Michael Medved reads from and discusses Jonah Goldberg’s article in the National Review, “A Four-Way Race for President Is Possible.” I am hopeful this is how it will shake out. Which is why I have held my endorsement until 8-1-2016 (http://cfaparty.org/endorsement-8-1-16/).
This will be a very interesting couple of months to say the least!
For more clear thinking like this from Michael Medved… I invite you to visit: http://www.michaelmedved.com/
Mark Levin speaks with Carrie Severino of the Judicial Crisis Network about Donald Trumps “telegraphing” of his Supreme Court [possible] judicial nominees.
I am somewhat ambivalent to his dedication to and for such picks… but in speaking to the Heritage Foundation as well as the Federalist Society he is showing some commitment to get conservative to vote for him.
In my post at The Constitutional Federalist of America, I note really three criteria that will get people like myself to vote for him…
…and this was one of them.
An informative segment to say the least.
For more wise counsel like this from Mark “the Great One” Levin… I invite you to visit: http://www.marklevinshow.com/
Sadly Priebus is right when he says “people don’t care.” (va Constitutional Federalists of America):
Here is the Washington Post’s story:
…A recording obtained by The Washington Post captures what New York reporters and editors who covered Trump’s early career experienced in the 1970s, ’80s and ’90s: calls from Trump’s Manhattan office that resulted in conversations with “John Miller” or “John Barron” — public-relations men who sound precisely like Trump himself — who indeed are Trump, masquerading as an unusually helpful and boastful advocate for himself, according to the journalists and several of Trump’s top aides.
In 1991, Sue Carswell, a reporter at People magazine, called Trump’s office seeking an interview with the developer. She had just been assigned to cover the soap opera surrounding the end of Trump’s 12-year marriage to Ivana, his budding relationship with the model Marla Maples and his rumored affairs with any number of celebrities who regularly appeared on the gossip pages of the New York newspapers.
Within five minutes, Carswell got a return call from Trump’s publicist, a man named John Miller, who immediately jumped into a startlingly frank and detailed explanation of why Trump dumped Maples for the Italian model Carla Bruni. “He really didn’t want to make a commitment,” Miller said. “He’s coming out of a marriage, and he’s starting to do tremendously well financially.”
Miller turned out to be a remarkably forthcoming source — a spokesman with rare insight into the private thoughts and feelings of his client. “Have you met him?” Miller asked the reporter. “He’s a good guy, and he’s not going to hurt anybody. . . . He treated his wife well and . . . he will treat Marla well.”
[….]
Miller was consistent about referring to Trump as “he,” but at one point, when asked how important Bruni was in Trump’s busy love life, the spokesman said, “I think it’s somebody that — you know, she’s beautiful. I saw her once, quickly, and beautiful . . . ” and then he quickly pivoted back into talking about Trump — then a 44-year-old father of three — in the third person.
In 1990, Trump testified in a court case that “I believe on occasion I used that name.”
In a phone call to NBC’s “Today” program Friday morning after this article appeared online, Trump denied that he was John Miller. “No, I don’t think it — I don’t know anything about it. You’re telling me about it for the first time and it doesn’t sound like my voice at all,” he said. “I have many, many people that are trying to imitate my voice and then you can imagine that, and this sounds like one of the scams, one of the many scams — doesn’t sound like me.” Later, he was more definitive: “It was not me on the phone. And it doesn’t sound like me on the phone, I will tell you that, and it was not me on the phone. And when was this? Twenty-five years ago?”
Then, Friday afternoon, Washington Post reporters who were 44 minutes into a phone interview with Trump about his finances asked him a question about Miller: “Did you ever employ someone named John Miller as a spokesperson?”…
Funny point that Trump will save the country money!
No, this is not a joke. It is real. Hildabeast and “The Donald” write comedic scripts FOR SNL… SNL doesn’t make it up. What a sad day in our political malaise that THESE TWO people are our candidates. For more resons why conservative should vote different than Trump, see the article and audio at CFA News: http://cfaparty.org/news/
See also CNBC’s article entitled “Taco bowls and crazy tweets: Why Donald Trump will never be presidential
For more clear and humorous exchanges like this, go to The Morning Answer
I like how Hillary claps at the end.
The Morning Answer Crew discusses the rift in the Republican Party… visa~vis the non-endorsement by leading Republicans. From Paul Ryan to the Bushes. Talk of those who are calling for support as well are included in the discussion, like Mike Huckabee and Bill Bennett. I am one who thinks along the lines of Paul Ryan that while we don’t always get the ideal… “The Donald” is not even near the minimum standards of the ideal. He is, as Ben Shapiro puts it, the farthest left leaning person to EVER be the presumptive nominee.
For articles discussing the reasons NOT to vote for Donald Trump, see The Constitutional Federalists of America’s posts and article/audio.
For more clear and humorous exchanges like this, go to AM870 The Answer.
Here is the portion of the article Prager is reading from, via The New York Times:
But it turned out that Republican voters didn’t want True Conservatism any more than they wanted Bushism 2.0. Maybe they would have wanted it from a candidate with more charisma and charm and less dogged unlikability. But the entire Trump phenomenon suggests otherwise, and Trump as the presumptive nominee is basically a long proof against the True Conservative theory of the Republican Party.
Trump proved that movement conservative ideas and litmus tests don’t really have any purchase on millions of Republican voters. Again and again, Cruz and the other G.O.P. candidates stressed that Trump wasn’t really a conservative; they listed his heresies, cataloged his deviations, dug up his barely buried liberal past. No doubt this case resonated with many Republicans. But not with nearly enough of them to make Cruz the nominee.
Trump proved that many evangelical voters, supposedly the heart of a True Conservative coalition, are actually not really values voters or religiousconservatives after all, and that the less frequently evangelicals go to church, the more likely they are to vote for a philandering sybarite instead of a pastor’s son. Cruz would probably be on his way to the Republican nomination if he had simply carried the Deep South. But unless voters were in church every Sunday, Trump’s identity politics had more appeal than Cruz’s theological-political correctness.
Trump proved that many of the party’s moderates and establishmentarians hate the thought of a True Conservative nominee even more than they fear handing the nomination to a proto-fascist grotesque with zero political experience and poor impulse control. That goes for the prominent politicians who refused to endorse Cruz, the prominent donors who sat on their hands once the field narrowed and all the moderate-Republican voters in blue states who turned out to be #NeverCruz first and #NeverTrump less so or even not at all.
[….]
What remains, then, is Trumpism. Which is also, in its lurching, sometimes insightful, often wicked way, a theory of what kind of party the Republicans should become, and one that a plurality of Republicans have now actually voted to embrace.
Whatever reckoning awaits the G.O.P. and conservatism after 2016 will have to begin with that brute fact. Where the reckoning goes from there — well, now is a time for pundit humility, so your guess is probably as good as mine.
I suggest that the lover of our U.S. history and Constitution (and other founding documents) listen to this extended interview with professor Barnett via ReasonTV. Here is a snippet that caught my ear from the interview that has ALL the relevance a day after “The Donald” won the delegates in Indiana:
Here is the Professor “3rd Party” column:
Is it time for a new third party? Not yet. But if Donald Trump gets the Republican nomination, then a new third party will be an imperative — and the time for organizing it is now.
I have long vocally opposed third parties as irrational in our two-party system. They inevitably drain votes away from the major party closest to them, thereby benefiting the major party that is even worse. But strategies must adjust to circumstances. If Trump wins the GOP nominations, one of two things will happen, either of which would be disastrous for the Constitution and for the country.
If Trump wins, he’s made clear he cares nothing for the constitutional constraints on the president, or on government generally. His ignorance of our republican Constitution — to match his ignorance of much else — and his strong-man approach to governance would make Trump’s election a political cataclysm second only to Southern secession in its danger to our constitutional republic.
For this reason, millions of patriotic Americans who would ordinarily vote GOP — including most conservatives and all constitutionalists — will never vote for him…
[….]
…And let’s be frank. By refusing to credit the legitimate concerns of ordinary Americans, the GOP establishment created Donald Trump. And many K Street Republicans will rush to embrace him because they know he has no principles and will be happy to deal.
What the nation needs is a new party that is expressly dedicated to upholding theConstitution of the United States, however it may cut politically — a party that can attract principled conservatives, but also any American who is tired of crony capitalism, runaway government and rule by an out-of-touch political class.
Should such a party split the GOP vote and throw the election to Hillary, this beats a Trump presidency, which would inevitably remake the Republican Party in the Donald’s own image. And, if Republicans hold onto Congress, divided government under Hillary beats one-man rule by a demagogue and his party.
Could we see a “Rand Paul” figure stand in for the real conservative? People like George Will and others can get behind the movement. National Review and the Weekly Standard can start support this option, called maybe The Federalist Party: Defending Intent Since 1776. We shall see.
Here is an interview with Dr. Barnett about his most recent book, “Our Republican Constitution: Securing the Liberty and Sovereignty of We the People,” Dennis Prager asks some great questions for the layman to access the main idea behind the book:
(During the actual interview portion the audio changes quite a bit. Whatever phone the Professor was on I tried to even out a bit… be forewarned)
Clear thinking in the above interview on our REPUBLIC is expressed as-well-as-is clear delineation between Cruz and Trump… which is why — at the risk of repeating myself… as of early morning on May 3rd — I have finally decided that I will NOT vote for Trump. He has mainstreamed conspiracy stories (RPT and National Review), he has expressed clearly the massive expansion of government over healthcare, free speech, and the like.
I have purchased some URLs to meet a need for a real third party choice:
Had to add this short exchange on my FaceBook. I said: “Trump wants Hillary’s plan for healthcare. So either way it [Obama-care] is getting worse.” To which this reply came:
To which I replied:
…here is his more recent dilliniation of renaming “single-payer” with “heart-payer,” it’ll be INCREDIBLE:
INDIANA PRIMARY WILL DECIDE OBAMACARE’S FATE
If Trump wins in the Hoosier State tomorrow, repeal is a dead letter.
Indiana’s Republican primary is not merely the Cruz campaign’s last chance to stop the Trump juggernaut, it will also determine the ultimate fate of Obamacare. If Trump wins Indiana tomorrow, he will almost certainly win the Republican presidential nomination only to lose the general election to Hillary Clinton, who is committed to preserving the unpopular law. Even if Trump manages to eke out a win in November, he will probably be hobbled by a Democrat-controlled Senate that will kill any Obamacare repeal bill. A vote for Trump in the Hoosier State tomorrow, in other words, is a vote for Obamacare.
[….]
In addition to being the most unpopular presidential candidate in decades, he is viewed askance by key demographic groups without whose support no candidate can win. A recent Gallup survey found the following: “Donald Trump’s image among U.S. women tilts strongly negative, with 70% of women holding an unfavorable opinion and 23% a favorable opinion of the Republican front-runner.” Women make up more than half of the electorate — election over.
Which brings us back to Obamacare. Trump can’t repeal the perversely titled “Affordable Care Act” or anything else if he can’t get elected president. And when he loses in a landslide to Hillary Clinton, she will claim a mandate to expand President Obama’s “signature domestic achievement.” In other words, she will make the already intrusive and dysfunctional health “reform” law even worse. Her vision for building on Obamacare’s “successes” involves a soviet-style regulatory regimen that would dictate how insurance companies, drug manufacturers, and care providers operate and what they charge their customers.
Clinton also plans to exhume the dreaded “public option.” According to her campaign website, “Hillary supports a ‘public option’ to reduce costs and broaden the choices of insurance coverage for every American.” This idea was so bad it never made the cut to be included in Obamacare. Even single payer advocates have denounced it. And it gets worse. Clinton also plans to expand Obamacare eligibility to illegal aliens: “She believes we should let families — regardless of immigration status — buy into the Affordable Care Act exchanges. Families who want to purchase health insurance should be able to do so.”
This illustrates the cognitive dissonance that plagues Trump’s supporters. By backing a candidate whom no one believes can win the general election, the very government policies that make them angry will be perpetuated for at least another four years. Trump’s supporters are angry about how Obama and Congress have handled illegal immigration. Yet their candidate will lose badly to a woman who supports amnesty and openly declares that she will make sure illegal aliens receive taxpayer-paid health care. They hate Obamacare, but their candidate will inevitably lose to a woman dedicated to expanding it….
In case you forgot how bad Obamacare is, Life News has this:
Congressional conservatives are taking a stand against the Obama administration’s abortion agenda by blocking one of the president’s Health and Human Services nominees. Until the White House investigates whether California is unlawfully forcing health insurers to cover abortions, Mary Wakefield, the deputy HHS secretary candidate, will have to wait.
The Senate Finance Committee, led by Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT), is placing an obstacle before Wakefield – not out of personal animosity, but concern for the right to life and religious freedom in California. A couple of years ago, the state’s department of health mandated that insurers provide coverage for abortions as a “medically necessary procedure.”
As a result, some churches and Catholic institutions were forced to violate their religious beliefs. Pro-life groups like Alliance Defending Freedom and Life Legal Defense Foundation condemned the directive as discriminatory and filed lawsuits against the state’s department of managed health care, but the mandate remains….
I have ALREADY been sent two links to InfoWars about this conspiracy involving Rafael Cruz.
I wish to note here that I was told by the same person that sent me these links that I should use discernment in choosing Trump over Cruz… because Cruz is not a nice guy. And true Christians should always be nice apparently… even in their “office” as Senators (here is a bit of that convo here). Anyhew, I merely responded to these latest linked articles that people like he support Trump… and that is all the “discernment I need.”
Snopes squashed that original report from the whacked site InfoWars when they pointed out that,
…the WMR’s [the second linked article in my bullet points] author doesn’t explain how he could possibly know that the unidentified person standing near Lee Harvey Oswald in these photographs was actually a Cuban (other than by assuming he’s Rafael Cruz), nor does he identify the “source” who informed him that the “individual to Oswald’s left is none other than Rafael Cruz.” (By the standards of “evidence” used in typical WMR items, someone’s saying, “Hey, the dude in that blurry Oswald photo looks kinda like Ted Cruz’s dad” counts as a “source.”)…
NOT TO MENTION that Rafael Cruz did not live in New Orleans until 1965 — two-years after the photo of him and Oswald in “Nwawlins.” PolitiFact adds to this whirlwind of “evidence”
…Two photo experts the tabloid hired — Mitch Goldstone of ScanMyPhotos, a digitizing photo service, and Carole Lieberman, a forensic expert witness — said another man in the image appears to be young Rafael Cruz, according to McClatchy.
We could not independently verify these experts’ validation, as neither Goldstone nor Lieberman got back to us.
When we reached out to Kairos, a Miami-based facial recognition software company, Chief Technology Officer Cole Calistra was skeptical about claims of a positive identification. Calistra told PolitiFact that the photos are too grainy “to perform a proper match one way or the other.”
James Wayman, the former director of U.S. National Biometric Test Center in the Clinton administration, said proper analysis requires two full-frontal facial images.
“Without such images, no professional face examiner will be willing to render an opinion,” he said.
That being said, we had freelance programmer Lucien Gendrot test it out using Kairos’ face recognition API. The software could not verify a match between photos of the unidentified man next to Oswald and young Rafael Cruz, even at a low threshold of a 25 percent match.
In short, as Snopes wrote in an April 2016 analysis of a similar claim, the low-resolution photos are essentially “of dark-haired young men with similar haircuts.” That’s speculation, not evidence.
One commentator at Free Republic humorously finishes his serious point:
What are some of the facts known? (I cannot believe I have to do this!):
I am after another piece of evidence that will surely come sooner-or-later… and it is the connection to the CIA:
For one thing, Rafael’s draft card from July 26, 1967 lists his employer as “Geophysics & Computer Service Inc.,” a French-based firm connected to both Schlumberger and Zapata Offshore Company, the former having a since-declassified relationship with the CIA and the latter once run by George H.W. Bush. (InfoWars)
My experience is that if you wait a bit… those more industrious than I uncover embarrassing facts for the conspiracy believers. More to come, surely.