Reported 
Senator Luther Strange (R-AL) has done a fine job in replacing Attorney General Jeff Sessions in the Senate, but he’s long been a tool of the establishment and we know where his loyalties lie. He was selected by the corrupt and disgraced former Governor of Alabama, not elected by the people of Alabama who are overwhelmingly tired of the GOP’s failures.
Instead of Luther Strange, the voters in Alabama have two solidly conservative men to choose from. Two men with the backbone to do what their constituents want, instead of what their party demands.
The real choice in next week’s primary is Judge Roy Moore or Rep. Mo Brooks.
The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) and Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell’s own PAC are spending millions of dollars to make sure that Luther Strange wins the primary battle, even though the people of Alabama vastly prefer one of the two other conservative candidates.
McConnell is responding in kind. His super PAC is set to spend as much as $8 million to boost his favored candidate, recently appointed Republican Sen. Luther Strange.
McConnell has activated his sprawling donor network and pressed the White House for more resources. And the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the Senate GOP campaign arm McConnell controls, has warned consultants they’ll be cut off from future work if they assist Strange’s opponents.
And in a highly unusual step, one of McConnell’s top political lieutenants has begun quietly advising a long-shot Republican primary candidate running for Brooks’ House seat.
The move is designed to get in the congressman’s head and dissuade him from emptying his campaign war chest in the race for Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ old Senate seat.
Earlier this week both Rep. Brooks and Judge Moore could be heard slamming the GOP for their efforts to smear them.
Speaking at a candidate forum held by the Shelby County Republican Party, former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore and Alabama Rep. Mo Brooks both slammed ads pouring into the race from the Senate Leadership Fund super PAC.
The Senate Leadership Fund, founded by GOP operative Karl Rove and aligned with McConnell, has spent millions on ads supporting Sen. Luther Strange and opposing Brooks. The group released its first ad targeting Moore yesterday.
It’s disturbing, but it’s all the more frustrating when you realize just how popular Brooks and Moore are in Alabama, and you understand that either man would destroy their Democrat opponent. Sadly, the GOP is still wasting millions in the Yellowhammer State… not in an effort to save the seat from Democrats… but in an effort to save the seat from conservatives.
A new poll provided exclusively to Breitbart News by JMC Analytics, a Louisiana-based polling firm, shows Luther Strange tapering off in the polls as Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) surges behind him and former state Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore remains steady in first place.
The poll shows Moore at 30 percent, Strange at 22 percent, and Brooks at 19 percent. Others combine for a total of 12 percent, while 17 percent are undecided.
The poll of 500 Alabamians likely to vote in next Tuesday’s primary was conducted from August 5 to August 6—during the weekend—with a 95 percent confidence interval and a margin of error of 4.4 percent. Assuming these numbers are accurate, they show Brooks surging behind Strange inside the margin of error in the final days—a silent majority similar to the one that elected President Donald Trump—while Moore maintains a solid lead at the top.
Alabama Senate Republican Executive Summary Release by Breitbart News on Scribd
The primary will take place on Tuesday August 15th and if no one candidate can reach the 50% threshold on that day, then the top two vote getters will head to a runoff on September 26th.
It seems likely that a runoff will occur and that Judge Roy Moore will be one of the two candidates in that runoff. Moore has led in every poll since the start of this primary season and his support has not wavered much since he launched his bid. Moore is a very popular figure in Alabama, even if he remains unpopular in the rest of the nation.
The real question is, who will the 2nd runoff candidate be? Brooks is surging in the final days even as the GOP establishment continues to pour MILLIONS into Alabama in an effort to swing the race towards Luther Strange. The race for 2nd place is a toss up right now, and that is a problem for America. 
We need a strong conservative to win the race for the Senate in Alabama, and if Luther Strange is able to hold off Rep. Brooks… we may not get that. We may end up with a GOP establishment stooge holding office in D.C.
Get Judge Moore over the 50% hump in the primary and let’s ensure that a conservative takes over as the next Senator from Alabama.
The fight to stop the GOP establishment and their failures begins in Alabama. Elect conservatives and let’s change the game in Washington, D.C.
Onan is the Editor-in-Chief at Romulus Marketing. He’s also the managing editor at Eaglerising.com, Constitution.com and the managing partner at iPatriot.com. Onan is a graduate of Liberty University (2003) and earned his M.Ed. at Western Governors University in 2012. Onan lives in Atlanta with his wife and their three wonderful children. You can find his writing all over the web.
URL of the original posting site: http://comicallyincorrect.com/2017/08/02/time-to-remember/#bbCiSyhVxpyyKWcu.99
Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2017.
More A.F. Branco cartoons at Constitution.com here.
A.F.Branco Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here!
Commentary by Rush Limbaugh | July 31, 2017URL of the original posting site: https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2017/07/31/the-republican-obamacare-betrayal/
So here comes the failure by the Republicans to repeal and replace Obamacare. Fat repeal, skinny repeal, straight repeal, repeal and replace, replace but don’t repeal, whatever it is, up in flames, up in smoke, and wouldn’t you know, Reuters has gone out and surveyed people in New York and Boston and LA, wherever, and found people that think Congress should move on.
“A majority of Americans are ready to move on from healthcare reform at this point after the U.S. Senate’s effort to dismantle Obamacare failed on Friday, according to an exclusive Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll released on Saturday. Nearly two-thirds of the country wants to either keep or modify the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare, and a majority of Americans want Congress to turn its attention to other priorities, the survey found.”
Now, here’s the next paragraph in the Reuters story: “Republicans have vowed to dismantle the Affordable Care Act since Democratic President Barack Obama signed it into law in 2010, and it appeared they finally had their chance when Republican President Donald Trump took office in January. But the law, which helped 20 million people obtain health insurance, has steadily grown more popular.”
Like hell it has. But here we go. Obamacare more popular than ever, Republicans hated and despised. And that may be, but not for the reasons the Reuters implies here. Obamacare hasn’t helped 20 million people obtain health insurance. And here’s another thing about this CBO score. I have intended to mention this the past couple or three days and just never got around to it.
The CBO score. We gotta get rid of the CBO. The CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, is one of the primary obstacles to any legislation being passed, but particularly health care reform. You remember when the media and the Democrats were just breathlessly excited when they released the CBO numbers that repealing and replacing Obamacare would cause 22 million Americans to lose their health insurance? Do you know why that would happen? It was because repeal repealed the mandate that people had to buy it.
In other words, the CBO said that 22 million people would cancel their policy. Well, that’s not what they said. That’s the end result. That’s how it would have had to happen. Because nobody was gonna take anybody’s health insurance away, and nobody’s health insurance was gonna be canceled. And yet the CBO is out there screeching that 22 million people will lose their health insurance. “No, we can’t do that, that’s horrible, that’s inhumane, that’s no compassion.”No, no. It was simply the CBO guessing that if people didn’t have to buy it, they wouldn’t. Which may make sense. How many people have bought this rigmarole simply because the law requires them to? How many people have actually engaged in this and gone and petered around inside one of these exchanges to come up with an Obamacare policy because they had to?
So the idea that removing the mandate requiring them to buy it is a good thing! It is a reinstallation, if you will, of the degree of liberty and freedom we had before Obamacare. Before Obamacare, you didn’t have to have it. Everybody wanted it, but you didn’t have to go buy it. No matter what it costs, you didn’t have to buy it. So the CBO says 22 million people will lose their health insurance. What a gross misstatement of what would actually happen. And of course with the absence of critical thinking being taught, nobody concluded the correct thing.
And yet that statistic, released the way it was, with the wording as it was, led to a lot of people not supporting it because they envisioned insurance companies canceling people, because, yes, that’s what insurance companies do. All companies would rather their customers get sick and die than have to cover them and pay for them. Big Tobacco wanted to kill the customer. Big Oil wants to destroy the planet. Big Pharmaceutical doesn’t want to cure disease. Big Coal, all they want to do is pollute the rivers. Big Box Retail, all they want to do is rip people off.
You take your pick. Whatever major industry we’re talking about, the Democrats have demonized ’em. And now the health insurance providers are such that if they don’t have to provide it, they won’t, when in fact it wasn’t about that at all. But back to the wording of this story. Obamacare did not and has not helped 20 million people obtain health insurance.
Now, Reuters writes this as though Obamacare provided a freebie. Obamacare provided an entitlement. Yes. Because people who couldn’t otherwise afford it because insurance companies are mean were given subsidies in order to be able to buy it because the law said they had to, but corporations are so mean that they price it out of people’s reach, and that means that Obama made it possible for people have it, which is a stack of coal.
You know how many people are on Obamacare right now? What is the number that you know? Pick a number. The number of Americans who are actually on Obamacare. I have a number here that is hard to believe. In fact, I ought not use this number because I don’t think it’s right, but it’s not far off. The number I have here is eight million people on Obamacare. That can’t be right.
But the point is, Obamacare is nowhere near covering everybody. It’s a giant myth that Obamacare came along and magically created health insurance opportunities for people that didn’t have it. And it’s also not true that the Republican repeal would take health care away from people who wanted it. So many lies and so many just straight distortions here. The majority of people who are on an Obamacare policy had insurance anyway before they signed up for Obamacare. And there are a few million more on Medicaid thanks to the Medicaid expansion. But the Medicaid expansion is not health insurance.
It’s also a lie that Obamacare has steadily become more popular. Nothing could be further from the truth. If that were true, more people would be signing up for Obamacare, but they aren’t. If that were true, the insurance companies would be lowering premiums because so many people would be signing up. If that were true, so many different state exchanges would have more than one provider.
The CBO predicted 22 million people would sign up for Obamacare by this time, since 2010. The number here is eight million, fewer than eight million. What are we talking about? That’s another thing about Obamacare that was always crazy from the beginning. If it was really about providing insurance for those who didn’t have it — that number is anywhere from eight to 12, and at the top 30 (at the very top 25, 30) million who didn’t have it. Obamacare didn’t fix that, didn’t address that because that’s not what Obamacare was about.
Look, I don’t want to re-litigate all this like we did starting in 2010, 2009 when it was being debated. But I’m telling you: There is so much disinformation out there about this that the Republican Party itself has fallen prey to it. The idea it’s growing more popular, that Americans want Congress to move on from it? Both of those things are not true. Here’s a little cross-tab from the poll that I do not believe:
“Among Republicans, 75% said that they would like their party’s leaders to repeal and replace Obamacare at some point, though most listed other issues that would give a higher priority right now. When asked what they think Congress should do next, most Americans picked tax reform and then foreign relations and then infrastructure. Only 29% said they wanted the Republicans in Congress to continue working on a new health care bill.” Republicans. That’s what the poll says. I don’t believe it. But I could be wrong. And if it is true that only 29% want a new bill, it’s because their frustrated and don’t think the Republican Party can get it done anyway.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Yesterday… I don’t think I’ve got the audio on this. Doesn’t matter. Jake Tapper yesterday had Bernie Sanders on, and they were discussing single payer. It failed in Vermont. The governor of Vermont tried single payer. It failed, wouldn’t work, and didn’t have the money, and Jake Tapper was interrogating Crazy Bernie about this. “If Even ‘Cobalt-Blue States’ Can’t Make Single Payer Work,” then why in the world does anybody think it’ll work in Washington or anywhere else?
Crazy Bernie did not have an answer when asked why it didn’t work in Vermont. The governor there, Peter Shumlin, did declare the debate over after getting estimates of the projected costs of socialized medicine in California. In California, the state assembly declared that they were gonna go single payer. The California state budget every year is $180 billion. Single payer for California alone would cost $200 to $300 billion, in addition to everything else the state’s already spending. The state budget without it is $180 billion. Single payer: $200 billion, minimum. And you know how they said they were gonna finance it?
A 15% increase in the payroll tax!
Which wouldn’t even get close ’cause people are not gonna sit there and stand for that. Single payer may be the issue where everybody suddenly realizes Washington can’t do it. There isn’t the money for it! What is it we’re $20 trillion in debt? We really, theoretically… Folks, we don’t have the money to do anything with that kind of debt, and yet there doesn’t seem to be any limit on spending, except when something’s this outrageous. The states can’t print money, so there’s no way they can do it. So these states acting as little, miniature laboratories for these great national ideas? It’ll cost $200 billion when a state budget is already $180 billion.
Let me grab a call in before we wrap up the hour. I want to start with Anna in Phoenix. Welcome. It’s great to have you here. How are you?
CALLER: Oh, fine. How are you, Rush?
RUSH: Very good. Very good. Thank you.
CALLER: Okay. You said be brief; I’m gonna be brief. My husband and I were talking about what happened with President Trump saying that he’s thinking about pulling funding for the congressman and senators’ own health care. My husband said, “That probably will not make any dent at all with them. What they care about is getting reelected.” So he said, “What he should do is go out and rally in each of the states where these senators are holding him up and rally to recall them. Do a recall for them, because they’re not doing the job.” What do you think?
RUSH: Well, I don’t know specifically about recall. But I do know that people are seething, and that’s why this Reuters poll of people saying, “Move on! We’re tired of it. Move on to tax reform”? That’s a crock. Now, you say that your husband says that removing the funding for members of Congress and Obamacare would not bother them because all they care about is being reelected. I am here to tell you:
What they did in voting down the repeal and replace of Obamacare tells me they’re not afraid of the voters at all. The voters, of course, is how they get reelected. Now, McCain obviously is not gonna run again. Many of the senators just got elected, so they’re not gonna face voters for six years. A third of the Senate is up in 2018; another third’s up in 2020. But it’s clear — and I have, I think, succinctly and brilliantly made this point on prior broadcasts — that the senators are afraid of something.
But it’s not you. It’s not the voters. They’re certainly afraid of somebody — or else they despise somebody — but they’re not afraid. You know, Ted Cruz said the thing that he discovered that was the most… I mean, he knew it, but to see it in action every day? It blew his mind that the single, dominating thing in every day of a senator’s life is getting reelected, which means fundraising. That’s number one, first and foremost.
Okay, if that’s true, then how do you explain so many Republicans saying “no” on Obamacare? And the Democrats, too. There are a lot of Democrats coming up in ’18 that should be vulnerable because they come from states that went very strong for Trump. And I’m thinking they’re living under the illusion everybody hates Trump, and so they don’t need to worry about that anymore. But they’re not worried about reelection on this. Taking them off Obamacare? Believe me, they tried to except themselves from what they were doing.
That does matter to them.
It’s the craziest thing.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Investor’s Business Daily, an op-ed: “Murkowski and McCain Saved Obamacare Just Months After Promising Voters They Would Repeal It.” It may be standard-operating issue now, but I still don’t think people can hear this enough. “Whatever your views on Obamacare, the simple fact is that the GOP Senate voted to repeal Obamacare in December 2015, knowing full well that President Obama would veto the bill. That vote was [purposefully] conveniently timed to give Republican lawmakers the ability to go back to their states and proclaim that they had tried to repeal Obamacare, but were thwarted by a Democratic president. …
“Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, for example, wrote multiple op-eds for her hometown papers decrying what Obamacare had done to her state, and vowing to repeal it, in the run-up to her 2016 re-election. In one [op-ed,] she wrote that ‘the Affordable Care Act has unfortunately become one of the most ironically named pieces of legislation for Alaska in history.’” Lisa Murkowski was one of all these Republicans voted in December of 2015.
For those of you in Rio Linda, it means the next month is 2016, which is an election year. They wanted to be on record as close to an election year as possible that they had sent a vote to repeal Obamacare up to Obama. Damn it, they repealed it. But that’s what you get with a Democrat in the White House. You give us a Republican in the White House and we’ll repeal it. She tells everybody how it’s not affordable. It’s not this and that. It’s not anything it purports to be, and she lays claim to no doubt that she opposes it.
“In a floor speech in May 2016, she claimed that ‘I have consistently supported full repeal of [Obamacare] and have voted to do so on several occasions. I have recognized that it is going to be difficult, if not impossible, to do so with [the Obama] administration.’ She voted for the repeal bill in 2015.” She voted for the repeal bill in 2015 — which, again, was timed purposely to give these people an example to say in their election, “I just voted! I just voted to repeal it. You give us the presidency, and it’s over with.”
She couldn’t even vote for that. The CBO gave her cover, don’t you know? She said, “I did not come here to inflict pain on people.” What’s that, inflicting people on people? “Well, the CBO said that 22 million lovable Americans will lose their health insurance if…” No. No. Yeah, they said it, but that’s a great big misdirection. The truth is 22 million people may not all lose their health insurance. It was simply the way the CBO chose to portray what they thought would happen if the mandate were done away with.
It’s interesting to me that (chuckles) the Congressional Budget Office thinks if the mandate were taken away, everybody who bought Obamacare would cancel it. What does that say about it? But they chose to portray it as the government’s gonna take it away from you, or your insurance companies are not gonna ensure you. Lisa Murkowski knew better. She knew what it meant. She knew that simply repealing the personal mandate, the employer mandates — simply removing the requirement that you have insurance — doesn’t mean people lose it.
It means they have their freedom back! That’s right. “She even voted against a ‘skinny’ repeal that would have only ditched the law’s individual and employer mandates and suspended the tax on medical devices [like dildos] — a tax that is so harmful to that industry that even uber-liberal Sen. Elizabeth Warren wants it repealed.” (interruption) What, you didn’t think that’s a medical device? (scoffs) , you go… (interruption) You go talk to… (interruption) Well, it certainly is. (interruption) In the right hands?
“Murkowski was joined by Sen. John McCain, who ended up being the decisive vote killing the skinny repeal bill…” By the way, you don’t think that was accidental, do you? You don’t think they waited and gave McCain the last vote accidentally, do you? “Just a year before saving Obamacare, however, McCain was vigorously attacking the law to win a tough reelection campaign. As Politico put it in a June 2016 article: ‘In fight of his political life, McCain hammers Obamacare[.]’
“One of his 2016 campaign ads said ‘Obamacare is failing Arizonans’ and that ‘John McCain is leading the fight to stop Obamacare.’ Last February McCain introduced a bill to ‘fully’ repeal Obamacare and replace it with a ‘free-market approach that strengthens the quality and accessibility of care.’” But McCain was running for reelection then, and so he was having to say things that he knew his constituents wanted to hear. He wasn’t saying things he actually intended to do, obviously. Just like all the Republicans of his ilk.
Once elected, he sang a completely different tune. There’s a YouTube of McCain’s promises. He explains why Obamacare must be repealed and replaced. It was during the 2016 campaign. McCain said in a YouTube video: “For the first time in history a major entitlement reform was rammed through the Congress without a single vote from the other side. I fought for weeks and weeks and weeks against Obamacare. They would not allow us an amendment. There was not a single amendment allowed. No input from the minority party.
“We were the minority party. Now Congresswoman Kirkpatrick” his opponent “wants to sit down and work together. Well, here’s how we work together: We repeal and we replace it.” That’s McCain in a YouTube video last year. “McCain went on to argue that the majority of the American people have ‘resoundingly rejected Obamacare.’ One of the debate moderators asked McCain if it was possible for Congress to try to improve Obamacare rather than to try to repeal it. McCain rejected the idea that it could be fixed and that the only solution is to repeal Obamacare.” This is last year!
This is the very same McCain that happily gave a thumbs down last week. Folks, it is sad to have to observe, but John McCain just proved that everything his harsh critics have ever said about him is likely true, and we know why. We know exactly why. Some people might even claim they understand it. Trump, in one of his early statements after having announced his intention to seek the Republican presidential nomination, when asked about Senator McCain, said he didn’t have a whole life respect for him ’cause he got captured.
Trump says he has more respect for military people that don’t get captured. (sigh) Well, think what you will of that. But you cannot think what you will of that without recognizing the importance of that story to McCain’s political biography. It is crucial to McCain’s biography. Everybody knows it — that’s how crucial it’s been — that McCain was captured after being shot down, that when the Vietcong found out who he was (i.e., the son of a famous Navy admiral), they offered him release and how McCain said no.
He was not going to take early release unless his fellow prisoners would be released — and of course, they weren’t; so McCain wasn’t. That story has been part of McCain’s political biography. Here came Trump inside of two sentences blowing it smithereens. McCain, I just know — as I say, I’m sure many of you can even understand, maybe even agree — has been waiting for the right moment to stick it back to Trump and chose to do it last Thursday as the last vote, thumbs down, killing Obamacare repeal.
So let’s not hear about all this statesmanship stuff. Let’s not hear about all that. That’s maybe applicable to some. Even John Fund at National Review: “Mr. McCain Goes to Washington.” Just let me give some pull quotes from this piece. “McCain’s vote against advancing Obamacare reform represents a complete reversal of the position he won his Senate election with last year. John Merline of Investor’s Business Daily notes that ‘In the private sector, promising one thing and delivering the other could be referred to as “deceptive trade practice.”
“‘For some members of Congress, it’s just another day at the office.’ … Journalists [i.e. the media] rushed to gush over [McCain’s] vote, cast only a few days after a surgery to remove a dangerous brain tumor. The New Yorker’s take was typical: ‘Throughout his political life, John McCain has for many reasons enjoyed bipartisan respect and even reverence: his independence of mind (usually), his candor (usually), his decency, his love of country,’” and all of this is said of John McCain because he regularly betrays his own party.
That’s why the media loves John McCain.
Reported 
The GOP had betrayed the American people.
Of course, speaking that truth was the easy part. Now, the GOP has to figure out how to move forward and get voters to still believe their promises.
Here’s what Cruz had to say and you’ll notice that when given the chance to take a shot at his old foe, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), Cruz demurs and says that the voters will have to deal with him as they see fit.
Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX): The losers tonight are the millions of Americans who’ve been hurt under Obamacare. The millions of Americans that have lost their jobs, who have been forced into part-time work, forced into working 28 to 29 hours a week. Millions of Americans have had their health care coverage canceled, who have lost their doctors, who’ve seen their premiums skyrocket.
The 6.5 million Americans each year who are fined by the IRS because they don’t make enough money to afford health insurance. So not only do they get health insurance, but they get a fine from the IRS and 80% of them are earning $50,000 a year or less. Nearly half are earning $25,000 or less. It’s the single moms, the truck drivers, it’s the steel workers, it’s the working men and women who are left behind tonight. That’s unfortunate.
And there are going to be a great many Americans who tonight feel a sense of betrayal. Feel a sense of betrayal that politicians stood up and made a promise.
I tell you this, if you stand up and campaign and say, we’re going to repeal Obamacare and you vote for Obamacare, those are not consistent. And the American people are entirely justified in saying, any politician who told me that and voted the other way, didn’t tell me the truth. They lied to me.
But I will say also the democratic process is a long process. In the next 24 hours, in the next week, Democrats will crow exaltedly. They’ll claim total victory for a collapsing and failing law that is Obamacare.
And the media will write story after story about how Obamacare will remain, even though it is failing and hurting millions of Americans. But after all of the chest-beating, after all of the proud victory laps of the left, I believe this Congress will come back and in time, we will honor our promises.
You know, Senators are going to go home the next few weeks. They’re going to go home to their states. And they’re going to face their constituents. They’re going to have hard questions of people who look them in the eyes and say, ‘Why did you lie to me?’
And by the way, it’s not just the Senators who voted no. The Senators who voted yes are going to be asked, ‘Why did you lie to me?’ Because the voters are not going to distinguish. They will say, you guys promised to do this and you failed.
I understand the frustration and anger of the American people. And I think the frustration and anger will be heard by members of the Senate.
I believe we’ll come back after all of the victory laps by the Democrats, all of the media exultations, I believe we will come back and we will honor our promise.
[…]
And by the way, when your premiums go up next year, the Democrats are happy for you to pay more year, after year, after year when you are struggling to provide for your family. That’s not right. The five years I have served in the Senate, there is no issue I have fought harder on and devoted more time to then stopping the disaster that is Obamacare.
Mark my words, I am committed to this fight.
As long as there is breath in my body, I will be fighting for the working men and women of this country that have been hurt by Obamacare, and I believe it will be repealed. No party can remain in power by lying to the American people. And I hope and pray that our party doesn’t try to do that…
Reporter: Senator, did John McCain lie to the American people when he campaigned on repealing Obamacare last year and then took this vote today. (Editor’s note: McCain voted against the ‘skinny’ repeal late Thursday night/Friday morning)
Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX): You know, that is a judgment the voters of every state will have to make. For each and every individual politician. I think what we should do is do what we said we would do. If you are a Democrat, and you campaigned on keeping Obamacare, okay fine. Then the voters can expect you to do that. But if you campaigned on repealing it, then the voters should expect that you will keep your word.
I think Republicans should keep our word, and I think we can. Despite unfortunate nights, I believe we can and will honor our promise to repeal Obamacare. Tonight, I’m filled with optimism. Despite a setback, truth matters. The truth is, Obamacare isn’t working. It is hurting millions of Americans, and the people who are getting hurt by Obamacare, it is the biggest job killer, it’s hurting small businesses, it’s hurting working men and women.
The people are hurt by Obamacare, you are being heard, and I believe we will in time honor our promise. And I give my word I will devote every waking moment I have to urge my colleagues let’s tell the truth and let’s simply do what we did — lower premiums and make health insurance more affordable for everyone. Recognize that Obamacare is a dismal failure that is hurting millions of Americans.
Funny thing, McCain gets more respect from the media and from his colleagues than Cruz does… but Cruz hasn’t ever made a promise to his constituents and then done the exact opposite when it came time to vote on the issue.
For all of the negative press Cruz gets for his hard-line stance, at least we know how he’s going to vote and we can trust him when he says he’ll vote a certain way.
That’s more than we can say about the liar, John McCain.
Onan is the Editor-in-Chief at Romulus Marketing. He’s also the managing editor at Eaglerising.com, Constitution.com and the managing partner at iPatriot.com. Onan is a graduate of Liberty University (2003) and earned his M.Ed. at Western Governors University in 2012. Onan lives in Atlanta with his wife and their three wonderful children. You can find his writing all over the web.
URL of the original posting site: http://comicallyincorrect.com/2017/07/31/mccain-kills-repeal-bill/#EY4v7Z8yFAFcubxC.99
Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2017.
To see more Legal Insurrection Branco cartoons, click here.
A.F.Branco Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here!
Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2017
Read more at http://comicallyincorrect.com/2017/07/31/a-f-branco-cartoon-featured-in-the-book-the-big-lie/#8ChWxG8fQpOqg3pW.99
URL of the original posting site:
http://comicallyincorrect.com/2017/07/25/democrats-best-friend/#0Rcm5xitJRv0gVRf.99
Political Cartoon by Antonio F. Branco ©2017.
Commentary by 
Ann Coulter | GOP: Obamacare is unpopular, so let’s pass a new health care bill
that’s even MORE unpopular.
Normal Person: Why would you do that?
GOP: No, you don’t understand. Obamacare is totally imploding, so if we pass this bill now, all its problems will be blamed on us!
Republicans would be better off doing nothing. They can survive the ridicule for running against Obamacare through four election cycles and then not repealing it. They cannot survive a bill that does nothing to fix the actual problems with Obamacare.
The only explanation for the GOP doing something so stupid and unpopular is that it’s all about tax cuts.
Why can’t we get it through their heads that we didn’t elect Trump to cut taxes? Forty-five percent of people don’t pay any federal income tax — and they voted for Trump! Taxes on high earners (or “Hillary voters”) are at a historic low.
Instead of squandering this moment, Trump the businessman should seize it to trumpet the free market. This is a golden opportunity to give a speech explaining why, contrary to everything your professors told you, communism doesn’t work.
Liberals always promise us wondrous cost-saving government programs, and then, it turns out, none of the laws of physics support their exciting plans. Obamacare is crashing and burning — and Trump hasn’t done a thing to anyone’s health care. He can say, perfectly accurately, he was just standing there when the plane hit the ground.
What sets us apart from the rest of the world is freedom — free people, free markets, free minds. That is how America became the most prosperous nation in the world. There’s no genius that can compete with the genius of the free market.
Sentient adults are perfectly capable of making their own choices about what health insurance to buy, the same way they make choices about what food to buy. The whole key to fixing Obamacare is not to repeal it, but to allow the rest of us to buy insurance on the free market.
It would be as if grocery stores were required to charge you $60 for a head of lettuce in order to fund the federal school lunch program.
It is a blood libel to say we don’t care about the old, sick and dispossessed.
Everyone has plenty of food in America, even without $60 heads of lettuce. That’s the free market! As Trump said, we will care for them better than they’ve ever been cared for before. But, first, the welfare cases have to be separated from the free market.
Skip the repeal — so there’s nothing for leftist ruffians to protest — and just give the rest of us the option of escaping Obamacare to buy health insurance the same way we buy everything else. Only a free market can guarantee good products at good prices.
Trump used to understand this! In the very first GOP debate, he said, “What I’d like to see is a private system without the artificial lines around every state. … Get rid of the artificial lines and you will have yourself great plans. And then we have to take care of the people that can’t take care of themselves. And I will do that through a different system.”
The “lines around the states” were the 50 state insurance commissions determining which health plans could legally be sold in each state — mandating, for example, that every plan include coverage for acupuncturists, chiropractors, fertility treatments, speech pathologists and so on.
Instead of throwing off the shackles of these commissions and giving us a nationwide free market in health insurance, Obamacare imposed one enormous federal shackle.
As a result, “health insurance” under Obamacare isn’t insurance at all — it’s the government forcing us to pay for other people’s health care through ghastly insurance premiums, deductibles and co-pays in exchange for highly limited health insurance for ourselves.
Trump ought to be using the flaming wreckage of Obamacare to illustrate what’s wrong with all Soviet five-year plans. It could be as iconic as Reagan’s Berlin Wall speech. Teenagers would vote Republican for the next 70 years — 80 or 90 years, if they could finally buy decent health insurance.
URL of the original posting site: http://comicallyincorrect.com/2017/06/30/gimme-a-break/#Tpft3CYDtG8ADWz1.99
Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2017.
URL of the original posting site:
http://comicallyincorrect.com/2017/06/30/happy-independence-day-big-league/#zEoHzBHEYOAgK9cp.99
Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2017.
URL of the original posting site: http://comicallyincorrect.com/2017/06/27/keep-her-in/#EbX6dkqx0u1BHBM8.99
Political Cartoon by Antonio F. Branco ©2017.
More A.F. Branco Cartoons at Net Right Daily.
A.F.Branco Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here!
URL of the original posting site: http://comicallyincorrect.com/2017/06/12/new-york-times-1-best-leaker/#Lt8sVEj8CQgCXcfX.99
Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2017.
URL of the original posting site: http://comicallyincorrect.com/2017/06/13/gop-pop-quiz/#8jTyw6lesd9f9VIs.99
Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2017.
Reported by | Updated 08 May 2017 at 10:58 AMThese Republicans are often described as “moderates,” but in truth they are usually just ambitious politicians hoping to protect their jobs. How else could you explain why so many Republicans who had promised to repeal Obamacare over the course of the last seven years did not vote to do so? Nervous Republicans are usually afraid of the spin from the Democrats and their media allies. But why?
“There is no way Republicans are going to be punished for doing what they said they were going to do,” said Alex Conant, a GOP consultant for Marco Rubio, speaking on Fox News on Friday.
Many of these squishy Capitol Hill Republicans pose a threat to other key aspects of President Donald Trump’s agenda. The building of a border wall, reform to refugee and immigration programs, and tax reform could all be watered down or blocked if enough Republicans go weak-kneed.
Here are three GOP congressional moderates that stand out:
Hurd is trying to lead the pack of Republicans opposed to Trump’s agenda. Democrats and media are beating a path to his door to assist him.
On Friday, Politico Magazine wrote a long piece on Hurd, portraying him as “the future of the GOP.” The one problem? He may not win his next election. Hurd represents the one district in Texas, out of 36, that is competitive between the two parties. And it voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016.
The district, in southwest Texas, is rural and includes 820 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border. Hurd doesn’t support Trump’s border wall, however, even though scores of illegal aliens pour across this very border every month.
Hurd, like most self-styled moderates hoping to win re-election, likes to nuzzle with the Democrats. Hurd and Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas) famously took a bipartisan road trip back to Washington in mid-March. Not long after the trip, O’Rourke said he would run against Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas). Hurd let himself get used by Democrats — and it likely won’t be the last time.
Yet it was Hurd’s unflinching refusal to vote for repeal that will perhaps deflate his hopes for re-election. It’s hard to win re-election in a swing year if your base abandons you; turnout in the midterms is key.
Lance losing in 2018 wouldn’t be a great loss for the GOP. Lance has a dismal 64 rating from the American Conservative Union (ACU), and only a 68 (out of a possible 100) lifetime rating — not terrible for a Northeastern Republican, but not great either. Lance is known for voting regularly to keep government programs fat and happy. He is also a big supporter of unions, voting against repeal of regulations that raise costs and benefit unions.
The ACU got so fed up with Lance in 2012 that it endorsed his opponent in the Republican primary. Lance could be the most likely Republican House incumbent to draw a well-funded GOP challenger in 2018.
Lance has also been especially aggressive in dissing Trump.
Murkowski is a moderate Republican senator under pressure now that Obamacare has passed. It’s showing. Murkowski snapped at CNN reporter Manu Raju on Friday as he pressed her to specify whether she supported the repeal legislation passed in the House.
“Will you please be respectful?” Murkowski said.
Murkowski has a 54 rating from the ACU. As an incumbent, she famously lost her Republican primary in 2010 but won the general election as a write-in. She won her 2016 race more easily.
The pressure now is understandable. There are only 52 Republicans in the Senate, out of 100. The GOP can only lose two of them in repeal.
But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) commands much more power and influence of his smaller, more manageable caucus in the Senate than House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) does in the House. If McConnell wants a repeal bill, he will likely get at least 50 votes for it.
URL of the original posting site: http://comicallyincorrect.com/2017/05/03/within-range/
GOP Budget Deal / Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2017.
Repeal and RepasteURL of the original posting site: http://comicallyincorrect.com/2017/03/28/repeal-and-repaste/
Healthcare Entitlement / Political cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2017.
Collateral DamageURL of the original posting site: http://comicallyincorrect.com/2017/03/27/gop-collateral-damage/
GOP Sausage Factory / Political cartoon by A.F. Branco.
It faced massive opposition from both the moderate and conservative wings of the GOP almost immediately. Moderates howled over the draw-down of Medicaid expansion in the leadership bill. Conservatives slammed how much of the original law would be left in place, the lack of movement on key free market promises, and new provisions seen as expanding government control over the health care system.
What now to do in 2017 depends on which Republican you ask. Members of President Donald Trump’s administration and House Republican leadership will say this bill has a way forward and that repeal and health care reform cannot be done at once.
Conservative congressional members and activist groups believe full and unconditional repeal is an immediate must.
On Tuesday afternoon, the House Republican bill was panned by conservatives long waiting for repeal of the hated Obamacare, passed in 2010. At a gathering of conservative Republican senators and representatives outside the Capitol Tuesday, elected officials took turns beating the proposed repeal-and-replace bill.
“There’s the leadership plan that was brought forward, which I believe, when you look through it, is Obamacare in a different form,” said Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the former chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus.
“This is … a step in the wrong direction,” said Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah).
A common refrain at the Freedom Caucus press conference with Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Lee was a question about repeal in 2015. Why couldn’t the Republican Congress simply vote for repeal, as they did in December 2015, when every GOP member of Congress voted to yank Obamacare in whole? Paul called it “clean repeal.” Addressing all of the issues that Paul and other Republicans want in a “clean repeal” may not be possible. Republicans don’t have the 60 votes needed in the Senate to move forward.
Republicans have 52 seats in the Senate. They would need eight Democrats to move forward with a repeal-and-replace option outside of the process known as reconciliation.
“The bill that goes through reconciliation and only requires 50 votes in the Senate in order to pass,” said Tom Price, secretary of Health and Human Services, during an interview Tuesday on “The Laura Ingraham Show.”
“There’s some things that you can do in that and there’s some that you can’t do just because of the rules,” Price said. “I know that’s a process argument, but that’s the truth.”
And it is the truth. One health care policy expert who has concerns about the Republican first draft told LifeZette that the first phase has to contain all the things that can be done via budget reconciliation, which only needs 51 Senate votes.
The next step, the second phase, would be Price’s move. As HHS secretary, Price will exercise his power to affect up to 1,400 health care regulations, as empowered by the law.
The final step, according to House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), would be a second bill, with items that can be filibustered because of their nature. The “Phase 3” bill will be moved almost simultaneously with the American Health Care Act, Ryan explained in a Tuesday afternoon press conference with House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.).
One big item in this secondary bill will be a favorite of President Donald Trump and many conservative groups: It will allow the purchase of health insurance beyond a customer’s state lines. Unlike automobile insurance, health plan customers have been confined to the state in which they live. Opponents of the current draft think that provision can be added now.
“Such an injection of competition would lead to hundreds of billions of dollars in savings, nullifying any argument by congressional Republicans that this provision cannot be included in the current bill,” said Club for Growth President David McIntosh in a statement.
Conservatives also expressed concern that a number of taxes and mandates (although not the hated “individual mandate”) are left in place.
“Republicans should be offering a full and immediate repeal of Obamacare’s taxes, regulations, and mandates, an end to the Medicaid expansion, and inclusion of free-market reforms, like interstate competition,” said McIntosh.
The Heritage Foundation’s political arm, Heritage Action, has also blasted the current draft in a statement.
“If Republicans move forward with this bill, they will be accepting the flawed premises of Obamacare,” said Heritage Action CEO Michael A. Needham. “Instead, they should fully repeal the failed law and begin a genuine effort to follow through on their seven-year promises to create a free market health care system.”
Yet Paul, of all people, seems to realize the House bill is an “opening bid” from Ryan and Trump. Democrats have been dealt out. The only people needed to pass Phase 1 are the conservatives and libertarians like Paul, Lee, and Jordan.
“This is the beginning of the negotiation,” said Paul, admitting Vice President Mike Pence has been contacting House Freedom Caucus members, and that Cabinet members have been setting up appointments with conservatives. “If they were to remove the objectionable items from their repeal and replace, it would essentially be [clean] repeal.”
That would be possible, since congressional Republicans and the administration have made clear the bill will be considered under regular order — a process that would allow the bill to be amended to win conservative votes.
I am getting tired of having to explain the same thing repeatedly. Every time I hear someone talk about buying health insurance across state lines, I know for a fact that they do not understand how selling health insurance works.
I sold health insurance for many years. Had to do coarse work, and pass a State Department of Insurance test in order to be approved to sell health insurance. I has to do additional coarse work and pass additional test to maintain my insurance license. So, I am offering the following simple explanation of how a health insurance company determines what a policy covers, cost, and pay claims. It is not exhaustive, but representative.
Every health insurance company uses the same formula to determine a premium payment for a policy they want to market. It begins with the actuarial. The actuarial provides the insurer the statistical calculations of risk for:
· Age groups
· Men, women, boy, girls
· Claim activity in a given Zip Code
o Includes pre existing conditions per Zip Code
· Uninsured claims in hospital Emergency Rooms
· Pharmaceutical purchases
· Whatever else individual insurers want to know in order to determine premiums.
· What are the cost associated with what that policy is going to cover.
· And whatever else they need to know in order to determine what they are going to charge for a premium for that policy.
The insurer will then add for administrating the policy and earned commissions and you have a insurance premium.
Each state has their own Department of Insurance. Each DOI determines:
· Which health insurance companies sell in their state
· What each insurance company must offer in coverage
· Mandated coverage of certain ailments, conditions, or events
· What each company can sell, and cannot sell.
· Each DOI determines what percentage of RISK each insurer must assume with each policy coverage and consideration. Yes, the insurers go into each issued policy with a determined level of risk for loss. MANDATORY.
· Each DOI has their own risk pool offerings.
For illustration purposes, let’s assume the policy you desire (based on coverage) is $100.00 a month;
· In the Zip Code next to yours, that same policy, same age, same sex, same coverage, same insurer could by $125.00 a month. Another Zip Code could be $75.00 a month.
· In the next state that same policy, same age, sex, family, insurer could be $150.00 a month. Another state could be $50.00 a month.
The difference all started with the ZIP CODED ACTUARIAL. Now, you want to go to the cheaper state and buy that policy. Every state will tell you that you MUST LIVE IN THE ZIP CODE YOU ARE BUYING COVERAGE.
The only exception is GROUP POLICIES. Most allow you to get coverage with medical providers in other states (example long haul truck drivers).
So, the politicians who are telling you they want you to be able to buy “cheaper” policies in the next state, do not know what their talking about.
The next issue. You pay your $100.00 premium every month. After 12 months you have given them $1,200.00. If you never used your policy, great. But, if you did files a claim for $2,400.00, the insurer is bankrupt. In order to avoid that, insurance companies take a determined amount of your monthly premium and invest it into the market. As they get a Return on their Investment (ROI) they use THAT MONEY to pay your claims. So when you see the amount of assets an insurer has, know that they are well able to pay your claims, without increasing your premium.
When the state DOI creates more mandated coverage for pre-existing conditions, that means that they are taking more loss on a policy and risking their ROI to pay your claims. Every time an insurer is mandated to cover a pre existing condition, they are demanding they buy claims they have never received premiums, or ROI. That requires them to raise everyone’s premiums in order to cover those loses. If that market starts to go, and claims exceed risk, then the insurer can no long cover anyone’s claims. BANKRUPTCY. That is why so many insurers have had to pull out of OBAMACARE.
For my fellow health insurance agents who are screaming now that I have left something out, please forgive me and let me know. There are so many other issues associated with this like executive pay structures, type of policies, etc. This was not intended to be exhaustive.
Thank you for reading,
Jerry Broussard of WhatDidYouSay.org
Fear ItselfURL of the original posting site: http://comicallyincorrect.com/2017/03/01/fear-itself/
GOP Congress Afraid / Political cartoon A.F. Branco ©2017.
Authored By Jessie Hellmann – 02/11/17 10:21 AM EST
Polls show the public is divided on whether to repeal ObamaCare, which doesn’t make the task of unraveling one of the largest social programs passed in recent history any easier.
Republicans say the key to winning the public relations battle is for their party to highlight the weaknesses of ObamaCare, a law even most Democrats admit could improve from legislative changes.
“I think the thing that, simply from a Republican standpoint, is to point out it’s a failing system,” said GOP Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), who pointed to rising insurance premiums and fewer choices for consumers as significant problems that will spur public support for the GOP’s plans.
The GOP arguments are being made to a politically polarized population on edge after the 2016 presidential election. Democrats are doing everything they can to make it tougher for Republicans to take action on ObamaCare. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) says Republicans want to “Make America Sick Again,” playing off of President Trump’s campaign slogan. Other Democratic senators have said repealing ObamaCare will lead to the deaths of thousands of people.
Republicans have faced angry crowds at some town halls, where people have expressed their displeasure at possibly losing health benefits. While Republicans contend that much of the opposition at the local events is being ginned up by Democrats, it appears to have had an effect. Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) tells upset constituents that Republicans are aware that repealing ObamaCare must result in a “much-improved health system.”
“We will be judged on our success in doing so,” he said.
A GOP aide to a congressman who faced a contentious town hall earlier this month said it’s about finding common ground.
“Even though they may disagree on the overall repeal of the ACA, he still believes it’s not sustainable…. From what he’s heard so far, I think he understands there is room for common ground and solutions.”
Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has been on a media blitz to paint ObamaCare as a disaster. But his efforts have been challenged by disunity on the GOP side. Some Republicans are now talking about repairing ObamaCare, while others are in more of a repeal or bust camp. The party still hasn’t coalesced around a replacement plan, which makes taking on Democrats tougher.
“Until everyone is on the same page, it’s very hard to combat a lot of those allegations,” said Ford O’Connell, a GOP strategist.
“If they’re not looking like they’re walking in a unified front and like they have the perfect solution, it’s going to be very hard to get public support on your side.”
Republicans blew past a self-imposed January 27 deadline to have repeal legislation drafted. Leaked audio of Republicans speaking at their GOP conference highlighted differences within the party. If Republicans want to get, and keep public support as they try to repeal ObamaCare, they need to appear to be on the same page, said GOP strategist Matt Mackowiak.
“Republican unity is crucial. Finding a bill that Susan Collins and Jim Jordan can support and agree on is difficult,” he said, referring to two Republicans who appear to be on the opposite side of their party.
“If Republicans are divided and Democrats are unified, that’s a great way to lose this battle before it begins.”
Republicans believe they have a mandate to take action on ObamaCare. For evidence, just look at the election, they say.
Rep. Diane Black, who faced a fiery crowd at a townhall in Tennessee on Thursday night, doubled down on the Republican’s goal to repeal ObamaCare.
“While there were strong feelings at this forum, there is no mistaking the clear message Tennesseans sent last November at the ballot box when they sent Congressman Black and President Trump to Washington to repeal ObamaCare and put patients back in control of their healthcare choices,” her office said in a statement Friday.
“As a registered nurse, Congressman Black ran for office on a platform of providing relief from this disastrous law, and she is intent on keeping that pledge.”
Bon Appetit
Eating Trump Crow / Cartoon by A.F. Branco.
By 9/9/16 Politics Reporter, The Washington ExaminerURL of the original posting site: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/lawmaker-pushes-to-sue-obama-for-internet-surrender/article/2601440
Some groups want the House GOP to sue President Obama over transitioning Internet control away from the U.S. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
Rep. Mike Kelly filed a resolution Friday that, if adopted, would allow Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., to ask a judge to block the Obama administration from proceeding with the Internet transition, which is supposed to take place at the end of the month. Conservative groups and activists asked House and Senate leaders to consider such a lawsuit last month, citing provisions in recent appropriations bills that banned the Commerce Department from spending taxpayer money on the transition.
“The American people’s Congress has prohibited this hasty surrender in law and the administration must follow it,” Kelly, a three-term Republican, said Friday.
Congressional Republicans have been increasingly frustrated with President Obama‘s decision to relinquish federal control over ICANN, the California-based nonprofit that manages the databases that underpin the Internet. Kelly has previously warned that the transition might allow foreign governments to take over the .gov and .mil domains used by the federal government, while several Senate Republicans worry that the proposed alternative would allow authoritarian regimes to censor Internet websites in the United States and around the world.
“Such a rushed transition puts the Internet at serious risk of falling under the influence of bad actors abroad who despise the free flow of information,” Kelly said.
The idea of a transition has been popular in some quarters of the tech community for years, but it didn’t become U.S. policy until President Obama‘s team decided to endorse the proposal in the wake of the Edward Snowden leaks. Foreign governments were outraged to learn the extent of the National Security Agency’s surveillance apparatus and the decision helped mollify some of that anger.
“The trust in the global Internet has been punctured,” Fadi Chehade, then-CEO of ICANN, said following a 2014 meeting with then-Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff. “Now it’s time to restore this trust through leadership and institutions that can make that happen.”
Senate Republicans fear that the handoff will allow other countries to dominate, and even censor, the functioning of the Internet.
“The proposal will significantly increase the power of foreign governments over the Internet, expand ICANN’s historical core mission by creating a gateway to content regulation, and embolden [its] leadership to act without any real accountability,” Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, wrote in a letter to the Commerce Department last month. “We have uncovered that ICANN’s Beijing office is actually located within the same building as the Cyberspace Administration of China, which is the central agency within the Chinese government’s censorship regime.”
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., wants at a minimum to delay the transition, to allow for further testing, but proponents of the transition say that’s not possible.
“We can’t test extreme emergency measures such as we’ve built over any period of a few months or even a few years,” Netchoice executive director Steve DelBianco argued in a Senate hearing in May. “The notion of a delay simply sends the signal that the U.S. believes that the role we hold is so valuable that we’re not giving it up, and we’ve reiterated to China, Russia and the United Nations that they want to step into those shoes. And that’s the biggest danger of the delay.”
By: C.E. Dyer on August 10, 2016But Breitbart reported that the editorial board of El Mañana — one of the country’s largest newspapers — wrote an article titled “Yes to the Border Wall … but in Mexico’s South,” calling for the country to build a wall along its southern border to stem the tide of illegal immigrants pouring across from Central America.
But when was the last time you heard American liberals up in arms about how Mexico treats illegal immigrants coming across its own border from the south? Apparently there’s nothing wrong with Mexico wanting to build a wall to protect its territory, but when the United States wants to do it, suddenly it’s “racist.”
This maps below are just another example of the hypocrisy of the left:
Conservative Post reported exactly how Trump can fund the wall, explained why it’s important and debunked the left’s assertions that it isn’t possible. Thanks to Mexicans who live and work in the United States, $24 billion flows into Mexico a year. If the Mexican government wants that money to continue, it will have to come up with a one-time payment of $5 to $10 billion in order to build the border wall, according to the Conservative Post.
Conservative Post mentioned three things that would help pay for the wall:
“Trade tariffs, or enforcement of existing trade rules.” As Trump has repeatedly said, we need to renegotiate trade deals in America’s favor. Doing so would provide a huge source of money to put toward building the wall.
“Cancelling visas.” America is not required to take in everyone around the world and, as the article pointed out, it is a privilege to come to the United States.
The U.S. holds a great deal of power in these negotiations as Mexico uses the U.S. as a de facto welfare state and also needs visas for business and tourism purposes.
“Visa Fees.” The left regularly likes to talk about increasing taxes on Americans, but what about visa fees? Conservative Post argued that just a small increase in visa fees could pay for the wall itself.
H/T Defund.com
By: John Falkenberg on July 27, 2016URL of the original posting site: http://conservativetribune.com/watch-abc-news-interview/
Speaking with ABC reporter Jonathan Karl in Philadelphia, where the convention was being held, he dropped the bombshell: “As far as president, I will not be voting for Hillary Clinton.”
As you can imagine, Karl was shocked.
“You are a delegate to the Democratic National Convention and you are not going to be voting for Hillary Clinton. Why?” he asked.
And as one might expect, the delegate mentioned her gross mishandling of her private email server scandal as evidence of her dishonesty and impetus for voting against her.
“Well, it’s really just as simple as I feel as if she hasn’t been honest with us, and the fact of the matter is, she said for over a year there (was) no classified information sent or received on her private email server, and the FBI said that’s not true,” he said.
“She wouldn’t even call it an investigation,” he added. “She called it a security review. If she’s not even going to be honest about the nature of that investigation, what else can we expect? I have no love for (GOP nominee Donald) Trump, but I also have no love for Hillary.”
It’s nice to see some delegates with a sound head still on their shoulders, even at the Democrat convention.
Should he be able to withstand the pressure to vote for Hillary Clinton, and if GOP nominee Donald Trump isn’t an option, he will almost certainly fall to one of the two significant party candidates — Libertarian Gary Johnson and Green Party nominee Jill Stein.
Or, he might just stay home. We’re OK with any of those options.
By Adrian Vance 
The general rule for primary elections is that you can only vote only for people in the party to which you are registered unless your state is otherwise. Some states have “open” primaries, but they are not popular with political parties that apparently want to have more control in spite of the fact open primaries would be better predictors, produce more information and let them fine-tune their messages. They apparently make too much sense and would have had an effect on the recent California primary as so many voters were unhappy with the offerings of either party. The crossover moves are going to be complicated and unpredictable.
The “Green” party, “Peace and Freedom” and whatever else we have in California the ballots are a mess and where so many of these off-the-wall groups look attractive out-of-season they are frustrating when you are looking at a Clinton-Trump main event and told you cannot get a ticket. An open primary would solve the problem, but our nimble noggin Democrats saw an evil opportunity in this mess.
Now they are floating a ballot measure that will appear to be an open primary, but give the prize to the top two vote-getters with no party affiliation requirement. In California, there are many more Democrats than Republicans, as they promise everything but free suckers and never deliver, but our voters seem not to notice. Perhaps we get too much sunshine, ozone or something…
California Assembly member Adam Gray (D-Merced) and the Independent Voter Project jointly announced introduction of a state Constitutional Amendment to create a nonpartisan Presidential ballot so that all California voters have an opportunity to cast a ballot for the candidate of their choice, regardless of their political affiliation, in taxpayer-funded presidential primaries.
“When voters fill out their ballot they expect to be able to vote for their candidate of choice, regardless of political party. While voters have that right in every other state and federal election, their choices are artificially limited when voting for President of the United States,” Gray declared, “My legislation fixes that problem, providing voters the right to vote for whichever candidate they prefer,” but here’s the sneaker under the covers…
California has so many more Democrats than Republicans the top two vote getters would be Democrats every time! We would never see another Republican US Senator or Representative from California until the end of time if this amendment to the California Constitution passes! The Democrats promise everything, deliver little, pile up debt, even where illegal, as in California and steal the people blind in shady land deals, contract kickbacks and just plain bureau squandering.
We have only recently exposed the trick they have been pulling of giving Republicans “Provisional” ballots, which they do not have to count unless the election goes into dispute. That will never happen if they repress even 10% of the Republican votes. Add the cemetery and illegal alien votes, and it is no wonder California is terminally Democrat. It will take much more than “The Big One” earthquake to change California, and especially now that the businessmen are all moving to Texas. They tend to all be Republicans and now are making the only legal protest they can make, leave.
The Democrats have been very successful at getting their people in election management positions where they could pull tricks like the provisional ballot for Republicans, but the practice has been exposed and is now said not to be happening, but read your ballot in California. Somewhere it may say “Provisional.” There is an active movement afoot to eliminate all California Republicans
Over 18,000 California voters signed a petition in support of the bill for this legislation, but the resolution died in the Assembly Elections Committee early in this year when the leaders got cold feet. The bill was apparently just too obvious even for this bunch of scoundrels.
It is claimed this new Constitutional amendment would resolve a number of significant issues related to voting rights and election administration, including:
Talk about putting lipstick on a pig! Where Democrats so greatly outnumber Republicans, and everyone else in the California electorate, no other party would ever see the light of day in elections. All would fade away in three or four election cycles. Somehow you get the feeling that they built the California Democratic Party for all the guys who miss the banana republics from whence they came so the game now is “kill all California Republicans.”
From the Pen of Lisa Benson – Friday, June 10, 2016URL of the original posting site: http://townhall.com/political-cartoons/lisabenson
Reported by May 20, 2016Compiled by Jerry Broussard of WhatDidYouSay.org
Presidents can issue executive orders that are legally binding on the general public.
These executive orders are backed by the full force of law just like laws passed through the formal legislative process.
A president can use executive orders to go around congress.
The president can use executive orders to modify laws passed by congress and can order executive departments to selectively enforce provisions of laws.
These executive orders are authorized by the Constitution.
Yes the president can issue executive orders however these orders are only binding on members of the executive department of the federal government. They are not legally binding on anyone outside the executive department.
Only laws passed through the formal legislative process have full force of law. Executive orders do not meet this requirement.
Congress alone has the power to write and pass laws. If congress chooses not to pass laws that the president advocates for the president can in no way act unilaterally. The president is restrained by the Constitution.
The president must enforce laws that are passed by the formal legislative process as they are written. If the president does not like a bill passed by congress or feels it violates the Constitution then the president can veto it before it becomes law.
Issuing executives orders that are given the full force of law is a clear violation of several provisions of the Constitution.
The Facts
The framers of the Constitution greatly feared concentration of power into a strong tyrannical central government so they incorporated many features in the Constitution that they believed would prevent this from happening. The Constitution created a government with three distinct branches. Each branch is granted separate distinct powers that are clearly spelled out in the Constitution. This separation of powers is one of the cornerstones of the Constitution that they believed would prevent concentration of power.
Article 1 Section 1 of the Constitution states that Congress is the only branch that is granted legislative power. The definition of legislative power used by the framers of the Constitution is the most universally accepted one, the power to write and pass laws.
Article 1 Section 7 defines the formal legislative process. Laws are not valid unless they are passed through this process.
Article 2 Section 1 states that executive power is granted to the President. Executive power is most commonly defined as: the authority to enforce laws and to see that they are carried out.
Article 2 Section 2 lists the powers of the president. Nowhere in this section or the rest of the Constitution is the president granted the power to write laws.
Article 2 Section 3 lists the duties of the president. The second from the last clause states “the president must take care that laws are faithfully executed.” If the president modifies laws through executive orders or selectively enforces provisions of laws through executive orders the president is violating this clause
Article 6 Section 2, which is the supremacy clause, defines what the law of the land is. Executive orders are not listed in the supremacy clause therefore they are not the law of the land. Only laws that do not violate the Constitution are the law of the land. Because executive orders are issued by the executive department outside of the formal legislative process and their contents most often violate provisions of the Constitution they are not the law of the land
The Proof
Article 1 Section 1 – Legislative powers
All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Definition of Legislative Power
the exercise of the power and function of making rules (as laws) that have the force of authority by virtue of their promulgation by an official organ of a state or other organization
Article 1 Section 7—Legislative Process
House to originate all revenue bills. Veto. Bill may be passed by two-thirds of each House, notwithstanding, etc. Bill, not returned in ten days to become a law. Provisions as to orders, concurrent resolutions, etc.
1. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills.
2. Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the president of the United States; if he approve, he shall sign it, but if not, he shall return it, with his objections, to that house in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration, two thirds of that house shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other house, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of that house, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each house respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the president within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.
3. Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the president of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or, being disapproved by him, shall be re-passed by two-thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.
Article 2 Section 1
The Executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America
Definition of Executive Power
Authority to enforce laws and to ensure they are carried out as intended.
Powers of the President
Article 2 Section 2 – President to be Commander-in-Chief. He may require opinions of cabinet officers, etc., may pardon. Treaty-making power. Nomination of certain officers. When President may fill vacancies.
1. The President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
2. He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
3. The President shall have the power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions, which shall expire at the end of their next session.
Duties of the President
Article 2 Section 3 President shall communicate to Congress. He may convene and adjourn Congress, in case of disagreement, etc. Shall receive ambassadors, execute laws, and commission officers.
He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he may receive ambassadors, and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.
The Supremacy Clause
Article 6 Section 2. This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
Federalist 47 by James Madison
No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty, than that on which the objection is founded. The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. Were the federal Constitution, therefore, really chargeable with the accumulation of power, or with a mixture of powers, having a dangerous tendency to such an accumulation, no further arguments would be necessary to inspire a universal reprobation of the system.
…these facts, by which Montesquieu was guided, it may clearly be inferred that, in saying ”There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates,” or, ”if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers,” he did not mean that these departments ought to have no PARTIAL AGENCY in, or no CONTROL over, the acts of each other. His meaning, as his own words import, and still more conclusively as illustrated by the example in his eye, can amount to no more than this, that where the WHOLE power of one department is exercised by the same hands which possess the WHOLE power of another department, the fundamental principles of a free constitution are subverted.
The magistrate in whom the whole executive power resides cannot of himself make a law, though he can put a negative on every law
But some were already talking about taking the fight to court, in the hopes that a judge would decide Obama’s move is illegal.
“We write laws, and we need to respect the president that he disagrees with us, but that is why the courts would be involved,” House Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions, R-Texas, told the Washington Examiner.
Sessions also sent a letter to President Obama this week that called on him to retract the directive pending “thorough judicial review.”
House Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman John Kline, R-Minn., said lawmakers, “are just looking” at ways to block Obama’s move. But he admitted they are stumped on how to do it because it was sent to schools as guidance, and doesn’t appear to be a new executive action or new rule.’
“I’m not sure how you use the power of the purse in this case,” Kline told the Examiner, referring to the possible idea of trying to defund Obama’s initiative. “There have been ongoing discussions, but I don’t even know how you would do that.”
The new guidance, issued last week by the Justice and Education Departments, cites current federal education law in a letter informing schools they must allow transgendered students to use the bathroom or locker room of their choice, and that failure to do so would amount to discrimination. The letter also told schools they must protect transgendered rights to play on sports teams that do not align with their biological gender. The administration said federal funding could be withheld from schools that do not follow the directive.
Republican lawmakers told the Examiner their offices have been flooded with calls and emails from constituents demanding Congress use their “power of the purse,” to defund the new requirement.
“My constituents are mad as heck that the president has tried to take this action,” said Rep. Bill Flores, R-Texas, chairman of the Republican Study Committee, a large, conservative faction of the GOP.
Flores collected dozens of House GOP signatures on a letter sent to Obama this week demanding clarification and further details about the guidance. The questions they asked include “why schools must disregard privacy, discomfort and emotional strain imposed on other students during use of bathroom, showering and changing facilities and overnight accommodations.”
Flores demanded a reply by May 30.
House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., dodged a question on whether House Republicans should go even further and use the appropriations process to stop the rule’s implementation. “This should be left up to the states, and the federal government ought to respect that,” Ryan said Thursday.
While the GOP is still searching for the right response, Sessions said Congress may ultimately end up trying to defund the directive.
“Congress can pass legislation in the House and the Senate and take it to the president and say, ‘we disagree with you,'” Sessions said. But with Obama likely to veto such a bill, Sessions said, “a more likely scenario,” involved defunding it during the appropriations process.
Republicans have typically used the annual appropriations bills to insert policy provision that otherwise would never receive a presidential signature, such as banning taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood. These provisions end up passing because they’re attached to “must-pass” spending legislation.
And while Democrats often oppose these policy measures in spending bills, the widespread backlash against the directive may lessen their opposition, Sessions said.
A CBS/New York Times poll found more people believe transgendered persons should use the bathroom that aligns with their biological gender, rather than the gender with which they identify, by a margin of 46 percent to 41 percent. Sessions said those numbers give Republicans confidence they can fight Obama with most of the public on their side.
“I’d love to see all the Democrats get behind the president on this issue,” Sessions said.
By: Wilmot Proviso on May 12, 2016URL of the original posting site: http://conservativetribune.com/trump-insider-top-candidate/
Trump recently told Associated Press that his ideal vice presidential pick would be someone who could help “with legislation, getting things through.” According to the anonymous insider, Trump realized that he’s a political novice and saw Gingrich, who served in the House of Representatives for 20 years, as someone who could guide him through the complexities of Washington and help him “make nice” with Capitol Hill.
Secondly, Trump wanted someone he “can live with for eight years.” Gingrich and Trump are said to get along well, as opposed to some of the other more conventional picks. Word is that former competitors Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who allegedly lobbied hard through surrogates, and Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who Trump finds “kind of quirky,” were out of the running for that very reason.
Thirdly, while Gingrich didn’t initially endorse Trump (he has since), he was an early defender of his when the media began attacking him. “Donald values loyalty,” the source told Newsmax.
Finally, Trump wanted a candidate who has been extensively vetted by the media. Gingrich, who ran for president in 2012 and was a top Congressman for 20 years, has been through a very strong vetting process.
“For the most part, they’ve been vetted over the last 20 years,” Trump said of the candidates on his shortlist.
For his part, Gingrich was admirably terse when Newsmax asked him via email if he’d been in discussions with the Trump campaign, simply replying, “No.” However, given he’s the name that’s popped up the most often in the past few weeks, we can only assume him to be the front-runner.
H/T teaparty.org
Foul Ball
Bush Endorsement / Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2016.
When God just ‘let’s things happen’Perhaps He has been left with no other action that will get a mankind, bent on ignoring Him, to be brought again to their attention. One could suppose that the further God is intentionally removed, or unintentionally disregarded – dismissed – from the conscious mind and spiritual conscience of man, that He is forced to allow more and more ‘jarring’ events to bring the mind back to cognizance.
I suggest that the next time – and there will be next time – instead of asking, “Why does God allow …?”, we should begin to ask, “For what purpose has God allowed …?”
Another question being asked, at present, is why there seems to be so little civility in a supposedly advanced society such as ours, here in the United States. Could it be that God has come to a point of exasperation – that He has simply said, “if that is what the mind of the people accept, then, so be it”.
In my lifetime, I have never seen or heard of the forbearance of such dishonest, dishonorable, crass, classless, ignorant, men and women as are being found acceptable candidates for the highest office in the nation. Have we – sadly – fallen to the place where a prideful, selfish, dishonest, classless, crass, profane and vulgar society has become the tolerable norm to us.
Many are the historically tragic(?) ends, when a nation falls prey to some man’s call to the pursuit of ‘national greatness’. As I recall, The United States of America has never sought ‘greatness’, as an end, (pun intended), nor has it ever sought the leadership of one who espouses to intentionally lead the nation to ‘greatness’, then, or now. But today, we have one who is, apparently acceptable, who deigns to lead the country to greatness, “again”. Have we forgotten that the halls of history are strewn with the carcasses of so many imperialist, and there enthusiastic minions, seeking national greatness. Meanwhile, God says that it is “righteousness” that “exalteth a nation”.
Perhaps we, as a nation and a society, should be asking three questions, of God, “How have we arrived at this place in our history?” “Why have we arrived at this condition in our history?”, and, “For what purpose are we being subjected to these choices?”
How far we have strayed from the humble path that made ‘US’ a great nation.
Monday, February 29, 2016
Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2013.
Obama regrets that Partisan Rancor is much worse since he took office.URL of the original posting site: http://comicallyincorrect.com/2016/01/15/obama-regrets
Political Cartoon by A.F.Branco ©2016.
by Dr. Susan Berry23 Dec 2015, 23 Dec, 2015 23 Dec, 2015
Franklin Graham Holds Baltimore Evangelistic Festival
“Shame on the Republicans and the Democrats for passing such a wasteful spending bill last week,” he posted on Facebook. “And to top it off, funding Planned Parenthood!”
Graham said the funding of Planned Parenthood was a huge loss for America, adding:
“After all of the appalling facts revealed this year about Planned Parenthood, our representatives in Washington had a chance to put a stop to this, but they didn’t. There’s no question—taxpayers should not be paying for abortions! Abortion is murder in God’s eyes. Seeing and hearing Planned Parenthood talk nonchalantly about selling baby parts from aborted fetuses with utter disregard for human life is reminiscent of Joseph Mengele and the Nazi concentration camps! That should’ve been all that was needed to turn off the faucet for their funding. Nothing was done to trim this 2,000 page, $1.1 trillion budget. This is an example of why I have resigned from the Republican Party and declared myself Independent. I have no hope in the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, or Tea Party to do what is best for America. Unless more godly men and women get in this process and change this wicked system, our country is in for trouble.”
Graham said he was challenging Christians – including pastors – throughout the United States to consider running for office.
“We need mayors, country commissioners, city council members, school board members who will uphold biblical values,” he asserted.
Graham said that, on January 5, in Des Moines, Iowa, he will begin a tour of the states, holding prayer rallies for the country in every capital.
End Of The GOP | Political Cartoon | A.F. Branco
by Jeff Poor 17 Dec 2015“The Republicans squandered that – they gave up the power of the purse,” Limbaugh said. “And the reason they did that is for some inexplicable reason they are literally paranoid, scared to death of even being accused of doing something that would shut down the government. So to avoid even the accusation that they were going to or would even ever think of shutting down the government – they signaled whatever Obama wanted to spend, he would get because they figured that had less damage to them politically than the allegation that they were shutting down the government.”
Limbaugh pointed out the continuing of funding for ObamaCare, Planned Parenthood, climate change and the effort to locate Syrian migrants to the United States in addition to expansion of certain visa programs.
“This is causing some people to wonder if they just dreamed all that stuff about Boehner resigning,” he said. “And then other people are wondering if they dreamed all that stuff about Republicans winning the largest number of seats they’ve had in Congress since the Civil War. We had two midterm elections in 2010 and 2014, which were landslide victories for the Republican Party. The Democrat Party lost over a 1,000 seats nationwide in just those two elections. People went to polls in droves wanting exactly what was rubber stamped last night, or what will be, stopped. Instead, they showed up in record numbers and they turned out and they just defeated Democrats down the ballot.”
“In the process, they elected Republicans to stop this,” Limbaugh continued. “And now the Republicans have the largest number of seats they’ve had in Congress since the Civil War. And it hasn’t made any difference at all. It is as though Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is still running the House and Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) is still running the Senate. Betrayed is not even the word here. What has happened here is worse than betrayal. Betrayal is pretty bad, but it is worse than that. This is out and out in our face lying from the campaigns to individual statements made about the philosophical approach – Republicans had to do all this spending. There is no Republican Party. We don’t even need a Republican Party if they’re going to do all of this. Just elect Democrats. Disband the Republican Party, let the Democrats run it because that’s what’s happening anyway.”
Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor
By Jonah Goldberg, October 30, 2015
Dr. Ben Carson. The ‘secret’ that Democrats can’t bear to face. Photo: Getty Images
Here’s something you may not know: Dr. Ben Carson is black.
Of course, I’m being a little cute here. The only way you wouldn’t know he’s black is if you were blind and only listened to the news.
For instance, on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” — a program that often serves as a kind of artisanal boutique of inside-the-Beltway conventional wisdom — host Joe Scarborough expressed consternation over Carson’s popularity. “I just don’t get it,” Scarborough said more than once. Remarking on some Carson ad he didn’t like, Scarborough said, “This guy is up 20 points in Iowa? . . . It’s baffling.”
Co-host Mika Brzezinski kept saying, “I just don’t get the Ben Carson . . .” before trailing off into in articulate exasperation.
Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson took a plausible stab at why Carson is popular. “They like him, they like him,” he repeated, referring to conservatives in Iowa and elsewhere who admire Carson’s dignified and soft-spoken demeanor.
True enough; Carson has the highest favorables of any candidate in the GOP field.
But what’s remarkable is that at no point in this conversation did anyone call attention to the fact that Carson is an African-American. Indeed, most analysis of Carson’s popularity from pundits focuses on his likable personality and his sincere Christian faith. But it’s intriguingly rare to hear people talk about the fact that he’s black.
One could argue he’s even more authentically African-American than Barack Obama, given that Obama’s mother was white, and he was raised in part by his white grandparents. In his autobiography, Obama writes at length about how he grew up outside the traditional African-American experience — in Hawaii and Indonesia — and how he consciously chose to adopt a black identity when he was in college.
Meanwhile, Carson grew up in Detroit, the son of a very poor, very hardworking single mother. His tale of rising from poverty to become the head of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital is one of the most inspiring rags-to-riches stories of the last half-century. (Cuba Gooding Jr. played Carson in the movie about his life.) He was a towering figure in the black community in Baltimore and nationally — at least until he became a Republican politician.
And that probably explains why his race seems to be such a non-issue for the media. The New York Times is even reluctant to refer to him as a doctor. The Federalist reports that Jill Biden, who has a doctorate in education, is three times more likely to be referred to as “Dr.” in the Times as brain surgeon Carson. If the Times did that to a black Democrat, charges of racism would be thick in the air.
Or consider the aforementioned Eugene Robinson, who routinely sees racial bias in Republicans. “I can’t say that the people holding ‘Take Back Our Country’ signs were racists,” he wrote in 2014, recalling a tea party rally four years earlier, “but I know this rallying cry arose after the first African-American family moved into the White House.”
Wrong. Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry all used the slogan incessantly when George W. Bush was in office.
How strange it must be for people who comfort themselves with the slander that the GOP is a cult of organized racial hatred that the most popular politician among conservatives is a black man. Better to ignore the elephant in the room than account for such an inconvenient fact. The race card is just too valuable politically and psychologically for liberals who need to believe that their political opponents are evil.
Carson’s popularity isn’t solely derived from his race, but it is a factor. The vast majority of conservatives resent the fact that Democrats glibly and shamelessly accuse Republicans of bigotry — against blacks, Hispanics and women — simply because they disagree with liberal policies (which most conservatives believe hurt minorities).
Yet conservatives also refuse to adopt those liberal policies just to prove they aren’t bigots. Carson — not to mention Carly Fiorina and Hispanics Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio — demonstrates that there’s no inherent contradiction between being a minority (or a woman) and supporting conservative principles. And that fact is just too terrible for some liberals to contemplate.
By Chries King October 8, 2015I have a confession to make: I’ve always liked Donald Trump. It’s one of those “guilty pleasures” I’ve been loath to admit for over 25 years.
I was introduced to the Donald back in the day when he was promoting his first, book and I thought his first name was really “Art,” as in Art-of-the-Deal Donald Trump. He was brash, bombastic, and charismatic. He was a teetotaler – at least at dinner parties – not because alcohol is bad for you, but because alcohol is bad for deal-making. I was impressed with him but was unwilling admit it to any of my friends – friends who insisted on calling Trump a narcissist and an opportunist (which he was – and is).
I liked Donald Trump when he and his wife Ivana (a tall version of Zsa Zsa Gabor) were on all the covers of tabloids, newspapers, and magazines. I liked him back when he was pro-choice and was, for all practical purposes, a liberal Democrat. I liked him when he was going through bankruptcy and insisted he was not bankrupt. I detest gambling, but I liked Donald Trump when he was buying land at a discount and building casinos generating astronomical profits. I never watched The Apprentice, but I always stopped whatever I was doing to watch the TV ads promoting the show, just so I could see and hear the Donald say, “Yuh fiuhed!”
I still enjoy Donald Trump. I enjoy his bombast and his perpetual Elvis-sneer. I enjoy the way he comes out swinging whenever he perceives he is being attacked. I’m gratified to see the way Mr. Trump has left the Democratic Party and has become a pro-life Republican. He’s not a classic conservative, but he’s way more conservative than he once was, and he’s way more conservative than any modern Democrat. His style is abrasive and cuddly all at the same time.
When I was a kid, there was a character on a popular TV show who was politically conservative, obnoxious, and insulting, and who had no filter between his brain and his mouth. Archie Bunker said hateful things in a way that made everyone laugh. Everyone who watched the show knew that in spite of his words and behavior, Archie Bunker deeply loved his wife, his family, and his country.
Donald Trump is Archie Bunker. He possesses no filter between his brain and his mouth. He loves his family, his supporters, and himself. Those are some reasons he remains so popular in 2015.
If Donald Trump were a typical politician, he would never have said half the things he’s said. Such words would have ended the careers of other politicians. Instead of having his campaign ended over ill-conceived words, he has become more popular. Many of the “experts” have tried to explain why Trump remains popular. Most of them have it wrong.
When pollsters report Donald Trump as the top preference of Republican voters, they also tend to report a liturgy of reasons for his popularity; he has high name recognition, his supporters are seeking an “outsider,” Trump supporters are unhappy and disillusioned with inside-the-Beltway politicians. These may be valid reasons for Trump supporters to express their support in the polls. However, this “conventional wisdom” does not accurately reflect the visceral, underlying motivation behind support for Candidate Trump.
Most people who support Donald Trump are not saying, “We love Donald Trump.” They are saying, “We hate you, mainstream media!” They are saying, “We hate you, establishment Republicans and inside-the-Beltway politicians and bureaucrats!” The message Trump supporters are sending to the GOP leadership and the GOP establishment is clear: “You don’t support Trump? Well, we…hate…you…so we do support Trump!”
The mainstream media will never try to reduce the hatred Trump supporters hold for them, nor will they try to garner their affection. On the other hand, if the GOP does not in some substantive way reach out to Trump supporters, the Republican Party is in serious danger of losing another national election in 2016.
Donald Trump rightly perceived an increasing frustration among mainstream Americans related to illegal 
immigration. He also perceived increasing anger among mainstream Americans directed at both major political parties in Washington, D.C. Trump is a good businessman. When he announced his candidacy this past summer, he talked about illegal immigration. He recognized he was hitting a nationwide nerve, and he has not backed off. He also is running as a political outsider. He is opportunistic, aggressive, and smart.
In 2012, I believe that Trump mistakenly thought he had an opportunity to garner a following by becoming an Obama-birther. In 2015, it’s clear he realized that his birther act was appealing only to a very small number of vocal but insane losers, and he has not brought up the subject again.
The GOP needs to seriously look at those issues raised by Trump that have connected him with his supporters in 2015. Illegal immigration is a legitimate concern shared by a majority of mainstream Americans from every racial and ethnic group. When Trump talks about crimes being committed by illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central and South America, he is addressing something that affects everyone, but especially law-abiding American Hispanics (this may be one reason that Trump is stronger with Hispanic voters than expected).
When Trump talks like an outsider – an outsider who knows how insiders think because he hires lobbyist insiders to
work for him – when he portrays himself as an outsider, he is giving voters something they want. The majority of mainstream American voters are not simply disillusioned with inside-the-Beltway business as usual politics; they are mad – fighting mad. Donald Trump (and Ben Carson to a lesser degree) has effectively tapped into that anger and expressed a willingness and a desire to fight.
Even if Trump does not become the nominee of the Republican Party, he has shown the path to victory that needs to be followed in the general election by the eventual nominee:
What Did You Say? 
Posted on January 12, 2013