Tag Archives: CNBC

Norquist and Kudlow have finally proven they are strident liberals

Donkey Hotey (CC)

Donkey Hotey (CC)

While Washington has in recent weeks been pondering what to do about illegal aliens, a number of pseudoconservatives have recently(and finally) outed themselves as strident liberals after decades of pretending to be conservatives.

They are: ATR President Grover Norquist, CNBC host Larry Kudlow, and NH Senator Kelly Ayotte.

There was plenty of evidence even before their jump on the amnesty bandwagon that they are not conservatives. This was especially true of Norquist, who has advocated (and continues to advocate) appeasing Islamists, implementing Sharia in the US, deep defense cuts, isolationism, and protecting tax loopholes for Washington lobbyists that contribute significantly to the deficit problem and allow rich liberals like Warren Buffett to pay little to nothing in taxes.

Ayotte, for her part, has advocated killing the crucial MEADS missile defense system and succeeded in cutting the Air Force’s airlifter fleet.

And now, we have both of them advocate for amnesty for 12-20 million illegal immigrants.

They falsely claim that immigration, per se, is good for America, and that illegal aliens should be legalized because, well, everyone in America except the Indians is an immigration or descendant of immigrants. In other words, Republicans should reward lawlessness.

Not only will this reward lawbreaking and make legal immigrants – and those currently waiting for an immigration visa to the US – look like fools, it will also alienate the vast majority of Republican voters, sending the GOP to the dustbin of history.

And worst of all, amnesty will create 12-20 mn new Democratic voters, by putting illegal aliens on a pathway to citizenship within no less than 5 years. If that happens, there will never again be a Republican President or Congressional majority. And you can take that to the bank and cash a check on it.

Don’t believe me? Let’s do simple math.

Let’s assume, conservatively, that there are 12 mn illegal aliens in the US, and that if legalized, they’ll be voting Republican in George W. Bush numbers (44%).

OK, now the math:

44% * 12 mn = 5.28 mn new GOP voters

56% *  12 mn =  6.72 mn new Dem voters:

Net gain: 1.44 mn new voters for the Democrats.

So even under the most optimistic assumptions, if amnesty is passed, the Democrats will gain, on net, 1.44 mn more voters than Republicans – strengthening the Dem majority even further and forever making the GOP a minority party. The two major parties will be the Nancy Pelosi Democratic Party and the Ed Markey Democratic Party.

Rand Paul – another pseudoconservative who has jumped on the amnesty bandwagon – falsely claims that Republicans must win California back and that supporting amnesty will help the GOP do so. He falsely claims California is winnable and its citizens want the same thing as other Americans – lower taxes, lower government spending, balanced budgets, etc.

Actually, California is permanently, irrevocably lost to the GOP, and it’s precisely because of uncontrolled immigration – legal and illegal. California is actually a textbook reason why amnesty MUST be defeated at all costs.

Massive immigration, both legal and illegal, but mostly legal, has transformed California from a Republican bastion into such a liberal state that no Republican, moderate or conservative, can get elected statewide in California anymore. Not so long ago, this state gave America such great Republican Senators and Governors as Richard Nixon, S. I. Hayakawa, Ronald Reagan, and Pete Wilson.

Between 1952 and 1988, California voted Republican in every presidential election except in 1964.

But since 1988, it has become a stridently liberal state where fewer than 30% of voters are Republicans.

What’s worse, the vast majority of Californians WANT Big Government, high taxes, and high government spending. They’ve passed  an anti-business cap-and-tax system and stringest “fuel efficiency” standards. Their state is highly unionized. In 2010, they rejected proposals to suspend cap-and-tax until the unemployment rate drops, and last year, they elected a State Senate Democratic SUPERMAJORITY, allowing the Democrats – who already control the State Assembly and the Governorship – to raise taxes without limits.

As a result, productive citizens and businesses are fleeing the state en masse. The few who remain yet are being taxed to death. Those who remain in California are predominantly welfare moochers, government employees, union thugs, gangsters, and members of extremely leftist organizations.

This is what the ENTIRE country will look like if amnesty becomes law. If it does, the entire country will have the electorate of California. AND THERE WILL BE NO TURNING BACK.

It will actually be worse, because millions of voters will desert the GOP for supporting amnesty and thus rewarding lawbreaking.

The GOP will then be unable to even maintain 41 seats in the US Senate.

Thanks to Republicans’ repeated betrayals of American workers and selling out to K-Street bundlers, the GOP already has enough problems cobbling together an electoral majority.

California and New Mexico are lost forever to the GOP. Colorado, Virginia, and Florida haven’t voted Republican since 2004. Republicans can barely defend Arizona these days. Only Texas remains secure – for now.

If Texas goes, America goes.

Capitulate on illegal immigration, and there goes Texas, the entire Southwest, Florida, Virginia, and there goes the presidency, forever.

And what policies will these illegal aliens – whom the Rubio-McCain-Rand amnesty will turn into 12 mn new Democrat voters – support?

A Big Government and an even bigger welfare state with higher taxes and higher government spending.

Successive polling by the Pew Research Center and other polling organizations shows that Hispanics, by overwhelimng majorities, suport such policies, including a “bigger government with more” over a “smaller government with fewer services”; and that the vast majority of Hispanics trusts the federal gov to “do the right thing” “always” or “almost always”.

No amount of “voter education” will conver these voters to conservatism, because people are unwilling to give up their political beliefs. You can’t convert a Latino-American socialist from Mexico or Argentina to conservatism any more than you can convince an Islamist to give up on jihad or North Korea to give up on Kimilsungism (juche).

Have you ever wondered why most Latin American countries have socialist governments? Because the vast majority of their citizens are socialists. And by importing them to the US, you’re only going to make the US another socialist country. People’s political beliefs don’t change simply because they step onto American soil.

(Similarly, French socialists have, for decades, been importing millions of poorly educated, unskilled, socialist-minded Arab immigrants into France, knowing full well that this will eventually create an unbeatable socialist majority in France. But unlike the US, French rightwingers actually fight fiercely against this scheme; rightwing President Nicolas Sarkozy was particularly tough on immigration, deporting illegals and cutting even legal immigration levels by half.

Who are the real surrender monkeys here: the French or the citizens and politicians of this country?)

For those who still believe socialist Hispanic voters are winnable, I say: Look at the majoritzy of Hispanic families.

They’re headed by single mothers, without a father in the home. Their children are educated at taxpayers’ expense K-12 and receive Pell Grants and student aid.

For food, there are foodstamps.

If mom works, she gets the Earned Income Tax Credit which keeps her below the income tax treshold. If she doesn’t work, she receives 99 weeks of unemployment benefits and other welfare checks.

For healthcare, there’s Medicaid and Obamacare.

In other words, the majority of Hispanic (and black) families are totally dependent on the federal government – from birth to adult life to the grave.

Yes, we all know a few Hispanic families who aren’t dependent on the federal government and who are hard-working, productive, God-fearing, and perhaps even conservative. But they are very few in number. The vast majority of Hispanic families fit the description above.

A typical Hispanic woman far more likely than white women to become pregnant out of wedlock and be a single mother. Her children are far more likely than white children to be fatherless, do poorly in school, drop out of high school, be unemployed, commit crime, and end up in prison.

Why should these people – who depend on the federal government for their livelihoods – vote for a party that pledges to cut taxes they don’t pay and to reduce the government programs they depend on and live off, instead of the party that pledges to let them keep what they already get and to give them more?

Especially in today’s world, where the vast majority of voters in all countries are interested only in getting more from others – preferrably for “free” – and forcing others to pay the bill?

“But we must pass amnesty to appeal to Hispanics, or we will never win another election!”, you will say.

That’s nonsense. Republicans don’t need to. Republicans instead need to appeal better to white voters – especially women and Hispanics. And passing amnesty will only infuriate these voters. Especially traditional Republican voters.

As Byron York has shown, using Nate Silver’s highly accurate election result forecasting model, even if Romney were to win 70% of the Hispanic vote last year, he would STILL have lost the presidential election. Even with 70% of the Hispanic vote.

Romney lost because too few white voters supported him – and because blacks, eager to defend Obama turned out in even greater numbers than in 2008, and in even greater numbers than whites did.

Obama’s incumbency and Hurricane Sandy also certainly played a role. Before Sandy, Gallup had Romney ahead of Obama by 5 points; after Sandy hit the East Coast, Romney’s margin dwindled to just 1 point, and eventually, Romney lost the popular vote in addition to the EC vote.

Nate Silver’s model shows that Romney would’ve needed to win 73% of the Hispanic vote – a share that NO ONE in US history has won, not even Barack Obama – to win the 2012 election.

Even Barack Obama has never won 73% of the Hispanic vote: in 2008, he won 67%, and last year, he won 71%. But never 73%. And the notion that any Republican, even an amnesty supporter or a Hispanic like Rubio, can ever win 73% of the Hispanic vote, is ridiculous. Nobody in US history, not even Barack Obama, has achieved this.

But, as Nate Silver’s model shows, had only 4% more of white voters backed Romney, he would’ve won the election.

Last but not least, as one Latina has recently pointed out in the Mediaite, amnesty will utterly fail to win Republicans new Hispanic votes, because Hispanics don’t care about immigration. Their top issues are jobs, the economy, education, and the budget deficit – NOT immigration. And many of them probably don’t want a new influx of cheap illegal alien workers competing with legal Hispanic immigrants for jobs.

A legal Hispanic kitchen maid earning 10 dollars/hour will probably not appreciate new illegal alien workers competing with her for a 5 dollar/hour salary.

Because that is why Republicans are really pushing for amnesty: their K-Street bundlers want to bring in even more, even cheaper, foreign workers to displace American and legal immigrant workers.

Employers love to hire illegal immigrants, as they can pay these people less and also evade all federal and state employment laws.

It’s the business lobby and the two major parties against the American people. Like Timothy Carney points out, it’s K Street against Main Street.

To sum up, Republicans lost last year due to a number of factors, but Hispanic voters were not one of them. They were still only 8% of the electorate. Trying to please Hispanic voters with amnesty will utterly fail; on the contrary, it will create, on net, millions of new Democratic voters who will send the GOP to the graveyard.

If amnesty becomes law, these illegal immigrants will become US citizens and will give the Dems a permanent, unbeatable majority. The entire country will have the electorate of California – and there will be no turning back. And to see how well that works out, just look at California.

MUST WATCH: The Funniest Rick Perry "Oops" Video That's Out There


I think I may have seen the funniest video that parodies Rick Perry’s “oops” moment from the CNBC debate.  It’s pretty hilarious, but I should mention it has some potty language. (“B” word, “D” word, “S” word)

So?  What did you think?  Funniest Rick Perry “oops” video of the week?  Or waste of time?  I appreciated the concept, and I really liked how it was edited together.  Let us know what you think in the comments below.

Jon Huntsman: I Want To Be President Of The 99%


In one of the biggest flubs of the night, Jon Huntsman said he “wants to be the president of the 99%”.  Ouch, Jon.  That was not a good move.  Check it out, below.

Now, to be honest with you, I think Jon had a good opportunity, maybe even a great one.  He should have said,”I want to be president of the 100%”.  Instead, he said, “I want to be president of the 99%.  I also want to be president of the 1%.”  That was an awful response, Jon.

What do you guys think?  Did Huntsman miss out on a potentially great opportunity?  Or is he so far back in the polls, that it wouldn’t have mattered if he delivered the new Gettysburg Address?  Let us know in the comments below.  Or, if you see me playing extreme frisbee in Bryant park, you can stop and talk to me then.

CNBC Debate: Your Money, Your Vote, Perry's Senior Moment

CNBC hosted the “Your Money, Your Vote” Republican debate Wednesday night and Jim Cramer is a loud bugger, isn’t he?  The CNBC financial analyst who is famous for his apology tour after he criticized Obama early in his regime was one of 3 moderators in Wednesday’s debate.  He was also the loudest.  Cramer’s perpetual outside voice lacked no measure of righteous indignation as he attempted to shore up his lib cred by yelling at the candidates.  It was clear from the start that Cramer and his colleagues were thoroughly disgusted with the general conservative approach to the economy.  At one point the topic of student loans was broached and the disgust from the moderating panel was palpable.  Students pay for their own college?  The horror!

There wasn’t anything about this debate that would be particularly interesting to those outside the world of GOP primaries.  It was pretty much cut and dry economic policy questions.  Not the most exciting topic but one that is very important in the search for our next President.  For the most part the candidates all seemed solid and answered questions capably…with the possible exception of Rick Perry.  Perry started out the evening looking more competent than he has in a while but then stumbled into the most cringe-worthy moment half way through when he could not recall the third of three federal departments he would prefer to put an end to.  His fumbling only lasted a few seconds but in Presidential debate time it was an eternity.  Perry paused, stuttered, repeated himself, and even looked to his fellow candidates to help him remember.  A few did shout out some ideas to him, probably just hoping to put an end to his embarrassment.  Eventually Perry had to admit he just didn’t remember his third point.  As a regular person, Perry’s stumble was forgivable.  We’ve all had those moments when we’re put on the spot and can’t remember the simplest words or lose our train of thought right in the middle of a sentence.  However to see a Presidential candidate fumble so horribly for so long on the debate stage was excruciating and it was obvious the audience and other Republicans on the stage felt the same way.  It may not necessarily spell the end of Perry’s candidacy, but I wouldn’t be surprised to hear Herman Cain sent Perry a lovely edible arrangement the next day.  This will be all anyone thinks about when they hear Perry’s name for a long time.  He’s got a lot of work to do to erase that memory.

Speaking of Herman Cain, the big question of the night was how he would perform after a brutal week of shocking allegations and scandal.  Maria Bartiromo led off the night with a question aimed directly at Cain regarding the scandal.  The question was met by hearty boos from the audience, after which Cain reiterated he would not be distracted by attempt to assasinate his character.   The audience responded with great applause and from that point on Herman Cain was off and running.  At least for one night it seems Cain was successful in rising above the accusations. Also, Cain has a tax plan.  Its called 9-9-9.  And, oh yeah…9-9-9.

Gingrich continues to dominate as an intellectual heavyweight.  At this point I must admit that I am changing my mind about a Gingrich candidacy.  I’m not convinced yet, but I may end up eating a little blogger crow at some point.  The guy is good.  He made mincemeat out of every “gotcha” question that was thrown at him.

The rest of the field was fine, solid- there weren’t any surprises.  As always Bachmann is at her best when she is talking Obamacare repeal and Romney was as smooth as ever.  He is obviously fine-tuning his platform for generals, but it remains to be seen if the conservative wing of the party will bow the pressure of “electability” and “next in line”.

The winner of Wednesday’s debate was Newt Gingrich.  Cain comes a close second if for no other reason than he was able to rise above the media circus of the last week and stay on message for the whole night.  Losers were Rick Perry (ugh, I cringe just thinking of that moment) and Jim Cramer, because he’s a loud mouthed ass.  It wasn’t the most exciting of platforms but it was valuable in the sense that it gave the candidates a good opportunity to expound on their economic positions.