Category Archives: Featured Political News

Chris Christie Thinks Republicans Need To Compromise With Democrats. Let’s Look At The Truth Of The Matter.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie today announced that he is a candidate for president on the Republican ticket, and one of his first comments about how to win the election and then govern the nation was to encourage Republicans to compromise with Democrats and liberals.  Evidently Mr. Christie has not been paying attention to recent current events and has missed the following examples of what trying to work with liberals gets us:

Did the Dems compromise with Republicans when they shoved Obamacare down our throats?

Did Obama’s NLRB compromise with Boeing on moving their manufacturing plant from Seattle to Charleston?

Did liberals compromise with caterers who didn’t want to participate in homosexual weddings?

Have Democrats stopped using the lie of the Republican war on women?

Do liberals allow warming deniers to present facts contrary to the lie they’ve been telling since the 1970s?

Has Obama compromised with his military advisors on his very restrictive rules of engagement for fighting in Afghanistan?

Did Obama compromise with the Little Sisters of the Poor in their objection to a government requirement to provide abortions?

Did the members of the Supreme Court cast aside their liberalism and politics and vote on whether Obamacare was constitutional or not?

Has New York Mayor DeBlasio compromised with the New York police department and stopped identifying them as criminals and racists for doing their jobs?

Did liberals compromise when the FCC took control of the internet?

Liberals never compromise, they just push to the win, and then start planning the next aspect of American liberty and prosperity they will take over and destroy.  Conservatives must sincerely try to win on their values and principles and stop sheepishly asking Democrats for permission to make necessary changes, and then crumble and run and hide when they are called racists, sexists and homophobes.

NBC to Trump: ‘You’re Fired’

Donald_Trump_March_2015

Photo: Michael Vadon

NBC has decided to cut ties with Donald Trump as his election year rhetoric on Mexican immigrants has apparently inflamed … Mexican immigrants.

Trump is no stranger to ill-thought remarks and NBC is unabashedly biased.

The Donald made some comments in his June 16th campaign kickoff speech that made the Mexican government a little uneasy. He said “the U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems. When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best.” They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

The Mexican government’s response was to pressure Univision to cancel their contract to air Trump’s Miss USA pageant and soon after to get enough public support against Trump so that NBC would cut ties with the boisterous billionaire.

Where does that lead our badly-coiffed candidate?

What NBC may not realize is the giant favor they’ve done the right. By joining the campaign to color Trump as an enemy of … whatever, he will likely lose his moderate and populist following. Chris Christie and Jeb Bush will be left to fight over the middle.

In an epic bit of karma, Trump’s biggest critique of Carly Fiorina now applies to him too – he’s been fired.

Bobby Jindal Becomes 13th Republican Candidate for President [Video]

Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal announced his bid for the Republican nomination for the 2016 Presidential elections on Wednesday afternoon.

The speech centered on his Christian faith, conservative values and included pokes at his opponents on both sides of the isle.

Governor Jindal becomes the 13th person to enter the race and his current standing in the polls show that his work is cut out for him.

GOP Candidate Poll ResultsJindal shares the 2% bracket of a recent Fox News poll with John Kassich, Rick Perry, Lindsey Graham and George Pataki.

The first debate of the 2016 primary campaign will be on August 6th, 2015. Only the top 10 candidates will appear.

Jindal has indicated that he may not even try to enter the first debate and instead work a more grass roots campaign.

Jindal lost his first bid for Lousiana governor against Kathleen Blanco. But in 2007 he won the top seat and was re-elected with 2/3rds of the vote in 2011.

Jindal has taken up hunting, is a practicing Catholic and is now a candidate for the republican nomination for President of the United States.

What We Need From Our Next President

President Ronald ReaganAs the pool of aspiring presidential candidates grows by the day, one can’t help but hope that the electorate’s appetite for economic improvement under a term or two of a new president will likewise increase. After eight years of burgeoning government hegemony, diminution of personal liberty, assault on the free enterprise system and middle class family incomes, the last thing we need is perpetuation of the stagnant and fiscally stifling policies of the Obama administration. Perhaps we should look back, as we look forward, determining the nation’s course under a new president.

The last time the U.S. floundered with such a moribund economy was when the misery index (inflation plus unemployment) spiked over 20 at the end of the Carter administration. With rather constrained inflation, and government underreporting of real unemployment (Department of Labor U6 is still over 10%) our misery index is nowhere near Carter’s abysmal economic mishandling. But the sluggish economy, declining median income, and negligible economic expansion are taking their toll not just on the middle class, but the whole country.

Reagan-Obama-November-11But looking back to 1980 and how a new president, with congressional help, was able to reverse the negative trends, as well as instill hope for the future, is an example that begs repeating. If we’re to have any hope for our children and grandchildren’s future, it’s an example that must be repeated!

Carter’s economic policies had perpetuated the inordinately high tax rates of the previous decade, limiting job growth and capital investment, while generating less tax revenue due to the stagnant economy. Yet following the passage and implementation of the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1982, unemployment dropped 45%; private domestic investment grew 77%, and economic growth averaged over 4.5% annually. The consumer price index, a measure of inflation, rose only 17% over the next ten years, far below the one-year peak of 13.5% the last year of the Carter term. Real income of every income bracket increased while tax receipts doubled from 1980 to 1990, from $500 billion to over $1 trillion.

Real GDP Growth (Recovery)The Reagan administration deregulated many industries, reducing the cost of doing business significantly, including oil, making energy cheaper. A new U.S.-Canadian free trade agreement was inked, and savings and investment encouraged by the creation of IRAs and 401(k) plans. A whole new investor class was created, as most Americans now had “skin in the game” of economic expansion. And they were richly rewarded, as the GDP increased by 77%, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average more than doubled.

National debt continued to grow under Reagan, but that was more the culpability of a spendthrift congress headed by Speaker Tip O’Neil. Twice Reagan sent balanced budget recommendations to Congress, both of which were carried to the capitol in an ambulance so Speaker O’Neil could declare them DOA (dead on arrival).

Cumulative Job Growth ComparisonSpending on education, social services, and healthcare nearly doubled over eight years, while federal outlays on commerce, housing credits, and regional development were decreased by nearly 22%. The federal civilian workforce was reduced by 5% as well. The deficit, as a share of GDP, was cut more than in half, from 6.3% to 2.9% by the time Reagan left office. A vibrant, growing, and healthy economy made that possible, even with the spending increases.

National defense was a priority in the Reagan years, as exemplified by a near doubling of the annual military budget over his two terms. When told in a cabinet meeting that he couldn’t spend that much on the military, the president responded, “Look, I am the president of the United States, the commander-in-chief. My primary responsibility is the security of the United States. … If we don’t have security, we’ll have no need for social programs.”

GrowthInPerCapitaGDP80sVsCurrentThe strengthened and expanded military validated Reagan’s defense mantra: peace through strength. Due to our significant military investment, the cold war never evolved to a hot one, and the Soviet state collapsed in part due to their inability to match our burgeoning military capabilities.

Researching the economic “report cards” of postwar presidents, Harvard economist Robert Barro claims, based on the raw data alone, Reagan easily has the top scores. “Using the change each year in inflation, unemployment, interest rates, and growth in gross national product, Reagan ranks first. He engineered the largest reduction in the misery index in history—50 percent.”

This is not intended to heap adulation on a former president, but to illustrate what can happen nationally when tried and true principles are applied in governance. Rather than perpetuating the failed Obama doctrines intended to fundamentally transform America, a return to the economic principles that made the nation great will resurrect the indomitable free enterprise engine of America, unleashing our ability to work, produce, and compete, and hopefully get a handle on our out-of-control spending.

Associated Press award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho and is a graduate of Idaho State University with degrees in Political Science and History and coursework completed toward a Master’s in Public Administration. He can be reached at [email protected].

Obamatrade Passes House, Headed to Senate

KingObamaTrade Promotion Authority (TPA) has passed the House of Representatives bolstering President Obama’s push to make a landmark trade deal a lasting legacy for his troubled presidency.

The measure passed on a close 218-208 vote with moderate Democrats and Republicans coming together to push it through.

The bill grants Obama so-called “fast-track” authority which allows him to negotiate trade agreements. It forces congress into a simply yes or no vote on the President’s agreed-to trade deal without members having the ability to offer amendments.

The major concern has been over upcoming trade negotiations on the Trans-Pacific-Partnership and Trade in Services Agreements which are being kept secret and only through Wikileaks leaked portions have we seen that a large portion of both have nothing to do with trade.

The vote in the Senate is a foregone conclusion and the President will be free to accept trade agreements without oversight or cooperation from the representatives of the people.

Donald Trump and Media’s Treatment of Presidential Candidates

When Donald Trump announced his candidacy for president earlier this week, America let loose a collective snort of derision. For years, as Trump has flirted with running for the nation’s highest office, it has seemed as though the media mogul has been stumping with the sole purpose of generating publicity for his brand. While some charge, with some merit, this is a degradation of the democratic process, it is certainly a brilliant P.R. move.

Trump’s serious as a candidate in the eyes of the electorate contrasted with the negative media coverage coming from the right in the past days is interesting. Trump’s face painted with clown makeup was plastered on the cover of the New York Post. In an article title “Witless Ape Rides Escalator,” published in National Review Online, Trump was described as having the “worst taste since Caligula.”

Some, talk radio king Rush Limbaugh among them, have pointed out that left wing media never savage their nonserious candidates.

But surely, the willingness of right-leaning pundits to call out the shortcomings of politicians, regardless of their party identification, is a good thing. It speaks to the consistency with which conservatives approach their ideals. They stick to one standard, regardless of whether the person with whom they disagree might otherwise hold the same beliefs.

Besides, becoming a candidate for national office contains an expectation of scrutiny. Presidential nominees open themselves to a bevy of questions in order that their shortcomings and hypocrisies be exposed; an individual flawed in character or policy preferences is a detriment to the nation’s welfare.

And Trump certainly has plenty of shortcomings. He did, after all, propose wiping out the national debt in the 1990s by assessing a one-time 14.25% tax on individuals and trusts with a net worth over $10 million.

That being said, there is of course the old adage of their being no such thing as bad press. Trump, who, according to research compiled by FiveThirtyEight has a net favorability rating of -32%, benefits every time his name is discussed in the press. Even negative coverage is a lightning rod for his campaign. The mere repetition of his overbearing arrogance and ridiculous, often xenophobic statements is enough to make him seem more mainstream and liked than he actually is.

So, what responsibility does the media have in this situation? The question of candidate coverage is an ever-present one. Each cycle, candidates who seem to be underdogs complain that they remain this way chiefly because they get little recognition in the news and are excluded from party-sponsored debates. Rick Santorum’s unlikely rise in the 2012 primary lends some credence to this argument.

However, the media making strategic calculations about candidate access to press has already been tried with the Equal Time Rule of the FCC’s disastrous Fairness Doctrine. The problem is, though seemingly done in the name of fairness, these kind of decisions mask the real political consciousness media adopts. Double standards may be applied, but, since the media controls the coverage, its hard for the public to know whether “fairness” is actually the standard since other stories that might be important are not covered, meaning they tend to fade into oblivion.

But an activist role, where the media picks and chooses what stories to cover based on their assessment of a candidate’s seriousness is equally troublesome. Again, the media is infused with a consciousness that has the power to shape and influence political outcomes.

What’s the solution? As with many things in a democratic system, the discretionary power of the individual. With most media models driven by ad revenue, page clicks or viewership is the literal lifeblood of a news organization. Especially where politics are concerned, pundits have a right to make coverage decisions as they see fit. But that doesn’t mean people have to accept spin they find unfair.

The coverage surrounding Trump is a tremendous example of this. It is likely much of the negative press aimed at Trump is driven by personal dislike. Frankly, there’s a lot to dislike. If this sentiment resonates with public opinion, there’s nothing wrong with it. But, if it doesn’t, individuals need to take their consumer power somewhere else so media elites don’t become the equivalent of campaign strategists.

Public Opinion Divorced from Scope of Government Power in King v. Burwell

The Supreme Court’s ruling in King v. Burwell, which will decide whether healthcare plans purchased in states that use the federal exchange are eligible for subsidies, is being characterized as a simple matter of statutory interpretation.

At issue is wording in the Affordable Care Act that clearly states tax credits apply to individuals enrolled in an exchange “established by the State.” However, a ruling against the Obama administration would mean a loss of an average $4,700 in subsidies per person in the thirty-four states that rely on the federal marketplace.

The government argues it is not the actual words of the statute that matter, but their intent, meaning the definition, and thus the tax breaks, should apply to federally purchased plans.

Opponents take a more literal approach, arguing the interpretation of the statute must be limited to the specific meaning of the words written in the legislation as passed.

The problem with the Supreme Court looking beyond textualism and to intent is twofold. One, it gives the Court legislative powers. While statutory interpretation is well within the purview of the justices, the Constitution must be the root of that interpretation.

Secondly, judicial decisions that give deference to the motives and intent of various governmental organs make the law a living creature. It becomes malleable. Substantively equitable rule of law relies on strict interpretation of statutes. The American ideal of justice is very much tied into this idea. The introduction of empathy into judicial rationale makes law a living entity with a survival instinct. History shows that these types of states end in despotism.

Besides, this kind of legal construct require taking the government at face value. Yet, the ACA was crafted to punish states that did not set up exchanges, the assumption being that once residents realized how much more their plans would cost without the subsidies, governors would bow under the furor of public outcry.

Nevermind how utterly insulting this is to the complexity of the democratic political process and the voting rationale of the average citizen, it clearly suggests a legislative emphasis on state exchanges..

But, one has to ask oneself, does any of this even matter? Sadly for those who believe in strict Constitutional interpretation and the rule of law, public opinion suggests not.

A recent Washington Post-ABC poll revealed that, while 54% of those surveyed oppose the ACA, 55% do not want the Court to rule against the government.

ACA poll

The wording of the question is in itself problematic, as the phrasing about low income families being “helped” by subsidies introduces bias. However, it is striking that the question does not take into account the issue of what courses of action the branches of the federal government are granted by the Constitution.

The emotionalism of budgeting is a powerful argument, much more so than the dry rationale of pundits concerned with maintaining the proper balance of lawful government power. It is often the focus of polling, which in turn is often a justification behind public policy pushes, which creates and perpetuates an ultimately hollow legislative process.

Obama administration officials are already threatening that if the Court does not rule in its favor, the American healthcare system will descend into “utter chaos.” While many state governments ignored the threats of such sophistry, whether the Court will do so remains to be seen.

 

If Obama Knew Then What He Knows Now, Would He Have Prematurely Removed All Troops From Iraq And Cause The Disaster We Now See There?

The answer is “yes”, he would still remove the troops and cause the problems we are facing today in the Middle East.  Obama makes no mistakes, he is unable to do anything wrong.  In his recent Memorial Day speech he took credit for there being no real military action in Iraq, but the people unfortunate enough to live and suffer there would take exception to his statement and to the withdrawal of American troops.  Obama doesn’t care at all how severely people are hurt by his actions, he just does stuff and then takes credit for the act, but never the blame.  In Iraq, all Obama cares about is denying America a victory and if Iraqi citizens die as a result, then so-be-it.

The liberal press takes great pleasure asking Republican candidates whether they would still invade Iraq knowing then what is common knowledge now, but they won’t pose the same question to “B’Iraq” Obama (and of course they are unable to ask Hillary the question because she takes no questions at all).  So the killing goes on and Obama continues to blow off his mouth.

Obama will sacrifice anyone, anywhere at any time, just so he can claim a victory and strut around like a big shot, then jet off to Martha’s Island or the nearest gold course.  He’s even sacrificing the prosperity and security of the nation and the citizens he swore to defend.  That’s who this man is.

Crowded Early Presidential Field is Healthy for Democracy

Though the 2016 election is approximately 16 months away, the list of declared presidential candidates is already lengthy.

On the right, George Pataki, Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum, Rand Paul, Lindsay Graham, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee and Rick Perry have announced their candidacy. The left’s field is smaller, limited so far to Hillary Clinton, Martin O’Malley, Linc Chafee and Bernie Sanders, but may soon grow, as prominent national figures on both sides of the political aisle have announced they will soon announce their candidacy.

With the 2012 Republican primary carousel still prominent in the mind of many voters, the herd of declared and exploratory candidates is already wearying. To many, it promises intense intra-party bickering, the inundation of the airwaves with attack ads and wasted money on campaigning.

All of these things are frequently characterized as yet another example of a broken system.

But, this view is narrow and shallow; it does not take into account the complexity of national politics.

Impassioned pundits will often wax poetic about federalism and the devolution of power. But, the emphasis on localism that is such an important part of the American political lexicon is never translated into the language of the electoral system.

Diversity in small communities demands power be kept at a level where people’s stake in the outcome makes it more likely they act and debate prudently. This is exactly how the primary system works.

A political party is a community which people join of their own volition and act in to an extent they deem appropriate for their interests.

However, this does not guarantee unity of interests. Though there are overarching principles that bind party members in office and the electorate together, that does not mean they think alike in regards to particulars. So long as these differences are real and legitimate, there is a need for debate, not only so that the merit of ideas becomes evident through contrast, but in order to find which approach is most prominent since action has to be consensus drive to some degree.

The American political system is unique in that parties are bifurcated primarily not on values or ideas, but their belief in the strength of government. Yes, values are a hugely important part of a given party’s constitution, but they are more informed by what societal entity should take responsibility for a given need.

When this is the chief dichotomy and there are only two major parties, a host of beliefs that are similar at a macro level and different at a micro level must necessarily arise. And this is a wonderful thing because it forces debate over real and substantive matters. Ultimately, this cannot but help to strengthen personal ideologies and the political class, in turn making government more sound and more efficient.

In practice, this is obviously a flawed system. Sophistic rhetoric and venial platitudes often come to the forefront in debate, but this does not change the basic fact that substantive discussion is necessary. It is the responsibility of voters to weed out the serious, meritorious politicians from the bloviating, self-seeking hacks.

Long exposure to the public is the dominant tool through which this is accomplished. The primary system with its debates and campaign speeches exists to serve this function. And rather than looking upon this as some necessary evil where the failings of democracy are flouted, voters should see this as a system that empowers their voices.

Former House speaker Dennis Hastert indicted -Sex Involved

Dennis_Hastert_109th_pictorial_photoFederal prosecutors indicted former U.S. residence Speaker Dennis Hastert Thursday on charges he allegedly hid funds he gave to a blackmailer to conceal “prior misconduct.”

The Illinois Republican is accused of structuring the withdrawal of $925,000 in small amounts in order to evade the requirement that banks document and report cash transactions over $10,000 and of then lying to federal investigators in order to cover it up. Each of the offenses carries up to a 5 year prison sentence and $250,000 in fines.

Hastert, who served as speaker of the House of Representatives for eight years, is purported to have met with “particular person A” in 2010. The indictment alleges that during one of those conferences, they discussed alleged prior misconduct.

Further reports indicate the the prior misconduct was sexual in nature.

The indictment says that Hastert then agreed to give $3.5 million “with the intention to compensate for and conceal his prior misconduct towards individual A.” The indictment does not describe the alleged misconduct.

From 2010 to 2014, Hastert withdrew a total of approximately $1.7 million in cash from various financial institutions and gave it to “person A”, according to the indictment.

In April 2012, bank officials began questioning Hastert about the large withdrawals, and starting in July of that yr, Hastert decreased the amounts he withdrew at a time to less than $10,000.

Investigators questioned Hastert on Dec. 8, 2014about why he had been withdrawing money in such amounts. He informed investigators he did it as a result of having little  confidence in the banking system.

A spokesman for the lobbying and legislation firm where Hastert worked in Washington, D.C., noted Hastert has resigned his position.

The web site for Dickstein Shapiro LLC has eliminated Hastert’s biography as a “featured legal professional.”

As speaker, Hastert pushed President George W. Bush’s legislative agenda, helping circulate a large tax cut and expanding Medicare prescription drug benefits. He changed into the longest-serving Republican speaker, until losing his position when the GOP lost the house in 2006.

Generation Opportunity: Let Section 215 Expire

Washington, DC – (5/20/15) – Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said yesterday that the Senate will vote this week to extend Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, which has been used by the National Security Agency (NSA) and other intelligence agencies to justify the bulk collection of domestic phone records. Earlier this month, a federal appeals court ruled that Section 215 cannot be legitimately interpreted to allow for such activity.

Luke Kenworthy, Director of Policy Engagement at Generation Opportunity, released the following statement:

“The Senate should let Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act expire. Section 215 exemplifies the unacceptable trend of mass surveillance that threatens all of our freedoms.

“It makes sense that there is broad bipartisan support for allowing Section 215 to expire. It has been widely misinterpreted to give the government far more power than was originally intended.

“Privacy matters – it’s essential for free speech, commerce, and for holding our leaders accountable. Digital privacy is especially important to young Americans, as we use our phones, computers, and digital devices more than any other generation.

“Our generation says: let Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act expire. It’s only the first step, but it’s necessary for Congress to prove to us that our elected officials are ready to defend our fundamental right to privacy.”

The Order of Battle for Americans: How to prioritize political efforts

With so many attacks on the “America we love” it is easy to get confused by the barrages on so many of the citizenry’s rights. Here’s how to prioritize spending and efforts to protect what matters:

  1. Free Speech: If any effort portends to silence one group in favor for another – stand up, regardless if you agree with their message or not
  2. Freedom to bear arms: Regardless of which weapon or piece of ammo someone decides to ban – you must protest -harshly – or there may be no one and no manner left by which the freedom of speech is protected
  3. Legal search and seizure: Without free speech, it is impossible to expose incidents where government authorities illegally search a premises, person or vehicle. That means, without freedom of speech, and the freedom to bear arms – there is no protection against unlawful search and seizure.

While these elements do not show the whole of the U.S. Constitution, they do represent the core. If these rights are protected, all others will remain.

It it is understandable why many on the right attack budget issues, abortion, and foreign policy. But, sometimes greater focus on the basics is what is needed.

Americans must focus first on the three basic issues of speech, self-defense and protection from illegal search and seizure until those rights are clearly defended.

First, a few facts:

  • ISIS is far away and irrelevant for almost all Americans today. Let’s let them fight over there while America solves its internal issues – albeit sad that they overran ground our heroes once took
  • Abortion will not be fixed in the next election, it may take a generation with the right messaging – but it won’t be tomorrow – it’s not ready for politics until then
  • The budget is as much a Republican problem as it is a Democrat problem

Now that we have that clear, here’s what must be a first focus:

  • Protect the speech of those you disagree with (you will be a better person than George Stephanopolous)
  • Protect everyone’s right to bear arms.. or you may soon find yourself unable to speak freely and without anyone to defend you.
  • Speak out when other’s rights to search and seizure are stolen. Now, hope your rights to free speech are heartily protected.

A simple case for simple freedoms. Would you rather live in a place where someone tells you what to say, gives you no manner in which to defend yourself and then searches you when and how they like?

To correct the ills of America, black or white, we simply need to return to a focus on the bill of rights. Rights that were written down, unalienable, for all men – equal.

Until those rights are again accepted, protected and ingrained in the American psyche.. is not everything else trite?

SHOCK: Obama Calls for Change to How Media Reports

Obama isn’t happy with the way that the media reports on his failing economic and social policies.

At a discussion at Georgetown University on Tuesday, the President scolded the media for showing the unemployed demanding phones and other entitlements:

“I don’t know where they find them. They’re like, I don’t want to work, I just want a free Obama phone”

The media finds people to interview in actual America, not the one the President wants to pretend exists. The entitled want their Obama phones, EBT card money and everything else the left has been telling them that they should expect.

The President continued his rant against accurate reporting by  calling for an outright change to how the media reports:

“We’re going to have to change how our body politic thinks, which means we’re going to have to change how the media reports on these issues..”

How, exactly, does Obama plan to change how the media reports on these issues? Net neutrality gave the government more control over the internet and we are already dealing with the least transparent administration in history. Anything more obtrusive by the government and we’re looking at censorship – that pesky first amendment should at least slow him down.

If his idea of changing how the media reports means only telling the stories he finds palatable or in a manner that he approves, well .. that sounds a lot like N. Korea’s way of changing the body politic.

Hillary’s “Full and Equal” Citizenship May Not Be So Equal

Hillary announced Tuesday that she supports “full and equal citizenship” – whatever that means.

The Clinton campaign pushes her stance as superior to Republicans because they’ve never said “full and equal.” Then again, no one has.

The Clintons are expert at saying a lot without saying anything and this latest blurb is a shining example.

First, what does “full and equal” actually mean?

The full part is obvious, but equal is confusing. Does she simply mean equal citizenship with other Americans or that new, illegal immigrants will be considered equally with those having spent years and dollars to go through the legal process?

This is a ploy – pure and simple. Clinton is suffering among her base and moderates. Now, she has to appeal to the non-American voters (yeah, I think I just about puked.)

The fact that the left has no choice but to appeal to people that have no right to vote, wreaks of desperation. It also points to a tyranny yet to develop.

One plays on the weak when they have nothing strong to offer.

« Older Entries