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

 

 

Saudi Arabia announces effort to combat the groups that they fund

I saw this last night and because I was a bit tired, I did not write about it. So, I am doing it now. I have to admit; I laughed about this one. The very people who are funding ISIS and Al-Qaeda are now going to try and form “an alliance” against these very groups. That, my friends, is funny.

The Video:

The Story via NBCNews.com:

 

Saudi Arabia said Tuesday that 34 nations have agreed to form a new “Islamic military alliance” to fight terrorism.

The announcement published by the state-run Saudi Press Agency said the coalition is being established because terrorism “should be fought by all means and collaboration should be made to eliminate it.” …

The new counterterrorism coalition includes nations with large and established armies such as Pakistan, Turkey and Egypt as well as war-torn countries with embattled militaries such as Libya and Yemen. African nations that have suffered militant attacks such as Mali, Chad, Somalia and Nigeria are also members.

Saudi Arabia’s regional rival, Shiite Iran, is not part of the coalition. Saudi Arabia and Iran support opposite sides of in the wars raging in Syria and Yemen. Saudi Arabia is currently leading a military intervention in Yemen against Shiite Houthi rebels and is part of the U.S.-led coalition bombing the Sunni extremist ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

Here’s a real kicker:

Iraq and Syria, whose forces are battling to regain territory taken by ISIS and whose governments are allied with Iran, are not in the coalition.

 

Ed Morrissey observes the following:

 

Seeing Iran and Saudi Arabia on the opposite sides of a regional conflict is obviously nothing new. However, ISIS is a Sunni phenomenon, not a Shi’a group. They attack Shi’ite mosques within their reach, which is one reason among several that Iran has provided resources and military personnel to fight ISIS in Iraq’s Sunni-held areas. Iraq may be a client state of Iran more than in the past, but it needs to find ways to get the Sunni tribes allied with Baghdad to some extent if Iraq is to defeat ISIS in its own territory. The obvious partner for that would be Saudi Arabia, and for Saudi Arabia, the government in Baghdad is essential to that counter-terrorism fight too … if that’s what the priority truly is. Clearly, the new alliance has other priorities.

The Saudis aren’t the only entity nominally in the anti-ISIS fight with a curious set of priorities, either. Russia has escalated its diplomatic and military clash with Turkey (also in the Saudis’ new alliance) by bombing targets near Turkey’s borders to target anti-Assad forces there.

[…]

The Russians have other priorities, too. Their first priority is to prop up Assad. Turkey’s first priority is to depose Assad. Iran wants to prop up Assad too, but they’re more interested in expanding the grip of Shi’a Islam in the region. The Saudis and their new alliance have as their first priority to boot Iran out of Yemen and roll back both Shi’a and Iranian influence in the region.The only players that actually have ISIS as its first priority are the Kurds and the US, the latter of which has withdrawn from leadership in the fight and the former of which are the only effective force in the field against ISIS. And the latter won’t directly support the former with arms and material, but insists on working through Iran-based Baghdad instead.

Chuck Baldwin, in one of his most recent columns observes the following at Newswithviews.com:

 

ISIS is composed of mostly radicalized Saudi Arabian Sunni Muslims. The goal is to dispose of President Assad’s government in Syria as a stepping stone to conquering both Syria and Iran, thus turning those Shia Muslim nations into Sunni Muslim nations. The result of which means Saudi Arabia’s King Salman will become the de facto king of the entire Middle East. It would also mean that King Salman (already the richest man in the world) would single-handedly control the oil of the entire Middle East. And as everyone should already know, King Salman is in the harlot’s bed with virtually the entire western banking and petroleum worlds.

[….]

Neocons and globalists in Washington, D.C., are using the Shia Muslim people as the proverbial straw man to topple the governments in Iran and Syria, because those Shia Muslim nations care absolutely nothing about getting in bed with the international traders who want to further enrich themselves from the profits that can be made in those countries. The only one who is seriously making war against ISIS is Russia’s Vladimir Putin. And his efforts against the Sunni terrorists began but just weeks ago.

The refugee crisis is a tool of globalists to destabilize the West and help usher in a global Police State. Again, the goal is a global economic system. The Federal Reserve has taken the U.S. and European economies to the brink of collapse. The only thing that globalists can do to circumvent this inevitable collapse is create global panic, global war, and a global Police State. A Europe and America invaded with angry Muslims is just the antidote.

Please understand that the vast majority of refugees are NOT terrorists. They are persecuted Muslims and Christians (and others) who are literally fleeing for their lives. But there is no question that CIA-backed Sunni terrorists have infiltrated these refugees.

Ask yourself, why would refugees seeking safety and protection in other countries want to murder hundreds of citizens within those countries? They know this would completely alienate the country against them and only serve to further endanger the lives of their families. The attacks in Paris were NOT committed by refugees; they were committed by CIA-backed, Saudi-backed, Mossad-backed, Turkey-backed, MI6-backed ISIS terrorists.

Even though the majority of refugees are doubtless harmless people who did not want to leave their homes and did so only for their very survival–and with the knowledge that western operatives have created a radical Muslim Frankenstein–and given the fact that our federal government is making no attempt to vet these refugees, it is foolish for states to accept them. Governors are right to refuse. (If the U.S. government was truly behaving in the interests of peace and was not an active participant in creating war and instability in the Middle East–and thus creating the refugee crisis to begin with–it would be a different story.)

In addition, how did those terrorists successfully pull off these coordinated attacks? How did they get fully-automatic rifles and bombs into Paris? These sand people are NOT that sophisticated. They do NOT have those kinds of connections. Do you think you could successfully get a group of people together and smuggle dozens of automatic weapons and explosives into a European country–and then successfully coordinate a large-scale attack in a high-security major downtown city? The only people capable of such a thing are Special Ops military personnel. In other words, ISIS had help, folks–a LOT of help.

 

So, now, the Saudis are going to try and stop the group that they help start and now fund? Can you say kabuki theater? Ed Morrissey say this is what happens when America leads from behind; however, I have a different take. This is what happens when America invades a country based on outright false information propagated by a corrupt President and Vice-President. This is also what happens when a status of force agreement is broken by Iraqi President and when a President tries to placate his left-wing of his own party and pulls out of a Country too fast.

However, the fact remains, and the neocons, like Morrissey will not accept is that if we had just kept our noses out of Iraq, we would never even be here. But, now, we are and we’re stuck with this mess. Thanks Neocons, ya jerks. 🙄

Bloomberg: 37% of likely Republican voters support Muslim ban on immigration

Well, they didn’t ask me. I don’t support such silliness. 🙄

Almost two-thirds of likely 2016 Republican primary voters favor Donald Trump’s call to temporarily ban Muslims from entering the U.S., while more than a third say it makes them more likely to vote for him.Those are some of the findings from a Bloomberg Politics/Purple Strategies PulsePoll, an online survey conducted Tuesday, that shows support at 37 percent among all likely general-election voters for the controversial proposal put forward by the Republican front-runner.“We believe these numbers are made up of some people who are truly expressing religious bigotry and others who are fearful about terrorism and are willing to do anything they think might make us safer,” Doug Usher, who runs polling for Washington-based Purple Strategies, said in his analysis of the findings. “This indicates that, despite some conventional wisdom expressed in the last 48 hours, this is unlikely to hurt Trump at least in the primary campaign.”

Source: Bloomberg Politics Poll: Trump Muslim Ban Proposal – Bloomberg Politics

Others: Politico, Mother Jones, Talking Points Memo, No More Mister Nice Blog,Washington Post, Hot Air, Outside the Beltway, FITSNews, Hullabaloo, PoliticusUSA, Rush Limbaugh, Allen B. West, Business Insider, Vox, The Week, Political Wire, Daily Kos and The Daily Caller (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:

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:

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.

 

 

UPDATED WITH STATEMENT John Boehner to resign at end of October

I knew this was coming, I just did not know when.

Via The New York Times:

WASHINGTON — Speaker John A. Boehner, under intense pressure from conservatives in his party, announced on Friday that he would resign one of the most powerful positions in government and give up his House seat at the end of October, as Congress moved to avert a government shutdown.

Mr. Boehner, who was first elected to Congress in 1990, made the announcement in an emotional meeting with his fellow Republicans on Friday morning.

The Ohio representative struggled from almost the moment he took the speaker’s gavel in 2011 to manage the challenges of divided government and to hold together his fractious and increasingly conservative Republican members.

Most recently, Mr. Boehner, 65, was trying to craft a solution to keep the government open through the rest of the year, but was under pressure from a growing base of conservatives who told him that they would not vote for a bill that did not defund Planned Parenthood.

Mr. Boehner’s stunning announcement lessens the chance of a government shutdown next week as Republican leaders in Congress will push for a short-term funding measure to keep the government operating and the speaker will no longer be deterred by those who threatened his job.

There are some that are saying that this could cause a problem for the GOP and it could be a win for the Dems. However, I disagree with that, the Dems are so unpopular now with Americans, especially middle America that I believe that this will only strengthen the GOP’s base and appeal.

Either way, this will be a shift from the establishment running the house to a conservative. Look for more impasse with the President till he leaves office. This might lead to Government shutdowns and other such stuff.

Stay tuned.

Update: Here is the Official Statement:

WASHINGTON, DC – House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) today issued the following statement:

“My mission every day is to fight for a smaller, less costly, and more accountable government.  Over the last five years, our majority has advanced conservative reforms that will help our children and their children.  I am proud of what we have accomplished.

“The first job of any Speaker is to protect this institution that we all love.  It was my plan to only serve as Speaker until the end of last year, but I stayed on to provide continuity to the Republican Conference and the House.  It is my view, however, that prolonged leadership turmoil would do irreparable damage to the institution.  To that end, I will resign the Speakership and my seat in Congress on October 30.

“Today, my heart is full with gratitude for my family, my colleagues, and the people of Ohio’s Eighth District.  God bless this great country that has given me – the son of a bar owner from Cincinnati – the chance to serve.”

The comments over on that site are for the ages. The old school of politics and political operation is over. This is a new era and Boehner just could not exist in it. The days of the Republican ruling class are over; which is, in a way, a good thing for America. The establishment is going to have to either get in line or get out of the way.

Related:

Blogger roundup: ThinkProgress, Power Line, Political Wire, Business Insider, Hot Air, NBC News, The Week, Political Insider blog, Hit & Run, Aleteia.org, The Hinterland Gazette, The Gateway Pundit, Refinery29, Red Alert Politics, Towleroad, John Hawkins’ Right Wing News,The Iowa Statesman, Mediaite, The Daily Caller, Washington Post, BillMoyers.com,Althouse, Outside the Beltway, The Federalist and Allen B. WestBloomberg.com news, Le·gal In·sur·rec· tion, The PJ Tatler, TPNN and Arkansas Blog, Arkansas TimesLiberaland, Washington Monthly, Speaker.gov, protein wisdom,Poynter., UPROXX, Outside the Beltway, The Pulse 2016, Washington Free Beacon and Index: JustOneMinute, American Spectator, addictinginfo.org and Booman TribuneTalking Points Memo, Washington Monthly, Campaign for America’s Future, The Daily Banter, Forbes, AMERICAblog News and The Gateway PunditABC News, RT, Lawyers, Guns & Money and Bloomberg BusinessOnPolitics, Boing Boing and The Agonist 

Michigan House boots Gamrat and Courser resigns

Remember these two dunderheads? Well, he quit and she got the boot:

Lansing — The Michigan House of Representatives ousted state Rep. Cindy Gamrat from office just after 4 a.m. Friday for misconduct involving her extramarital affair with Rep. Todd Courser — one hour after Courser abruptly resigned.At 4:13 a.m., the House voted 91-12 to expel Gamrat from office after the Plainwell Republican made a final plea on the floor for a censure. Gamrat’s ouster makes her just the fourth lawmaker to be expelled from the Legislature”Resigning would have been a whole lot easier, I’ll tell you that,” Gamrat said. “But sometimes the easy roads aren’t the best roads to take.”

Source: House expels Gamrat; Courser resigns before vote

What gets me, like Ed over at HotAir.com, I am amazed it took so many votes. Either way, I’m glad they’re gone.

Others (via Memeorandum): Talking Points Memo, MLive.com, NPR, Raw Story, Political Wire, Detroit Free Press and Associated Press

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. 🙁

 

AllahPundit makes a very good point about Donald Trump

Hate to say it, but he is very much correct:

One more thing: In the unlikely event that Trump does sweep to the presidency, I think some historians will begin reconsidering what the Reagan revolution was really about. Was it a conservative revolt against the Great Society, Nixonian welfare-state management, and Carter-era exhaustion with liberalism, or was it more a response to the sense of national renewal that Reagan projected, above and beyond ideology? Reagan, unlike Trump, was a true conservative and wanted to limit government accordingly, but they both stood for American power in different ways. Maybe it was that sense of power, of overhauling a failed governing class, that drew Republicans and centrist Democrats to Reagan first and foremost, with Reagan’s conservatism more of an experiment voters were happy to go along with so long as the economy was booming and the Soviets were back on their heels. If you look at Reagan that way, with ideology a component of his appeal but not the catalytic component, you can sort of see a line between him and Trump

Source: Hugh Hewitt to Trump: Will you resist the authoritarian impulse as president? « Hot Air

He’s right about that; and too, Reagan was the great communicator. Reagan also was a very kind-hearted person and would win you over with his charm. He was a statesman, and of the greatest generation and era ever, one that has sadly passed into the annals of history.

Now, Donald Trump? He is a totally different horse of a total different color and breed. Basically, he’s a bare knuckles, tell it like it is, shoot from the hip, tough guy New Yorker, with a really, really, good education and business savvy. Because of this, he tends to be very, very very, blunt. This works in the business world, where such things are seen as powerful, groundbreaking and decisive; but in the political world, especially in the Conservative political world, he has those people running around with their hair on fire, losing their minds! Mainly because today, political correctness and a slight amount of couth are the standard these days. Donald Trump has none of this; and the grassroots love it to death! The GOP establishment? Not so much.

By the way, the establishment hated Reagan too; but they had to accept him. Especially after the “I’m paying for this microphone!” incident. Funny that “AllahPundit” seems to have forgotten that one and the fact that basically the Fundamentalist and Evangelical Christian world basically was what propelled Reagan into the White House. But, he’s an idiot atheist, so one should expect that.