New Monmouth Poll Shows Ben Carson Tied With The Donald In Iowa

Carson Ties Trump At The Top In Iowa Poll – Politico

.

.
Ben Carson and Donald Trump are tied at the top of the Republican field in a new survey of likely Iowa caucus-goers with 23 percent each, according to the results of a Monmouth University poll released Monday.

The good news continues for the retired neurosurgeon with his favorability ratings, as 81 percent said they view him favorably, compared to just 6 percent who do not. And Trump’s favorability went up as well, at 52 percent to 33 percent, up from 47 percent and 35 percent last month.

Carson has steadily gained support over the summer despite keeping a relatively low profile, especially compared to Trump. But Carson, who has never held political office, has similarly tapped into a strong anti-Washington sentiment among voters.

In the poll released Monday, the two non-establishment candidates are followed by another, former Hewlett-Packard executive Carly Fiorina with 10 percent. Following Fiorina are Texas Sen. Ted Cruz at 9 percent, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker at 7 percent, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush at 5 percent, Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio at 4 percent, and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul at 3 percent. No other candidates registered more than 2 percent, including the last two winners of the caucus – former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (both at 2 percent).

The latest survey showed Carson making inroads on key voting blocs that Trump has been winning in recent polls. Women preferred Carson at 30 percent to 19 percent, while Trump did better with men voters, at 27 percent to 17 percent.

Among those identifying with the tea party, 27 percent pledged their support for Trump, compared to 22 percent for Carson, with Cruz behind with 16 percent. But Carson leads among non-tea-party-affiliated Republicans, taking 25 percent to Trump’s 19 percent.

Voters who described themselves as very or somewhat conservative were split between the top two, while moderate and liberals went for Trump at 26 percent, Fiorina at 18 percent and Carson at 17 percent.

Carson leads among Evangelical voters, earning 29 percent to Trump’s 23 percent, while non-Evangelicals backed Trump with 24 percent, followed by Carson at 18 percent and Fiorina at 13 percent.

Nearly a third of likely caucusgoers – 66 percent – said that the next president needs to be someone who can bring experience from outside of Washington, compared to 23 percent who indicated a preference toward candidates with government experience.

The survey was conducted Aug. 27-30, polling 405 likely caucus participants with an overall margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percentage points.

.

.

Ben Carson Moves Within 5 Points Of Donald Trump In Latest Iowa Poll

Ben Carson Edging Close To Front-Runner Trump In Latest Iowa Poll – Bloomberg

Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson has emerged as a leading Republican presidential candidate in Iowa and is closing in on frontrunner Donald Trump in the state that hosts the first 2016 nomination balloting contest.

The latest Bloomberg Politics/Des Moines Register Iowa Poll shows billionaire Trump with the support of 23 percent of likely Republican caucus participants, followed by Carson at 18 percent. When first and second choices are combined, Carson is tied with Trump.

Trump finds himself in a vastly better position than when the previous Iowa Poll was taken. He has become a credible presidential candidate to many likely Republican caucus-goers. The real estate mogul is rated favorably by 61 percent and unfavorably by 35 percent, an almost complete reversal since the Iowa Poll in May. He finds his highest ratings among those planning to attend the caucuses for the first time (69 percent) and limited-government Tea Party activists (73 percent). Just 29 percent say they could never vote for him, a number cut in half since May.

Although he isn’t generating the headlines enjoyed by Trump, Carson has quietly built a dedicated network of supporters in Iowa. During the past month, he also aired more ads than any other presidential candidate in Iowa. Carson has the highest favorability rating among Republican candidates, with 79 percent of likely GOP caucus-goers seeing him positively.

Those glowing views of Carson, who has a compelling life story and is seeking to become the nation’s second black president, could make it hard for Trump or other rivals to attack him as the campaign heats up this fall. Christian conservatives, who represent nearly 40 percent of likely caucus participants in the poll, may be starting to coalesce around the former director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins.

The poll displays the political benefit, at least for now, of not being part of the Republican establishment. When their totals are combined, Trump and Carson – two men without any elected experience – are backed by more than 4 in 10 likely caucus participants. Add in former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, who also has never held elective office, and Texas Senator Ted Cruz, who is running an explicitly anti-establishment campaign, and the total reaches 54 percent of the likely electorate.

“Trump and Carson, one bombastic and the other sometimes soft-spoken, could hardly be more different in their outward presentations,” said J. Ann Selzer, president of West Des Moines-based Selzer & Co., which conducted the poll. “Yet they’re both finding traction because they don’t seem like politicians and there’s a strong demand for that right now.”

.

.
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, the previous Iowa frontrunner, has been hurt the most by the Trump and Carson summer surges and is now backed by just 8 percent of likely caucus-goers, less than half what he recorded in the last Iowa Poll in late May. Cruz, who will need to cut into Carson’s support among social conservatives if he’s to advance in Iowa, is tied with Walker at 8 percent.

Jeb Bush, who continues to face major headwinds in Iowa, scored below Walker and Cruz. The former Florida governor is backed by just 6 percent, has one of the highest unfavorable ratings among the 17 Republican candidates tested, and has the support of just 16 percent of those who consider themselves business-oriented establishment Republicans, the group most central to his brand.

Bush’s fellow Floridian, Senator Marco Rubio, is also backed by 6 percent. He’s closely followed by Fiorina, who is supported by 5 percent after her strong showing in the Aug. 6 debate.

In the 2008 and 2012 Republican caucuses, Christian conservatives broke late in the race and helped determine the outcome in Iowa. While some of their leaders have expressed skepticism about the potential to unify behind one candidate in such a crowded race, there’s an opening for that. More than three-quarters of Christian conservatives in the poll say they could be convinced to back someone other than their first or second choice, if they could be assured that another Christian conservative would win.

At the moment, Carson is leading with voters in that bloc at 23 percent, followed by Trump at 16 percent and Cruz and Walker tied at third. If his competitors can successfully raise questions about Trump’s credentials as a Christian conservative, they could potentially peel off some of the front-runner’s support.

One major unknown for the caucuses is the size of the electorate, which has been around 120,000 on the Republican side for the past two Iowa caucuses. One of Trump’s campaign goals is to get thousands of new people to vote, a move that helped Barack Obama score an upset on the Democratic side in 2008.

First-time caucus-goers are clearly an important part of Trump’s Iowa base. Among those who say they’ll be attending for the first time, Trump is ahead of Carson, 28 percent to 20 percent.

For now, the poll suggests about a fifth of those attending the Feb. 1 precinct meetings will be doing so for the first time. That’s comparable to four years ago, when 24 percent said that on the Republican side in an October 2011 Iowa Poll.

Trump’s supporters in Iowa a have a higher level of trust in their candidate than others in the field to make the right decisions, if he makes it to the White House. Among all Republicans likely to attend the caucuses, 41 percent want their candidate to be clear about the specific policies they would address if elected, while 57 percent trust their candidate to figure it out once elected.

For Trump, nearly two-thirds of his supporters trust him to figure out the right decisions once in office. That’s in keeping with a claim he made to reporters Aug. 15, shortly after landing by helicopter outside the Iowa State Fair, saying it’s mostly the media that cares about policy papers and positions.

Among most of the subgroups measured in the poll, Trump has the advantage, although Carson beats him or comes close with several. Carson has an 11-percentage-point advantage over Trump among seniors and 7-percentage-point edge among Christian conservatives.

“I’m sick and tired of the political class,” said Lisa Pilch, 54, a middle school physical education teacher leaning toward Carson who lives in Springville, Iowa. “I just like his tone and think he’s someone who could pull us together, rather than the polarization we have right now. He has a lot of wisdom, even if he doesn’t have political savviness.”

While Carson is doing slightly better than Trump among women, the billionaire has the advantage among men, 28 percent to 17 percent.

“He’s got a no-nonsense approach,” said Patrick Messmore, 32, a construction equipment sales manager who lives near Grundy Center and plans to back Trump. “His history as a businessman is potentially a good change for our country, so that we don’t just have another life-time politician taking over as president.”

In some ways, Messmore sees Trump as an antidote to Bush. “I’m not OK with another Bush presidency,” he said. “We’ve had two of them now and I don’t see that there will be enough of a different approach than his dad or brother had. It’s just not something I’m interested in.”

.

.
The poll shows Walker and Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, especially, aren’t performing anywhere close to earlier expectations.

Paul, who was backed by just 4 percent, was perceived a year ago to have an advantage in Iowa, given the third-place finish in the 2012 caucuses recorded by his father, former Representative Ron Paul of Texas. In October, his favorable rating outweighed his unfavorable by nearly 3-to-1.

“Whatever advantage he had has eroded,” Selzer said. “Now, more Iowa caucus-goers have negative than positive feelings about him.”

For Walker, who has been in a slump since his lackluster debate performance, the poll is certain to further reduce expectations around his performance in Iowa, which had grown to the point where anything short of a win would have been viewed as a loss. One upside for him in the poll: Besides Carson, he’s the only candidate to exceed 70 percent in favorability.

Iowa Republicans are showing little interest in re-runs. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who won the 2008 Iowa Republican caucuses, is at 4 percent. He’s followed at 2 percent by candidates who are governors, Chris Christie of New Jersey, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and John Kasich of Ohio.

Former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, who narrowly beat eventual nominee Mitt Romney in the 2012 caucuses, is backed by just 1 percent, the same level of support recorded by former Texas Governor Rick Perry, who is also struggling in his second White House bid even amid heavy spending in Iowa on the part of a super political action committee backing him.

Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, former New York Governor George Pataki and former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore all recorded support of less than 1 percent.

The survey, taken Aug. 23-26, included 400 likely Republican caucus participants. On the full sample, it has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percentage points.

.

.
Besides the nearly the nearly 40 percent of likely Republican caucus-goers who say Christian conservative is the best way to identify them, “business-oriented establishment Republicans” and Tea Party activists are roughly tied as the next largest groups, at 22 percent and 21 percent. Those who feel they are most closely aligned with the “liberty movement,” a bloc associated with Paul, represent only about 8 percent.

To offer another assessment of candidate strength – something difficult to divine in such a crowded field – Selzer created an index built on multiple measures in the poll. The index takes into account first and second choices, as well as a question that was asked on whether respondents could ever – or would never – support each candidate they didn’t name as their first or second pick. First choices were given double weight, while “ever support” was given a half weighting.

Using that system, Carson is narrowly ahead of Trump, 75 to 73. Walker comes next at 55, followed by Cruz at 53 and Rubio at 50. The index and never/ever question also show some of the candidates could struggle to expand their support. Nearly half of likely Republican caucus participants, 48 percent, say they could never support Christie. For Paul, it’s 43 percent and for Bush it’s 39 percent.

.

.

Trouble In Jeb Land

Top Jeb Fundraisers Leave Campaign Amid Troubling Signs – Politico

.

.
Three top Jeb Bush fundraisers abruptly parted ways with his presidential campaign on Friday, amid internal personality conflicts and questions about the strength of his candidacy, POLITICO has learned.

There are different versions of what transpired. The Florida-based fundraising consultants – Kris Money, Trey McCarley, and Debbie Alexander – have said that they voluntarily quit the campaign and were still working with Bush’s super PAC, Right to Rise Super PAC. Others said the three, who worked under the same contract, were let go because they were no longer needed for the current phase of the campaign.

None of the three immediately responded to requests for comment. Bush spokesman Tim Miller would only say that “Governor Bush has the widest and deepest fundraising operation of any candidate in the field. Ann Herberger – a longtime aide with more than two decades of experience in state and national politics – will continue to lead the operation in Florida with our team in Miami.”

One source attributed the departures to personality conflicts in the campaign, some involving Bush’s finance team.

“They were glad to go. This wasn’t a shock to anybody,” said one campaign source. “There were just some personality problems. It happens when you have a big organization like this, a big campaign. Some of the national people are tough to work for.”

Alexander, Money and McCarley have deep and longstanding ties to Florida’s GOP power structure. Money is close with former House Speaker Will Weatherford, McCarley’s part of Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam’s political team, and Alexander has been a member in good standing of Bush’s operation since he was governor.

“They raised a lot of money out of Florida. A lot,” said the campaign source. “So if anyone says they didn’t quit, it’s not true. They’re still working for the super PAC as well. This is not about them,” said one source. “This is about the campaign.”

Donors last week told POLITICO that they still felt good about Bush’s chances and that they weren’t worried about Bush’s recent slip from second to third place in averages of national polls. As the son and brother of former presidents, the former governor of the third-most populous state in the nation has a deep and seasoned donor base. Some said they’re less concerned with the campaign than with Jeb’s candidacy, which has so far failed to ignite Republicans.

But Bush’s fundraising pace has slowed in the late summer months. He’s likely to remain the GOP campaign’s top fundraiser, but Bush is also spending more than other candidates because he has a mammoth operation.

“Jeb has a big army, and that army needs to be fed,” said one campaign consultant familiar with the campaign’s internal numbers. “Jeb might not have a fundraiser problem. He might have a spending problem.”

.

.

*AUDIO* Can J.D. Winteregg Defeat John Boehner In Ohio?


.

.

.
Click HERE To Visit Mr. Winteregg’s official campaign website.

.

.

*VIDEO* Scott Walker: Speech On Foreign Policy At The Citadel In Charleston, South Carolina (08/28/15)


…………….Click on image above to watch video.

.
Click HERE to visit Governor Walker’s official campaign website.

.

.

*VIDEOS* Sarah Palin Joins One America News Network


.

.

.

.

.

.

.

……………Click on image above to visit website.

.

.

*VIDEO* Pastor Rafael Cruz Discusses His Son Ted, Religious Liberty, And The U.S. Constitution

.

.

The Donald Promises Top Republicans He Will Not Run Third Party

Trump Vows Not To Run Third Party – NewsMax

.

.
GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump has promised “several top Republicans” he will not run a third-party campaign, The Huffington Post reports.

The website said it spoke to “several sources,” who confirmed the news.

Top Trump aide Michael Cohen, however, would not confirm that his boss has completely ruled out an independent run if he doesn’t win the Republican nomination. Cohen did tell HuffPost, though, that Trump never had “any intent” of running under any other banner than the GOP.

“He just wanted to ensure that the establishment would treat him as fair as they would treat any of the other candidates,” Cohen told HuffPost. “And I believe right now they are treating him fairly. It is my personal belief that the RNC is treating Mr. Trump the same as the other candidates and he will live up to his agreement not to run as an independent.”

Trump himself, even while threatening a third-party run, essentially said the threat was intended to ensure the party would treat him as an equal to the other candidates — something he felt wasn’t happening early in his campaign.

Now, Trump appears to acknowledge that the threat actually could hurt his chances with loyal Republican voters, HuffPost noted.

Trump said he was open to the pledge a few days after the first GOP debate on Aug. 6, where he was the only candidate among the top 10 to raise his hand and say he wouldn’t promise to support the eventual party nominee and run as an independent.

Radio host Hugh Hewitt recently advised Trump against a third-party effort, because it would ensure a win for Democrat Hillary Clinton.

Trump agreed it was a good argument.

But HuffPost noted that one of its Republican sources cautioned that any decision by Trump is subject to change “since he is known for his political impulsiveness. A stray insult from a fellow Republican could, theoretically, change his calculus.”

“[Fox News Chief Roger] Ailes thought he had a deal too. Then Trump called Megyn Kelly a bimbo, again,” one Republican operative said.

“Only Mr. Trump can sign that oath,” Cohen said when asked if Trump would make his announcement public. “And when he does, you can rest assured he will live by it.”

.

.

The Psychopathic Socialists Party ÷ The Cowering Excuse-Makers Party = President Donald Trump

Modern day Democrat politicians are socialists, which really isn’t breaking news. Heck, that particular socio-political philosophy was adopted by the DNC during the Great Depression. What is news, however, is that they’ve also become psychopathic, exhibiting the personality traits of your average serial killer just before he decides to start butchering prostitutes for the first time.

For a while there – say, 70 years or so – they seemed to be merely delusional, but since the turn of the 21st century, they’ve proven themselves to be devoid of any genuine feelings of empathy, compassion or remorse with respect to other human beings – at least the ones who don’t appear on their respective campaign contributors lists.

While not insane in the purely legal sense of the word, they are, nonetheless, stark-staring lunatics who are capable of the worst atrocities imaginable. In other words, they are scheming, soulless humanoids with a knack for appearing normal most of the time, despite their utter lack of humanity.

They’re also control freaks of the highest order, which is why they spend practically every waking moment thinking up ways to interfere with other people’s lives instead of doing anything substantive with their own. They become politicians because that is the one profession wherein you can make a name for yourself – not to mention oodles of money – without actually being a productive member of society.

Sadly, their minions in the entertainment industry, academia, and the press are still stuck in the aforementioned delusional phase of the socialist experiment, and have no idea that pols like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are complete monsters. Then again, I suppose it’s better that they’ve remained merely psychoneurotic rather than having mutated into full-blown, dead-eyed maniacs themselves. After all, psychosis (a distorted sense of reality) can be treated and even cured over time, but psychopathy is forever.

Anyway, enough with those demented bastards, let’s move on to the psychology of today’s Republican politicians and the sad sacks who help elect them, shall we?

— In the interest of full disclosure, there was a time when I too was a card-carrying member of the Republican party, but that ended soon after John Boehner became Speaker of the House of Representatives. You see, Mr. Boehner is what we in the rusted bucket of political punditry call an “assclown”, and one day while I was having a shave, I looked into the bathroom mirror and asked myself this question: can you really continue to claim membership in an organization that would appoint the likes of ‘Tammy Faye Boehner’ to such a position of power in Congress? My reflection answered with a resounding: NOPE! And the rest, as they say, is history. —

Now onto the subject at hand…

The GOP of the 21st century – thus far – is about as useful as shoe laces on a pair of sandals, and its leadership seems to be comprised of more cowards than a battalion of Iraqi soldiers.

But why is that, you ask?

Well, have you ever heard the term ‘Stockholm Syndrome’? It’s a psychological phenomenon in which hostages come to identify with – and even feel sympathy for – their captors. If you ask me, that’s the basic underpinning of the whole right-wing malfunction at the federal level in recent times, and if there’s a better explanation than this one for the behavioral patterns exhibited by the GOP’s most powerful leaders, I’d like to hear it. Really, I would.

The only viable alternative hypothesis I can come up with is that they’re just plain suicidal, and they want to take us all down with them. The problem with that supposition is that people who commit suicide are generally compulsive in nature. They don’t plan their demise years in advance, and they almost never intentionally take a stranger to his grave in the process.

As for the psychology of Republicans who are prominent in the fields of academia, entertainment and journalism, these people appear to be largely normal, with some notable exceptions. That’s why they and most other right-wingers in the private sector feel so disconnected from their elected representatives these days – especially the ones in positions of party leadership. After all, rational people have a hard time accepting irrational behavior, even from people they like.

So if you’ve been wondering why so many Republicans – even a good number of staunch conservatives – on TV, the internet, and talk radio are defending the likes of Donald Trump this election cycle, despite the fact that he’s wandered all over the political spectrum in terms of policy positions over the years, please allow me to explain their reasoning as best I understand it.

You see, it’s not who Trump is – per se – or even what he may believe about many issues that’s of primary importance to a lot of folks on the right these days. No, it’s what he represents that has them fired up, and what he represents is a man who just might actually get something positive done for a change in Washington DC, simply because he’s not a career politician with a long track record of fucking up absolutely EVERYTHING he touches!

Many people are just plain tired of the same platitudes and empty promises they’ve heard over and over again for the past quarter of a century from nearly every polished, right-leaning, professional politico who’s come down the pike. They all say pretty much the same things, yet little if anything actually changes once they take office, and in the meantime, the party elites keep growing more and more hostile toward the very people who elected them.

In essence, a growing number of Republicans are willing to roll the dice with an unknown quantity like The Donald on the off chance that he may be able to do what nobody since Ronald Reagan has managed to pull off, which is stem the tide of leftist incompetence and corruption that has permeated our federal government for decades. And what’s more, it really doesn’t seem to matter to them that he may entertain certain left-leaning sympathies with which they disagree.

Perhaps if there is a psychological malady that can be applied to some non-elected Republicans, it is ‘Battered Woman Syndrome’, a condition brought about by persistent abuse at the hands of someone whom the victim initially trusted and even professed to love. Of course, people who suffer from this complex for an extended period of time often snap and turn on their abusers with unfettered ferocity. (see Battered Woman’s Defense – U.S. criminal law)

So, is that what this whole Trump phenomenon is about? Is he merely a weapon of convenience being leveled at an habitually abusive political class by its long-suffering voter base? Is he like the butcher knife on the counter that the bruised and bloodied wife of a bully finally picks up one day and plunges into her tormenter’s filthy neck?

Your guess is as good as mine, but I certainly wouldn’t be surprised to find out that there’s some merit to that theory.

Edward L. Daley

.

*VIDEO* Univision Reporter Tries To Hijack Trump Presser With Immigration Filibuster, Gets Thrown Out

………The fun starts at about the 2:50 mark.

.

.

The Donald Extends Lead In Latest GOP Candidates Poll – Carson A Distant Second

New National Poll: Donald Trump Has Biggest Lead Ever With Carson A Distant 2nd – Right Scoop

A new national poll out today by OANN and Gravis Marketing has Trump up to 40%, his YUGEST lead ever over his Republican contenders. Here’s how each candidate rated:

.

.
While Carson’s lead more than doubled, he’s still a distant second place with the rest of the GOP field behind him. Jeb lost a bit as both Cruz and Fiorina gained.

Here’s the info on the poll:

Gravis Marketing, a nonpartisan research firm, conducted a random survey of 3,567 registered voters across the U.S. regarding the presidential election. The poll has a margin of error of +/- 2%. The total may not equal exactly 100% due to rounding. The polls were conducted on August 21-22 using interactive voice response, IVR, technology and weighted separately for each population in the question presented.

.

.

RINO Squish Jeb Bush “Clarifies” Anchor Baby Remarks (Video)

Jeb Clarifies ‘Anchor Baby’ Remarks: ‘It’s More Related To Asian People’ – Talking Points Memo

.

.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush attempted to clarify his remarks about “anchor babies” during a stop near the U.S. border with Mexico on Monday, saying Asian immigrants are really more of the problem.

When asked if he thought his repeated use of the term “anchor babies” – a derogatory term for children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrant parents – Bush said: “What I was talking about was the specific case of fraud being committed where there’s organized efforts, and frankly, it’s more related to Asian people coming into our country and having children in that organized effort.”

Bush prefaced his answer with “as I said in Spanish,” and went on to rail against political correctness, saying “we need to chill out.”

Watch Bush’s full answer below, via YouTube user Jerry Pace:

.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related video:

.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related article:

.
Jeb Bush: Dreamers Deserve A Path To Citizenship – Big Government

Given the opportunity to get to the White House, presidential candidate Jeb Bush would fight to grant Dreamers a path to citizenship while working to fix the broken immigration system in America.

“I, as President, I would go to congress and change the law to give them not a residency but citizenship,” Bush said in Spanish during a meeting attended by this writer.

The statement was made Monday afternoon at the Palenque Grill in this border city where patrons lined up to take photographs and shake hands with Bush.

When asked about the Dreamers, Bush said he did not agree with President Barack Obama’s approach by forcing an executive action, but instead, he said he would work with the U.S. Congress to pass a comprehensive immigration reform.

“You have to have a much deeper strategy than just building a fence, you have to have much more coordination with local law enforcement. There has to be more focus on a virtual fence which I propose as to using GPS technology, drone technology and other things like that,” Bush said during the event.

Prior to arriving at the local restaurant, Bush met with local officials to speak about border security issues in the area. This area, as previously reported by Breitbart Texas, has been the epicenter of an immigration crisis where hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants from Central America have arrived to the area turning themselves in to authorities in order to be released with a notice to appear in court.

“Border Patrol needs to act on a strategy and stick with it,” Bush said. “There’s too much politicizing. They do good work, but there’s too much influence form Washington DC to be effective.”

During the appearance, Bush was asked about Donald Trump’s call for a border wall and about the immigration proposals put forth by the current presidential frontrunner.

“His plans are not grounded in conservative principles. They will cost hundreds of millions of dollars. It’s not realistic,” Bush said. “My belief we can have a comprehensive border security strategy unique to the circumstance of each part of this region.”

Multiple Spanish news outlets and CNN called out Bush for his use of the term “anchor babies” to which he said he would not apologize because he was referring to a fraudulent practice used by certain people “primarily Asian” looking to take advantage of the laws.

“Everybody needs to chill out,” the candidate told the angry news outlets stating that there was too much political correctness and that was hurting any healthy debates.

.

.

*LIVE STREAMING* Ted Cruz Rally For Religious Liberty: Iowa Events Center – Des Moines, IA (7:30pm ET – 08/21/15)



………………………Click on image above to watch stream.

Stream 2 – Note: Registration Required To Access

.

.

*LIVE STREAMING* Donald Trump Rally: Ladd-Peebles Stadium – Mobile, AL (8pm ET – 08/21/15)



………………………Click on image above to watch stream.

Stream 2

Stream 3

.

.

*AUDIO* Ann Coulter: The 14th Amendment Is NOT About Illegal Alien Anchor Babies


.
Click HERE to purchase Ms. Coulter’s new book Adios, America

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related audio:

.

.
Click HERE to purchase Mr. Levin’s new book Plunder And Deceit

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related article:

.
Not Hard To Read 14th Amendment As Not Requiring Birthright Citizenship, And Nothing Odd About Supporting Such A Reading – Andrew C. McCarthy

Roger, with due respect,

1. It does not seem hard at all to read the text of the Constitution as not requiring birthright citizenship unless one is construing the word “jurisdiction” to mean something plainly different from what the term meant when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.

As the Lino Graglia law review article Rich excerpted demonstrates, the term meant being subject to jurisdiction in the sense of the complete allegiance inherent in citizenship, not in the sense of merely being subject to American laws. Regarding the latter, every person present in the United States – citizen or not, legally present or not – is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in the narrow sense of being expected to follow our laws. (Even diplomats, though they have an immunity defense against prosecution for criminal law violations, are expected to follow our laws and subject to expulsion for failing to do so.)

Yet, every person present in the United States is not presumed to have fealty to the United States, which is what “jurisdiction” means in the Fourteenth Amendment. And it is clearly not the case that every person born in the United States is automatically a citizen pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment: U.S.-born children of foreign diplomats are not; nor are the U.S.-born children of American Indians (they were granted citizenship by an act of Congress in 1924). Given that it is not true that every person born in the United States is an American citizen under the Constitution, how difficult can it be to read the Constitution to not require something it does not require?

2. I don’t know that it’s necessary to “make war” on birthright citizenship, but there is nothing odd about opposition to it. In fact, the United States is one of the few countries in the world that confers citizenship on illegal aliens based on nothing other than the happenstance of their birth within national borders. I am not suggesting that the laws of other countries shed light on the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment; just that birthright citizenship is rightly seen as bad policy in most of the world. (Somehow, I suspect that the Supreme Court’s progressives, who believe in consulting foreign law when “interpreting” the U.S. Constitution, would resist that impulse when it comes to birthright citizenship.)

There are many people who believe in robust legal immigration and are open to the notion of some qualified amnesty for some categories of illegal aliens but who nevertheless think it is a terrible idea to grant citizenship automatically to the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens – a policy that can only encourage more illegal immigration. I am not a fan of “comprehensive immigration reform”; but if reform is to be comprehensive, and we are trying to discourage illegal immigration, why would we not address every policy that incentivizes illegal immigration?

If denying birthright citizenship seems like an offensive proposition to some, it can only be because we’ve lost our sense of what citizenship should be – the concept of national allegiance inherent in it. If a couple who are nationals of Egypt enter our country and have a baby while they are here, why is it sensible to presume that child’s allegiance is to the United States rather than Egypt? If the baby of an American couple happened to be born while they were touring Egypt, would we not presume that the child’s allegiance was to the United States?

.

.

*VIDEO* Mark Levin Discusses His New Book ‘Plunder And Deceit’ At The Reagan Library (8/16/15)


.
Click HERE to visit the official website of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library

Click HERE to purchase Mr. Levin’s new book Plunder And Deceit

.

.

Trump Provides Substance On Immigration And Border Security

Trump Provides Substance On The Most Important Issue – Moonbattery

.

.
Until recently I doubted Donald Trump’s sincerity. But on the most critical issue facing our nation, it looks like he is for real:

While most of the permanent political class is still aghast that 2016 GOP presidential frontrunner billionaire Donald Trump put together one of most specific, pro-American worker immigration plans of anyone running for public office, he’s winning widespread praise from key experts on the issue.

Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) executive director Mark Krikorian weighs in:

The first notable thing about Trump’s immigration plan are the three principles it lays out. Immigration policy must be based exclusively on the interest of We the People of the United States, not wealthy donors, not corporations, not union bosses, not big-city politicians, and not foreign citizens. Why every candidate of every party hasn’t already said this is a mystery. Many of the specifics are also sound: E-Verify, visa-tracking, cutting off aid to sanctuary cities, making overstay of a visa a criminal offense, tightening up on H-1B visas, etc. His support for moderating our current very high levels of legal immigration is welcome… overall, none of the other Republican (or Democratic) candidates (with the exception of Rick Santorum) has as sound and as well thought-through an immigration plan.

Some have dismissed Trump as a celebrity lightweight, but stopping massive Third World immigration is more substantive than all other issues combined, and he is virtually alone in seriously addressing it.

Ann Coulter understands the importance.

Coulter – author of 11 New York Times bestselling books, including Adios America: The Left’s Plan To Turn Our Country Into A Third World Hellhole – Tweeted immense praise for Trump’s new document all day Sunday.

In one Tweet, Coulter called the plan “the greatest political document since the Magna Carta.” In another, she said Trump’s plan proves “IT’S MORNING IN AMERICA, AGAIN!”…

She also noted that there is no issue of political significance that matters as much as this, because if policies like Trump’s aren’t implemented, then Democrats will win national elections for decades straight and Republicans won’t be able to stop anything bad from becoming law. “Nothing else matters. Unless we stop 3rd worlders pouring in, bloc-voting 4 the Dems, conservatives lose EVERYTHING,” Coulter Tweeted.

Without Trump’s “immigration plan, it will be nothing but Obamas and Hillarys as president for the rest of our lives,” Coulter Tweeted after mocking Republicans party-wide for putting out position papers on issues of less significance than stopping the Democrats from fundamentally transforming the American electorate.

“These morons with their little position papers on how to replace Obamacare, deal with Iran and defund planned parenthood,” Coulter Tweeted, adding in a follow-up Tweet, “too stupid to grasp that they’ll never be in a position to do any of that unless we stop foreigners from voting in our elections.”

While most of the other candidates self-importantly rearrange the deck chairs, Trump is trying to steer us clear of the iceberg and save America from sinking into the Third World. Kudos.

.

.