Audio: Obama talks about Iowa, Hillary, Sanders and 2016

The full audio:

The Story via Politico:

Barack Obama, that prematurely gray elder statesman, is laboring mightily to remain neutral during Hillary Clinton’s battle with Bernie Sanders in Iowa, the state that cemented his political legend and secured his path to the presidency.

But in a candid 40-minute interview for POLITICO’s Off Message podcast as the first flakes of the blizzard fell outside the Oval Office, he couldn’t hide his obvious affection for Clinton or his implicit feeling that she, not Sanders, best understands the unpalatable pragmatic demands of a presidency he likens to the world’s most challenging walk-and-chew-gum exercise.

“[The] one thing everybody understands is that this job right here, you don’t have the luxury of just focusing on one thing,” a relaxed and reflective Obama told me in his most expansive discussion of the 2016 race to date.

Iowa isn’t just a state on the map for Obama. It’s the birthplace of his hope-and-change phenomenon, “the most satisfying political period in my career,” he says — “what politics should be” — and a bittersweet reminder of how far from the garden he’s gotten after seven bruising years in the White House.

The caucuses have a fierce-urgency-of-now quality as Obama reckons with the end of his presidency — the kickoff of a process of choosing a Democratic successor he hopes can secure his as-yet unsecured legacy, to keep Donald Trump or Ted Cruz or somebody else from undoing much of what he has done. And he was convinced Clinton was that candidate, prior to the emergence of Sanders, friends and associates have told me over the past 18 months.

“Bernie came in with the luxury of being a complete long shot and just letting loose,” he said. “I think Hillary came in with the both privilege — and burden — of being perceived as the front-runner. … You’re always looking at the bright, shiny object that people haven’t seen before — that’s a disadvantage to her.”

He also spoke of Bernie Sanders:

Obama didn’t utter an unkind word about Sanders, who has been respectfully critical of his administration’s reluctance to prosecute Wall Street executives and his decision to abandon a single-payer health care system as politically impractical. But he was kinder to Clinton. When I asked Obama whether he thought Sanders needed to expand his horizons, if the Vermont senator was too much a one-issue candidate too narrowly focused on income inequality, the presidente didn’t dispute the assertion.

Gesturing toward the Resolute Desk, with its spread-winged eagle seal, first brought into the Oval Office by John F. Kennedy, Obama said of Sanders: “Well, I don’t want to play political consultant, because obviously what he’s doing is working. I will say that the longer you go in the process, the more you’re going to have to pass a series of hurdles that the voters are going to put in front of you.”

Then he added: “As you’ll recall, I was sitting at my desk there just a little over a week ago … writing my State of the Union speech, and somebody walks in and says, ‘A couple of our sailors wandered into Iranian waters’” — and here he stopped to chuckle in disbelief — “that’s maybe a dramatic example, but not an unusual example of the job.”

As much as I hate to say it; President Obama is correct about that one. The office of the President of the United States is a very difficult job and it requires someone who can handle the job. While Bernie Sanders might be a respectable person and all; if I were voting in a Democratic Primary, there is no way that I would vote for Bernie Sanders, I would most likely vote for Hillary Clinton. Because she has already been there and she seems, for a Democrat, a bit more reasonable, than Bernie Sanders.

Needless to say, being an ideologue is great; if you are an activist or even maybe a Senator. However, when you are the commander and chief, that is a whole other ballgame and there is a certain amount of pragmatism is required in that office, if you actually want to succeed at the job.  You have to remember, when you are President; you are President of the people of the United States of America, not just the President of the people who voted for you. You have to take into account everyone, not just those who voted for you. This is why I am not too keen on Ted Cruz; he is an extreme ideologue on the right, where Bernie Sander is an extreme ideologue on the left.

This is where I think Donald Trump might just be the more pragmatic candidate, who might just be able to get things done in DC and put aside some of this partisan rancor that has become so terrible under Bush and Obama. Now, if we could just work on his humility and get him to stop retweeting stuff like this here.

Other Bloggers: Vox, The Daily Beast, USA Today, Yahoo Politics, John Hawkins’ Right Wing News, Mother Jones, Talking Points Memo, Hot Air, The Daily Caller, Washington Post, ABC News, Shakesville, Slantpoint and The Week – Via Memeorandum

Sarah Palin uses her Iraq War vet son as a campaign bumper sticker

Can someone tell me again why Donald Trump brought this woman on as an endorsement?

Via USAToday:

Sarah Palin appeared to suggest Wednesday that her son’s arrest this week on domestic violence charges stemmed from the effects of PTSD as a soldier and blamed President Obama for not providing adequate care for veterans.

Track Palin, a 26-year-old Iraq veteran, was arraigned Tuesday on charges of domestic violence assault, interfering with a report of domestic violence crime and possession of a firearm while intoxicated.

Track was handcuffed and arrested Monday night following a dispute with his girlfriend at the Wasilla home he shares with his parents, according to police documents.

The charges were filed on the same day the 2008 Republican vice-presidential nominee made her first public appearance on behalf of GOP presidential hopefulDonald Trump in Iowa. Palin alluded to her son’s legal troubles at a rally in Oklahoma on Wednesday after she failed to show up at a morning event.

“I guess it’s kind of the elephant in the room because my own family going through what we’re going through today with my son, a combat vet …  like so many others, they come back a bit different, they come back hardened,” Palin said. “They come back wondering if there is that respect for what their fellow soldiers and airmen and every other member of the military so sacrificially have given to the country.”

I am thinking that Donald Trump just made a huge mistake. I most likely will vote for him, when the primary makes it to Michigan. I just hope like heck that Trump does not put her on the VP ticket. Cabinet position, maybe. But, not VP. Heck, even Glenn Beck, of all people, is going to come out against it. You watch and see.

This is going to be an interesting election season, needless to say. 😮

 

Donald Trump just secured the soccer mom vote 

He also just secured the female evangelical female vote too.

AMES, Iowa — Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor and 2008 vice-presidential nominee who became a Tea Party sensation and a favorite of grass-roots conservatives, endorsed Donald J. Trump in Iowa on Tuesday, providing him with a potentially significant boost just 13 days before the state’s caucuses.“Are you ready for the leader to make America great again?” Mrs. Palin said with Mr. Trump by her side at a rally at Iowa State University. “Are you ready to stump for Trump? I’m here to support the next president of the United States — Donald Trump.”Her support is the highest-profile backing for a Republican so far. It came the same day that Iowa’s Republican governor, Terry Branstad, said he hoped that Senator Ted Cruz would be defeated in Iowa. The Feb. 1 caucuses are a must-win for the Texas senator, who is running neck-and-neck with Mr. Trump in state polls.The endorsement came as Mr. Trump was bearing down in the state, holding multiple campaign events and raising expectations about his performance in the nation’s first nominating contest.As Mrs. Palin announced her backing, Mr. Trump stood wearing a satisfied smile as she scolded mainstream Republicans as sellouts and praised how Mr. Trump had shaken up the party. “He’s been going rogue left and right,” Mrs. Palin said of Mr. Trump, using one of her signature phrases. “That’s why he’s doing so well. He’s been able to tear the veil off this idea of the system.” – Source: Sarah Palin Endorses Donald Trump, Which Could Bolster Him in Iowa – The New York Times

 

The video:

https://youtu.be/Tif6xm4_ysA?t=58m51s

The question that many are asking is, why did she pick Trump over Cruz? Actually, there are two reasons; one is that Cruz might have seriously pissed off Palin by basically insulting her. The other reason basically is because Ted Cruz’s wife works for or did work for one of the biggest banks, that was involved with the huge meltdown in 2008 and got a bailout from it. She also is or was, depending on whom you believe; a member of the council on foreign relations, which is huge minus among the Conservative base —- especially the Ted Party base.

Reaction has been predictable among the left. The reaction among the right is varied; some are happy, some, not so much. Personally, I think that this endorsement will be just another feather in Donald Trump’s hat; I just hope that Trump does not squander this chance. For the drive-by crowd, I am neither a supporter or against Donald Trump; I view all politicians with a good dose of skepticism.

I would recommend Trump not to use her too much to stump for his campaign, because there are a good number of people, who see Palin as a blithering idiot and that would work against him.  An endorsement is fine, a campaign attack dog would be a disaster. So, keep Palin at a distance. I just hope Trump does not pick her to his Vice President; that would be huge mistake. I mean, anything is better than Hillary. But, with Palin in the VP slot, Trump would not get elected in the general election at all. I might be wrong about that, but I really doubt it.

Either way, I will be following this a bit more closely, as this primary race just got a bit more interesting now.

Blogger roundup:  The Huffington Post, Donald J Trump for President, Guardian, John Hawkins’ Right Wing News, US News, Mediaite, Gawker, FiveThirtyEight, Bloomberg Business, Power Line, The Atlantic, Algemeiner.com, Business Insider, Hot Air, ThinkProgress, Right Wing Watch, Lawyers, Guns & Money, Vox, Shot in the Dark, Raw Story, The Right Scoop,National Review, Le·gal In·sur·rec· tion, RealClearPolitics, The Last Tradition, Washington Post, addictinginfo.org, Trail Blazers Blog, Talking Points Memo, American Spectator,Political Insider …, BuzzFeed, Outside the Beltway, The Slot, Weasel Zippers, Mother Jones, VICE, The Week, Vox Popoli, Daily Kos, The Last Refuge, Politico and Townhall.comMother Jones, ABC News, BizPac Review, New York Times, U.S. News, Washington Times, The Hill, National Review, RedState, Fox News Insider,Washington Monthly, The Daily Caller, The Gateway Pundit, Balloon Juice, American Spectator, The Right Scoop, The Week, Mediaite, Salon, Hot Air, Telegraph,PoliticusUSA, Bloomberg.com, Politico and Little Green Footballs

 

 

Bernie Sanders and DNC reach “an accord”

Well, that was quick. I guess the lawsuit and big dust up were avoided.

Washington Post reports:

The presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont filed a lawsuit against the Democratic National Committee on Friday, arguing that the party had unfairly suspended the campaign’s access to key voter information. After several tense hours, both sides announced a deal had been reached.

The suit came shortly after campaign manager Jeff Weaver acknowledged at a Washington news conference that Sanders staffers had improperly reviewed information gathered by rival Hillary Clinton earlier in the week. But he accused the DNC of over­reacting to the breach by suspending the Sanders campaign’s ability to access the computer system containing information about Democratic-leaning voters, including data the campaign has gathered about its own supporters.

After midnight, Sanders and the DNC put out statements that both indicated the impasse had been resolved but that put remarkably different spins on the outcome. Sanders’s campaign said the DNC had “capitulated” and that Sanders would soon regain access to the data. The DNC said what happened was “completely unacceptable” and that it would continue to investigate the circumstances even as Sanders regained access to the valuable information.

I have two theories about why the DNC decided to settle. One is that the DNC is about broke and going to war with Sanders, who is obviously no pauper; would have bankrupted the Party.  Two, is that if Sanders had been shut out; He would have ran as an independent, which would have resulted in chaos and would have ruined the Democrats ability to even win the election – thereby ruining Hillary’s chances. You have to realize, Bernie Sanders is getting the support of the disillusioned Obama supporters who feel that Obama and Democrats sold them up the river.

Believe me when I tell you this; I know all about that feeling of being sold up the river. I have mentioned this before; but, my Father is a retired G.M. worker and a member of the local UAW chapter here in Detroit. Back in the 1990’s when NAFTA was signed into law, by Bill Clinton; there were many people around these parts, who felt that the Democrats and Clinton, had sold them up the river. I and my family were one of those people.

So, I totally understand how they feel. I also know that this feeling was one of the motivations for me giving up on the Democratic Party. I mean, I honestly felt sold up the river; as a white guy, of southern heritage being called a “slope-headed racist,” It just made me think that my family and myself were sold up the river at the cost of getting Obama elected. Which is pretty ironic, considering the fact that Obama has basically sold most of the people, that elected him, up the river – in the name of global trade.

Which is precisely why I am at the political stance that I am now. I am conservative on social issues: Abortion is murder, homosexuality is morally wrong. You have to realize, that back, as recent as 30 years ago; these positions were pretty much mainstream Democratic Party positions; needless to say, that has changed, quite a bit in the last 30 years. The question is: What changed? It was not me, that is for sure. What changed: They did. The Democrats changed, not me. They are the ones who moved further to the left; not me.

I also, since filing for bankruptcy in 2004; have become a bit of a fiscal conservative too. Losing one’s livelihood will do that to a guy.

Either way, I am glad they settled; I would like to see Hillary fight for her quest to become the DNC’s nominee. To see it just handed to her, is against what that party supposedly stands for.

Others: Associated Press, TalkLeft and Power Line (via Memeorandum)

The DNC figures out a way to kneecap Bernie Sanders

I figured this was coming, I just didn’t know how they were going to do it.

Washington Post reports:

Video:

Story:

Officials with the Democratic National Committee have accused the presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders of improperly accessing confidential voter information gathered by the rival campaign of Hillary Clinton, according to several party officials.

Jeff Weaver, the Vermont senator’s campaign manager, acknowledged that a staffer had viewed the information but blamed a software vendor hired by the DNC for a glitch that allowed access. Weaver said one Sanders staffer was fired over the incident.

The discovery sparked alarm at the DNC, which promptly shut off the Sanders campaign’s access to the strategically crucial list of likely Democratic voters.

The DNC maintains the master list and rents it to national and state campaigns, which then add their own, proprietary information gathered by field workers and volunteers. Firewalls are supposed to prevent campaigns from viewing data gathered by their rivals.

NGP VAN, the vendor that handles the master file, said the incident occurred Wednesday while a patch was being applied to the software. The process briefly opened a window into proprietary information from other campaigns, said the company’s chief, Stu Trevelyan. He said a full audit will be conducted.

The DNC has told the Sanders campaign that it will not be allowed access to the data again until it provides an explanation as well as assurances that all Clinton data has been destroyed.

 

Having his campaign cut off from the national party’s voter data is a strategic setback for Sanders — and could be a devastating blow if it lasts. The episode also raises questions about the DNC’s ability to provide strategic resources to campaigns and state parties.

It looks like the DNC is bound and determined to have Hillary Clinton be the nominee for President of the United States for the Democrats and they will stop at nothing to get her elected; including have a vendor purposely allow the Sanders campaign access a database, then penalize him for it.

It is a passive way to getting the old man to just leave the race, without resorting to being rude or worse, being labelled an anti-Semite. However, don’t you think that the Jewish media isn’t watching this; because they are, very much so. Needless to say, this should be very, very, interesting to watch play out in the media.

Something tells me however, that Sanders won’t reach for the Semite card at all. This is not to say that some of his surrogates will not. As you see the video above, lawsuits are already being threatened. As they say in lawyer speak, discovery is a bitch.

Others: Talking Points Memo, ABC News, blog.ngpvan.com, Bloomberg Business,Guardian, Engadget, addictinginfo.org, Hot Air, Politico, New York Times, Common Dreams,Syracuse Post-Standard, CNN, The Daily Caller, Raw Story, Jewish Telegraphic Agency,NBC News, Shakesville, Althouse, abc13.com, Business Insider and U.S. Uncut (Via Memeorandum)

Chuck Baldwin makes a very good point

Chuck Baldwin makes this good point:

So, let’s see: all over America this Sunday, millions of Christians will gather in their churches to celebrate the birth of the Prince of Peace. Adult choirs, children’s programs, teen choirs, orchestras, bands, Sunday School lessons, pageants, and sermons will all laud the birth of the Prince of Peace. They will hear messages about love and peace and brotherhood. They will raise their hands in “worship,” smile and laugh, shout “Amen,” and get warm and fuzzy feelings all over as they celebrate the day that the Prince of Peace was born.

No doubt, pastors all over America will quote Luke 2:13, 14. “And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.”

But as soon as the Christmas celebration passes, their vocalizations of peace and goodwill will be buried amidst a cacophony of hatred for their fellow man: specifically, for their fellowmen who call themselves Muslims. We might hear “Kill the infidels!” from the mouths of certain Islamic jihadists, but that same cry is heard by God from the hearts of, perhaps, millions of America’s Christians.

Chuck goes on:

Every day, my email inbox fills up with anti-Muslim hatred–and much of it from professing Christians. These are the same ones that will celebrate the birth of the Prince of Peace next week.

As justification for their bigotry and hatred, Christians love to quote passages from the Koran that speak of jihad against “infidels.” But, it never ceases to amaze me that these same Christians seem to have never read the Jewish Talmud–or even the writings of many Christian leaders from years gone by.

For example, here are some excerpts from the Talmud:

“Since God already gave the Torah to the Jewish people on Mt. Sinai we no longer pay attention to heavenly voices. God must submit to the decisions of a majority vote of the rabbis.” (BT Bava Metzia 59b)

“All gentile women without exception are: ‘Niddah, Shifchah, Goyyah and Zonah’ (menstrual filth, slaves, heathens and prostitutes).” (BT Sanhedrin 81b – 82a)

“The best of the gentiles: kill him; the best of snakes: smash its skull; the best of women: is filled with witchcraft.” (BT Kiddushin 66c)

“Regarding bloodshed the following distinction applies: If a non-Jew killed another non-Jew, or a non-Jew killed a Jew, the killer is liable for execution; if a Jew killed a non-Jew, he is exempt from punishment.” (BT Sanhedrin 57a)

“Jews may use lies (‘subterfuges’) to circumvent a gentile.” (BT Baba Kamma 113a)

“On Passover Eve they hanged Jesus of Nazareth. And the herald went out before him for 40 days and proclaimed, Jesus of Nazareth is going to be stoned because he practiced sorcery, incited and led Israel astray. Whoever knows of an argument that may be proposed in his favor should come and present that argument on his behalf. But the judges did not find an argument in his favor, so they hanged him on Passover Eve…Did Jesus of Nazareth deserve that a search be made for an argument in his favor? Surely he incited others to idol worship.” (BT Sanhedrin 43a)

Celebrated ancient religion historian Peter Schafer, who is now the director of the Jewish Museum of Berlin, wrote this commentary on the Babylonian Talmud (BT) Grittin 57a, “…Jesus shares his place in the Netherworld (hell) with Titus and Balaam, the notorious arch enemies of the Jewish people. Whereas Titus is punished for the destruction of the Temple by being burned to ashes, reassembled, and burned over and over again, and whereas Balaam is castigated by sitting in hot semen, Jesus’ fate consists of sitting forever in boiling excrement.” (Peter Schäfer, “Jesus in the Talmud,” Princeton University Press, p. 13)

Amazingly, I don’t hear Christians screaming the accusation that “there is no such thing as a peaceful Jew,” based on the writings of the Talmud and its apologists. Yet, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently promised that Talmudic law is the official law of Israel. [Link]

Make no mistake about it: the Talmud, NOT the Torah, is the Bible of the Zionists. The “Oral Law” of the Pharisees who crucified Christ formed the basis for the Talmud. This was exactly what Jesus was referring to when he scolded the Pharisees for placing their “traditions” ahead of the Law of Moses (the Torah). I propose that the Talmud is FAR WORSE than the Koran; and I believe I can prove it.

The Pharisees hated the Lord Jesus then, and their spiritual descendants, the Zionists, still hate Him today. Yet, there is not a peep from the Christian community at large about the threat posed to Christian America from Zionists.

Most people would dismiss this as hate speech. But, it is factual truth. What is a pity that most Christians won’t wake up to this fact.

Problem is Chuck Baldwin is wrong about the Roman Catholic Church. They’re just as evil as the left and the Zionist right.

In fact, the Roman Catholic Church are the biggest enablers of the Zionist movement today. In fact, they practically own it.

On Donald Trump’s Statement on Muslim Immigration

Here’s the statement in its entirety:

(New York, NY) December 7th, 2015, — Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy released data showing “25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad” and 51% of those polled, “agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah.” Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won’t convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially women.

Mr. Trump stated, “Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life. If I win the election for President, we are going to Make America Great Again.” – Donald J. Trump

Here is the problem with this idea. It is, in fact, a total violation of our First Amendment. Not to mention it is straight up discrimination.

If trump was elected and he tried to do this, the ACLU would have a field day with it and lawsuits would fly like crazy. The reason I say that it is a First Amendment, is because if the Federal Government gets in the business of telling which religions can enter the Country, we put the First Amendment in jeopardy.  There is also this thought from the Southern Baptist leader Russell Moore:

The United States government should fight, and fight hard, against radical Islamic jihadism. The government should close the borders to anyone suspected of even a passing involvement with any radical cell or terrorist network. But the government should not penalize law-abiding people, especially those who are American citizens, for holding their religious convictions.

Muslims are an unpopular group these days. And I would argue that non-violent Muslim leaders have a responsibility to call out terror and violence and jihad. At the same time, those of us who are Christians ought to stand up for religious liberty not just when our rights are violated but on behalf of others too.

Make no mistake. A government that can shut down mosques simply because they are mosques can shut down Bible studies because they are Bible studies. A government that can close the borders to all Muslims simply on the basis of their religious belief can do the same thing for evangelical Christians. A government that issues ID badges for Muslims simply because they are Muslims can, in the fullness of time, demand the same for Christians because we are Christians.

I may have disagreements with the SBC on many things, mostly because they’re evangelical and I happen to be an old Fundamentalist Baptist. However, on this issue here, he is right. We simply do NOT want the United States Government getting involved in religion at all.

What should happen is this: There should be a 10 year moratorium on ALL immigration in this Country or at least until this Country figures out a way to screen every last person coming into this Country and figures out a way to share information with other Countries as to the background of all persons coming into this Country. Furthermore, the United States of America should be going after the Muslims that are suspected of having ties to extremists, who are living here already.

Furthermore, we should be stepping up to the fullest extent possible, the surveillance of Mosques here in America that are suspected of preaching radical jihad; and the Imams who are preaching this sort of thing, should be arrested, tried and deported out of the Country, never again allowed to return to America. If they are from the United States, they should be tried with promoting hate speech. Also, their connections and money trails should be fully investigated as well.  If the Imams are found to be taking money from radicals, they should tried for that as well.

The point is this: We already have the means and the ability to track these things and put a stop to them. The problem is that political correctness stopped it and now, we are paying the price. The blood of all those killed in London, San Bernardino and everywhere else, so far; is on the hands of the political correct and civil rights people. Protection of the Republic of the United States, and its people come first. This President has failed horrible on this issue, because he wishes to placate the liberal wing of his Party. Because of this, people have been killed and if President Obama is not real careful, that will end up being his legacy.

Others: Talking Points Memo, New York Times, BuzzFeed, USA Today, Salon,FiveThirtyEight, Breitbart, NBC News, CNN, Washington Post, MSNBC, Vox, Press Enterprise, RH Reality Check, The Hinterland Gazette, Power Line, Slate, The Week,Bloomberg Business, The Gateway Pundit, Political Wire, Gothamist, Taylor Marsh,Hot Air, Guns.com, Scared Monkeys, SaintPetersBlog, Political Insider blog, BizPac Review, Mashable, TowleroadImmigrationProf Blog, Daily Kos, The Hill, KRQE-TV, Mother Jones, TalkLeft, Fox News Insider, The American Conservative, Center for Security Policy, The Moderate Voice, Independent Journal,Le·gal In·sur·rec· tion, PoliticusUSA, Althouse, No More Mister Nice Blog and Politico (Via Memeorandum)

 

Some straight talk on Donald Trump

This is laughable at best. When Trump is winning, he loves the polls, when he is behind they are unscientific. 🙄

The Story via NYT:

Ben Carson has taken a narrow lead nationally in the Republican presidential campaign, dislodging Donald J. Trump from the top spot for the first time in months, according to a New York Times/CBS News survey released on Tuesday.

Mr. Carson, a retired neurosurgeon, is the choice of 26 percent of Republican primary voters, the poll found, while Mr. Trump now wins support from 22 percent, although the difference lies within the margin of sampling error.

The survey is the first time that Mr. Trump has not led all candidates since The Times and CBS News began measuring presidential preferences at the end of July.

Charlie Rose thinks this is a big deal:

Trump says that the polls are unscientific:

youtube placeholder image

This is laughable at best, this is because the reason Donald Trump is falling in the polls, is because of the fact that Trump has bashed Jeb Bush (I am not a fan of Jeb, don’t worry!) and Donald Trump took an underhanded swipe at Ben Carson’s religious beliefs as well, which I thought was totally uncalled for.

Here’s the video of Donald Trump taking his underhanded swipe at Ben Carson’s religion:

youtube placeholder image

You see, people see this sort of stuff; the back and forth with the Bushes, the slamming of Ben Carson’s religious beliefs and they start to think, “since when did this become a religious contest?” Which political elections are not supposed to be about that at all. Donald Trump also comes off as a bit of a jerk to most people when he does this.

For the record, Ben Carson is a Seventh Day Adventist, which I as a Baptist do disagree with their theology, very much so. However, I do not believe that Ben Carson’s religious beliefs should be a litmus test to be President of the United States and I do not believe that this sort of idiotic slamming of someone’s religious beliefs should be a part of this Presidential race at all.

Not to mention that Donald Trump insulted Iowa voters, I mean, can you get any more stupid than that? The funny part is that, to cover his own backside, he blamed a staffer for the insult. How childish can you get?

It is a bit early in this primary cycle; but, I have to say, I am beginning to believe that Donald Trump has used up his star power and that it is going to start hurting him, and not help him. At first, when Donald Trump came on the scene, I supported him. However, it is becoming clearer to me, that Trump is simply in this race to make a name for himself and that he really does not care about winning the Presidency. My support of him has basically dried up and I hope he shortly does the honorable thing and drops out of this race. He has turned a serious race into a clown show and it has done more to hurt the Conservative cause than anyone else in this race could ever do.

I mean, Donald Trump is trying and failing badly at trying to take credit for Ford Motor Company bringing jobs back to America, something that the current Governor of Ohio, who is also running for President, is taking serious issue with, not to mention Ford themselves. This tells me that Trump is simply into this for what I like to call “publicity whoring.”

My advice to Iowa primary voters, give this joke of a Presidential Candidate a one way ticket back to his plush office in Manhattan and vote for someone who is actually serious about being the next President of the United States of America.

 

 

Scott Walker drops out

I did not see this coming at all. 😯

The Video:

youtube placeholder image

Via NYT:

Updated, 8:14 p.m. | Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, whose early glow as a Republican presidential contender was snuffed out with the rise of anti-establishment rivals, announced on Monday that he was quitting the race and urged some of his 15 rivals to do the same so the party could unite against the leading candidate, Donald J. Trump.

Mr. Walker’s pointed rebuke of Mr. Trump gave powerful voice to the private fears of many Republicans that the party risked alienating wide swaths of the American electorate – Hispanics, women, immigrants, veterans, and most recently Muslims – if Mr. Trump continued vilifying or mocking those groups as part of his overtures to angry and disaffected voters.

Still, Mr. Walker’s exit was not selfless: He was running low on campaign cash, sliding sharply in opinion polls, losing potential donors to rivals and unnerving supporters with a steady stream of gaffes, like saying he would consider building a barrier wall along the Canadian border.

Appearing ashen and drained at a brief news conference late Monday in Madison, Mr. Walker said the Republican presidential field was too focused on “how bad things are” rather than on “how we can make them better for everyone.” Without naming Mr. Trump, Mr. Walker issued a plea to fellow candidates to coalesce around a different Republican who could offer a more “optimistic” vision and guide the party to a victory next year that, he admitted with sadness in his voice, he could not achieve himself.

“Today I believe that I am being called to lead by helping to clear the field in this race so that a positive, conservative message can rise to the top of the field,” Mr. Walker said. “With this in mind, I will suspend my campaign immediately.

“I encourage other Republican presidential candidates to consider doing the same so that the voters can focus on a limited number of candidates who can offer a positive, conservative alternative to the current front-runner,” he said.

Scott Walker was seen by many as the social conservative that dared to take on public sector unions and won. Of course, the labor movement is over the moon that Walker dropped out.

My Take: While Walker might have generated a good deal of buzz in Wisconsin and with the labor movement; he really never caught on in the national stage. Not only this, but the field was just much too crowded and of course, the progressive media complex was after him from the start. When trump jumped in, all the attention went to him.

It was most likely for the best; because if the progressive did not savage him, the rest of the field would have.

Of course, this might have something to do with it too. Via Matt Lewis:

The thing that really soured me on him, however, was the very transparent way that his team decided Iowa was “must win,” telegraphed it, and then proceeded to pander to the populist right that presumably constitutes the base of the Iowa caucuses. It began when Walker ousted strategist Liz Mair for having said some uncharitable things about the state, but really manifested itself in the hurling of uncharacteristic red meat.

He flip-flopped on immigration, going so far as to say that it wasn’t a flip-flop since he didn’t vote on it. Then he went over the top on saying that he wanted a Constitutional amendment to let states ban gay marriage — but then (apparently) sent his wife out to let it be known that she disagreed. He started to look like a phony who would do or say whatever it took to be elected.

And then, having betrayed anyone not on the populist right (which includes center-right opinion leaders, establishment RINOS, and everyone in between), and having doubled down on being Iowa’s hard-right populist, Walker was completely out-flanked by Donald Trump (and Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz). But mostly Donald Trump. Walker looked like a wimp on the debate stage. He had no charisma. He didn’t look like a president. He didn’t even look like a bully, as Trump does. He looked like the guy whose lunch money the bully takes.

Hmmmm… Interesting.

Related:

Blogger Roundup:  Power Line, The Atlantic, Talking Points Memo, The PJ Tatler, Slantpoint,JSOnline, WHNT-TV, Daily Kos, Hit & Run, No More Mister Nice Blog,National Review, Right Wing Watch, tpnn.com, The Gateway Pundit, Outside the Beltway,Business Insider, WSLS-TV, Political Insider blog, Taylor Marsh, LifeNews.com, Le·gal In·sur·rec· tion, Hot Air, Mashable, BizPac Review, Weekly Standard, Political Wire, Mock Paper Scissors, WQAD-TV, KFOR-TV, The Pulse 2016, Naked Politics and Washington Free Beacon

A good analysis on the Kentucky clerk issue by Bob Barr

Bob Barr, who I voted for in 2008, gives a very good analysis of the situation with the Kentucky Clerk.

Basically, Bob says, “Be Careful what you wish for“:

Imagine waking up to the news that a Quaker county sheriff is denying concealed carry permits to citizens because of his religious objection to violence; or, a Muslim DMV supervisor in Dearborn, Michigan has ordered his staff to refuse to issue driver’s licenses to women out of a religious objection to women behind the wheel. These are among the realities that await should we make Kim Davis, the embattled County Clerk from Rowan County, Kentucky, an archetype for “religious freedom” in America.

In 1802, Thomas Jefferson replied to a letter from the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut in which he outlined a concept for the First Amendment’s application as it relates to religion. According to Jefferson, the Amendment creates a “wall of separation between Church & State,” to which “the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions.” While Jefferson’s concept of a wall separating the Church and State has been used in a modern context by the Left to justify its radical purge of any and all religious artifacts from the public sector — particularly those of Christianity – Jefferson rather was simply warning about the power of government, compelled by a dominant sect of religion, to corrupt and oppress religious liberty of allworshipers.

As an elected government official and public employee, Davis took an oath to uphold the law, and cannot properly use her power as an elected official to deny marriage licenses to couples found by the Supreme Court of the United States to be entitled to receive those licenses. This is not a question of whether or not we agree with that Supreme Court ruling; it most definitely is a question of whether we are – as Chief Justice John Marshall noted in his seminal, 1803 opinion in Marbury v. Madison – a “nation of laws, not of men.

[…]

The virulent reaction of the Left to this controversy, and laws such as Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, leaves little doubt about the Left’s “respect” for religious freedom, and highlight the need protect it from further erosion. Yet, as the Davis controversy also illustrates, protecting religious freedom is not as black and white as the media and the political rhetoric make it out to be. It requires a far more thoughtful approach to articulating its fundamental importance in our society than rushing to make every perceived injustice the focal point of such a debate.

Using the wrong examples to make our case for religious freedom only further ingrains the disrespect for religious freedom and the rule of law so desperately needed in the public and the private sectors; and encourages use of the “Wall-of-Separation” phrase as a bludgeon against religion, rather than a protector of it.

It is regrettable that Kim Davis was jailed, and as former San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom’s lawless “gay marriage” protest shows, clearly the Left does not hold itself to the same standards as it does with Davis. However, what is happening to Davis is not about the sincerity of her religious beliefs, or even the morality of gay marriage. Placing her on a pedestal will likely come back to haunt her supporters.

And perhaps those who find a government for which they work so morally repugnant as does Kim Davis, would better serve the public they have sworn to serve, from outside rather than inside.

He is absolutely correct about that; we are a constitutional Republic, not a Christian Theocracy. Kim Davis took an oath to uphold the law and if she cannot do that, as a result of her religious convictions, then she should resign. This is why I have avoided writing about this case, because she and her supporters are making a religious argument over a secular issue. What she is actually doing is violating the First Amendment and she should be charged for doing so.

The sick part is that, naturally, the Republican Party will sing in unison in support for this so-called “Christian Zealot” and screw our chances for a victory in 2016. 🙁