Showing posts with label American Spectator. Show all posts
Showing posts with label American Spectator. Show all posts

Saturday, August 29, 2015


(This review is taken from The American Spectator’s February 2000 issue.)

The America We Deserve
Donald J. Trump with Dave Shiflett
Renaissance Books / 286 pages / $24.95

Reviewed by Dave Shiflett
Editors’ note: No, your eyes aren’t deceiving you: This review is indeed written by the writer who co-wrote the book under review. The age of New Politics demands new approaches. So enjoy this New Review.

Trump’s No Chump (From February 2000) | The American Spectator
President Trump—now there’s a bold concept for this new millennium.

It’s not for everyone. Donald J. Trump, the nation’s most flamboyant billionaire, has deeply alarmed the political class by threatening to wade into its most sacred process and buy its most exalted office-without its permission! Politics Inc. is outraged. Murdoch’s BeltwayStandard goes so far as to call Trump a chump—on its front page! Other Toadtown analysts, including the Washington Post’s fashion writer, insist the man has no substance.

But Trump has a great deal of substance—about $5 billion worth—and says he may be willing to spend $100 million to convince America that what it really needs is a real estate guy in its top political job. His budding relationship with politics also reflects the workings of a very canny political mind. A plurality of voters are now independent of party loyalty. Trump is independent—both of party and of financial worry. Or, as he puts it, Trump has one financial backer: Trump. And so this most independent of men is courting a nation increasingly populated by political individualists. It could be a potent equation.

So what’s the deal with Trump? In The American Spectator’stime-honored tradition of investigative journalism, we have looked beyond the glitter and gab to get the true picture of the man. In fact, it can be rightly said that we have written the book on Trump—and in this reviewer’s opinion it’s a pretty good read. Indeed, if America begins choosing its presidents according to the quality of the books they produce, Donald Trump will coast into that somewhat smallish white rambler on Pennsylvania Avenue.

The competition shall be trashed in due time. But first, in the service of history, it is important to chronicle how Trump’s latest book, The America We Deserve, came into being. Apparently by late 1998, Trump—from this point on, let me call him Mr. Trump—had become convinced that the time might be right for a run at the presidency. His name had been bandied about before; fellow New Yorkers had asked him to consider running for that city’s mayorship, or for governor. But why go for peanuts when the presidency, brought to a low state by Bill Clinton, is on the block?

Reviewing his assets, Mr. Trump found he held commanding leads in vital areas: money, name recognition (or, as it is more properly called, celebrity), youth, a mailing list of 6.5 million people, and chicks so beautiful they could raise the sap in a piano leg. He had some hopes and fears about America, and the suspicion that he was at least as competent to head the government as Clinton. All he needed was someone to help him put his bid to prose.
“Who is the most eminent hack writer in America?” Mr. Trump is said to have asked his pin-striped aide, Roger Stone. “I’ll make a few calls,” the latter is reported to have replied.
Soon enough, one of the great collaborative literary efforts of the modern era was born—the perfect union between a man of high achievement and a hack writer who, according to close friends, would write his own mother’s death warrant for a quarter a word. (Like Mr. Trump, this hack sometimes refers to himself in the third person.)

The first meeting between the two took place last spring in Mr. Trump’s 26th Floor Manhattan office, a Krugerrand’s toss from Central Park. Mr. Trump laid out his vision as his hack took furious notes. Occasionally the phone would ring and Mr. Trump would discuss the ups and downs of his fabled life. At one point, the name Bianca floated through the office like a gossamer-winged succubus. “This guy makes Warren Beatty look like a monk,” the hack marveled to himself.

But the most riveting moment came when Mr. Trump suddenly took on a far-away look while recalling a warning his uncle had given him while Mr. Trump was still a boy. His uncle, an MIT professor, foresaw the day of miniaturized weapons. “One day,” Mr. Trump quoted him, “somebody will be able to detonate a suitcase-sized bomb in Manhattan that will flatten the entire city.” Thus was born what is perhaps the most mesmerizing chapter in TAWD—one in which, among other things, Mr. Trump warns that under his presidency, North Korea could experience some live-ammo discipline.

But there are many other great chapters.

In fact, as any reader will be forced to admit, the book shows Mr. Trump to be a sensible and erudite fellow. What’s more, it provides the clearest exploration of America’s New Politics, which can be understood as the attempt by a highly diverse voter coalition to achieve a thoroughly American purpose: Throw the bums out. And in this case, put a rich guy in.

Friday, August 21, 2015


Could Ted Cruz End Up as the Establishment Candidate? | The American Spectator
Have you looked inside the latest CNN poll? You’ll find a very interesting number — namely, that Jeb Bush’s approval-disapproval numbers sit at a devastating 35-57.

That doesn’t look like the inevitability we’ve been sold by his surrogates, does it?

What seems quite apparent so far is the GOP establishment, and the Chamber of Commerce crowd who forced Mitt Romney down the throats of an unenthusiastic Republican electorate four years ago, cannot produce a nominee in this cycle. Each poll which gives a majority of the vote to candidates of some stripe of insurgency — Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul — makes that clear.

And while the establishment is in poor enough odor, its problems are magnified by the awful performance of candidates acceptable to it. Bush has made one inexplicable gaffe after another amid a campaign seemingly designed to alienate Republican voters in hopes of attracting Democrats and independents. Scott Walker has managed to couple a stellar record of governance with a stunningly vacant message; his campaign advisors are guilty of pronounced malpractice. John Kasich coupled religious sanctimony on Medicaid expansion with #BlackLivesMatter pandering on the way to five percent in the polls, and this has been characterized as success. Chris Christie appears destined to be out of the race by Labor Day. And Marco Rubio, despite a terrific performance at the debate in Cleveland, simply has not been able to generate any traction.

In a 17-person field, what’s most important is survival. One must demonstrate the ability to stay relevant from one news cycle to the next regardless of what the latest poll says, and one must be able to do so without running out of money. In a field so diffuse, generating lasting momentum is nearly impossible — particularly amid the phenomenon of Trump’s stealing the oxygen from the room.

Who has the funds for real staying power? Obviously Trump does — he’s able to self-finance a campaign and as the front-runner, his fundraising will come easy. And certainly Bush has ample resources for a war of attrition, though his donor base so far is relatively small and mostly limited to the same people who bankrolled his father and brother. But beyond Trump and Bush, the most well-heeled candidate in the race is Ted Cruz — with a wide donor base and a sizable war chest for the long haul.

Here’s a theory to ponder: after the first round of dropouts, in which Rick Perry’s impending demise is joined by several others — Christie, George Pataki, Lindsey Graham, Jim Gilmore, perhaps Bobby Jindal — the likely beneficiary will be the candidate best suited to pull their voters.

And for many, that could be Cruz. Cruz has regional strength in Texas and Louisiana, which could translate into his picking up Perry and Jindal supporters. Despite his clashes with Graham in the Senate, Cruz’ calls for a muscular foreign policy could appeal to the several dozen supporters the South Carolinian has amassed. Those of Christie’s supporters who came to him for his combative style might look to Cruz rather than Trump.

And then after the second round of dropouts, Cruz could gain even more support. Particularly should Paul leave the race; if he isn’t gaining ground, at some point he’s going to have to consider whether his smartest play won’t be to return to Kentucky to defend his Senate seat, and Cruz is a friend and partner in many cases (though for Paul so is Mitch McConnell, which makes for an interesting conflict). Should Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum drop out, none of the others has put in more work to attract the social conservatives they represent than Cruz.

By this point, we might be close to the March 1 “Super Tuesday” primaries, most of which will take place in Deep South states where Cruz has trained his focus toward developing strength. He’s been outshone by Trump in most of them to date, but Cruz is building more organization in those states than any other candidate.

We could see a situation where Trump is ahead on the strength of his performance in the early states and still leads in the polls, though he might have commenced fading in the face of the various challenges befalling a presidential candidate and the terror gripping the party of having to nominate a bull-in-a-China-shop like the real estate magnate has not subsided. But while the establishment might believe Trump is beatable, they could be without candidates to beat him.

And at that juncture, the unthinkable might become inevitable; namely, that the RINO/Chamber of Commerce GOP establishment might well see Ted Cruz as their only hope to stop Donald Trump from getting the Republican nomination.

Rubio and Walker were supposed to be the “fusion” candidates in the race. They were supposed to be the campaigns capable of bridging the gap between the establishment and the Tea Party. Cruz was supposed to be an impossibility because he’s too conservative. But as the race has developed, the GOP electorate is even more anti-establishment and hard-core conservative than anyone expected, and that’s why non-politicians who are unafraid to use what the mainstream media calls “divisive” rhetoric have prospered. It turns out that a little “divisive” rhetoric is actually interesting to the voters. Cruz has been happy to let fly with pointed discussions of serious issues all along, and he’s putting himself in position to be more than acceptable to Trump’s and Carson’s voters should they fail to secure the nomination.
The continued self-destruction of Hillary Clinton, and the inability of the Democrats to find a plausible alternative amid a devastated bench, only makes the moderate/establishment narrative less compelling. The weaker Clinton and the Democrats look, the more tempting it will be to nominate the most conservative candidate possible. The opportunity could be that good to undo the damage of the Obama years.

I’m not making the case that Cruz is the man to unite the Republican Party’s warring clans…yet. What I am saying is, as Al Hunt noticed earlier this week, Cruz is positioning himself very strategically. And if the anti-establishment sentiment among the voters on the GOP side continues alongside sluggish performances by Bush and the other moderates, it’s not impossible that he could have the RINO crowd begging him to save them from Trump.

Sunday, August 9, 2015


They would also disrupted Sanders and Martin O'Malley during their appearance at the Netroots Convention in Phoenix last month and cut considerably into their speaking time.
What I find interesting is how The Left is gloating over the Republican Party row over Donald Trump. In his usual smug form, Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone claims that Republicans, Fox News, talk radio and the conservative blogosphere have created a monster that's now turning on them. Could Taibbi please tell me exactly how many Republican presidential candidates have been forced off the stage of their own rallies?

Black Lives Matter is a creation of the Democratic Party, the mainstream media, Hollywood and the left-wing blogosphere. And when their creation can force Bernie Sanders off the stage and prevent him from speaking then it has surely become a monster. But don't expect the Democratic Party, the mainstream media, Hollywood and the left-wing blogosphere to ever describe Black Lives Matter in this manner. 

UPDATE: As a couple of readers have pointed out, the rally from which Sanders was unceremoniously evicted was one commemorating Social Security & Medicare and wasn't a Sanders for President event. Nevertheless, it doesn't change the fact he was forced off stage by outside agitators. There is a difference between that and Donald Trump having his invitation to the Red State event. While one might object to Erik Erickson's decision, I cannot imagine a scenario in which conservative activists would jump on stage uninvited and force a Republican presidential hopeful off-stage and not permit him or her speak.

Saturday, August 8, 2015


Uber and the Democrats’ Old Ways | The American Spectator
Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton doesn’t get it. Obama administration Labor Secretary Thomas Perez doesn’t get it. New York Mayor Bill de Blasio doesn’t seem to get it, either, as he only reluctantly reversed a bad decision on the matter.

In fact, generally, in a somewhat surprising reversal, many so-called Democratic “progressives” want to protect the old ways. But there are exceptions, like Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, who worked with Uber to create a legal framework in his state; Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), who says that hailing a cab has provided some of his most humiliating moments; and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), a Brooklynite who during Uber’s recent showdown with de Blasio said, in essence, “What’s wrong with a little competition?”
On the other hand, Republicans, who are accused occasionally of supporting “crony capitalism,” have embraced the new way and have been eager to let in new businesses to compete. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a Republican presidential hopeful, gets it. One of the chapters in his recent book is titled, “Making America Safe for Uber.”

The new way is the “sharing” or “gig” economy of Uber, Lyft, Airbnb and others. Republican politicians seem more open to embracing these new businesses and new jobs, and the freedom of citizens to contract with each other.  

Spurred by unions, powerful bureaucracies, a lack of personal experience, and perhaps a more favorable view of regulation, many Democrats want to ban, restrict, and tax these services.

A politician’s position on Uber is a proxy for how in touch they are with their community. De Blasio obviously had no idea how people move around his city. And Clinton likely hasn’t driven a car in decades. What all politicians should start seeing is why it is both bad policy and bad politics to jump in aggressively and try to ban or heavily burden these services. 

It’s bad policy because the transportation services are not just for upper-class urban dwellers. In fact, as a college president recently discovered while moonlighting as an Uber driver, these services are an important alternative for the working poor with limited public transportation options. They also don’t discriminate against minorities, the way many taxi drivers do.
Meanwhile, the home-sharing phenomenon created by Airbnb brings needed cash (and sometimes a cure for loneliness) for homeowners while allowing locales to attract additional visitors.

All this economic activity adds to reportable income and benefits both the public coffers and the economy.

My personal experiences with these services are almost all positive. My brother makes his mortgage payments on his Hawaii home only thanks to Airbnb. (He pays the same local taxes as a hotel.) My family is visiting Manhattan for a few days in August, and by using Airbnb we can have a reasonably priced separate room for the kids. (Try finding a Manhattan two-bedroom hotel room for less than $1,000 a day.)

I travel a lot for business and rely on Uber. I find ride hailing service drivers better. They have clean, smoke-free cars; they don't talk on the phone while driving; and our rating of each other after the drive ensures we both are courteous and safe. It is simply better than the typical cab experience. Plus, it is great competition.

In July, I took an Uber from Denver to Aspen for $240, less than half the cost of any timely alternative. It was scenic and fun, and I connected with the driver. Compare that to my United Airlines experience for that reverse route months earlier, when I paid double what I paid Uber, plus got hit with $250 in excess-baggage fees and was told a two-day-old policy barred me from checking my bags to another airline. (Thus, I missed my connecting Delta flight.) Yes, Uber was a great substitute for United.

It’s bad politics to oppose these services as they delight millions of average Americans. Moreover, they contribute to the financial well-being of tens of thousands of Americans who rely on them for supplemental income. For 84 percent of Lyft drivers, it’s not a full-time job. Uber likely has similar numbers.  

Some “progressives” are uncomfortable and argue that these drivers and homeowners are somehow worse off without government intervention. They want regulation going beyond safety, background screening, and insurance. They want union-like regulation for home-sharing and employee-related regulations and benefits for Uber and Lyft drivers.
Talk about imposing the nanny state on consenting adults. Having taken scores of Uber or Lyft rides, I have yet to meet a driver who says they want the government determining their employment status.

So, if Democratic politicians want to dig in their heels in fealty to unions and unnecessarily burden these services, Republicans can make inroads on many traditional Democratic constituencies. I can't wait to see the platforms of both parties leading up to their conventions. I predict that Republicans will embrace the sharing economy and that Democrats will try to, but add a lot of ifs, ands, or buts.

Via: American Spectator

Continue Reading...

Thursday, August 6, 2015


Mr. Obama and His Klimate Kontrol Kommisars | The American Spectator
Tuesday, Beverly Hills

Now for a few words about current events....

American Airlines needs some work. They consistently mistreat us passengers on the flight from DCA to LAX. Why? I guess we are just considered dog food. But Saturday’s flight was a disaster. Almost three hours late leaving DCA. No apology. AC barely working. Dinner was literal dog food. When we got to LAX, very late at night, the terminal was a scene from hell. Mobs of immigrants and citizens, none speaking English, jostling each other, pushing, shoving, shouting, riding on skateboards through crowds of old people. It was the street scenes from Blade Runner. Neither more nor less. Yes, get Blade Runner and watch it. That’s LAX right now.

Why do we have the worst airport in the world? Why doesn’t anyone there speak English? In Spokane, everyone speaks English. What happened?

Anyway, Mr. Obama’s “clean energy” plan:

1. It has not been proved that the climate is changing by anything more than the most minute amounts, such as one degree in one century. There has been zero global warming since 1991. Even if there were climate change, no one has been able to explain why man’s activities caused it except as one hypothetical among many other hypotheticals.

2. There are plenty of scientists who do not believe in man-made climate change, and many more who don’t believe in climate change at all. They are never in the New York Times. Why? Because “science” is as political as the election for Prom King and Homecoming Queen. There is no climate science that is not political.

3. The USA produces roughly 15 percent of the carbon emissions on this earth. Obama wants to lower that by roughly 25 percent. That would mean a change by 2030 (I will be long dead…) of roughly 3.7 percent in global carbon emissions if the rest of the world stopped adding to coal fired energy creation. But China and India add roughly one new coal-fired energy plant per week. China has not promised any cuts in carbon emissions ever. They promised to stop adding to carbon output in about ten years but never to cut anything.

4. So we in the USA will suffer all of the dislocation, the poor coal miners (mostly white, of course, so who cares about them?) will lose their jobs, and the world’s carbon emissions won’t budge. All in the name of an unproved theory.

Of course the real goal is just to push people around and show how holy and sanctimonious Mr. Obama is. Who cares if the coal miner in Kentucky loses his home if Mr. Obama is worshiped by the Beautiful People who live near me?

Mr. Obama is not too smart, but he’s smart enough to do a lot towards destroying the economy and the rule of law and the livelihoods of hard-working people. I would just like you to know I saw it coming and so did you.

Mr. Obama is a very angry man. As Bob Dylan said, “Some people have knives and forks and they don’t have anything on their plate, so they have to cut something.”

Finally, Donald Trump. For the first time this week I saw why people like him. The New York Times ran a front pager on Saturday about how Mr. Trump was an old hand at racist campaigns. They then did not mention one single word or example or even gossip about his alleged racism or any racist campaigns. Not one word. It was pure unmixed smear. I am not a fan of Mr. Trump for some good reasons. But when the Pretty People just make up lies about a man, even a Donald Trump, I start to have some sympathy for the man.

That story was just pure libel. I hope Trump sues them. He likes to sue and this would be a good case. To libel a public figure you have to act with actual malice or such severe negligence that it’s the same as actual malice.

This, in the eyes of an old man who taught Libel Law for some years, is clear cut.
Well. It’s late. I have to go watch COPS: Reloaded and see my heroes, the cops.

Oh, wait. One final word: Mr. Obama’s Klimate Kontrol Komissars are meant to save the earth and save lives. But that's all totally hypothetical and conjectural. If we could stop abortion, we would save roughly 800,000 actual lives, in real life, every year. But Mr. Obama will go to the mat for keeping the ghastly artifact of abortion up and running like Eichmann’s trains. Why? What makes him hate Israel so much? Hate babies so much? What’s going on inside that head?

Saturday, November 16, 2013


That didn’t take long. His very first words at yesterday’s press conference—a lie! “Good morning,” he began, when it was already afternoon. But he quickly caught himself, pushed his nose back in (it works like an elongated spyglass), said the wrong time of day was on him. Meaning we really do get to keep him, though White House aides and many a guest and host on CNN and MSNBC reminded reporters and viewers it was still morning in the Central, Mountain, and Pacific time zones when he spoke, not to mention Hawaii and Baja California.

He did a good job defending the idea if not the practice of Obamacare. Some favorite lines: “We can always make this law work better.” “Ultimately, I’m the president of the United States.” “It’s scary getting a cancellation notice.” But for pure psycho-syntactical bliss, there was this: “I think everybody understands that I’m not happy about the fact that the rollout has been, you know, wrought with a whole range of problems that I’ve been deeply concerned about.”

For sheer bravery, though, there was his directing viewers to the White House website that links to organizations helping in Philippine relief efforts. He even spelled the it out, We went to the site. It opened. It consists of one page, sort of like a flat tax form. Imagine that. But of course the architecture was there. It’s a branch of the main White House site, the indispensable, home of many an Obama photo and publicity still and the texts he reads on his teleprompter. In other words, it’s Ground Zero for the Obama ego machine. If it didn’t work, it would be the end of 21st century civilization as we've come to know it.

Friday, November 15, 2013

Ben Stein: Obama Making 'Annihilation' of Jews Possible

Commentator Ben Stein said on Thursday that President Barack Obama's "deeply naïve" premise that Iran would suddenly end its nuclear activities in exchange for an easing of sanctions that have crippled its economy for five years would make the "annihilation" of Jews possible.

"Iran is the world’s leading state sponsor of terror," Stein said in The American Spectator.  "The Iranians in the recent past have pledged to destroy the Jewish people in the Middle East.

"Some of their leaders have boasted that if Iran gets nuclear weapons, Iran will have 'a holocaust in an afternoon' by rocketing a few nuclear weapons into Israel," Stein added. "Naturally, the Israelis are desperately worried."

A round of talks between Iran and world powers in Geneva fell short of an expected deal on Sunday after French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius objected, saying the terms of a preliminary agreement were too easy on Tehran.

The deal would not have required Iran, for instance, to close any of its 18,000 uranium centrifuges or its heavy water reactor in Arak, which would serve as a source of plutonium when it starts operations in about two years.
Stein, who also is a commentator for Newsmax Magazine, said the Geneva negotiations resulted from "peace feelers" sent across the world by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, who was elected in June.

"If the western powers will greatly ease the sanctions, Iran, so they promise, will freeze its nuclear program where it stands now — some months from having a working bomb," Stein said, referring to world leaders who are encouraging an agreement.

Secretary of State John Kerry is representing the U.S. in the negotiations.

"The problem is," Stein continued, "that Iran has made many promises about stopping the nuclear program. It has not kept any of them. It has not signed the non-proliferation treaty. It has not allowed inspectors in its most secret plants. It has raced on towards nuclear weapons that could in a half-hour or less cause another holocaust.

Via: Newsmax

Continue Reading....

Thursday, July 25, 2013

President Barack Obama’s Six Months of Blunders

WASHINGTON — The other day another pundit came to my side. I have been watching this steady trickle of sages joining the cause ever since the spring of 2012 when I pronounced, at book-length complete with footnotes, The Death of Liberalism.
Now the veteran columnist Daniel Henninger of the nigh unto infallible Wall Street Journal has pronounced the glum news. On July 10 Dan wrote, “July 3 was the quiet afternoon that a deputy assistant Treasury secretary for tax policy announced in a blog that the Affordable Care Act’s employer mandate would be delayed one year.” And Dan stated with marmoreal solemnity: “Mark July 3, 2013, as the day Big Government finally imploded.” Others too have made similar discoveries, none more memorably than Victor Davis Hanson who celebrated July 4, 2011 by stating that the Founding Fathers’ vision of government had been vindicated. Obamacare had been rushed into law and with its trillion-dollar overruns atop all the other federal overruns would prove to be “unsustainable.” He called the Liberals “Frankensteins.” I called them zombies. Nonetheless, whatever living corpse you choose, with Obamacare, came the last gasp of liberal overreach.
As Wes Pruden said in the Washington Times on July 5, this “one-year delay in enforcing the employer insurance mandate for Obamacare, which might not even be legal,” had top White House advisors heading for the exits and “Minions…hastily assigned to explain the delay.” He added, “Obama and his gang obviously don’t know what to do next.” That is correct. This White House has already transcended that of Warren Gamaliel Harding and of Jimmy Carter. It is the most incompetent in modern American history.

Sunday, October 21, 2012

What If Crowley and Her Accomplices Succeed?

Such an outcome would be worse than a scandal, it would be downright dangerous.
Shortly after Obamacare was passed and signed by the President, Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute noted a sudden plethora of articles that had begun to appear in a wide variety of MSM outlets about the probable ill-effects of "reform." This prompted him to ask, "Where were these reporters before the passage of the health care bill?" The answer to this question is now pretty obvious. They were colluding, via Journo List and other such forums that we don't know about, to make sure that no one screwed up and told the truth before that morass of taxes and regulations became the law of the land. To the nation's cost, their self-censorship succeeded.
Today, we face a similar but much more dangerous situation. The "reporters" of the establishment news media are engaged in a concerted campaign of misinformation to get Barack Obama re-elected. This has been evident for some time, but the breathtaking mendacity of this effort was writ large by Candy Crowley during last Tuesday's presidential debate. Everyone has by now seen the video clip: the President made the preposterous claim that he had identified the attack on our Benghazi consulate as an act of terrorism as early as September 12. Then, when Romney called him on this egregious whopper, Crowley repeated the lie.
This was no misbegotten attempt at instant "fact checking." It was a deliberately disingenuous attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the debate's 65 million viewers. Crowley herself admitted that she had reviewed the transcript of Obama's September 12 Rose Garden remarks in advance of the debate, and she is not dumb enough to believe Obama's characterization of his boilerplate comment about "acts of terror" in general. This tag-team prevarication may well backfire. Jeffrey Lord suggests, in Thursday's American Spectator, that it may turn out to be the "tipping point that makes Mitt Romney the 45th President of the United States."
That would certainly constitute a splendid example of poetic justice. But what if Lord is wrong? What if Obama's MSM pimps succeed in getting him re-elected? As we saw with Obamacare, these people wield a great deal of power and they are obviously willing to abuse it. Moreover, despite the increasing distrust with which the public regards the effusions of the Fourth Estate, nearly half of the nation's adults still believe what they see and hear in the media. Gallup released a survey last month showing that 40 percent of the electorate still has some measure of confidence that the MSM reports the news "fairly, accurately and fully."

Monday, August 20, 2012

Republicans and Women's Rights: A Brief Reality Check

The GOP's longstanding "war on women" includes such horrors as giving them the vote.
When the Obama reelection staff began developing its general strategy for duping a majority of the electorate into once again supporting the President, they knew they needed to drive a lot of disenchanted female voters back into the Democrat herd. Thus, they concocted the fictional Republican "war on women." And, knowing that our government education system has long since given up teaching history, Obama's minions had little fear that the public would realize that the GOP's support of women's rights goes back to its founding in 1854. Nor were the President's men worried that Democrat front groups like the National Organization for Women, much less the "news" media, would remind female voters that their very ability to cast a ballot was won for them by the Republicans over the vehement objections of the Democrats.
Most educated Americans vaguely remember that the amendment granting women the right to vote was passed by Congress in 1919 and ratified by the states in 1920. But the number of people who know anything about the forty-year legislative war that preceded that victory is smaller than the audience of MSNBC. That war began in 1878, when a California Republican named A.A. Sargent introduced the 19th Amendment only to see it voted down by a Democrat-controlled Congress. It finally ended four decades later, when the Republicans won landslide victories in the House and the Senate, giving them the power to pass the amendment despite continued opposition from most elected Democrats -- including President Woodrow Wilson, to whom the suffragettes frequently referred as "Kaiser Wilson."

Via" American Spectator

Continue Reading...

Popular Posts