Kelli Ward Jumps to 25 POINT LEAD over NeverTrump RINO Jeff Flake in Arizona

Lets pick them off, one at a time. We sure have a long way to go, but this looks like a good start:

Hope for Arizona.
Challenger Dr. Kelli Ward jumped to a 25 point lead over #NeverTrump RINO Senator Jeff Flake in the Arizona primary race.

From the latest Arizona poll:

Incumbent Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) is underwater badly in his home state, with just 21 percent of Arizona Republicans supporting him for reelection against challenger Dr. Kelli Ward—who gets 47 percent support—per a new poll from JMC Analytics.

Jeff Flake is underwater at 22/67 among Republicans.

Dr. Kelli Ward was on with Maria Bartiromo on Sunday Morning Futures this past weekend.

 

Gateway Pundit

Advertisements

The Liberal Contribution

 

The Liberal Contribution       Guest Post by Mustang

What have liberals given us? Let’s begin by defining liberalism, realizing that it must be a time-stamped definition. We should examine the term liberalism based on these two classifications: classic liberalism vs. neo-liberalism.

In the former classification, we mean to say a political philosophy involving liberty, equality, freedom of speech, a free press, religious tolerance, free-market capitalism, civil rights, and societal cooperation.

By neo-liberalism, we mean progressivism, which is the support of social reform, or the advancement of science, technology, economic development, and social organization. In practical terms, it means the adoption of a 170-year old notion supporting communism.

In classic liberalism, we are reminded of the early American founders, who gave us the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the US Constitution). In the latter definition, we find the general acceptance of communism … embracing the philosophy of Karl Marx, or to be specific, the repudiation of classic-liberalism.

Thus, we define the political differences between Americans as those on the right (conservatives seeking to maintain classic liberalism), and those on the left (those seeking to change America from what its founders intended to Marxism). There are profound differences in these two camps. It is much more than a war on words; it is beneath the surface, what these words mean as expressed by those who utter them. Conservatives (those on the right) want to maintain the ideals of our founding fathers—as expressed in the American constitution (and Bill of Rights), while the liberals (those on the left) wish to redefine the Constitution and Bill of Rights according to how they envision America ought to be. In my view, how it ought to be, according to liberals, is nothing like how our founding fathers intended it.

What are the accomplishments of American conservatives?

Conservative ideology gave us federalism, independent courts, the Panama Canal, the Interstate Highway System, Labor Laws, environmental laws that take into account the interests of business and the welfare of the American people, space exploration, the suppression of fascist regimes throughout the world, public education, and the Hoover Dam Project. Conservatives favor the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the US Constitution, small government, law and order(1), preserving western civilization, religious freedom (which is to say theological accountability), the separation of government and religion, limited government regulation, strong national defense, opposition to the concept of globalism, and opposition to globalization.

Conservatives believe in the foundations of the American Republic. Liberals subscribe to expanding these views beyond the US Constitution, including national welfare, interference in State sovereignty, national healthcare, higher taxes, and liberal immigration policies.

What do conservatives advocate?

· Maintain traditional American values

· Support the values associated with western civilization

· Implementation of conservative economic policies

· Oppose global communism and Islamist extremism

· Foster individual liberty

· Limit government power and control over the people

· Oppose high taxes and limit government spending

We will now examine examples of neo-liberalism as a juxtaposition to conservative values. What we have observed among liberals over the past few years is anything but Americanism. Liberal groups have demanded curtailment of freedom of expression if, in the opinion of liberals, verbal or oral expression offends any group of people within society. Their notion is one that inhibits free expression, which is counter to the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Their ideology is an updated rendition of Mao’s 1960’s cultural revolution; here I will offer several examples of liberal anti-Americanism(2):

· In June 2016, a liberal male was arrested in Las Vegas after attempting to grab a police officer’s weapon, telling authorities that he wanted the gun in order to kill Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump.

· In July 2016, a supporter of Hillary R. Clinton set an American flag on fire. In that same month, liberal protesters damaged automobiles and fought with supporters of Donald J. Trump in San Jose, California.

· In August 2016, anti-Trump protesters physically assaulted attendees at a Trump political rally in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

· In August 2016, a citizen was assaulted at a Tennessee garage sale because he was wearing a pro-Trump T-shirt. Later in the month, a New Jersey conservative was attacked with a crowbar during a political rally.

· Later in the year, a Republican Party office was firebombed and spray-painted with a Nazi symbol, a high school student was attacked for announcing on social media that she supported presidential candidate Trump, and in November, the president of College Republicans at Cornell University was assaulted by Hillary Clinton supporters.

· In December 2016, an “anti-bullying” “black lives matter” advocate was arrested after she shoved an injured a 74-year old man outside Trump Towers in New York City.

· In January 2017, a Trump supporter was knocked unconscious when anti-Republican protesters repeatedly beat him on the head.

· In April 2017, a parade in Oregon was cancelled after self-identified liberals threatened to use violence against anyone participating in the celebration.

· In May 2017, Republican Tom Garrett and his family received death threats. Later that month, the FBI arrested persons threatening to shoot Republican Representative Martha McSally.

· A college professor was arrested for assault and battery of people supporting Donald J. Trump. Three individuals were hospitalized in this assault.

· Democrat and Senator Bernie Sanders supporter James Hodgkinson shot five Republican members of congress during a GOP baseball practice.

· A riot in Charlottesville, Virginia resulted when so-called “anti-Fascist” and “Black Lives Matter” demonstrators attacked a group of rally-approved “white nationalist” activists. One liberal anti-Fascist demonstrator attacked the crowd with an automobile, killing one of his own demonstrators and injuring 19 other persons.

As to the foregoing, we have not credited the impact of the left-leaning/communist American press. Here is what we do know: the news media seriously distorts public reaction to Donald J. Trump and/or the conservative agenda. It is a matter of seeing only what they wish to see, which in order to make any sense at all, must be part of the leftist narrative. Choosing to publish stories that reflect the conservative right in a bad light while ignoring the atrocities of the liberal left is nothing more than professional malfeasance. Meanwhile, the American left continues to pursue the Law of Merited Impossibility, which holds that “even though it will never happen, you bigoted conservatives will deserve it.”

Postscript (1) and (2):

Let me add two postscripts: by “Law and Order,” I mean to suggest laws that apply to everyone equally. It does not mirror the leftist definition, otherwise Hillary Clinton would be in prison right now. In addition, research for the examples of anti-American behavior was provided by my good friend Bob Farmerie.

 

Grassley to hold hearings on ‘Russian interference’ no mention of sins of Obama clan for review

Interesting isn’t it. The GOP can’t get themselves together to repeal Obamacare, but they sure can pull themselves together to beat on Trump. We have the usual suspects. But let’s pile on. Senators prepare bill to block firing of special counsel – Chicago Tribune

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina is working on legislation that would block the firing of special counsels without judicial review. DemocratsSheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut said Thursday they are among the senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee who are working with Graham on the effort.

Oh, but that’s not enough. Grassley will pull out the Bazooka and hold hearings to try to nail Trump et al. No time for hearings on the zillions of illegal activity by the Obama clan, but plenty of time for Trump. Just wait until 2018. In one big last hooray, let us primary these sad representations of the GOP back to their home towns for keeps:

Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley is amping up the panel’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, weighing whether to issue subpoenas for Donald Trump Jr. and former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, Bloomberg News first reported Monday.

Grassley’s committee is conducting its probe in addition to the Senate Intelligence Committee and special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigations, which some– including Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn — have said they feel is inappropriate.

While the move has received some pushback, Grassley stands by his decision to push forward with the investigation alongside Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein, arguing it’s their duty to look into whether there was any sort of obstruction of justice.

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham praised Grassley’s efforts, saying he is loyal to the party but concerned with the greater good of the country.

More at Daily Caller

Vermont Democrats elect terror-linked FBI investigated Muslim as party chair

When I first caught this story I thought I had picked up some sci-fi thriller set in some far distant planet. But now, the inconceivable is now becoming common place. So this fellow now heads up the Vermont Dem party after a stint as a GOPer.. do catch the full read An FBI-Investigated Islamist Takes Over the Vermont Democrats | Frontpage Mag – Daniel Greenfield. It won’t disappoint:

Vermont Democrats have something else to celebrate besides the creation and failure of the first statewide socialized medicine system in America. Recovering from that glorious triumph, Vermont Democrats have elected their first Muslim state party chairman. Back when Gill was playing a Republican, left-wing media outlets like @Salon were willing to report on his troubling Islamist ties. Not so much now.

The lucky fellow is Faisal Gill who called his victory a rebuke of President Trump. “To have a Muslim and immigrant to be the state party chair sends a really strong message to Trump and his type of politics that this is not where the country is at.”

Gill’s election doesn’t send much of a message about where America is at. But it certainly sends a message about where the Democrats are at.

When revelations first emerged that Faisal Gill had been under FBI surveillance, he blamed Islamophobia. When Snowden’s enemy espionage operation exposed national security documents which were published by left-wing terror apologist Glenn Greenwald and The Intercept, a site whose former writer is now charged with some of the terroristic bomb threats aimed at Jewish centers, Gill’s email appeared on a list of alleged terrorist suspects and supporters, including Al Qaeda leader Anwar Al-Awlaki.

Back when Gill was playing a Republican, courtesy of Grover Norquist, left-wing media outlets like Salon were willing to report on his troubling Islamist ties. But Faisal Gill has been reborn as a supporter of Bernie Sanders and Keith Ellison. The left has become a warm and moist safe space for Islamists. The Salon article which Gill blamed for many of his problems would be nearly inconceivable today. Could anyone really imagine a leftist publication today describing the Muslim Brotherhood as a terror nexus?

Faisal Gill had neglected to mention that he had worked for the American Muslim Council. The AMC was another front for the Muslim Brotherhood. Its founder, Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi, was sent to prison due to an investigation into his involvement in a terrorism plot. Al-Amoudi had been both blatant in expressing his support for terrorism, particularly Hamas, and the need to conceal it.

The policy director for the intelligence division at the Department of Homeland Security had worked for an organization with terror ties. And he had failed to disclose his linkages to that organization.

Read it all at Frontpage and as noted in the already linked article above:

As the author of that Salon.com article, Mary Jacoby noted at the time:

“The ties among Alamoudi, the Muslim Brotherhood andGill help explain why officials are concerned about whether Gill was adequately vetted. These relationships are difficult to understand without immersion in the indictments, court transcripts and case exhibits; the concerned officials said they fear that busy political operatives in the administration simply do not grasp the national-security issues at stake. “There’s an overall denial in the administration that the agenda being pushed by Norquist might be a problem,” one official said. “It’s so absurd that a Grover Norquist person could even be close to something like this. That’s really what’s so insidious.” 

The United States coup d’é·tat is well underway

The vultures are circling. Flynn’s demise is only the beginning. The coup is underway. Make no mistake. Morning Joe is over the top this morning. Hysterical. The drums are beating. Reality has been lost. The coup is underway. Bloomberg has this:

…He was also a fat target for Democrats. Remember Flynn’s breakout national moment last summer was when he joined the crowd at the Republican National Convention from the dais calling for Hillary Clinton to be jailed.

In normal times, the idea that U.S. officials entrusted with our most sensitive secrets would selectively disclose them to undermine the White House would alarm those worried about creeping authoritarianism. Imagine if intercepts of a call between Obama’s incoming national security adviser and Iran’s foreign minister leaked to the press before the nuclear negotiations began? The howls of indignation would be deafening.

In the end, it was Trump’s decision to cut Flynn loose. In doing this he caved in to his political and bureaucratic opposition. Nunes told me Monday night that this will not end well. “First it’s Flynn, next it will be Kellyanne Conway, then it will be Steve Bannon, then it will be Reince Priebus,” he said. Put another way, Flynn is only the appetizer. Trump is the entree. Read the whole thing at Bloomberg

kristol

Bill Kristol: “Lazy” White Working Class Should be replaced by “New Americans”

This is why the old guard of the GOP almost took the GOP over the cliff. A link to the hour long interview can be found over at the Daily Caller. The interview didn’t get much better than this clip. Contempt of us worker bees, and a callous disregard was the order of the day. Here tis:

Weekly Standard editor-at-large Bill Kristol said Tuesday afternoon that the white working class should be replaced by immigrants as they have become “decadent, lazy” and “spoiled.”

“Look, to be totally honest, if things are so bad as you say with the white working class, don’t you want to get new Americans in?” Kristol told author Charles Murray during an event hosted by the American Enterprise Institute titled “It Came Apart: What’s Next for a Fractured Culture.” Murray recently wrote a book, entitled “Coming Apart,” which focuses on the cultural separation between the wealthiest and most educated white Americans and the poorest and least educated white Americans.


Read more: Daily Caller

Not his first brush with this idea. Earlier post: 

Fauxcahontas Warren accuses Trump candidates of lying on applications

Here’s the kicker: Warren lied about being Native American when applying for Professorships at Ivy League Universities. While she berates those who make a few bucks playing the game, it turns out she can play it as well. Fauxcahontas Warren flipped houses, was a GOPer, became a multimillionaire first. The irony cannot be lost that after research, her great-great- great-grandfather was indeed not of Indian origin, but was part of the round-up of the Cherokees. Fauxcahontas Warren ancestor rounded up Cherokees for Trail of Tears. She just might want to think about her own truth before attacking others.

warren2

 

However, Warren, when applying for professorships at Ivy League Universities, told the schools that she had Native American lineage, a claim for which there was no evidence.

The Boston Globe reported in 2012 that Warren had informed university officials she was descended from Native Americans, but it had not played a role in her hiring:

Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren acknowledged for the first time late Wednesday night that she told Harvard University and the University of Pennsylvania that she was Native American, but she continued to insist that race played no role in her recruitment.

“At some point after I was hired by them, I . . . provided that information to the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard,’’ she said in a statement issued by her campaign. “My Native American heritage is part of who I am, I’m proud of it and I have been open about it.’’

Warren’s statement is her first acknowledgment that she identified herself as Native American to the Ivy League schools. While she has said she identified herself as a minority in a legal directory, she has carefully avoided any suggestion during the last month that she took further actions to promote her purported heritage.

When the issue first surfaced last month, Warren said she only learned Harvard was claiming her as a minority when she read it in the Boston Herald.

Warren’s new statement came after the Globe asked her campaign about documents it obtained Wednesday from Harvard’s library showing that the university’s law school began reporting a Native American female professor in federal statistics for the 1992-93 school year, the first year Warren worked at Harvard, as a visiting professor.

Given that Harvard boasted it had a female Native American professor on staff during Warren’s first year on the job, Warren’s claims that she did not lie on her application are dubious at best, but most likely false.

HT: NTK

%d bloggers like this: