Ann Coulter: IT’S ONLY TRUMP

ann_coulter

The only question for Republicans is: Which candidate can win states that Mitt Romney lost?

Start with the fact that, before any vote is cast on Election Day, the Democrats have already won between 90 and 98 percent of the black vote and 60 to 75 percent of the Hispanic and Asian vote. Unless Republicans run the table on the white vote, they lose.

If there’s still hope, it lies with Trump and only Trump. Donald Trump will do better with black and Hispanic voters than any other Republican. But it’s with white voters that he really opens up the electoral map.

A Republican Party that wasn’t intent on committing suicide would know that. But Stuart Stevens, the guy who lost a winnable presidential election in 2012, says it’s impossible for Republicans to get one more white vote — and the media are trying to convince the GOP that he’s right.

Stevens says Romney tapped out every last white voter and still lost, so he says Republicans are looking for “the Lost Tribes of the Amazon” hoping to win more white votes: “In 1980, Ronald Reagan won 56 percent of white voters and won a landslide victory of 44 states. In 2012, Mitt Romney won 59 percent of whites and lost with 24 states.”

Apparently, no one’s told Stevens about the 50-state Electoral College. The national white vote is irrelevant. Presidential elections are won by winning states. (Only someone who got his ass kicked running an eminently electable candidate might not know this.)

Excluding third parties and breaking it down to a two-man race, Mitt Romney won 88 percent of the white vote in Mississippi, but only 40 percent of the white vote in Massachusetts. What sense does it make to talk about his national percentage of the white vote with disparities like that?

Romney lost the white vote to Obama in five crucial swing states: Maine (42 percent of the white vote), Minnesota (47 percent), New Hampshire (48 percent), Iowa (48 percent) and Wisconsin (49 percent). He only narrowly beat Obama’s white vote in other important swing states — Illinois (51 percent), Colorado (52 percent), Michigan (53 percent), Ohio (54 percent) and Pennsylvania (54 percent).

Increasing the white vote in these states gives Trump any number of paths to victory.

If Trump wins only the same states as Romney, but adds Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Illinois — where Romney’s white vote was below his national average — Trump wins with 280 electoral votes. (Romney wasn’t an ideal candidate in the industrial Midwest.)

Trump could lose any one of those states and make up for it by winning Minnesota and Wisconsin — where Romney actually lost the white vote. Or he could lose two of those states but add victories in places outside the Rust Belt, where Romney’s white vote was also below average, such as Colorado, Iowa, Maine and New Hampshire. (In 1992, Ross Perot came in second in Maine, beating George Bush.)

I haven’t even mentioned Florida, where Trump recently trounced Stuart Stevens’ dream candidate, Marco Rubio, a sitting senator — and a Cuban! — in a 20-point rout. Republican primary voters outnumbered Democratic primary voters in that election by more than half a million votes.

If Trump wins Florida, he needs to win only two or three of the 10 states where Romney either lost the white vote outright or won a smaller percentage of it than he did nationally.

Stevens’ analysis assumes that there will be no new voters — and, again, there isn’t a mammal on the North American landmass who knows less about winning presidential elections than Stuart Stevens.

It’s as if we’re only allowed to divvy up the pile of voters from 2012. Unless you voted in 2012, you can’t vote in 2016! Use it or lose it, buddy.

That’s not how it works.

Trump is saying he’ll bring in lots of new people, as he has throughout the primaries. In the Florida GOP primary, for example, Trump got nearly half a million more votes than Romney did in 2012 — and about half a million new people voted. Trump may be wrong, but it’s insane to say that it’s impossible for him to bring out new voters.

What’s impossible is for any Republican candidate, other than Trump, to win a single state Romney lost. Ted Cruz’s corny speaking style is creepy to anyone who doesn’t already agree with everything he says. He’s the less likable, more hard-edged version of Romney. Every other Republican is, one way or another, a less attractive version of Romney.

Maybe 50 years of Third World immigration means it’s too late, and even Trump can’t win. But it’s an absolute certainty that any other Republican will lose.

BREAKING: Bikers for Trump riding into Wisconsin to stop Anti-Trump protests in Janesville

UpDATED 3/28 3:55CST BERNIE SUPPORTERS PAYING $15 AN HOUR TO PROTEST (LINK)

Enter the Bikers:

Patriotic Bikers, from all across the United States are planning to show up at ALL future TRUMP rallies to make sure that any paid agitator protesters don’t take away Mr. Trump’s right to speak. Or interfere with the rights of Trump supporters to safely attend. WE SHALL NOT BE SILENCED!

Bikers for Trump and Lions Guard are ramping up efforts to keep the streets safe, even as Governor Walker ignores cries to keep the front runner protected. (LINK)

JANESVILLE—Nichole Mittness thought about 100 people would respond to a Facebook page inviting a protest of Donald Trump’s Janesville appearance. As of midday Saturday, 1,200 had pledged to be there, and Mittness figured that meant 1,000 or so would show up on Tuesday. “It’s really overwhelming. I was not anticipating this kind of response,” Mittness said. While Mittness is working to have a peaceful protest that doesn’t interfere with the Trump event, Janesville police are preparing for any possibility. Janesville Police Chief Dave Moore said Friday he didn’t yet know how many officers would be assisgned, but his department reached out to police agencies in Rock County, including the sheriff’s office, as well as the State Patrol, DNR and Dane County Sheriff’s Office. The joint Beloit-Janesville-Rock County sheriff’s “mobile field force,” which specializes in crowd control, will be there, Moore said. Moore noted the Janesville Conference Center holds 1,000 and said he expects “a substantial number of people” outside. Trump’s event is scheduled for 3 p.m. The local protest is slated to begin at 11 a.m. Police respect the constitutional right to freedom of speech, “and to the degree possible, we intend to allow all citizens to voice their opinions, but we will require that it be done in a peaceful and safe manner,” Moore said. Inside the Janesville Conference Center—a part of the Holiday Inn Express—is a different story, Moore said. If the Holiday Inn, Trump’s people or the U.S. Secret Service want disrupters removed, “It is private property, and that’s their right,” Moore said. Mittness and her brother, Josh, started the “Janesville “Trump Protest” Facebook page. People have flocked to the page, some calling for disruption and shutting down Trump’s event. Mittness said that’s not what the protest should be about, and she has those messages removed. Anyone who tries to disrupt Trump’s event Tuesday could share the same fate. Organizers are coordinating with Janesville police. “If we have to, we will ask (police) to have somebody removed so the event will remain peaceful and positive,” Mittness said. “But hopefully it will not come to that.” Mittness said she is working with Standing Up for Racial Justice, which provided advisers and training on how to run a peaceful protest, manage a crowd and defuse confrontations. “If you’re looking for trouble, stay home. There will be trained event staff as well as a heavy police and media presence, so you will be removed, and possibly arrested,” Mittness warned on the Facebook page Saturday. She went on to tell protesters to stay off private property, respect neighbors, not to obstruct traffic, and “If the situation does start getting heated for any reason, walk away and do not engage them. We are NOT going to stoop to their level and allow violence to ensue. That is exactly what Trump wants. Be the bigger person!” Mittness said police have told her protesters may use the field across the street from the hotel parking lot as well as sidewalks in the area. The “Janesville Trump Protest” page has become a place for protesters to discuss politics and tactics. Trump supporters have joined in, some politely. Josh Mittness posted quotes from Martin Luther King Jr., including: “Nonviolence is a powerful and just weapon which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it.” Some have suggested the Janesville event could be a repeat of the recent Chicago Trump event, where scuffles broke out, and Trump canceled. One person wrote on the protest page Saturday: “So excited. Coming all the way from ChiTown to #ShutItDown.” The same person later posted about getting into Trump’s event: “… Please don’t act a fool. Though I will have your back if some fool Trump supporter tries to get violent. But the whole reason I am going inside is to hear what the man has to say for myself and to actually see what goes on inside his rallies without having to hear it from the media.” Moore said some streets near the hotel will be closed, but not major thoroughfares. Asked if tear gas would be an option if things get out of hand, Moore said he didn’t know what threats would arise, but “all levels of force will be available to us.” Sam Liebert, a member of the Janesville City Council and a Democratic Party activist, is helping organizers with the local protest. Liebert said an organization from Madison and Milwaukee is planning its own Janesville protest, but the local group is a separate effort. Liebert said protesters might try to get into the event, but those people are not affiliated with the local protest. “We’re not going to tolerate obstructing of Trump supporters and their freedom of speech,” Mittness said. Moore noted police handled protests when then-President George W. Bush spoke in the same building in 2004 and when Gov. Scott Walker appeared in Janesville in spring 2011, at the height of the protests over the law known as Act 10. Moore said his department has plans for such events for a variety of venues in the city because Rep. Paul Ryan lives here, but he won’t know many details of Tuesday’s event until his team meets with Trump’s Secret Service detail Sunday.

Link

In Context: Transcript of Donald Trump on punishing women for abortion

During a March 30, 2016 town hall meeting in Green Bay, Donald Trump stated that women should be punished for having an abortion.
Denouncements of the remarks by the Republican presidential front runner were swift.
Later the same day, Trump’s campaign issued a statement saying Trump actually meant that if abortion were outlawed, doctors who perform abortions should be punished.
To bring clarity to what Trump said at the town hall meeting, we offer In Context, our periodic feature that fleshes out sound bites that get widespread attention.
During the town meeting, a young woman from the audience asked Trump a question. Then Trump and Chris Matthews of MSNBC, who was moderating the event, got into a lengthy exchange that saw Trump try to turn the tables and press Matthews on how his own views jibe with teachings of the Catholic Church.
Here is the exchange and the seemingly straight-forward question that prompted it. The following text is based on a transcript and our viewing of the video. We’ll note there was quite a bit of crosstalk, making it difficult to hear some words.
QUESTION: Hello. I am (inaudible) and have a question on, what is your stance on women’s rights and their right to choose in their own reproductive health?
TRUMP: OK, well look, I mean, as you know, I’m pro-life. Right, I think you know that, and I — with exceptions, with the three exceptions. But pretty much, that’s my stance. Is that OK? You understand?
MATTHEWS: What should the law be on abortion?
TRUMP: Well, I have been pro-life.
MATTHEWS: I know, what should the law — I know your principle, that’s a good value. But what should be the law?
TRUMP: Well, you know, they’ve set the law and frankly the judges — I mean, you’re going to have a very big election coming up for that reason, because you have judges where it’s a real tipping point.
MATTHEWS: I know.
TRUMP: And with the loss of (Supreme Court Justice Antonin) Scalia, who was a very strong conservative…
MATTHEWS: I understand.
TRUMP: … this presidential election is going to be very important, because when you say, “what’s the law, nobody knows what the law’s going to be. It depends on who gets elected, because somebody is going to appoint conservative judges and somebody is going to appoint liberal judges, depending on who wins.
MATTHEWS: I know. I never understood the pro-life position.
TRUMP: Well, a lot of people do understand.
MATTHEWS: I never understood it. Because I understand the principle, it’s human life as people see it.
TRUMP: Which it is.
MATTHEWS: But what crime is it?
TRUMP: Well, it’s human life.
MATTHEWS: No, should the woman be punished for having an abortion?
TRUMP: Look…
MATTHEWS: This is not something you can dodge.
TRUMP: It’s a — no, no…
MATTHEWS: If you say abortion is a crime or abortion is murder, you have to deal with it under law. Should abortion be punished?
TRUMP: Well, people in certain parts of the Republican Party and conservative Republicans would say, “yes, they should be punished.”
MATTHEWS: How about you?
TRUMP: I would say that it’s a very serious problem. And it’s a problem that we have to decide on. It’s very hard.
MATTHEWS: But you’re for banning it?
TRUMP: I’m going to say — well, wait. Are you going to say, put them in jail? Are you — is that the (inaudible) you’re talking about?
MATTHEWS: Well, no, I’m asking you because you say you want to ban it. What’s that mean?
TRUMP: I would — I am against — I am pro-life, yes.
MATTHEWS: What is ban — how do you ban abortion? How do you actually do it?
TRUMP: Well, you know, you go back to a position like they had where people will perhaps go to illegal places —
MATTHEWS: Yeah.
TRUMP: But you have to ban it.
MATTHEWS: You banning, they go to somebody who flunked out of medical school.
TRUMP: Are you Catholic?
MATTHEWS: Yes. I think…
TRUMP: And how do you feel about the Catholic Church’s position?
MATTHEWS: Well, I accept the teaching authority of my church on moral issues.
TRUMP: I know, but do you know their position on abortion?
MATTHEWS: Yes, I do.
TRUMP: And do you concur with that position?
MATTHEWS: I concur with their moral position but legally, I get to the question — here’s my problem with it…
(Laughter in the audience.)
TRUMP: No, no, but let me ask you, but what do you say about your Church?
MATTHEWS: It’s not funny.
TRUMP: Yes, it’s really not funny. What do you say about your church? They’re very, very strong.
MATTHEWS: They’re allowed to — but the churches make their moral judgments. But you running for president of the United States will be chief executive of the United States. Do you believe…
TRUMP: No, but…
MATTHEWS: Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no as a principle?
TRUMP: The answer is that there has to be some form of punishment.
MATTHEWS: For the woman.
TRUMP: Yeah, there has to be some form.
MATTHEWS: Ten cents? Ten years? What?
TRUMP: I don’t know. That I don’t know. That I don’t know.
MATTHEWS: Why not?
TRUMP: I don’t know.
MATTHEWS: You take positions on everything else.
TRUMP: Because I don’t want to — I frankly, I do take positions on everything else. It’s a very complicated position.
MATTHEWS: But you say, one, that you’re pro-life, meaning you want to ban it.
TRUMP: But wait a minute, wait a minute. But the Catholic Church is pro-life.
MATTHEWS: No, let’s not talk about my religion.
TRUMP: No, no, I am talking about your religion. Your religion — I mean, you say you’re a very good Catholic. Your religion is your life. Let me ask you this.
MATTHEWS: I didn’t say very good. I said I’m Catholic. And secondly, I’m asking — you’re running for president.
TRUMP: No, no…
MATTHEWS: I’m not.
TRUMP: Chris — Chris.
MATTHEWS: I’m asking you, what should a woman face if she chooses to have an abortion?
TRUMP: I’m not going to do that.
MATTHEWS: Why not?
TRUMP: I’m not going to play that game.
MATTHEWS: Game?
TRUMP: You have…
MATTHEWS: You said you’re pro-life.
TRUMP: I am pro-life.
MATTHEWS: That means banning abortion.
TRUMP: And so is the Catholic Church pro-life.
MATTHEWS: But they don’t control the — this isn’t Spain, the church doesn’t control the government.
TRUMP: What is the punishment under the Catholic Church? What is the…
MATTHEWS: Let me give something from the New Testament, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” Don’t ask me about my religion.
TRUMP: No, no…
MATTHEWS: I’m asking you. You want to be president of the United States.
TRUMP: You told me that…
MATTHEWS: You tell me what the law should be.
TRUMP: I have — I have not determined…
MATTHEWS: Just tell me what the law should be. You say you’re pro-life.
TRUMP: I am pro-life.
MATTHEWS: What’s that mean?
TRUMP: With exceptions. I am pro-life. I have not determined what the punishment would be.
MATTHEWS: Why not?
TRUMP: Because I haven’t determined it.
MATTHEWS: When you decide to be pro-life, you should have thought of it. Because…
TRUMP: No, you could ask anybody who is pro-life…
MATTHEWS: OK, here’s the problem — here’s my problem with this. If you don’t have a punishment for abortion — I don’t believe in it, of course — people are going to find a way to have an abortion.
TRUMP: You don’t believe in what?
MATTHEWS: I don’t believe in punishing anybody for having an abortion.
TRUMP: OK, fine. OK.
MATTHEWS: Of course not. I think it’s a woman’s choice.
TRUMP: So you’re against the teachings of your church?
MATTHEWS: I have a view — and a moral view.  But I believe we live in a free country, and I don’t want to live in a country so fascistic that it could stop a person from making that decision.
TRUMP: But then you are…
MATTHEWS: That would be so invasive…
TRUMP: I know, but I’ve heard you speaking…
MATTHEWS: So determined of a society that I wouldn’t be able — one we are familiar with. And Donald Trump, you wouldn’t be familiar with.
TRUMP: But I’ve heard you speaking so highly about your religion and your church.
MATTHEWS: Yeah.
TRUMP: Your church is very, very strongly, as you know, pro-life.
MATTHEWS: I know.
TRUMP: What do you say to your church?
MATTHEWS: I say, I accept your moral authority. In the United States, the people make the decision, the courts rule on what’s in the Constitution, and we live by that. That’s why I say.
TRUMP: Yes, but you don’t live by it because you don’t accept it. You can’t accept it. You can’t accept it. You can’t accept it.
MATTHEWS: Can we go back to matters of the law and running for president because matters of the law, what I’m talking about, and this is the difficult situation you’ve placed yourself in.
By saying you’re pro-life, you mean you want to ban abortion. How do you ban abortion without some kind of sanction? Then you get in that very tricky question of a sanction, a fine on human life, which you call murder?
TRUMP: It will have to be determined.
MATTHEWS: A fine, imprisonment for a young woman who finds herself pregnant?
TRUMP: It will have to be determined.
MATTHEWS: What about the guy that gets her pregnant? Is he responsible under the law for these abortions? Or is he not responsible for an abortion?
TRUMP: Well, it hasn’t — it hasn’t — different feelings, different people. I would say no.
MATTHEWS: Well, they’re usually involved.

Happy Easter from the Religion of Peace

In the spirit of the season, Asad Shah, a Glasgow newsagent and a “devout Muslim”*[see update at the foot of the page], decided to send out an Easter greeting on his Facebook page:

GOOD FRIDAY AND VERY HAPPY EASTER, ESPECIALLY TO MY BELOVED CHRISTIAN NATION X! BISMILLAH…

Let’s Follow The Real Footstep Of Beloved Holy Jesus Christ (PBUH) And Get The Real Success In Both Worlds xxxx

Less than four hours after this ecumenical greeting, Mr Shah was savagely murdered outside his shop by his co-religionists:

The victim was found seriously injured on Minard Road, Glasgow, and was taken to the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital where he later died on Thursday.

An eyewitness, who did not want to be named, told the Daily Record: “As I drove past I saw two men standing over the victim.

“One was stamping on his head. There was a pool of blood on the ground. It was horrific.”

A 32-year-old Muslim man has been arrested.

Pace Mr Shah, Scotland is not much of a “Christian nation” these days. Instead, it is “tolerant”, “diverse” and “multicultural”. But a “tolerant” society determined to tolerate the avowedly intolerant won’t be in business for long. Men like Asad Shah’s killers are everything the safe-space pansies accuse us “white privilege” types of being: It is Shah’s co-religionists who cannot abide the other. They won’t tolerate Christians, they won’t tolerate Muslims who convert to Christianity, and they won’t even tolerate a devout Muslim who commits the sin of offering neighborly greetings on a Christian holiday. And so they killed him by “stamping on his head”.

Not all Muslims are like these savages. Some (albeit not enough, for understandable reasons, given his grim end) are like poor Asad Shah. But, as my late compatriot George Jonas liked to point out, what matters in any population is not the numbers but who makes the running, who has the energy, who has the wind at their backs. And in Islam (in part thanks to the supine cringe of Cameron and other western leaders) the wind is not with Mr Shah but with the blood lust of his ravenous killers, and those who killed this week in Baghdad and Brussels and beyond.

You can have pluralism or Islam, but not both. Mr Shah thought he could have both, and so they killed him.

Rest in peace, Asad Shah.

~Following the news this week, Michelle Malkin re-posted a prescient interview with yours truly from ten years ago. For Parts One, Two and Three of our fascinating conversation on Europe, Islam, jihad and demography, see here. For the final part, click below:

~On a related theme, at the end of this coming week I’ll be debating the “refugee crisis” in Europe and beyond with former UN Human Rights Commissioner Louise Arbour and distinguished historian Simon Schama on one side and me and UKIP honcho Nigel Farage on the other. For more details, see here.

*UPDATE: It has since emerged that Mr Shah was an Ahmadi – that’s to say, a member of a small sect of, so to speak, “moderate Muslims”, and whose moderation, back in Mr Shah’s ancestral home of Pakistan, is regarded as apostasy. Which makes them a frequent target of other Muslims. To reprise my point, there are too many Muslims who cannot abide the other – Christians, Jews, somnolent John Lennon-chanting Euro-secularists, Yazidi and Ahmadi.

Link

Donald Trump Quietly Helped Marine Whom Obama Ignored

Due to his recent presidential campaign, Donald Trump is getting credit for an act of kindness in 2014. Trump apparently greatly helped United States Marine Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi who was jailed in Mexico on gun charges for almost 2/3 of a year.

It has been revealed that Trump not only worked to secure the Marine’s release, but also sent Tahmooressi $25,000 in cash once he was released in order to help him get his life back on track.

The Obama administration was highly criticized for their failure to get Tahmooressi released. He was ultimately released on humanitarian grounds by a Mexican judge following the outreach of several prominent Americans.

The info, which was actually released last year, is making the rounds again after Fox News host Greta Van Susteren brought it to the attention of her viewers on her popular show. Greta also helped to secure Tahmooressi’s release and said the following on her blog:

Donald Trump gave the US Marine who was held in Mexico money to help jumpstart his life after months of captivity. I was proud to help Sgt. Tahmooressi and this showed what we can do when we work together …. watch my “Off the Record” comment from last night’s ON THE RECORD and sound off!

This is the second act of kindness Trump is getting credit for this month. Earlier this month it was revealed that Trump sent his private jet to give a ride to a sick boy who was not allowed to fly commercially due to his health.

Link

Poll: Trump beats both foes head-to-head

The results indicate that unifying Republican opposition to Donald Trump would be very hard.

Donald Trump would lead either Ted Cruz or John Kasich in a two-way race, according to the results of a Quinnipiac University national poll released Wednesday.

Asked whom they would like to win the GOP nomination, 43 percent of the 652 Republicans surveyed said they wanted Trump to emerge as the party’s choice in Cleveland, followed by 29 percent for Cruz and just 16 percent for Kasich, with 9 percent undecided.

In a head-to-head matchup between Trump and Cruz — with Kasich voters re-allocated to their second choices — the Manhattan real-estate mogul earned 46 percent support, compared with 37 percent for Cruz and 12 percent undecided. While the Texas senator drew slim advantages among tea party supporters, white, born-again evangelicals and those describing themselves as very conservative, Trump drew far greater support from voters who described themselves as somewhat conservative, moderate or liberal, as well as among men, women and those 45 years and older.

With Cruz supporters shifting to their second choices, Trump would have a large lead. Fifty-six percent said they would vote for Trump, with just 25 percent opting for Kasich and 13 percent undecided. More than seven-in-10 (71 percent) of tea party supporters said they would vote for Trump over the Ohio governor, along with strong majorities in every demographic and ideological group, including those describing themselves as moderate or liberal.

On the Democratic side of the race, 50 percent said they would prefer Hillary Clinton as their party’s nominee, while 38 percent wanted Bernie Sanders and 10 percent did not know.

Matched up against Trump and Cruz, both Clinton and Sanders lead by as much as 14 points, as is the case of Sanders’ lead in a hypothetical race with Trump. On the other hand, Kasich outperformed both Democrats when tested head-to-head, leading Clinton 47 percent to 39 percent and Sanders 45 percent to 44 percent.

On which candidate they definitely would not support, 54 percent overall said they would never vote for Trump in November, while 43 percent said the same of Clinton, 33 percent for Cruz, 27 percent for Sanders and 14 percent for Kasich.

Asked which words they would use to describe their feelings toward a Clinton or Trump presidency, the results carried some whopping negatives. The word “disaster” led the way for Clinton, with 68 mentions, followed by “good” (51 mentions), “scared” (49), “disappointed” (43) and “hopeful” (41).

For Trump, the results are even more absymal. The top word: “scared,” with 117 separate mentions, followed by “disaster,” “frightened,” “terrified,” horrified” and “disgusted.” The first positive word for Trump, “good,” was only the sixth-most frequent word mentioned by registered voters.

Quinnipiac conducted the poll from March 16-21 by landline and cellphone, surveying 1,451 registered voters nationwide with an overall margin of error of plus or minus 2.6 percentage points. The sample includes 652 Republicans with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.8 percentage points and 635 Democrats with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.9 percentage points.

Link

Trump Revolution Could Be More Incredible Than Reagan Revolution

If Donald Trump becomes president, we may witness something more incredible than the Reagan Revolution.

The greatest modern-day president, Ronald Reagan, left an immensely powerful legacy. Almost three decades after his departure from the White House, he remains the conservative standard-bearer of the Republican Party.

Under his presidency, the United States witnessed a grand political realignment toward conservative foreign and domestic policies. Reagan’s leadership boosted morale, confidence, patriotism, America’s economy and ended communism.

It has been difficult to conceive of a presidency that would trump the revolution of Reagan.

Until now.

Much is different, including the times, the threats, the challenges and the world.

While it may have been unimaginable to generations of America that lived through the Carter years, America is in much worse shape than she was then.

Seven years of a president that has deliberately diminished America at home and abroad, in accordance with his worldview, beginning and ending with apology tours, has taken its toll.

Patriotism has become politically-incorrect, and libelling America at will has become acceptable. Believing in American exceptionalism is now considered culturally-obtuse and academics at elementary, middle and high schools, along with college campuses, intentionally and recklessly paint America as a hateful, bigoted and oppressive place.

Political correctness, once born on college campuses, now weaponized by the leftist cockroaches that inhabit and preside over social media, has become a way of life. America is now in a race to become another European country, aspiring for mediocrity, resenting success, with all the self-loathing and suicidal inclinations we see in that continent.

There is a war on America. A war on Christians. A war on white, middle-class men and women. A war on anyone with traditional views on marriage, the environment, patriotism and life. We lose our jobs. We miss out on opportunities. We’re canceled as speakers or disinvited from social gatherings.

Enough is enough.

A President Trump would change that.

Every day ordinary people in America and around the world have been shunted and vilified from the mainstream. This is despite our moral and philosophical compass being common-sense conservatism.

Trump is going to give free-thinking conservatives the run of the table.

No more mainstream leftist censorship from social media.

No more political correctness for the sake of social engineering.

Just freedom.

This could be more incredible than the Reagan Revolution.

Imagine.

No more libelling of America.

God and patriotism back in schools.

Trump will reset the Obama presidency and its malefactors. Trump will transform the party to that of a coalition of blue-collar conservative workers and evangelicals Christians who want the US to halt the war on Christianity.

A Trump presidency would be Culture War Ground Zero. With the disgraceful riots of Chicago a couple of weeks ago, Trump has emerged as the consensus leader against the Left.

Many don’t get it.

They don’t get it that Trump is there to give them a leg up rather than be screwed over constantly by those who look down at them.

The Republican Establishment of today is the same as the Rockefeller crowd of the 70s.

As Brussels amply showed yesterday, the West is staring into the barrel here.

The Republicans in this millennium have only won the popular vote once. And that was by less than one percent. If they had a coalition of white conservatives voting for their own interests, they would win in landslides.

Like Reagan.

Reagan Democrats win landslides. Imagine making them a permanent fixture of the Republican voting base. The Democrats haven’t changed one person’s mind – they changed the electorate instead.

As I have traveled throughout America, so many have told me: “Trump is our man”. He’s the guy, they say, that has come to save the world from the path of self-destruction by the vices of our own virtues.

America needs to pull one for mankind, and seal this one for Trump. For those who can’t see it yet, the Trump revolution will sweep them away.

Link

Ted Cruz ‘Affair’ Rumors Peddled by Marco Rubio’s Allies

The senator accused Donald Trump of planting a National Enquirer sex scandal story. If that’s true, Trump wasn’t the only Cruz opponent trying to traffic in smears.

If you enjoy daydreaming about Ted Cruz’s sex life, then today is your lucky day.

The National Enquirer alleged on March 23 that the senator has had five extramarital affairs. And the descriptions it provided of the women—along with barely-pixelated headshots of them—left little to D.C. insiders’ imaginations as to who the Enquirer had accused of being Cruz paramours.

“A HOOKER, A TEACHER & COWORKERS: 5 romps that will destroy Ted Cruz!” the Enquirer piece boldly claims, in an article that includes a wild “sex-in-closet” allegation.

Cruz fired back on Friday, charging that the piece was baseless and that the Enquirer was taking its marching orders straight from “Donald Trump and his henchmen.”

The truth behind the rumor-mongering, however, is a little more complex. A half-dozen GOP operatives and media figures tell The Daily Beast that Cruz’s opponents have been pushing charges of adultery for at least six months now—and that allies of former GOP presidential hopeful Marco Rubio were involved in spreading the smears.

For months and months, anti-Cruz operatives have pitched a variety of #CruzSexScandal stories to a host of prominent national publications, according to Republican operatives and media figures. The New York Times, The Washington Post, Bloomberg News, Politico, and ABC News—reporters at all those outlets heard some version of the Cruz-is-cheating story. None of them decided to run with rumors. Those publications’ representatives all declined to provide on-the-record comments when The Daily Beast reached out for this article.

Breitbart News, the notoriously Trump-friendly conservative outlet, was also pitched the story of Cruz’s extramarital affairs, according to a source close to the publication. That source said an operative allied with Marco Rubio—but not associated with his official campaign—showed the publication a compilation video of Cruz and a woman other than his wife coming out of the Capitol Grille restaurant and a hotel on Tuesdays and Thursdays. But the outlet opted not to report on the video, which demonstrated no direct evidence of an affair.

“We got it from a Rubio ally,” said the source. “It was too thin, so [Breitbart’s Washington political editor Matt Boyle] decided not to run it. There was no way to verify the claims.”

A Rubio spokesman wasn’t immediately available for comment.

The Cruz campaign team has been aware of the sex-scandal rumors for months. But it took the National Enquirer’s report to force the story into the mainstream media conversation.

Friday afternoon, Trump disavowed any connection to the Enquirer’s story—while giving their credibility a backhanded boost.

“I have no idea whether or not the cover story about Ted Cruz in this week’s issue of the National Enquirer is true or not, but I had absolutely nothing to do with it, did not know about it, and have not, as yet, read it,” he said in a statement.

He then proceeded to praise the publication.

“Ted Cruz’s problem with the National Enquirer is his and his alone, and while they were right about O.J. Simpson, John Edwards, and many others, I certainly hope they are not right about Lyin’ Ted Cruz,” he said.

National Enquirer interior pages, accusing Ted Cruz of five extra-marital affairs.

The Daily Beast

You can’t blame Cruz for seeing Trump’s tiny fingerprints on the story—and it’s fully plausible that the mogul or one of his allies (rather than a Rubio booster) gave the story to the tabloid. After all, the supermarket tabloid is, for all intents and purposes, the Trump Train’s caboose.

TRUMP MUST BE PREZ!” began the Enquirer’s endorsement of the mogul, published earlier this month. “INSIDE: VOTE FOR HIS VICE PRESIDENT!” (One of the options is Sen. Cruz, who the publication had previously dubbed, “Boozin’ Ted.”)

In that same issue, the editors call Marco Rubio “NERDY.” The issue, dated March 14, 2016, also features bombshell exposes on the Illuminati taking control of Hollywood to erect “totalitarian world government,” as well as Dr. Phil’s “REIGN OF TERROR.”

David Pecker—the CEO of American Media, Inc., which publishes the Enquirer—is tight with Trump.

Trump has repeatedly praised Pecker and tweeted several times in 2013 that his pal should be named the new CEO of Time magazine.

The tabloid has provided Trump’s presidential bid with glowing coverage, and has been rewarded with “exclusive” interviews. In January, “America’s most popular presidential candidate” gave a two-part interview on the “most intimate details of [his] amazing life!” Trump is even an occasional National Enquirer contributor.

“Trump is a big friend of Pecker,” an anonymous source told the New York Daily News, claiming that the billionaire reality TV star is “protected” by the Enquirer. “So no John Edwards-type investigations … Some of the staff are furious. Trump’s such fertile ground, and it drives them crazy to not only be staying away from it, but running puff pieces for him.”

A source close to the tabloid also told New York magazine in October that Trump’s campaign was the source for an Enquirer cover story on one of the mogul’s former rivals.

“Bungling Surgeon Ben Carson Left Sponge in Patient’s Brain!” the headline bellowed. (The Trump campaign and Pecker flatly denied this allegation.)

The Enquirer has also savaged other Trump foes, including Rubio, Cruz, Carly Fiorina, and Jeb Bush. It recently reported that Bush, as governor of Florida, was embroiled in “sleazy cheating scandals…[with a] Playboy Bunny turned lawyer,” a rumor Bush publicly denied over a decade ago.

“There have been few presidential candidates in recent history that have generated the kind of discussion that Donald Trump has,” Pecker told The Daily Beast this month. “It’s no surprise that the readership of the Enquirer recently told us that they wanted to read more about Trump than any other 2016 candidate. The coverage of the Enquirer reflects what its 6 million readers want, and expect, from the publication which has shown no hesitation in presenting an unvarnished look at past or current candidates for president.”

But unvarnished isn’t the same thing as true. Cruz and several of the women accused in the Enquirer’s story have denied its lurid claims.

Link

Donald Trump Protester Speaks Out: “I Was Paid $3,500 To Protest Trump’s Rally”

Fountain Hills, AZ — For weeks, rumors have circulated the web that individuals were being paid to protest at rallies held by Presidential hopeful, Donald Trump. Today a man from Trump’s rally on Saturday in Fountain Hills, Arizona has come forward to say that he was paid to protest the event.

“I was given $3,500 to protest Donald Trump’s rally in Fountain Hills,” said 37-year-old Paul Horner. “I answered a Craigslist ad a little over a week ago about a group needing actors for a political event. I interviewed with them and got the part.”

Trump supporters have been claiming for weeks that the protesters are being paid for by Bernie Sanders’ campaign, but Horner disagrees.

“As for who these people were affiliated with that interviewed me, my guess would be Hillary Clinton’s campaign,” Horner said. “The actual check I received after I was done with the job was from a group called ‘Women Are The Future’. After I was hired, they told me if anyone asked any questions about who I was with or communicated with me in any way, I should start talking about how great Bernie Sanders is.” Horner continued, “It was mostly women in their 60’s at the interview that I went to. Plus, all the people that I communicated with had an AOL email address. No one still has an AOL email address except people that would vote for Hillary Clinton.”

Craigslist ad for Donald Trump protesters
A screenshot of the Craigslist ad that Horner says he responded to. The actual ad has since been removed. (Dennis System, File) / ABC News

“I knew those weren’t real protesters, they were too organized and smart,” said 59-year-old Tom Downey, a Trump supporter who attended the rally in Fountain Hills. “I knew there was something up when they started shouting all these facts and nonsense like that. The best we could do was just yell and punch em’ and stuff.” Downey continued, “I think we did a good job though. I was shouting at them the whole time, calling them losers, telling them to get a job or go back home to mommy’s house; I got a bunch of high-fives from my fellow Trump supporters. It was a great time.”

When asked about the other protesters at the rally, Horner said he saw most of them during the interview and training for the rally.

“Almost all of the people I was protesting with I had seen at my interview and training class. At the rally, talking with some of them, I learned they only paid Latinos $500, Muslims $600 and African Americans $750. I don’t think they were looking for any Asians. Women and children were paid half of what the men got and illegals received $300 across the board. I think I was paid more than the other protesters because I was white and had taken classes in street fighting and boxing a few years back”

Sarah Bradley, a spokeswoman for Sock It Forward, a group that provides the homeless and those less fortunate with brand new socks told ABC News that she does not understand why Trump protesters would need to be paid.

“I’ll protest that guy for free,” Bradley said. “Trump is creating a place for like-minded, hate-filled, individuals to gather. You wouldn’t have to pay me anything to protest that.”

Horner said the group had a mandatory six-hour training class that had to be completed before protesting at Trump’s rally.

“During training we were taught chants to shout like ‘Dump Trump’ and ‘Trump Is A Racist’, things like that. We were told how to respond to anti-Trump comments too. If a Trump supporter said something about how great his wall will be, the Latinos in our group would say, ‘We’re just going to tunnel underneath it.’ They even gave me a shirt to wear at the rally which said ‘F*ck Donald Trump’ along with a sign to hold that said ‘Make America White Again’.”

ABC News reached out to Hillary Clinton’s campaign for comment but did not receive a response.

Link

error: Content is protected !!