Citizens Dedicated To Preserving Our Constitutional Republic
REPUBLICAN PARTY:
Businessman Donald Trump (New York) |
Former Governor Jeb Bush (Florida) |
Dr. Ben Carson (Florida) |
Governor Chris Christie (New Jersey) |
US Senator Ted Cruz (Texas) |
Former IRS Commissioner Mark Everson (Mississippi) |
Businesswoman Carly Fiorina (Virginia) |
Former Governor Jim Gilmore (Virginia) |
US Senator Lindsey Graham (South Carolina) |
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (Florida) |
Governor Bobby Jindal (Louisiana) |
Governor John Kasich (Ohio) |
Former Governor George Pataki (New York) |
US Senator Rand Paul (Kentucky) |
US Senator Marco Rubio (Florida) |
Former US Senator Rick Santorum (Pennsylvania) |
|
Tags:
Replies are closed for this discussion.
The House Freedom Caucus has officially surrendered to big government by refusing to stand up against a debt-ceiling increase wrapped in the two-year budget deal.
Representative Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) 2014 gun control vote could present another obstacle to this path to the Speakership of the House.
Move over, Melissa Harris-Perry, it is getting crowded on the lunatic PC bench. Joining “hard worker” (racist!) on the PC banned word list is “too” (sexist!). That’s right, an adjective and adverb positing that something is more excessive in some quality than desirable is now verboten, as far as the Huffington Post is concerned. The editors there gave considerable space to Cameron Schaeffer, who identifies herself as a freshman at the University of Vermont, where her head has obviously been filled with victimology nonsense.
Ms. Schaeffer describes contemplating her hair in the mirror. From her HuffPo headshot it is apparent that she has spent some time looking at her hair, and the results are, well, attractive. Not “too attractive” to be sure, but still not “too unattractive,” either. Upon texting a female friend for advice (I realize that hair is a critical issue for Ms. Schaeffer, and await the future epiphany about her level of concern itself is a result of her victim status as a woman) Ms, Schaeffer experienced an epiphany:
There is no proper way for a woman to cut her hair, let alone do anything right in this world. There seems to be an unobtainable one-millimeter-wide mark of perfection, and none of us can reach it. Everything is too this or too that. We see it every day in the tabloids. For example, one day a female celebrity is too revealing and the next day she is too matronly.
In my experience, I rarely hear too thrown around about men. You hear someone say, "He's short," but you seldom hear "too short."
If Ms. Schaeffer spent any time with me, she’d hear the expression “too fat” leave my lips nearly every time I pass a mirror. But apparently that is OK, even if it doesn’t exist in her world at the University of Vermont:
We should call on both genders to cut the word too from their vocabulary when discussing women.
Predictably, her 1258 word essay devolves into self-esteem pap:
…we can create change by telling ourselves and others, "I am more than enough, and I am exactly who I should be." Every day we should remind ourselves that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Not just in a literal appearance sense, but in every part of who we are.
It is not unusual for college freshmen (freshpersons?) to spout silly nonsense. I am sure I did my share of it, albeit in a different vein. But that the Huffington Post, an enterprise that sold for nine figures, backs this sort of idiocy is a sign of the decline and fall of our culture. But Ms. Schaefer may have a bright future as an MSNBC host. But if your PC crowd gets their way, by the time you graduate the only politically correct expressions left will be grunts and moans.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/10/frontiers_of_political_...
Last week, I wondered if I might be paranoid about tonight’s GOP presidential debate on CNBC being a set-up. The preliminary signs were ominous. Today, the fear deepens, and it doesn't look like paranoia. The Media Research Center has looked at the track record of lead moderator John Harwood and found a lot of signs of bias. Why on earth did the RNC approve him? A few examples follow. For the rest, read the whole thing. Geoffrey Dickens writes:
The following are just some of Harwood’s most biased moments from the MRC’s archive:
Rubio Will Look “Like a Schoolboy” Compared to Hillary
Joe Kernen, co-host: “He [Marco Rubio] looks really young too.”
John Harwood: “Well, that’s the thing. I think – ”
Andrew Ross Sorkin, co-host: “Most voters are older.”
Harwood: “New generation – you know, fresh face, that – that has some appeal and some power and Rubio has that going for him. On the other hand, you put Marco Rubio up on a debate stage with Hillary Clinton, he looks like a schoolboy.”
— Exchange on CNBC’s Squawk Box, May 29, 2015.
(snip)
Hoping Obama Breaks the Tea Party “Fever” Within the GOP
“Before the election last year, you said you thought there was a possibility your re-election would break the fever within the Republican Party. Didn’t happen. Do you see this moment as a chance, through this political confrontation, to break the fever now?”
- Washington correspondent John Harwood interviewing President Obama on CNBC’s Closing Bell, October 2, 2013.
Harwood Spins: Clinton Using Personal E-Mail May Have Just Been “Excessive Caution”
“The regulations on this have changed over time. The State Department indicated today that John Kerry was the first Secretary of State to use completely a official State Department email address. So this is something that’s been evolving and Hillary Clinton was serving during that evolution. But it is not 100 percent clear to me whether or not this was a clear violation or excessive caution on her part.”
-John Harwood on CNBC’s Closing Bell, March 3, 2015.
There is much, much more.
Watch videos at link:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/10/gop_debate_lead_moderat...
When it was reported that Sen. Marco Rubio hated being in the U.S. Senate and was running for president because he was “frustrated” with how that chamber of Congress worked, it took me back to 2012, when I first caught wind of this frustration he had with the governing body in which he was elected to serve.
Testifying before the House Select Committee on Benghazi last Thursday, Hillary Clinton bristled when Peter Roskam, a Republican congressman from Illinois, described the consequences of overthrowing Libyan dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi. “After your plan, things in Libya today are a disaster,” Roskam said.
Clinton disagreed, saying the U.S. military intervention that replaced Qaddafi with chaos — an operation she championed as secretary of state — was an exemplary use of “smart power.” If so, I’d hate to see what dumb power looks like. The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee’s stubborn defense of an elective war that went terribly wrong represents a political opportunity for her Republican opponent, but only if he does not share her inclination to shoot first and ask questions later.
That’s a big if. “America must lead in a dangerous world,” Clinton declared last week. “We certainly have to be the world’s leader,” agrees former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, a leading contender for the Republican nomination.
According to Bush, the problem with intervening in Libya’s civil war was not that it had nothing to do with defending our country, that it was illegal without congressional authorization, or that it was undertaken without any thought about unintended consequences. No, Bush says the problem was that the Obama administration lacked “a strategy beyond just airstrikes.”
Not so, says Clinton. “We knew that Libya’s transition from the brutal dictatorship of Qaddafi, which basically destroyed or undermined every institution in the country, would be challenging, and we planned accordingly,” she testified last week. “We were doing everything we could think of to help Libya succeed.”
Clinton bragged that “we were very much involved in helping them provide their first parliamentary elections,” which was “quite an accomplishment,” especially since “they voted for moderates.” Unfortunately, “much of what we offered was difficult for the Libyans to understand how to accept,” and “the volatile security environment in Libya” — featuring “a weak government, extremist groups, [and] rampant instability” — “complicated our efforts.”
What Clinton refuses to acknowledge is that U.S. intervention created those conditions. Bush’s response is not to avoid such foolhardy meddling but to execute it better. He is sure that if he had been in charge, things would have turned out differently.
Marco Rubio, the Florida senator who is vying with Bush for the Republican nomination, is in an even worse position to criticize Clinton’s role in the Libyan disaster. Rubio, a vocal supporter of overthrowing Qaddafi in 2011, blames the current situation in Libya, which he describes as “a growing haven for the Islamic State,” on “the Obama administration’s ‘lead from behind’ approach.”
By contrast, two other senators seeking the GOP nomination — Rand Paul of Kentucky and Ted Cruz of Texas — have criticized the Libyan intervention in a way that suggests they would be more cautious. “Every time we have toppled a secular dictator,” Paul observed during last month’s debate, “we have gotten chaos, the rise of radical Islam, and we’re more at risk.”
Cruz had a similar take in a Meet the Press interview this month, saying “Hillary Clinton’s disastrous Libya policy” resulted in “absolute chaos” and a “war zone where jihadists are battling back and forth.” Like Paul, he said invading Iraq was a mistake for similar reasons and that both experiences should chasten Clinton and other advocates of more aggressive intervention in Syria. “We have no business sticking our nose in that civil war,” Cruz said.
But Clinton, who voted for the Iraq war as a senator in 2002 and did not admit her mistake until last year, seems to be a slow learner. “When America is absent, especially from unstable places, there are consequences,” she said last week. “Extremism takes root, aggressors seek to fill the vacuum, and security everywhere is threatened, including here at home.”
As the Libyan debacle shows, these consequences also can occur when America is present. If the Republicans nominate someone who recognizes that possibility, the next presidential election may include a real debate about foreign policy.
Read more at link below:
http://conservativeread.com/will-the-republicans-nominate-someone-w...
Kristinn Taylor Oct 28th, 2015 4:55 pm 14 Comments
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has already made phone calls on behalf of U.S. Army First Sgt. Todd Landen (Ret.), a wounded veteran who spoke to Trump Tuesday night at a Sioux City, Iowa rally about problems he was having with the Veterans Administration.
Donald Trump speaks with Todd Landen and family at Sioux City rally, image from YouTube via The Blaze.
Daniel Scavino, Jr., Senior Advisor to the Trump campaign, posted to Twitter Wednesday afternoon that Trump had kept his word to intervene with the VA on Landen’s behalf.
.@realDonaldTrump met w/ a #Veteran in Iowa last night. He is following up on his commitment. Calls made. #Trump2016 https://t.co/53g4qlxXy3
— Daniel Scavino Jr. (@DanScavino) October 28, 2015
“.@realDonaldTrump met w/ a #Veteran in Iowa last night. He is following up on his commitment. Calls made. #Trump2016”
The tweet contains a Vine clip of Trump speaking to Landen at the rally promising “to put pressure on the VA like you won’t believe.” Also included in the tweet is a photo of a Purple Heart certificate awarded to Landen.
Landed, his wife April and daughter Brianna attended the Trump rally. In one of the more moving moments of the rally, Trump left the stage to personally interact with Landen face-to-face when it came his turn to ask Trump a question.
I like the way he treats the vets! :)
Less than a year after he was reelected with a Republican Senate, Gallup polling shows the GOP is souring on Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
Arches Health, an Obamacare Co-Op, was put in receivership Tuesday by the Utah Insurance Department. Arches is the 10th Obamacare Co-Op to close its doors this year
Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Reince Priebus isn’t wasting time.
“The proposed debt deal takes as much as $150 billion from the Social Security Trust Fund for retirees and transfers the cash to the fraud-ridden disability program,” Sen. Sessions and Rep. Brooks write. “There is no ‘surplus’ in the retirement Trust Fund to spend somewhere else – Social Security will be insolvent by 2034 and has a $9.4 trillion unfunded liability.”
Legislative News
Congressional Quarterly
C-SPAN
Roll Call
Stateline.org
The Hill
Washington Post
Politics Section
Boston Globe
Dallas News
Denver Post
Los Angeles Times
Minneapolis Star Tribune
Stop Island Park Wildlife Overpasses
Seattle Times
NY Times
Washington Post
Washington Times
USA Today
Beltway Buzz
CQ Politics
First Read
The Hotline
The Note
The Page
Washington Wire
Mike Allen's Playbook
Politico
Roll Call
The Hill
CNN Political Ticker
The Swamp
The Fix
Washington Whispers
Fish Bowl DC
Online Political Sites
Alternative Press Index
Capitol Hill Blue
CommonDreams.org
Digg.com Politics
Drudge Report
Political Insider
Political Wire
Politico
PopPolitics
Real Clear Politics
Salon.com
Slate
Stateline.org
TCOT Report
TomPaine.com
US Politics Guide
© 2024 Created by WTPUSA. Powered by