Share This Article with a Friend!


Presidential Horse Race 2016: Jesse Jackson says Crooked Hillary will save America’s cities

In case you needed further convincing that Donald Trump’s recent attempts to break the Democrats’ stranglehold on minority voters was indeed working, none other than ultra-liberal Crooked Hillary supporter Jesse Jackson provided the evidence on Tuesday.

In a piece entitled “Black voters have plenty to lose with Trump,” Jackson argued in the Chicago Sun-Times, “What do blacks have to lose by electing Trump? He will appoint Supreme Court justices who do not support black interests. He will support racially discriminatory voting laws like North Carolina’s. He will not fix the Crooked Hillarydamage done by the Shelby court decision to the Voting Rights Act. And he will not support a $15 minimum wage.”

Aside from the fact that Jackson’s relevance in American politics passed over two decades ago, there are so many problems with this passage alone it would take a week’s worth of columns to thoroughly address them. But essentially Jesse is saying that constitutional originalist judges like Clarence Thomas are “against black interests” because they insist that everyone, including government, play by the same rules embodied in the Constitution and legislative prerogatives should be left to those directly elected by the People instead of having the votes of five politically appointed human beings in black robes dictating policy.

And further, Trump will support Voter ID laws, common sense measures to ensure the integrity of elections. Wow, to have him do that would certainly threaten to undermine all the fraud that goes on in cities like Philadelphia where people register to vote using vacant lots as home addresses and the dead have been known to rise from the grave in order to cast a vote for a Democrat.

As far as increasing the minimum wage, with well over half of black youths now unemployed, a higher minimum wage would only further destroy their opportunities to work and gain experience needed for higher paying skilled jobs later on in their lives. Trump has waffled on the issue, initially saying he was against any hike in the minimum wage but then hinting he might support one more recently.

Jackson then continued with the insane blurting, “Who can deny there are many unmet needs and problems in urban areas, but that’s not primarily the result of black or Democratic will, ideas or leadership, but of Republican policies!”

Seeing as Democrat policies have ruled American cities for the past half century, it’s really hard to understand how Jackson can make this argument. Democrats have pushed for abortion on demand, for example, which takes away the need for personal responsibility in relationships, has effectively killed off millions of black children and split apart black families.

And there’s little doubt Democrat gun control policies are keeping law abiding citizens from obtaining weapons to protect themselves and deter violence at the same time. In Democrat cities, only the criminals have guns – nearly all illegally obtained at that.

Jackson concluded his op-ed by saying blacks have interests and they will demand the Clinton administration address those most in need. I’m not sure exactly what Jesse means by the “most in need,” but after attacking Republicans and blaming them for the ills of the inner cities, accountability doesn’t seem to be in big supply here.

With hundreds if not thousands of black residents being murdered in every major city each year, I would think protecting the citizenry would be priority number one. The dead would be “those most in need,” but it’s already too late for them.

There have been very few news items recently that have caused me to laugh out loud, but Jackson’s piece was one of them because it was so completely absurd.

In law school, when preparing for oral arguments in moot court competitions my professors suggested using any argument that could pass the “laugh test,” meaning, if you can say it without breaking out laughing, go ahead and give it a shot in front of the judge.

No doubt Jackson and other like-minded Democrats aren’t giggling over this one. Their very power base is at risk by Trump speaking up and their only hope is to perpetuate the lie that Republicans alone are to blame for the blighted conditions of the inner cities and their inhabitants. Never mind the fact that two of America’s largest and most crime-ridden cities – Los Angeles and Chicago -- are in states with legislatures dominated by Democrats.

How can Jackson get away with even suggesting that Chicago’s problems are because of Republicans and that Republican dominated suburbs get all the resources and protection? It’s just plain false and anyone who believes it is a fool.

How about schools? Public schools in major cities are dominated by teachers unions, also a key Democrat constituency. Democrats are always against school choice and voucher systems, two relatively simple solutions, which if implemented, would improve schools virtually overnight.

Sorry, Jesse. Your column doesn’t pass the “laugh test.” And when inner city minority communities start waking up to the fact that you and the Democrats are the ones who’re perpetuating the scam, you’re going to be the ones crying on Election Day.

Trump’s foreign policy proposals may not win him a Nobel Prize, but they’ll benefit Americans

It goes without saying one of the main arguments used against Donald Trump by his detractors (Crooked Hillary, the Democrats and the Washington Republican establishment #NeverTrumpers) is that the first-time politician turned GOP presidential nominee not only lacks the proper temperament to lead the country, but he’s also a hopeless neophyte simpleton who doesn’t understand the complexities of international trade and foreign relations.

Economist and trade expert Peter Morici begs to differ, writing at Fox News, “Foreign policy experts in both political parties have staked their careers on simplistic assumptions and flawed policy prescriptions that have often undermined American interests.

“Dealing with the world as we find it, not as we wish it would be, is hardly the inclinations of a reckless fool.

“Trump’s rhetoric may be clumsy and alarming, but his instincts are spot on.”

Morici’s isn’t just an unsophisticated assessment of Trump’s positions either, as in his article he discusses trade relations with China, the problems associated with cooperating with Russia in battling ISIS and of course, Trump’s idea of cutting off remittances to Mexico in exchange for more assistance from the Mexican government in border enforcement.

It’s refreshing – and rare – to see a member of the Washington foreign policy establishment and academia (Morici is a professor at the Smith School of Business, University of Maryland) expressing a view more in line with traditional Republican realists. These are people who are concerned with ensuring the American population is secure first before venturing off on vague notions of spreading democracy or embarking on fruitless humanitarian missions.

The Marines weren’t created to hand out food. They should be deployed sparingly and with closely defined objectives along with “liberal” rules of engagement.

Among the many storms of protest Trump has generated in offering these views has been in suggesting the United States should no longer fulfill the role of the world’s policeman, a policy that’s only led to thousands of dead American servicemen and women and the expenditure of trillions of dollars. Is the world any more stable today than it was prior to taking off on these flights of fancy?

And with America’s trade imbalance growing every year, the whole concept of free trade should at least be examined by the next president. Trump promises to do it.

The world is and will remain a dangerous place for American interests regardless of whether Trump or Crooked Hillary wins in November. The question is, which one of the two candidates is likely to pursue a platform of policies that’s likely to identify the enemies and then not hold back in combating them?

Which potential president will choose the American worker over the interests of the global corporatists when it comes to trade?

Crooked Hillary has proven time and again she can be bought. Donald Trump is the only answer.

Obamacare failure opens door wide for the GOP, but Trump isn’t talking about it

Harkening back to the 2012 GOP primary season, there was a lot of talk about how choosing Mitt Romney as the Republican presidential nominee would be disastrous because it would essentially take away the party’s credibility on one of the biggest issues of the time: ditching the big government boondoggle of Obamacare.

Since Romney had been instrumental in drawing up the infamous “Romneycare” plan in Massachusetts, conservatives feared – and rightly so – that the massively unpopular federal controlled health care law could sink Romney when trying to pin the mess on Obama.

Interestingly enough, Obama uttered his famous “If you want to keep your doctor, you can keep your doctor” line at various times during the campaign and Romney didn’t really challenge him on it.

Now, it seems, Obamacare is riper than ever for attack…but Trump is barely mentioning it on the campaign trail at all.

Byron York of the Washington Examiner writes, “These days, for a large part of the non-Medicaid population buying insurance on the individual market, Obamacare has become a very troubling presence. There could hardly be a better issue for a Republican presidential candidate to use against the Democrat seeking to succeed Barack Obama.

“Yet Donald Trump remains virtually silent on Obamacare. Look at Trump's last 10 speeches — the number since Trump began delivering prepared-text teleprompter remarks. All came during a period of bad news about Obamacare. But, according to the texts released by the campaign, one Trump speech didn't mention Obamacare at all, while several others devoted just a few — really, a few — words to the subject.”

Trump’s ignoring the matter is curious…and troubling. With many, many news reports of Obamacare about to explode, you would think Trump would be taking full advantage of the chance to nail it to Crooked Hillary.

I think part of Trump’s silence is due to the simple fact he doesn’t have a ready solution. While the law itself is still relatively unpopular, the public seems to have gotten used to it and people are still not being subjected to the law’s true costs – and likely won’t until after Election Day.

In addition, some of the plan’s provisions – such as coverage for preexisting conditions – are fairly popular.

In other words, Trump doesn’t have an alternative plan in place and thus far the public would rather focus on the greater economic issues and the personality contest between Hillary and Trump. Face it, the American People only tend to concentrate on an issue when it’s immediately ripping at their pocketbooks. Many people have yet to feel the pinch. They will – soon – but for now it’s out of sight, out of mind.

I’m guessing Obamacare will be a significant topic in the fall debates. Hillary will lie through her teeth and try to convince the gullible that everything is right with it. Trump needs to be informed on the issue, not only in articulating its problems, but also offering a conservative market-driven solution that will bring down costs and still ensure coverage for those who need it.

Mike Pence’s success on the issue in Indiana should govern Trump’s thinking. Ben Carson should also add some valuable input from the medical profession’s point-of-view.

Otherwise, when Obamacare does collapse, Republicans will no doubt share in the blame for failing to do something about it when they had the chance.

#NeverTrump’s continued aversion to Trump is baffling given the stakes at hand in 2016

Finally today, #NeverTrump hasn’t really come up with a new or convincing argument in regards to the Republican nominee in quite a while, but many conservative writers are still trying to get them off their soapbox and into the arena of participation.

One such writer is Deroy Murdock who penned a piece this week that hits the #NeverTrumpers hard with a sledgehammer filled with common sense.

Murdock writes in National Review, “There is something highly unsatisfying about this unyielding movement. Aside from free trade — where Trump’s promises undermine the conservative ideal of unfettered movement of goods and services — Never Trump’s objections to Trump are far less about what he would do as president, compared to Hillary Clinton. Instead, the Never Trump critique is mainly about how Trump makes people feel. Unusual for the center-right, Never Trump is far more about style than substance…

“[T]his is an election for president of the United States, not concierge at The Breakers, America’s new best friend, or babysitter for one’s newborns. Elegance, an ability to choose the right words at the right time, and a reassuring demeanor would be most welcome in the White House. Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton is hardly awash in such qualities. And even if she were a latter-day Dolley Madison, far more vital things are at stake.”

Murdock concludes his article by comparing the #NeverTrumpers to a family perched atop a hilltop with a raging wildfire rapidly approaching. A firetruck arrives to put out the fire, but naturally the folks don’t like the looks or tone of it, so they refuse to let it help them.

As I’ve argued before, it must be tough to be a #NeverTrumper. They truly are stranded in no man’s land while refusing any and all offers of help. Thankfully there’s more than enough time to turn things around…and maybe the country can be saved after all.

Share this