mitt the milk toast moderate

Time for GOP panic? Establishment worried Carson or Trump might win

November 12 at 10:07 PM  

Less than three months before the kickoff Iowa caucuses, there is growing anxiety bordering on panic among Republican elites about the dominance and durability of Donald Trump and Ben Carson and widespread bewilderment over how to defeat them.

Party leaders and donors fear that nominating either man would have negative ramifications for the GOP ticket up and down the ballot, virtually ensuring a Hillary Rodham Clinton presidency and increasing the odds that the Senate falls into Democratic hands.

The party establishment is paralyzed. Big money is still on the sidelines. No consensus alternative to the outsiders has emerged from the pack of governors and senators running, and there is disagreement about how to prosecute the case against them. Recent focus groups of Trump supporters in Iowa and New Hampshire commissioned by rival campaigns revealed no silver bullet.

In normal times, the way forward would be obvious. The wannabes would launch concerted campaigns, including television attack ads, against the ­front-runners. But even if the other candidates had a sense of what might work this year, it is unclear whether it would ultimately accrue to their benefit. Trump’s counterpunches have been withering, while Carson’s appeal to the base is spiritual, not merely political. If someone was able to do significant damage to them, there’s no telling to whom their supporters would turn, if anyone.

More here.

Time for a replay? NO!

etchn sketch romeny


He simply can’t be trusted to take on the establishment.

When has this man ever took on the political establishment within the GOP? The complete lack of enthusiasm to do so, coupleD with the ease by which he ganged up with notorious GOP RINO’s with the amnesty legislation (thankfully rejected), then back peddled because it became a glaring political liability, shows me that this man talks a big game, but is nothing more than a 2nd string quarterback.

NOTE: Is he a nice guy? presumably yes. Can he deliver good rhetorical speeches and quick comebacks? Yes. Those good qualities aside, they do nothing in promoting the conservative agenda, not one iota. That’s where the rubber meets the road as far as I’m concerned, and if he gets the nod, i’ll support him for president, but there are others who are far more capable Sen. Marco Rubio.


In a little-noticed interview earlier this year with Univision’s Jorge Ramos, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) 77% declared that, as President, he would keep Barack Obama’s executive amnesty for DREAMers in place until it was permanently codified through legislation.

Rubio said, in part:

DACA…applies to young people that arrived in this country at a very young age before they were adults and I don’t think we can immediately revoke that… I’m not calling for it to be revoked tomorrow, or this week, or right away.

“I think it will have to end at some point and I hope it will end because of some reform to the immigration laws,” Rubio said in English.

So Rubio is pledging to carry Obama’s policy: leaving the executive amnesty for DREAMers in place until Congress submits to the order by legislatively ratifying amnesty. After a legislatively ratified DREAM Act, illegal aliens would be able to vote in U.S. elections and bring their relatives to work and collect entitlements in the United States.

The similarity to President Obama’s rhetoric is striking. President Obama toldCongress: “if folks are serious about getting immigration reform done [they should be] passing a bill and getting it to my desk. And then the executive actions that I take go away.” Similarly, Obama told George Stephanopoulos after being pressed on his executive amnesty: “Well, my response is pass a bill.”

Most famously, Obama said: “To those members of Congress who question my authority to make our immigration system work better, or question the wisdom of me acting where Congress has failed, I have one answer: Pass a bill.”

In the interview, Ramos asked Rubio something that Rubio has not been asked in any of the Presidential debates thus far: “Would a President Rubio revoke Deferred Action and executive action by President Barack Obama?”

Rubio declared that he would not “immediately revoke” Obama’s 2012 executive amnesty for illegal minors [DACA]. “I’m not calling for it to be revoked tomorrow, or this week, or right away,” Rubio announced.

Rubio said:

We have two executive actions. The first was DACA which applies to young people that arrived in this country very young age before they were adults and I don’t think we can immediately revoke that. I think it will have to end at some point, and I hope it will end because of some reform to the immigration laws. It cannot be the permanent policy of the United States but I’m not calling for it to be revoked tomorrow or this week or right away.

By using the phrase “it will have to end at some point,” Rubio is presumably hoping the media will assume that he is drawing a distinction between his policy and Obama’s. But, again, this is precisely the same position as the President’s— namely, that he was forced into issuing an executive amnesty because Congress repeatedly defeated the DREAM Act. Now Rubio is saying that, if elected President, he would not respect the voters’ will on the DREAM Act’s defeat, but would leave the executive decree in place until a legislated amnesty replaced it.

More here.


He should be fired for his name alone.

Just to remind everyone exactly why he should be removed:


Top 3 Reasons Reince Priebus Should Be Fired

Conservative talk show host and former Reagan administration staffer Mark Levin has called for the firing of the chair of the Republican National Committee, Reince Priebus. Levin’s main reason: With the way Priebus has handled the Republican debates so far, he appears to be committed to making sure that Hillary Clinton gets coronated in 2016. As he so often is, Levin is right. It’s time for Priebus to go.

Here’s the top three reasons Republicans should remove the current chair before he does any more damage to the candidates and the brand.

1. In the end, the debate debacles are on him. 

Despite his attempts to distance himself from the debate debacles, in the end he is responsible for Wednesday and the previous two events.

After the CNBC travesty Wednesday, the spotlight has fallen more than ever on Priebus’ role in scheduling the increasingly hostile and unprofessional debates. Though before the debate was even over Priebus was already crafting his statement rebuking the network for how it handled the instantly infamous debate, the reality is that Priebus hand-picked the committee tasked with negotiating the debate schedule and rules. Priebus made the selection himself with no real input from the 168-member committee.

More here.


Who knows, perhaps one day the “Independents” will become the “Independence Party” (from big government statism).

I believe that if matters do not change soon, it will eventually have to come to that. The GOP has been totally subverted, the RNC a roost for anti-conservative strategizing. I don’t want it to happen, and have been hoping, cajoling others to get active in the party in order to change it, but we see time and time again the cards are stacked against us as the Paul Ryan ascension shows us.

If the GOP breaks up, as its current trajectory indicates, it will usher in a few decades of full blown tyranny, but perhaps a light at the end of the tunnel will eventually emerge. I also believe that huge numbers of traditional republicans and Reagan Democrats would follow such a bold lead, so the wait for the complete end of the GOP might be sooner than expected.


In a panel discussion at the University of Colorado after the recent Republican debate, I was asked by a student why she should be a Republican. The question forced me to ask myself the same thing.

I gave the young woman the standard talking points–that Republicans believe in smaller government, individual rights, fiscal responsibility, and free enterprise. But as I drove home, her question–and my inability to respond with any level of real conviction–got me thinking: Does the Republican Party leadership fight for these values and principles today?

After much thought, I reluctantly concluded that the answer is “no.” The proudly socialist Democrats are full of passionate intensity, while the Republican leadership is full of pathetic excuses. After this week’s House GOP “budget deal,” which betrays nearly every promise made to grassroots conservatives since 2010, I have decided it is time to end my affiliation with the Republican Party.

This decision has been incubating over the past 17 years, years of watching the downward spiral of the Party of Lincoln and Reagan into the Party of Democrat Lite.

  • As a Member of Congress for ten years (1998-2008), I was subjected to threats and pressures from the Congressional Leadership and President George W. Bush to support the creation of an expensive Medicare prescription drug program–even though creating a new government spending program financed by massive debt flies in the face of the Republican Party’s core principles.
  • Our most powerful and influential “leaders” were shoving this down our throats in a crass political effort to use taxpayer money to buy the votes of senior citizens–particularly in the state of Florida in the next presidential election.
  • I was incredulous about the fact that the most intense lobbying I had ever seen undertaken by our “leadership” was not an effort to limit government or the dollars it spends; it was to do just the opposite.
  • That incident came just months after I was told by President Bush’s top political operative, Karl Rove, “never to darken the door of the White House again” because of my criticism of the administration’s dangerously lax immigration policies in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks.

When I first arrived in the U.S. House of Representatives, I naively believed that it was primarily the Democrats who were committed to open borders. But I quickly learned the entire Republican establishment also supported a policy of immigration non-enforcement.

I was repeatedly pulled into the office of the then-Majority Leader, Tom DeLay, and threatened with dire consequences if I continued to speak out publicly for common-sense immigration policies and true border security – particularly if I was doing so in the districts of other Republican Members of Congress.

For most of those years after 2000, we had a Republican President and a Republican-controlled Congress, but the conservative agenda was largely ridiculed and abandoned.

More here. H/T: Levi Vladimirovich


No one cuts it to the bone better than Ted Cruz.

Cruz is the real deal. There is not one candidate running in the GOP field that has taken it to the establishment like Cruz has. I appreciate Trump’s bringing the immigration issue to the forefront, but the man doesn’t get it about Islam and slams those that do. We need someone willing to take the establishment cartel on head first, Ted is the man to do it.

h/t: Bosch Fawstin


I never would have believed that I would see the day that an avowed socialist (old tottering fool) would be taken seriously as a credible democrat debate participant. 

Ronald Reagan or a Margaret Thatcher would be salivating at the chance to run against such a candidate, they would mop the floor with them with ease.


Helsingin Sanomat = laughable journalism


Finnish politics, media and social issues in general are of interest to me, so sorry in advance to those of you who couldn’t care less about HS journalist (?) Saska Saarikoski, but I just couldn’t let this one pass.

Writing in his column in today’s edition of the Helsingin Sanomat, “ace journalist”, Saska Saarikoski, talks about Finnish Foreign Minister, Timo Soini (Finns Party) as being too smart to be a “racist”, (but being too smart to calling him one directly) was being held hostage by the “extreme right-wing nationalists” within his party. He then refers to the Tea Party in the U.S. in a similar way, as a bunch of “extremists” supposedly holding the GOP leadership hostage in the recent resignation of House Speaker, John Boehner.

What’s of interest to me (as well as amusing) is that this journalist, in an attempt to show how smart he is, makes himself out to be a complete ignoramus on US domestic politics by trying to draw comparisons between the two political forces in question. I won’t delve into Finns Party politics, because for me, that’s not the issue here, Saarikoski’s understanding of the Tea Party and GOP party politics, is.

Foreign Minister Soini has become a hostage to extremist nationalists


However, the Minister of Foreign Affairs has become a hostage to extreme nationalists. A similar hostage drama is underway here in the United States.

The US Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner announced last Friday his resignation. The Republican right-wing Tea Party has for five years dug the ground from under the feet of Boehner. In the end, the Speaker got tired of taking out the knives in his back.

“John Boehner’s resignation is a victory for the crazies,” summed up the New York Republican Representative, Peter King..

[TT: If you know anything about US politics, or more precisely GOP politics, you would know that John Boehner is an insider, a lobbyist friendly, crony big business friendly, get along establishment politician, who is merciless towards conservatives as he is a squish towards the Democrats.

  He’s not tactician, nor a strategist, and has been outmaneuvered by Obama and the Democrats throughout his entire tenure as House Speaker. Saska Saarikoski shows himself to be completely ignorant of this. John Boehner has for five years dug earth out from underneath his entire party, completely unable or unwilling to take the fight to Obama and the Dems, which was the reason for the GOP to receive huge electoral gains during the time he gained his seat, and in the following election.

His ineptitude and repeated flip flops on promises made is what drove conservative House Republicans to try and remove him from the Speakership, not because he was backstabbed. Rep. Steve King has gone off the rails awhile back, ever since his district was realigned to include more Democrats, he’s an open joke, who is more comfortable on hard left TV cable shows, than with constitutional conservatives. Talk about clueless! ]

The Tea party movement was born in 2009 as a reaction to the Democrats’ electoral victory. The Movement has not much of a common political program other than a jealous opposition to the federal government.

Initially, the Republican Party, welcomed the new entrants, because that’s what all the old political parties dream of: enthusiastic and passionate activists.

However, the Tea Party are fanatics. They hate Washington, and even their own party leaders are felt to be no better than the democrats. The movement has proven to be a virus, in which it’s being let in has grounded Republican Party operations.

[ TT: Here Saarikoski borrows heavily from wikipedia. The Tea Party, contrary to wikipedia, got started during W’s profligate spending spree which made him the biggest spending president in modern times, only to be vastly outdistanced by Barack Obama. That was when the first rumblings of the “Tea Party” conservative movement was first being heard. Only after Obama got elected is when they finally got organized into multiple organizations and under a generalized umbrella.

Contrary to what Saarikoski says, the GOP never embraced these conservatives, in the same was establishment mindset and apparatus that was unleashed against Ronald Reagan, who sought to reinvent a new GOP, one that was established upon principles conservative constitutionalism. Either Saarikoski is ignorant of all this, or he’s just intentionally denying the facts.

The GOP establishment represents the RINO-wing of the Republican Party, which currently operates much, if not most, of its political machinery. They are beholden to the Chamber of Commerce (crony, fake capitalists), love to rub elbows with the Dems, and run which ever part of government comes their way. They hate conservatives more than they are in opposition to the Democrat policies.

The Tea Party stands for the constitution, first, second and third, if they felt that their leaders were of the same mindset, they wouldn’t be loathing them. If not for these patriots, the GOP would never had any electoral successes, for having already waved the white flag after Obama was first elected president, calling themselves a “regional party”.

It’s true that the GOP has grounded itself, but it’s been by their own hands and in how they mounted tepid offenses against an emboldened Obama, who correctly saw a weak-in-the-knees opposition in much the same was a Vladimir Putin or a communist China and Iran views Obama.]


Americans roughly make up ten percent of the Tea Party and Republican supporters consist of a third. However, the movement has clearly managed to get a stronger position within the party .

If someone steps in the Tea Party’s way, they’ll destroy him mercilessly. First, they drive the artillery of the social media to fire against those Republican politicians deemed as too moderate. Then they focus their primary money and voices to the counter-candidate.

The majority of party members are relatively passive, nor are the primary elections turnout very high. So the Tea Party has managed to relegate to Congress many of their own party politicians. Now the rest fear of revenge and do not dare publicly oppose the Tea Party.

Thus the world’s greatest big party has become a hostage to fanatics…….



The number of Tea Party members is actually anywhere between 10-30 % of the American population, with as much as 20% of registered Democrats belonging to it. Contrary to What Saarikoski asserts, John Boehner has held an iron grip on these new members to Congress, with many violating their pledges made to their Tea Party supporters. It was this iron fisted management that was driving the movement to have Boehner removed.

As for the primaries, what in the world are they for if not to challenge establishment politicians who promote party policies over that of their constituencies. That’s the reason for the success of the movement, people’s anger to entrenched establishment types.

What has been going on for the last 8 or so years, is the fight for the New Republican Party, the very same fight Ronald Reagan fought some 30 yrs ago. He ran against the same establishment, and knew how to beat them, by talking straight talk to the American people, not over them, or treating them like gullible children. The Tea Party is just an ongoing continuance of the Reagan Revolution, something of which, totally eludes the clueless Helsingin Sanomat journalist.



He was a loser, the GOP RINO’s loser.

weeping boehner

Just make sure that they do not make the same mistake again. This time elect a real conservative and stick it to Obama!

John Boehner, House Speaker, Will Resign From Congress


Speaker John A. Boehner announced on Friday that he will resign his position and give up his House seat in October.

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS on Publish Date September 25, 2015.

WASHINGTON — Speaker John A. Boehner, an Ohio barkeeper’s son who rode a conservative wave to one of the highest positions in government, said Friday he would relinquish his gavel and resign from Congress, undone by the very Republicans who swept him into power.

Mr. Boehner, 65, made the announcement in an emotional meeting with his fellow Republicans on Friday morning as lawmakers struggled to avert a government shutdown next week, a possibility made less likely by his decision.

Mr. Boehner told almost no one of his decision before making it Friday morning. “So before I went to sleep last night, I told my wife, I said, ‘You know, I might just make an announcement tomorrow,’ ” Mr. Boehner said at a news conference in the Capitol. “This morning I woke up, said my prayers, as I always do, and thought, ‘This is the day I am going to do this.’

More here.


A moment of clarity from the 8 PM’er.

bill ted



“It’s ridiculous Muslim stuff that the media is propelling,” O’Reilly said. “Dr. Carson believes that Islamic candidates don’t line up with Judeo-Christian philosophy – on which the country was founded – and he’s not allowed to say that? It’s his opinion!” O’Reilly said. “Here’s a bulletin: Unlike many Muslim countries, we have free speech in America, and Carson’s opinion shouldn’t disqualify him for anything but individual votes, if that be the case.”

More here.



The man!


  • Carson doubles down on no Muslims in the White House

[“I do not believe Sharia is consistent with the Constitution of this country,” Carson said. “Muslims feel that their religion is very much a part of your public life and what you do as a public official, and that’s inconsistent with our principles and our Constitution.”]

Nor should a communist/socialist/fascist be eligible for office of the presidency either. This is really a no-brainer, I remind everyone who might knee-jerk this issue to mull over the words of Sam Harris concerning how to regard Islam within the over-arching umbrella of “religion”.

“Religion” is a nearly useless term. It’s a term like “sports”. Now there are sports like Badminton and sports like Thai Boxing, and they have almost nothing in common apart from breathing. There are sports that are just synonymous with the risk of physical injury or even death … There is, I’m happy to say, a religion of peace in this world, but it’s not Islam. The claim that Islam is a religion of peace that we hear ceaselessly reiterated is completely delusional. Now Jainism actually is a religion of peace. The core principle of Jainism is non-violence. Gandhi got his non-violence from the Jains. The crazier you get as a Jain, the less we have to worry about you. Jain extremists are paralysed by their pacifism. Jain extremists can’t take their eyes off the ground when they walk lest they step on an ant… Needless to say they are vegetarian. So the problem is not religious extremism, because extremism is not a problem if your core beliefs are truly non-violent. The problem isn’t fundamentalism. We often hear this said; these are euphemisms… The only problem with Islamic fundamentalism are the fundamentals of Islam.

You cannot regard Islam as “just another religion”, because it’s not, and for that reason alone, it should not qualify as a legitimate faith based ideology. It’s a tyrannical death cult with manifest destiny that has laid regions destitute and unrepairable, unfit for human development.

Ben Carson: U.S. Should Not Elect a Muslim as President

Republican presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson said he would not support a Muslim as President of the United States.

Responding to a question on “Meet the Press,” the retired neurosurgeon said, “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.”

He also said that Islam, as a religion, is incompatible with the Constitution.

Carson, who is near the top of several early presidential polls, said a president’s faith should matter depending on what that faith is. “If it’s inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then of course it should matter,” he clarified.

More here.


Nativism/nativist…… I like it!

Anything that rings true, that reflects the actual reality, explains things as they are, the post-modernist, post-patriotic Left will reject. Call an illegal alien (someone who’s in the country illegally) an “illegal alien” and watch them go ballistic.



Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)


is pro-American, and he doesn’t care if he’s called a “nativist” by post-national advocates for massive immigration.“What’s wrong with that? … What’s wrong with putting America[ns] first?” he told a reporter for Roll Call, which published an article headlined as “Sessions Feels Vindicated by [Donald] Trump’s Nativist Surge.”

Sessions’ focus, however, isn’t on just the people born in the United States. He’s looking beyond ancestry and birthplace to include immigrants and their kids who’ve been welcomed legally into the United States. “We [politicians] represent the people who voted for us. That’s who our duty is owed to. To them…we should be doing what’s in their best interest,” he stated.

The mere existence of the would-be “nativist” slur shows the deep contempt that internationalists have for ordinary Americans, said a Hill staffer. “It should go without saying that the country exists to serve the interests of its citizens… so that fact that we have the [sneering] term ‘nativist’ implies that some people think the citizens shouldn’t have that priority,” the staffer said.

So far, populists haven’t developed their own term to trump the would-be slur of ‘nativist’ for the politicians who put Americans’ interests ahead of other people’s interests. Americans First, Americans’ Pride, citizenist, pro-American, and nativist are all being thrown about in conversation.


No thanks to Mitch McConnell or John Boehner.

Now, suspend the filibuster rule like Reid did in jamming Obamacare through the senate, and vote up or down on the treaty. Case closed.

NOTE: If Obama and the Dems try something else, like insisting that the treaty is not for Congress to approve or disapprove, then tightly hold the purse strings to his government.

House Passes Bill Blocking Obama from Lifting Iran Sanctions

On Friday, Sept. 11, The Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted down approval of the Iran Deal and voted to block implementation of the deal.
Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY-1)
Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY-1)
Photo Credit: Facebook

At the very last minute the House of Representatives is acting as if the house is on fire. Finally.

First, the House voted on Friday – the day after the Senate seemed to hand the President a victory – against the approval of the Nuclear Iran Deal. The vote was 269 to 162.

The House also acted on a bill which was introduced by Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) and Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY) on Wednesday, Sept. 9.

That bill, HR 3460, blocks U.S. President Barack Obama from in any way lifting sanctions on Iran’s nuclear program, or from releasing individuals from specially designated terrorist lists which would otherwise be released under the proposed terms of the Nuclear Iran Deal.

The bill not only seeks to prevent the president from lifting sanctions now, it seeks to prevent him from lifting them until the end of his term as president, which is January 21, 2017.

The bill passed by a vote of 247 to 186.

Following the passage of HR 3460, Congressman Zeldin said,

“The President must not lift sanctions on Iran to implement this fatally flawed deal. The leverage that brought the Iranians to the table was the sanctions relief. Negotiating away our leverage while leaving so much out of the agreement is a historic strategic mistake.

“Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism, actively working to overthrow foreign governments, while pledging to wipe Israel off the map and chanting Death to America in their streets. So much wasn’t even part of the negotiations, including Iran’s continued efforts to develop ICBMs, blow up mock U.S. warships and unjustly imprison American citizens, including a U.S. Marine, a Pastor and a Reporter.

“This is a fatally flawed deal that paves the path to worsening instability and turmoil in the Middle East and is on track to trigger a nuclear arms race in the region. Furthermore, Congress has not even received the entire agreement yet from the President, specifically the critical components of the deal that would outline the verification agreements entered into between the IAEA and Iran. The President says this deal is not based on trust; it is based on verification, but we don’t even know the full details of the verification regime. It’s unfortunate that some members of Congress choose party loyalty over national security. I also want to thank Congressman Roskam for his very thoughtful and determined effort with this noble cause.”

More here.



Trump, Cruz thump Iran nuclear deal at Capitol Hill rally


Because it’ll keep out all those low paid workers his pals in big crony business needs to enrich themselves by.


Republican Presidential Candidate and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush told a group at a Florida rally about his Texas border trip and explained why a border wall wouldn’t be practical or conservative.  Bush returned to the friendly turf of the Sunshine State on Wednesday, with a town hall style meeting in Pensacola.

Pensacola is a solidly conservative town in the Florida panhandle. He spoke of his experience as the state’s former governor, but only answered a single question about the Border Crisis.

“I went to McAllen, Texas, in Hildago County, last week and met with the Mayors, the County Judge, and the Sheriff, right out of central casting with a big mustache, and these are good salt of the earth people who are concerned about their community,” Bush stated during the rally attended by Breitbart Texas.

More here.


The Left tries every trick in the book to circumvent the US constitution.


Talk radio host and author of “Plunder and Deceit,” Mark Levin said that the 14th Amendment does not require birthright citizenship on Wednesday.

Host Sean Hannity stated, “Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) 93% was right on this, Trump was right on this, Cruz is right on this, Walker’s right on this.” He then put up a quotationfrom Citizenship Clause author Senator Jacob Howard (R-MI) during the debate on the 14th Amendment that “Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction is, by virtue of natural law and national law, a citizen of the [United States]. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers, accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

Levin said that people are getting the clause wrong, “Because they’re result-oriented. Because they want to insist the Constitution says what it doesn’t say. Moreover, the Supreme Court has never ruled that the children of illegal aliens are American citizens. So the Supreme Court never ruled, even if they did, it would be wrong. The clause speaks for itself, the author of the clause made it abundantly, unequivocally clear, let’s add another thing, let’s read the clause together, shall we? ‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States.’ Let’s stop there. If it means what the proponents of birthright citizenship say, it would stop right there. ‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States’ are citizens. There’s no need for anything else, but that’s what it says. Then it says, and, ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’

Now, you have slip and fall lawyers, some phony constitutional lawyers, they have ‘Esquire’ after their name, they come on TV, they go all over the place, ‘Jurisdiction means geography.’ Jurisdiction has nothing to do with geography. zero. It had to do with political allegiance to the United States of America. How do we know it? Because they said it. And they also excluded everybody that the left, and some of the Republicans want to include. Now here’s the good news, there’s another part of the Constitution. It’s Article I, Section 8, Clause 4. Here’s what that says, in plain English.

‘The Congress shall have power to…establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’ Now, you know what that means, that means Congress, not the courts, not the president, not ICE, it means the United States Congress has the power to regulate immigration in this regard. And guess what, Sean, in the 1920s, that’s exactly what it did. The 14th Amendment excludes Indians, that is Native Americans, as US citizens, because they felt that they had allegiance to their own national tribes. Okay, great, and I believe it was in 1923, Congress reversed course, and said, ‘You know what? Under the 14th Amendment and under this Article I, we’ve decided to  grant citizenship, national citizenship to all Native Americans.”

He added, “Of course Trump is right, and Cruz is right, and Sessions is right, they’re all right. And to hear so-called constitutional conservatives trip all over themselves to sound like liberals, to rewrite this provision, and accuse those of us who actually know something about it, know the history about it, know the senators who were involved in it, know what went into it, know what was meant by it, that we’re the activists, that we’re the extremists. Look, if you want of a policy of open borders, that anybody born here should become a United States citizen, you amend the Constitution. We don’t have to amend the Constitution, it says what we say it says, and by statutes, by statute, going forward, prospectively, Congress can, in fact, say, ‘We want to emphasize to this federal government, to this president, no, you cannot make children of illegal aliens American citizens automatically.’”

More here.


Because it’s so easy to understand and sensible.


Most Democrats up until a decade or so ago, were very much against illegal immigration, but since they saw potential voters in the raw numbers streaming across the border, they’ve numbed themselves to the concerns of the average voter whose jobs and wages are severely impacted by the influx of job seekers (which drives down wages) and welfare grabbers (which implodes the welfare state).

NOTE: Trump’s a newcomer to conservatism, but acts far more like it than any RINO I know of. And no, i’m not a Trump supporter (yet), Ted Cruz is my pick.

Trump’s Illegal Alien Policy Has Welcome Details Discussed by No One Else

By David North, August 17, 2015

Don’t get me wrong, as a liberal Democrat I think Donald Trump would be a disaster as president.

On the other hand, I must say that I was impressed by the level of detail in his recently released immigration policy paper.

As Mark Krikorian has written, Trump’s position “clearly has advanced the immigration debate.”

What I find significant, and surprising, is that his illegal alien policy paper is so detailed, and so appropriate, particularly on some of the financial specifics of immigration policy that no one else has even mentioned.

His earlier, frankly ridiculous, boast that he would build a wall on the southern border and get Mexico to pay for it has morphed into a sensible approach that would get it paid for by Mexican and other illegal aliens. Among his specific suggestions:

  • Raise money for the wall by reducing current income tax breaks for illegal aliens;
  • Enhance fees for overstaying a visa;
  • Put more fees on the admission of legal temporary alien workers; and
  • Charge admissions fees for all border crossers, every time they cross the border.

More here


It’s an issue that will resonate with the majority of Americans, from all ethnicities, including those Mexicans and other Latinos who became proud Americans the legal way.


Only some sort of heartless monster would support that.

Daniel Greenfield

I’ve been writing for a while that the Republican Party needed to go with immigration populism.

JFK won Macomb County, Michigan in 1960 by 75 percent. In 1980, Reagan won it by 66 percent. This heart of ‘Reagan Democrat’ country was closely split by Gore and Bush and Bush and Kerry… until Obama won it 53 to 45 in 2008 and by 51 to 47 in 2012.

The Republican Party doesn’t need to worry about the Latino vote nearly as much as it should be worrying about its inability to connect with white working class Americans. The pro-amnesty GOP establishment’s electoral vision of a party of corporations and minority voters already exists.

It’s called the Democratic Party.

The Republican Party’s fate in 2016 will be decided in places like Macomb County. It will be decided by white men and women earning $20,000 to $50,000 a year. It will be decided by working families struggling to get by and searching for answers from a government that keeps betraying them.

For the first time in, well ever, it’s actually happening. Republicans are embracing the peculiar idea that they might want to win working class votes. It’s not just Trump. Scott Walker was really the first out of the gate. And while Trump’s plan is good… sometimes it seems like he doesn’t know what’s in it.

More here.


I’m not saying he’s my first pick, but others (candidates) will have to start saying what EVERYONE ELSE who loves America is thinking.

U.S. building and gambling kingpin Donald Trump speaks to the media on his arrival at Aberdeen airport, Scotland Friday April 28, 2006. Trump will visit the site of his planned 300 million pound (US$542 million; 432 million euro) golf development, where he wants to create the "best golf course in the world" on the 800-acre site at the nearby Menie Estate. (AP Photo/Andrew Milligan, PA)   ** UNITED KINGDOM OUT NO SALES NO ARCHIVE ** LON808 05182006xquick 06052006xGUIDELIVE

Trump added, “We’re going to keep the families together. We have to keep the families together, but they have to go.” And “They have to go.” Trump also said that if illegal immigrants don’t have a place to go, “We will work with them. They have to go. Chuck, we either have a country, or we don’t have a country.”


Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump argued that illegal immigrants “have to go” in a preview of his interview set to air on NBC News’ “Meet the Press” released on Saturday.

Trump said that if he is president, “The executive order gets rescinded.”


According to NBC News, Trump also stated, “‘we have to’ rescind Obama’s executive order offering those brought to the U.S. illegally as children — known as DREAMers — protection from deportation, as well as Obama’s unilateral move to delay deportation for their families as well.”