them. Nowhere has that disdain been more evident than in their treatment of gun owners after the Parkland massacre. Democrats have cheered gun control advocates who question the decency of Second Amendment supporters. They have slandered legal gun owners as uncaring nasties more concerned with preserving pieces of metal than children’s lives. They might as well call gun owners deplorables. Good luck with that one, too. The dirty little secret of 2016 is that President Trump didn’t win the election — Clinton lost it. Democrats could easily do the same thing in 2020 if they insist that Americans must be taught a lesson for their 2016 heresy. Ben Shapiro, 34, is a graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School, host of “The Ben Shapiro Show” and editor-in-chief of DailyWire.com. He is The New York Times best-selling author of “Bullies.” He lives with his wife and two children in Los Angeles. 
so·cial·ism
ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/ noun
|
