Friday, April 15, 2011

2012 GOP Update: Donald Trump Tops National Poll – Leads Romney by 11 Points

Donald Trump has taken a commanding lead in the fourth national poll conducted by Public Policy Polling, a Democrat leaning pollster. The firm, regardless of political party, has shown to be extremely accurate in the end stages of political campaigns, having called Republican Senator Scott Brown’s win in the Massachusetts special election, January, 2010, spot on.

In the editorial which accompanies the polls release, the pollster focuses heavily on the issue of President Obama’s birth certificate, but does not focus on Trump’s (or any of the candidates) views regarding the economy, illegal immigration or any other “hot button” issue that might be considered of import to conservatives in general. This consistent focus from the left on this particular issue does not appear to be hurting Trump overall.

Trump is not included in the first eight question of the poll, missing is the question of favorability, it is almost as if Trump is thrown in as an afterthought. However, when Trump is included in a field of eight potential candidates including Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich, he takes a commanding lead: 26 percent of the total, with Huckabee at 17% and Mitt Romney at 15%. This is the first national poll which has seen any Republican potential candidate take more than a 6 point lead. Question 10 focuses on the question of supporting a candidate who believed President Obama was not born in the United States: 38% were willing, 39% were “not sure” and 23% answered no. The balance of the pollsters questions focus on political ideology, age and gender demographics.

The survey was conducted using a sample of 400. Trump is expected to announce his candidacy after the final airing of his NBC reality television series “Celebrity Apprentice”, May 15th.

2012 GOP Presidential Contenders – Trump, Palin, Romney, Pawlenty and Huckabee - Media Analysis and Update

Trump in Good Company - Ronald Reagan Depicted as a Clown - image: publicly funded

A Boston Herald article by Rachelle Cohen, entitled “No Trump-ing Obama”, notes that there are so many candidates and potential candidates for the GOP nomination, none of them attracting more than 19% of the total, that Obama should be pleased indeed and easily reelected. The logic belies the fact that out of the myriad field of contenders, only one, to date has announced an exploratory committee, one Mitt Romney. Additionally, what is of more import perhaps is that regardless of how one feels about any one of the “candidates”, at the least, they are taking time out of their lives to run for public office (or think about it, more to the point). What it does leave the nation with are choices, and as far as the media whining about not having a front runner this “late” in the game, are perhaps not familiar with the history of 2000, where major contenders did not announce until August, and the field was full, both Democrat and Republican. Although Al Gore was a given, due to the fact that he was the Vice President under Clinton, he still had challengers, and the simple fact is, having challengers helps the public to winnow out the chaff from the wheat so to speak.

Just follow the polls, the general public is already talking through them, and the fact is, they are split as no one has officially declared (exploratory committee is not a campaign committee). The same was true in early 2007 when politicians began to line up to run or be expected to run:
In 2007 the field of Democrats included: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel. The Republican field included: Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter. It was not until well after the first primaries in 2008 that front runners emerged on both sides and the race was off and running.

Understanding that Obama and Company (the Campaign, not the President per se), and the media, have intentional short memories, it is good to remind the lot of them that having 5 candidates a year before the first primary takes places results in numbers similar to those 19% leads currently held by 2012 GOP “potential candidates”.

That said, one cannot stress enough the fact that, those that run, do so out of conviction and love of country, they must, regardless of how many times someone calls an individual a myriad of insulting and most often misleading “names”, it remains reasonable that unless one wanted the job of overseeing the finances and well-being of this Great Nation, losing 10 years off one’s life in less than 2 years, and taking a ration of utter crap from the press, they would not be doing so for any “publicity stunt”, especially since, in viewing the field of GOP contenders, not one seems hard pressed for personal cash, fame and or the need to put up with the crazy people in the general media.

As it is the end of the week, it was important to point out the fact that the current crop of “potential candidates for the GOP” are doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing, getting the attention of “likely GOP voters”, and the press can write and report on the lack of front runners all they like, until such time as one of those running, pulls out with a majority in a poll conducted by any reasonable pollster, at the right time, the polls running now, are akin to taking a pulse on a patient that is literally in a coma, until they wake up and announce their intent to run officially. At that point, one can bet the house, those 19% leads will be, if the announced candidate is the choice of those voting with the GOP, multiplied by, at the least 60 percent, to the 30’s, and as the next one appears, those numbers will go up and down, until the debates, which, incidentally a decade ago, were held in October of the year prior to the election. One’s stock would rise upon winning the Iowa Caucus and or the New Hampshire Primary, or perhaps not until one has been though the winnowing field of South Carolina.

Meanwhile, Obama has recycled his Campaign from 2008, the price of gas is about to go to $5.00 and beyond, unemployment has not moved, the dollar is declining and inflation is on the rise, never mind key topics like the Health Care Bill that the majority of the public continues to rail against. Who’s zooming who? (Taking a line from the great Aretha Franklin.)

What are those that have a toe in the GOP Presidential Water up to this coming week?

The Donald, who is serious as a heart attack, will be in Florida at a Tea Party Rally in Boca Raton, with Congressional Representative Allen West Judging from emails received by this blog in unprecedented amounts over the past week, The Donald is running the gamut of approval by the entire spectrum of political strange bedfellows. An expert from one enthusiastic Bay Stater enthusiastically noted: “ I also believe The Donald will be our next President. He is starting to get the " Reagan treatment" by the press. He has already been depicted as a clown.” (See Cartoon of Reagan above from PBS).

Trump was to attend a small rally in Boca, which, once news got out that he was going to attend, turned into a much larger crowd, the event had to be moved in order to accommodate the increased interest in Trump. He is also set to announce his bid (according to a variety of reports) after or immediately following the final NBC Apprentice show, which, with Neilson checking heads, might give an indication of interest vis a vis ratings for Trump. On the Trump – Obama Birth Certificate Issue – it’s being overplayed by the press – so much so that the obvious vitriol towards Trump is helping, not hurting him. It is also a matter of fact that Trump is merely expressing an opinion, shared by many, that there might be more to the issue of the Presidents Constitutional Eligibility to hold the office. Therein lays the crux and the confusion. Although this blog advocates leaving that issue lay, the fact remains that the Constitution is clear on one fact, No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” Therefore, there is a litmus test, so to speak. One cannot merely be a citizen, one must meet certain credentials. Of course, a great deal depends on how one views the Constitution, either as written in stone, or interpretive. Regardless, the right to question, is guaranteed by the First Amendment (the one upon which the Press relies). Trump is merely expressing an interest in the subject as well as defending the Constitutional rights of others to do the same. Good for him.

Sarah Palin, who has lost some of the limelight given the entrance of the Donald will be at a Tea Party rally in Madison Wisconsin, home of the stand-up to unions Governor Scott Walker, and now home to many transplanted SEIU paid personnel who are there to stand up for the rights of the people who pay their salaries (i.e. Wisconsin Public Employees). It should be interesting; those on the left apparently are planning a counter rally to the Tea Party.

Mitt Romney is faced with trouble in his own back yard - Massachusetts Conservatives (i.e. Libertarians, the rank and file Republicans and those who identify themselves as conservatives, aren’t throwing their support behind Mitt. Romney is not, apparently attending any Tea Party Rally in the Bay State, but his competition is:

Former Minnesota Govenor, Tim Pawlentywill be in Boston for the Tea Party Rally on tax day (April 15th), with a trip to New Hampshire planned.

Finally, the man who runs strongest in national polls (Gallup) (until recently – see tied with Trump), former Governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee is takings some heat for his support of in-state tuition for those here in the nation not quite legally – his premise, children of illegal immigrants (which may mean these students are American Citizens, by the way), should be eligible for in-state tuition, as it would expand the tax base, as they would gain employment, rather than an EBT card. Although this logic drives the “right of right” insane, especially those in certain presidential candidate opposition camps, Huckabee has a point.

(Side Note: during a recent interview, Donald Trump noted that the border problems could be fixed, by putting our military on the border (agreed), and then deciding, on a case by case basis those illegally in the nation’s ability to stay or be deported – the criteria, productive, stay, criminal go. (Agreed!).

Thursday, April 14, 2011

2012 - From Massachusetts to Ohio and Beyond Voters Rolls continue to Include Deceased and Non-Eligible Voters

In October, 2009, a year prior to the 2010 elections, a non-partisan data research company, Aristotle International Inc, had found upward to 15 Million voters, that were either deceased or ineligible on voters roles nationally. (CNS News). Massachusetts was the most egregious, with over 600,000 deceased or ineligible voters on its rolls just prior to the special election in January of 2010. Although one has to understand that human error can occur, especially considering that voter rolls are maintained by the individual States and Commonwealths, figures reaching those proportions give pause.

Now, Ohio’s Secretary of State, did a little “digging” on his own and found 18,460 deceased Ohioans ready to vote. He found the discrepancies by cross checking the voter rolls with a list deceased kept by the Ohio Department of Health. (Fox Toledo). That said, how many more Ohio voters are ineligible due to the fact that they no longer live in the area where they continue to stay on voter rolls.

These types of reports, regardless of which credible source one finds, leaves the reader questioning the process and the results of elections, specifically those that took place in 2010, especially in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Granted, those reports were released prior the special election to fill the Senate Seat left vacant by the death of Sen. Ted Kennedy, with the result that Republican Scott Brown trump State’s Attorney General Martha Coakley, proving perhaps that those deceased and ineligible did not cast any or as many votes that January. However, with all eyes, literally on Massachusetts for that special election, one would think the election was kept above board so to speak. However, when pressed, Massachusetts Secretary of State, Democrat William Galvin ridiculed the reports as “conservative” (never mind that the origination of the reports came from a firm that works for both political parties), and noted that those concerned would have to take his “word for it”.

This might explain the results in the “bluest states” 2010 Congressional contests, where several hotly contested races, including three that were rather high profile, despite alleged internal polls that said otherwise, managed, in less than 13 hours, to pull exactly the number of votes out of the proverbial hat in order to push three of the ten Incumbent Massachusetts Democrats over the top. Oddly enough, pulling voters out of nowhere is fairly simple when one employs poll watchers, and in Massachusetts the Democrats do just that – the system: Stationed behind each poll worker is a Democrat operative checking the voter rolls, should someone not appear, they basically get them to the polls. One understands this is a common practice by both parties in most states (however in Massachusetts, there remains a fairly entrenched Democrat presence), and does not constitute fraud.

What might be considered fraud is when names of those on the rolls are deceased and or out of state, and any one with knowledge of a name and address can walk into a polling station and vote in that person’s name without the need to show identification, in Massachusetts, one would be able to cheat all day long with zero repercussions. One must wonder if the same aforementioned theory might as well pertain to other states where anomalies in results are, well, ignored or downplayed by the politically motivated individual in charge of overseeing voter rolls.
Although one might find it easy to obtain a less than legal form of identification, in order to vote as John Smith, Deceased or move to Toronto, it is less likely to occur if one has to show at the least a drivers license, state identification card, student id card, passport, or a picture ID pass from one of the many regional theme parks each time one votes.

The premise in Massachusetts is that one need only show identification when voting in a Federal election for the first time but not to worry if one should not have that indentification, the ballot will be cast as provisional and the State will determine if it is valid (source Massachusetts Secretary of State). When at the polls in Massachusetts one is basically asked for street, name and number, and then handed a ballot. Seriously.

In searching Google for references to the Secretary of State of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts actually looking into cleaning up the voter’s rolls from 2009 forward, there was no reference to be found. This blog may have missed something, somewhere, so should anyone reading find this not to be the case, please post a link in the comments section.

With the 2012 elections rounding the corner, and the local 2011 elections at hand in many states for local and state offices, it would be ideal if those in the position of power and authority would use the same to clean up voters rolls, so that “errors” might not occur, and 30,000 votes appear, as if by magic in a 13 hour period! (Of course, community organizers walking the streets of major cities, and “getting out the vote would dispel any questions of fraud resulting in a huge increase in such a short period of time.

In any event, suffice it to say, that the integrity of the system is called into question when elected officials, regardless of the state, who are charged with protecting the voter rolls, which means your vote and my vote, refuse to remove the “deadwood” and open the door to Pandora’s Box, either to real fraud and or plain speculation as to fraud. To the Secretary of State in Ohio – kudos’s, to Massachusetts’, perhaps one should take the time out of one’s busy schedule, and actually look at the deadwood and remove it. The worse thing that could happen if one cleaned up the rolls in Massachusetts is the appearance of a fair election, and removing any unwarranted criticism that might come ones way.

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Durbin (IL-D) To Introduce Bill on Forced Internet Retail State Sales Tax – State of Maine Legislature Passes Sovereignty Resolution

Indiana Takes Advantage of Illinois Taxing Climate: image

Illinois Democrat State Senator, Dick Durbin is set to introduce a bill on the floor of the Senate today that would force Internet companies such as to collect state sales tax from consumers. (CNET News). The fact that a Federal elected official finds no qualms about interring in the free market and the individual state’s ability or inability to affect a business model is somewhat chilling. Understanding that certain business may be struggling in states where excessive taxes may induce the individual to purchase via mail order (the web), and that States with deep debt would benefit, belies the fact that federal interference is stepping on the U.S. Constitution.

Case in point, in 2009, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts sought to force the State of New Hampshire to collect sales tax from the company , Town Fair Tires, with the result that the Massachusetts Supreme Court, one of the most constitutionally interpretive courts in the nation, shot down the Bay State’s suit. Although the Court side-stepped the Commerce Clause, rather pointing to the fact that one could not specifically know where a consumer might use a product, therefore, Massachusetts could not collect sales tax from cross border retail entities (these were tires mind you), the message was clear – don’t overstep and drag the Supreme Court into this mess.

In April of that year, Governor Deval Patrick and the Massachusetts State Legislature had just passed a round of new taxes and fees, on everything from meals to telecommunications (cable, Internet, cell phones), and these were followed in 2010 by an increase in the State Sales Tax (25%). Enough is never enough in the Commonwealth – which – apparently is the model for the Federal Government as of late (See Health Care, Patrick’s Campaign style as a model for Obama’s Presidential run (beware the Independent Candidate in 2012).

That said certain State Legislatures have been pushing back at Federal Interference. Beginning in April of 2009 (at the same time Massachusetts was passing massive tax increases), Governor Rick Perry (R-TX), passed the first States Sovereignty Laws. Other states followed suit, with twenty-one States having passed similar resolutions in 2009. The latest State Legislature to announce its intent to declare itself free from unconstitutional federal interference is theState of Maine (Press Herald Portland).

Maine - a possible Safe Haven - image

Both Maine and New Hampshire, incidentally are not only retail, but vacation and change in lifestyle destinations for those overly taxed Massachusetts Residents. So much so that a loss of population in Massachusetts (or slow growth to be precise), has cost the Commonwealth a Seat at the Federal Table. One of the Massachusetts Congressional Districts must go, the question still remains, through redistricting, which District? Massachusetts is chock full of dedicated tax and spend with no restraint Democrat Lawmakers who held previously powerful positions up until this past November, 2010. In charge of the Congress (which pays the bills and spends the cash), these Democrats owned the purse strings from 2006 - a fact so often glaringly left out of so much finger pointing at everyone but, that these Representatives should be carrying mirrors with them at every turn in order to set the record straight. They are all, to some measure, from Richard Neal to Barney Frank, to Nicki Tsongas all responsible for the fiscal mess in which our nation finds itself. In fact, it is rare that a press release or mention of the current MA2 district’s Richard Neal does not include a new grant, new monies given to this or that, from the Federal Government – or as one would accurately put it, the same Massachusetts Tax Payer who is already taxed to the teeth (that may be next).

Therefore with yet another of Illinois Finest (Tax and Spend) Politicians is at the gate ready to tax, so one must understand where the earnest Senator receives the most financial support: Lobbyists, Lawyers, Insurance, Pharmaceuticals, Business Services, Commercial Banks – all give generously to Dick Durbin (explains votes on Health Care, Bank Bailouts, etc.) It is not that the august Senator Durbin is any different than any other one of the clowns in the Senate (with some glaring exceptions – see Budget Fixer Paul Ryan (KY-R) to notice the difference between the “haves of Durbin” and those that may not “take so much” (all previous source Open

It comes down to who the particular Senator feels they are personally, and what they think they can get away with by virtue of the same, and how much they might “owe” the lobbyists or special interest groups for which they are in a particular tank.
Frankly, Dick Durbin should look to his own State of Illinois to find that the loss of population was perhaps not due to a fiscally conservative form of governing and that assessing more taxes, on the back of the middle class (whom the Democrats are always “trying to protect”), is worthy of criticism.

What is perhaps, most amazing, is that those in key positions within the Democrat Machine, as well as certain members of the Republican caucus, have short memories, and/or are delusional in respect to the impact of the 2010 mid-terms and the fact that the people continue to be aggrieved by the lack of understanding on the part of such allegedly bright individuals. There has to come a time, when enough is enough, and business and government separate (corporate welfare another subject), the free market prevails, and the United States Federal government gets back to business (the ordinal intent of its role in the grand scheme of things). Paul Ryan gets it, there are those that “get it”, and now, somewhere on the horizon there may be a new President elected in 2012 that understands and supports the Constitution and is not afraid to make those tough choices, popular or not, that removes those grants to study scallops, or to build high speed rails that no one will use… the list is endless.

There may be only one option left: move to Maine – it’s a big state!

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

2012 – Obama versus the Republican Potential Candidates: Timing and History and the State of the Presidents Poll numbers - Analysis

Second Term? Obama and the Numbers - image itmakessense blog

Rasmussen Polling Reports on the 11th Daily Presidential Tracking Poll, that the President’s “strongly approve” had fallen to a low of 19% - with 39% strongly disapproving. The pollster uses answer options approximating strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove and strongly disapprove; the overall approval rating (or disapproval) is a blend of the strongly/somewhat responses. It is with these types of numbers that the President and his campaign for reelection must go forward with in 2012. In addition, a recent Gallup poll on the President’s 2010 overall approval state by state, showed a large gap in approval, with ten states giving the President approval ratings over 50% Those 10 states include: DC, Hawaii, MD, NY, DE, MA, RI, CA, CT and IL. Therefore, the question remains, is Barack Obama electable to a second term, and part of the answer lay in the polling numbers, the balance in the overall health of the economy, the nation’s debt, and personal finances as it pertains to the rising costs of essentials such as food and fuel. Should there not be a vast improvement in the later, the old adage “The buck stops here”, will apply to Obama in his quest for a second term. Although pundits and media are downplaying the ability of the GOP to field a candidate “strong” enough to appeal to a majority of voters, it is not without some historical context, as the same scenario was played out prior to Carter’s reelection. Another historical note regarding the timing of announcements of intent to seek the office by either the GOP or DNC; prior to 2007, announcements of intent to run for President came mid-way to late in the year preceding from June-July through August, with debates held in October.

Therefore, the timing of some of the GOP candidates who have contractual obligations that would prevent them from formally announcing a candidacy until June or July of 2011 would not be out of the norm, historically speaking. Those candidates would be Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee and Donald Trump.
As of today, the field of potential and on the verge of announcing includes: (Announced, or Exploratory Committee Announced) Tim Pawlenty (Governor of Minnesota), Rick Santorum (Former Senator PA) and Mitt Romney (former Governor of Massachusetts) (In the top tier polling to date). Those semi-announced, with contracts noting a June decision are: Donald Trump, Mike Huckabee (former Governor of Arkansas) and Sarah Palin (former Governor of Alaska). In the top tier of polling to date, but yet to announce, New Gingrich, former speaker of the House. Other potential candidates include Michelle Bachman, Congressional Representative, Minnesota, Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi, and Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. Should even half of the above referenced decide to run for the highest office, it would allow the American voting Public an opportunity to see a variety of Conservative think, the majority of those running strong fiscal conservatives with a record either in business and or government, with these announcements coming mid to late summer of 2011, and should the state of the economy not improve drastically in a very short time, those on the debate stage will garner a great deal of interest from the general public, there is, as of now, a greater interest in this election, than in any other personally witnessed in over four decades. The most interest in an opposition campaign camping being the 1980 general election between former President Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. Carter, who faced a challenge from Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy in the primary, also added to the drama. That election was also economically driven.
When one looks at the options objectively, it will be the strong fiscal conservatives with a record proving that they were able to put a business/state in the black, social issues, or hot topic issues, will not play as large a role in this election as some pundits believe.

From this perspective, it will be those candidates who have a cross-ideological fiscal policy appeal, with the additional attribute of proving an ability to negotiate across the political spectrum, taking party politics out of the mix. With that in mind, the field narrows to the following: Donald Trump, who has a clear advantage in business, also has given financially to candidates from both sides of the aisle and will not shy from making though decisions when it comes to either party, Mike Huckabee, as the former Governor of Arkansas (2 and ½ terms), also left the State of Arkansas in fine fiscal shape, and took “heat” from the GOP conservatives for crossing the aisle in a mainly Democrat controlled state in order to get things done, Sarah Palin, although possibly until Trump, the one potential candidate the media chose to denigrate daily, also brought the Alaskan fiscal house in order, while working both sides of the aisle, and to take it a step further, outing and prosecuting top Republican’s in the State. Finally, Mitt Romney, who only served one term in Massachusetts before running for the office of the Presidency in 2008, also had put Massachusetts in the black, no mean feat; when one consider the makeup of the State Legislature as possibly the bluest state in the Union. Romney had to cross the aisle and make compromises in order to accomplish anything. Although he is facing criticism for his health care plan, which the national plan is modeled after, one must understand that Romney’s concept had been “hijacked” by the Massachusetts Legislature and – the rest as they say is a history of mandated coverage and the usual shenanigans that has turned this program into a budget millstone.

As to timing, it would behoove those who are seriously considering a run at the Presidency to hold until a later date to announce, giving the public a respite from the constant campaigning that wearies the public, there will be those voters that will vote strict party lines, while there will be those that make up their minds in mid to late 2012, somewhere between September and October. In other words, there is more than enough time available in order to run campaigns, without starting too early, in need of billions of dollars in campaign donations from a populace that will have wearied of giving just another $5.00 to any candidate from any party.
The independent candidate: In a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal, Donald Trump who has announced his intent to run as a Republican, noted that he would run as an independent should he fail to win the GOP nomination.
Trump should be aware that the model for Barack Obama’s success is based on David Axelrod’s assessment of the campaign methodology used by one Deval Patrick of Massachusetts. David Axelrod, mentor to both men, watched the Massachusetts elections very closing in 2010. In the end run, Patrick, who had dismal poll numbers, pulled out a win by 1 percentage point, to Republican Charles Baker, with the aid of an independent candidate, Tim Cahill (a Democrat turned Independent just prior to the election). This is, of course, a gamble on anyone’s part, and depends a great deal on who the players on the proverbial chess board are: however, in a scenario with two of the aforementioned GOP potentials, sans Trump, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, either man, now polling is capable of besting the President. Trump, given another two months of polling and exposure, appears able to compete with the current “crop”, given a Wall Street Journal poll that tied him with Huckabee. However, should Trump prevail and the GOP not put their full support behind Trump, and should Trump run as an independent, the vote would be split, among those who would vote Republican under any circumstances and those that would vote for an independent fiscal conservative candidate, the balance of those who would vote a pure Democrat ticket under any circumstances would allow Barack Obama, despite all odds, a second term. However, there is no historical basis to defuse that theory, and the last election in which an Independent candidate truly factored, was the 1992 Presidential race between President George H Bush and William Jefferson Clinton, Perot as the Independent was pulling votes from across the spectrum, and managed 18 plus percent of the vote, after he announced he would no longer be seeking the office.

However, Donald Trump, as it appears now, as a GOP candidate, should have little problems in effectively competing within the GOP field as well as picking up crossover votes from both independents and Democrats. The fact that the media is picking up mainly on the issue of Obama’s birth certificate, which Trump has appeared to embrace and or more to the point, questioned, along with others in the U.S. who are called “birthers” by the media, belies the man’s ability to run business empires successfully, while connecting with the average voter. The fact that Trump’s life is a virtual open book, leaves both the Obama Campaign and the media with little to attack, without that one issue, which, may resonate with a percentage of voters, but it is the other “Trumpisms” that have caught the attention of the majority: his no holds barred, tell it like it is approach to immigration, (Troops on the border, decide each individual that is in the U.S. now on a case by case basis), his stance towards China, his stance on going to war, righting a nation and then paying out of pocket (taxpayers) without getting anything in return (oil); all of the aforementioned resonate with voters across the spectrum. It is to the peril of those who are hanging their hats on one issue with this particular multi-faceted candidate that may be the ticket to the nomination and the Presidency.

Monday, April 11, 2011

2012 – GOP: Huckabee on Ingraham re: Trump: I think he’s a very serious contender – I think he’s going to get in – Romney Forms Exploratory Committee

On the Laura Ingraham Show today, in an interview with Mike Huckabee former Govenor of Arkansas and 2008 Presidential Candidate, Huckabee stated “I think he’s a very serious contender – I think he’s going to get in” in reference to Donald Trump. The clip appears below. Meanwhile, Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts announced his intent to form an exploratory committee with the FEC: From the Romney Press Release:

“Today, Mitt Romney formed the Romney for President Exploratory Committee with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) as a first step in a campaign for the 2012 Republican nomination for President of the United States. While this step does not constitute a formal announcement of candidacy, it allows Governor Romney to be in compliance with the requirements of federal election law as he begins to raise the funds necessary to explore a potential candidacy.”

As the White House takes aim at Donald Trump, which they would not bother if he weren’t of concern, and the “endorsement” from Mike Huckabee, who is the strongest GOP contender in the majority of national polls, Trump appears to be in good position for a formal announcement in June. The fact that Huckabee also did not dismiss a role as a vice president, when questioned by Ingraham speaks volumes. The timing of the Romney announcement in respect to the rise of Trump also is an acknowledgement that Trump is one more nod at Trumps current position nationally.

China to USA – “Stop Exploiting Human Rights Issue To Interfere with Other Countries Internal Affairs” – Fear of Liberty - Opinion

Reuters: : The Chinese Foreign Ministry dismissed a US State State Department Report on Global Human Rights through their official news agency, Xinhau. An official statement published by that agency noted:

"Stop the domineering behavior of exploiting human rights to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries…"
"The United States ignores its own severe human rights problems, ardently promoting its so-called 'human rights diplomacy', treating human rights as a political tool to vilify other countries and to advance its own strategic interests."

The agency went one step further citing the United States failure to protect its citizens from violent crime and racism as part of their statements. (Reuters) It boggles the mind that statements such as these are made in total sincerity by a nation that is ruled with an iron fist and anyone citizen that dares to disagree with the Chinese government is jailed. It is a far cry from the freedoms enjoyed within the boundaries of the United States, which is why millions are willing to break our laws in order to set foot on U.S. soil. One has to be grateful for the rights we, as American’s, take for granted: freedom of speech and freedom to practice a religion of choice, without fear of persecution are two that come to mind immediately. In nations in the Middle East, in Africa and China, those are freedoms that simply do not exist. As to racism, one cannot deny that racism exists in the United States, but it is the individual not the state, that is the culprit. Furthermore, to the extent that we, as a nation and as a people elect individuals of every racial and ethnic and religious background to represent us in our government, is proof of the greater good inherent in the individual who makes up the whole of the Democratic Republic of the United States of America.

To accuse those in the United States Government of exploiting human rights in order to gain some sort of advantage in another nation made by the Chinese government is ludicrous and highlights the fact that they obviously do not understand, or understand all to clearly perhaps, the way our nation views the importance of every individual. It is fear of their own people understanding our freedoms and the subsequent loss of power over the individual that prompts nations to cry foul when the U.S. government condemn actions that remove the slightest liberty that we enjoy.

Amazon Picks

Massachusetts Conservative Feminist - Degrees of Moderation and Sanity Headline Animator

FEEDJIT Live Traffic Map

Contact Me:

Your Name
Your Email Address