Tag Archives: Barack Obama

Left Behind

Donald Trump’s inauguration is hours away and the Left remains stupefied.

The Left remains stunned by Hillary Clinton’s defeat. (Snowflakes are melting.) Her defeat, and Obama’s legacy, augur ill for the progressive agenda.

left-behind

From Obama and Hillary to identity politics and bumper stickers, the Left is in need of not just a new messenger, but a new message.

Hillary Lost – Get Over It

Hillary, the worst candidate Democrats could have nominated, lost to the worst GOP candidate ever.

Analysis by Dan McLaughlin strongly suggests that Trump won despite himself and that a far more traditionally conservative GOP nominee “would have fared far better.” According to McLaughlin, “A candidate with nothing but the historical wind at his back would have fared far better than Trump. Only his singular underperformance of the historic trend kept this race even close.”

But Hillary still lost!

Hillary had “an astoundingly poor performance,” according to McLaughlin, winning “a majority of the popular vote in only thirteen states, the fewest of any major-party nominee since Bob Dole in 1996.” Indeed, though she faced the “deeply flawed” GOP candidate “that Democrats were visibly salivating over running against,” Hillary “carried a popular majority in half as many states as Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, barely more than half as many as Mitt Romney.”

Indeed, “Hillary managed the worst Democratic performance as a share of eligible voters over the past five elections in 17 states, almost all of them states with above-average white populations: West Virginia, North and South Dakota, Wyoming, Tennessee, Missouri, Oklahoma, Iowa, Arkansas, Kentucky, Wisconsin, Michigan, Rhode Island, Alabama, Louisiana, Kansas, and New York.”

To whom did Hillary lose? Donald Trump.

McLaughlin observes, “All told, across the 765 counties in 28 states where Trump got fewer votes than the Republican candidate for Senate, he received 2.176 million fewer votes.” Moreover, in “counties Trump lost by 10,000 or more votes, we get a much longer list of 52 counties, in which more than 21 million votes were cast and Trump got 1,377,179 fewer votes than Republican Senate candidates.”

Trump was extremely unpopular; Hillary even more so.

Obama has Left Liberalism in Crisis

What was Hillary message? She as going to out-Obama Obama. America has rejected that agenda.

President Obama’s legacy is one which has actually left liberalism in crisis. Michael Barone points out: “Republicans have now won House majorities in 10 of the past 12 elections, leaving 2006 and 2008 as temporary aberrations.”

Barone continues:

“Republican success has been even greater in gubernatorial and state-legislature elections, to the point that Democrats hold both the governorship and legislative control only in California, Hawaii, Delaware, and Rhode Island. After eight years of the Obama presidency, Democrats hold fewer elective offices than at any time since the 1920s.”

Ramesh Ponnuru addresses the leftward momentum of the Left: “On criminal justice, on entitlements, on immigration, on abortion, on religious liberty, Democrats staked out positions and adopted rhetoric that were much less moderate than they had previously been. The new Democratic consensus included Hillary Clinton, who ran in 2016 as the heir to Obama rather than to her own husband.”

As Rich Lowry notes, Obama’s “favorite rhetorical crutch was to portray his positions as the centrist path between two extremes, although this was convincing only to people who already agreed with him. His inability or unwillingness to seriously compromise proved devastating to his party, which got wiped out in 2010, 2014, and most importantly 2016. This puts much of what he accomplished legislatively and unilaterally in jeopardy.”

Straightjacketed by Identity Politics

The Left has become straightjacketed by the identity politics for which both Obama and Hillary are poster children. The Year of the Woman failed in 2008 and 2016. Appealing to voters on the basis of race, gender, and class is becoming increasingly counterproductive.

Hillary and the Left lost in large measure due to the politically cancerous identity politics it is obsessed with and which taints everything the Left does.

The Million Woman March slated for the day after Trump’s inauguration epitomizes the nonsense that permeates the Left. Organizers for these protests in the name of all women actually exclude those who are neither liberal nor pro-choice. They also reject white women, claiming their oppression is significantly less than that of minority women.

Heather Wilhelm notes, “There are many different types of oppression, intersectional feminism teaches – based on race, class, sexual identity, and more  that layer upon each other. In the world of intersectionality, victimhood is sorted by category, tallied, and ultimately ranked.” Sounds a lot like those good old days of apartheid in South Africa.

“Apparently, at this point,” writes Wilhelm, “the way forward involves a cavalcade of left-wing causes – abortion, as usual, is taking top billing – buckets of vague platitudes, lots of hectoring, and endless, obsessive, identity-based infighting.” As usual in situations like this, the loudest bully wins, kind of like in Lord of the Flies.

Leftist Political Dynasties

Progressives are always seeking progress – moving forward. Hence their disdain for tradition, especially in traditional values, religious beliefs, and patriotic fervor. For them, we must get beyond the foibles of nationalism and embrace a globalist citizen-of-the-world ethos.

But progressives also like to anchor their progress and their victories in hero worship. Hence their love for political dynasties.

Leftist admiration for political dynasties is particularly undemocratic and peculiarly foreign to the precepts upon which America was founded. (Remember the Declaration of Independence?) Once leftists have power, they are loathe to give it up.

In the 1960s, the Left dreamed of a Kennedy dynasty (John, Bobby, Ted). Now they fervently desire an interwoven dynastic reign by Obamas and Clintons.

Lowry observes, Obama “will be remembered – and revered – by his admirers as his generation’s JFK. Lasting substantive achievements are beside the point when ascending to this iconic status.” As I pointed out, “At least JFK loved America, fought against communism, valued free market, tough on crime.”

One bumper sticker encapsulates this self-destructive pathology on the Left. It read: Hillary 2016, Michelle 2024, Chelsea 2032, Malia 2040, Sasha 2048.

What qualifies any of the (exclusively female) names on this list to be President of the United States?

Hillary’s singular accomplishment was to be more hated and less trusted than Donald Trump. HillaryCare bombed during her husband’s first administration. She was a lackluster senator and an abysmal Secretary of State who presided over the collapse of stability in the Middle East and the mushrooming of Islamism. Her singular achievement (apart from Benghazi and her secret email server) was setting a Guinness world record for frequent flyer miles.

Michelle Obama is indeed accomplished – at decimating public school lunch programs across America.

What are Chelsea Clinton’s accomplishments, credentials, and qualifications to be Commander-in-Chief? She received “an eye-popping $600,000 annual salary for an irregular stint as an NBC special correspondent.” Yes, she’s a “political heiress” engaged in crony capitalism.

Finally, in case it escaped anyone’s notice, Malia and Sasha Obama are children!

What do all these wonderful people have in common? They are all women and they all share the name of Clinton or Obama.

Obama’s Unraveling Legacy

Obama’s legacy is unravelling even as Trump prepares for his inauguration. Hillary’s political ambitions are effectively dead. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has again become her party’s standard-bearer in the House. Leftists continue to pursue their leftward momentum even as most Americans reject their policies.

President Obama’s “central case for government’s existence,” writes David Harsanyi, “rests on the notion of the state being society’s moral center, engine of prosperity, and arbiter of fairness. Obama speaks of government as a theocrat might speak of the Church, and his fans return the favor by treating him like a pope. This was true in 2008. And it’s true now. Just check out liberal Twitterdom.”

Some delusions die hard.

Racial Madness

Four blacks kidnapped and tortured a white mentally-challenged man while using “terrible racist statements.” (Torture streamed on Facebook Live!)

racial-madness

The Washington Post suggested it was inconsequential. CNN called it a “hazing.” One CNN panelist actually blamed Trump! NBC argued the thugs were not “truly trying to be criminal.” (Imagine saying that about the abominable Dylann Roof.)

The Chicago police refused to call it a hate crime. When is a hate crime not a hate crime? When its committed by blacks against a white male.

In related news, a university professor tweeted “All I Want for Christmas is White Genocide.” This professor remains employed.

Racial Healing Aborted

Barack Obama promised racial healing in America and racial tensions reached new heights under his presidency.

Despite Obama winning the presidency twice in a majority white nation, the racial grievance industry took control of the national debate. (No, not the KKK; the BLM.)

Phony Black Lives Matter narratives filled the airwaves, Internet, and social media.

Enslaved and energized by identity politics – and rejecting the promises and realities of Martin Luther King’s famous dream – the Black Lives Matter movement employed a range of racial myths to create a constituency and gain power and prestige. (Let’s not forget the money.)

quote-abraham-lincoln-freed-the-black-man-in-many-ways-dr-king-freed-the-white-man-how-did-ronald-reagan-137-80-36

Some of these narratives (e.g., “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot”) have been proven totally false, yet they retain a visceral power which overwhelms reason and reality.

From Ferguson to Baltimore and across the nation, Black Lives Matter propaganda has destroyed communities and created chaos.

Riots are called “protests.” Murder is deemed “social justice.”

Root Causes

So-called “white privilege” is the latest bogeyman. But blacks are not victims of a fictitious “institutionalized white racism” or presumed “white privilege.”

Rather, some blacks are victims of a fifty-year-old War on Poverty and a welfare state which has become the new plantation – created by Democrats who treat them as children. The paternalistic state gone awry.

The welfare statenot white racism – has created generational poverty, generational broken homes, and a cultural of dependency justified by allegations that blacks are victims of white racism and the legacy of slavery.

Consequently, perceiving themselves to be victims, many feel entitled to whatever they can get from the government, becoming dependent upon that government. With it, comes rage against the injustices they perceive have been perpetrated against them. And with that comes a culture of irresponsibility.

quote-white-liberals-are-the-most-racist-people-there-are-because-they-put-blacks-in-a-box-benjamin-carson-93-91-53

David French observes, “When you celebrate thugs, you get more thugs.” He laments a “depraved culture” and “breakdown in law and order.”

French concludes: “Our nation’s social fabric is fraying — nowhere more than in Chicago. This is the Left’s city, a foundation of its national power. How many more people have to die before it changes course?”

Contemporary dysfunctional black communities are not rooted in America’s founding. Rather, one need only look to Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society and subsequent iterations of the welfare state and the adoption of progressive policies and political correctness to see the development and escalation of dysfunctional pathologies in some black (and a growing number of white) communities.

America No Longer Needs to Apologize for Slavery

My MSNBC Op-Ed (7/2/97), entitled, “America has acknowledged mistakes,” is as relevant today as it was twenty years ago. Here it is:

Kimberle Crenshaw writes about passionate “white opposition” to a formal apology for slavery (neglecting to mention the many blacks who oppose it as well). While citing their objections (in her terms: “personal denial,” “finger pointing,” “traditional historicizing,” and “new-age globalizing”), she fails to refute any of those arguments. She doesn’t even try.

Instead, Crenshaw questions the motives of those opposed to an apology, saying it “reflects a deep unwillingness to desegregate American history and to integrate American self-identity.” Self-flagellation is not my self-identity.

Crenshaw contrasts post-slave, post-apartheid societies with non-slave, non-apartheid ones, failing to note that all societies are at least post-slave and, even today, many societies remain slave societies. (Why is the Left always willing to condemn America but praise our enemies?)

Crenshaw accuses the right of explaining away the black underclass as a result of “inherent characteristics.” Wrong! The right recognizes that the welfare state promotes self-destructive behaviors and the underclass is enslaved to the welfare state. Let’s forget apologies and free the underclass.

Crenshaw desires “historical closure.” Most Americans have experienced “closure” with past slavery. Constantly tearing at the scab only causes the wound to bleed.

Par for the course, Crenshaw criticizes America’s Founding Fathers for expressing the ideals of liberty for all while condoning slavery. No one disputes the divergence of these ideals and their implementation.

Crenshaw insists that whites – and American culture itself – are in a state of denial about slavery (and other historical atrocities). Denial? Our cultural elites positively revel in past American misdeeds (while glossing over our triumphs and glories).

Is Crenshaw really suggesting that Americans are denying historical slavery? Is she subtly suggesting a moral equivalence between this perceived denial and those who deny the Holocaust?

Tragically, while her ancestors may have been enslaved in chains, Crenshaw (and others) have enslaved themselves to the past. She desires “a reopening of American historical memory,” as if anyone could “forget” American slavery. She wants an acknowledgement of America’s “tragic mistakes” but Americans have already acknowledged them.

We are fast approaching a new millennium. Isn’t it time to put the past behind us, to let the wounds heal, to live for the future? Until we do, this schizophrenic identity crisis will only exacerbate the already tumultuous times we are living in.

Whither Conservatism?

Donald Trump’s historic victory to the White House demands that liberals and conservatives alike reevaluate their paradigms for political persuasion and, ultimately, victory.

whither-conservatism

Conservatives are at a crossroads. The establishment GOP, as currently constituted, is dying. The Tea Party GOP emerged triumphant in down-ticket races. The Alt-Right coalesced with grassroots populists to form the New Trump Party, becoming its #TrumpTrain constituency.

In a Trump administration, who will wield the reins of power? Alt-Right? Constitutionalists? Statists? To whom will Trump turn for counsel? The president-elect’s choice of Stephen Bannon as chief strategist suggests the Alt-Right will have significant power in his White House.

I have always said that Trump is the only GOP candidate who could lose to Hillary Clinton. I stand by that claim. Any other GOP nominee would arguably have done better than Trump against the Democrats’ utterly abysmal nominee.

Hillary was the worst candidate the Democrats could have nominated for their party. She literally drove people away from her. The electorate repudiated her as a person and for her policies.

Had, for instance, Ted Cruz been the GOP nominee, he could have drawn a clear distinction between himself and Hillary – in both personal morals and public policies. Instead, Trump’s worst character traits and ugly behavior almost sabotaged his own campaign.

Trump’s consigliere, Ann Coulter, attempted to distinguish between Trump’s personal baggage and his positions on the issues. She said, “I’m talking about his issues. No-one is voting for Trump because of his personality.” (But, wait, didn’t her latest book praise Trump, the man?

Coulter hammered home her point, arguing, “Issues, issues, issues. He wins on the issues, that’s why he keeps being attacked on his personal baggage, but nobody is voting for Trump the man.”

The problem with Coulter’s reasoning is that few people really trust the man on the issues. Time and again, Trump has proven himself untrustworthy as a person and ignorant on the issues.

Hence the #NeverTrump movement.

Henceforward, we must all exercise wisdom as we navigate through these unchartered political waters.

From #NeverTrump to #VerifyTrump

Those who are #NeverTrump should support the Trump administration wherever possible, as long as it is in keeping with conservative principles and the Constitution. We must switch from being Never Trump to, as Ronald Reagan might have phrased it, Verify Trump.

Trump, like the Vladimir Putin he so admires, cannot be trusted. We cannot believe either his words or his promises. We must look to his actions. Verify Trump by verifying that his actions further what is truly best for America.

Examine his staff appointments, his judicial nominations, his executive orders, and the like. Keep him on his toes. Curtail his progressive inclinations. Prevent him from continuing Obama’s unconstitutional executive imperialism. Restrain his inner tyrant.

From #TrumpTrain to #TrainTrump

Trump devotees must do something similar. Jump off the Trump Train and climb aboard Train Trump. In other words, stop worshiping the man and treating his varied and conflicting promises as holy writ. Instead, train the man you have elected President of the United States.

Train Trump to do what is right for America (and not just himself). Train him in the Constitution and founding documents of this great nation. Train him in the benefits of the free market and limited government.

If those who were Never Trump and those who are on the Trump Train can unite to tame the untamable ego of the newly-elected Narcissist-in-Chief, perhaps America will not only survive, but thrive, under a Trump presidency.

[A new book, #NeverTrump: Coulter’s Alt-Right Utopia, sheds some light on the #OnlyTrump movement and its Alt-Right constituency. It is now available on Amazon at http://amzn.to/2fzA9Mr.]

Liberty Died in Cleveland: America’s Establishment Coup

Liberty died in Cleveland on Tuesday.[1]

Liberty Died in Cleveland

The coronation of Donald Trump as the GOP nominee in 2016 further consolidated the power of establishment elites in Washington, DC. During this election cycle, establishment elites in both the Republican and Democrat parties have seized greater power while crushing their grassroots rivals.

Sanders supporters seem to grasp that establishment Democrats rigged their nominating process to coalesce behind Hillary Clinton.

Trump supporters, however, are blind to the reality that they are backing a purported anti-establishment nominee who has always been part of the establishment.

To do so, they obstructed the campaign of the only truly anti-establishment candidate in this race:[2] Ted Cruz. Indeed, at the convention, they cheered when the Republican establishment squashed efforts to allow delegates to vote their conscience and they booed when Ted Cruz urged American citizens to vote their conscience.

When did heeding your conscience become a bad thing?

Barack Obama ruthlessly wields his pen and phone to circumvent the Constitution[3] and thwart the will of the People. Hillary Clinton[4] is self-evidently a statist averse to the rule of law and wants to further transform America in even more fundamental ways.[5]

Donald Trump, also a statist, is an authoritarian[6] bully[7] to boot, and he has proven his propensity to use his boots to stamp on human faces forever,[8] as so vividly pictured by George Orwell.

That more people hate their respective party’s candidates than like them shows the extent to which the establishment opposes the will of the People to pursue their own ends. Both Hillary and Trump are anathema to lovers of Liberty and America.[9]

Even though the establishment Left & Right have seized control and consolidated their power, the fight must go on for Liberty.[10] The American spirit can only succeed when it is committed and engaged in the fight.

Let us fight for Liberty!

Endnotes:

[1]               See “The End of the American Experiment?” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-eZ.

[2]               See “BrotherWatch Endorses Ted Cruz” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-dw.

[3]               See “CPAC: Death by a 1,000 Pens” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-eV.

[4]               See “HRC: A Caricature of the Left” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-94.

[5]               See “Flags Depict Obama’s Fundamental Transformation of America and the World” at http://t.co/xjupplSWD1.

[6]               See “Why Brad Thor is #NeverTrump! Litmus test is liberty!” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-fb.

[7]               See “How to Talk to a Bully (if you must)” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-cY.

[8]               See “Will Ann Coulter Apologize to Michelle Fields?” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-di.

[9]               See “Stop Insisting I Vote!” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-f5.

[10]             See “CPAC: Brits Seek Independence (and so should we)” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-eT.

Vive la France!

Our hearts and prayers are with you.

Vive La France

Background/Related Links:

See “Obama Snubs Paris, Disses War on Terror” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-6S.

See “Benghazi-Paris Nexus” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-6Y.

See “We Are All Parisians!” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-71.

See “CPAC: Roman Genn – Solidarity for Liberty” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-8f.

See “ISIS Is Contained!” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-bX.

See “The Left Goes Gaga Over Paris Attack” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-c0.

See “Coulter Aghast at ISIS Coverage” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-aK.

Stop Insisting I Vote!

The #NeverTrump and #NeverHillary contingents exist because their respective presumptive nominees are anathema to them.

Voting

Trump supporters insist that a refusal to vote for Trump is actually vote for Hillary. Hillary supporters make the mirror claim. Both claims are nonsense.

A Non-Vote Is NOT a Vote for Other Candidate

A non-vote never adds to another candidate’s vote tally.

Moreover, each group of supporters impugns the motives of the Never groups. It is not a matter of pique over a preferred candidate losing. Rather, it is a principled response to a candidate whose character, values, or agenda is contrary to their own. Indeed, in both camps, the presumptive nominee is abhorrent to a huge swath of their own party.

Myth of “Lesser of Two Evils”

I (and others) have posited this moral dilemma: If the only two choices on a ballot were Hitler and Stalin, whom would you vote for?

Pro-Trumpers have skirted my question, claiming that Hillary would be worse than The Donald. That was not the question. If your only choices were Hitler or Stalin, whom would you choose? Whom would you vote for?

That is the operative question. Any vote is ultimately a vote for someone. In voting for a particular candidate, you assume responsibility for the consequences of that person’s election.

Had you – out of some misguided obligation to “vote for the lesser of two evils” – picked Stalin, you would be culpable for his purges and gulags; or Hitler, his Holocaust.

If you choose the lesser of two evils, you are still choosing evil.

But, You Must Vote

But isn’t voting a civic obligation? As noted above, not necessarily. We have the right to vote, but are not obligated to vote. Especially if doing so would violate our consciences. (Obama wants to force everyone to vote. Sounds kind of tyrannical, doesn’t it?)

A hilarious scene from Third Rock ably depicts the anguished dilemma facing many Americans this election cycle. John Lithgow is agonizingly distraught over his choices and, finally, casts his reluctant vote. Leaving the voting booth, he blurts out in despair, “O God, I hope I did the right thing!”

When two candidates are equally repulsive, albeit in different but overlapping ways, then not voting may be the best way to appease your conscience.

Anything less is affirming the evil you abhor.

The End of the American Experiment?

In Indiana, Trump won and America lost.

A Trump or Hillary presidency is almost a fait accompli.

American Experiment

However, the #NeverTrump and #NeverHillary movements remain unalterably opposed to the presumptive nominees of their respective parties (as they should be!).

Both candidates are statists who are averse to constitutional restraints.

Both candidates would wield a pen and a phone as ruthlessly as Barack Obama.

Neither candidate is trusted or trustworthy.

Each feels entitled to be president, as if they had a divine right to the presidency, and either would rule like a philosopher-king, with the governing philosophy being “What do I want to do today?”

In office, either would exercise a will to power and dictatorial designs beyond what the current president has attempted. Moreover, Congress would be impotent before them.

A Trump or Clinton presidency would continue and accelerate Barack Obama’s fundamental transformation of America, perhaps irreversibly.

Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.

If America elects either Clinton or Trump, America as we knew it is gone and tyranny will reign.

America has ceased to be great because we have ceased to be good. We have turned our backs on God and He is giving us what we deserve.

Lord, have mercy on us!

CPAC: Brits Seek Independence (and so should we)

Many Brits seek independence from the European Union. Barack Obama and other statists oppose that effort. Why? Because they favors transnational, big government at the expense of national sovereignty and individual liberty.

CPAC2016-10

Steven Woolfe, a Member of the European Parliament, is leading the charge for British independence and freedom lovers everywhere should support him.

(Just prior to our interview, Woolfe had spoken with the chiefs of staff of both the Trump and Cruz campaigns.)

Woolfe told me that the “main concern in the United Kingdom is something we call Brexit [British exit], which is a referendum which is being held in the United Kingdom on June 23rd, to determine whether Britain will be a member of the European Union.” (The Daily Caller provides a handy reference regarding the Brexit referendum.)

National Sovereignty and National Security

Power, not economics, is at the core of the European Union and the reason so many Brits want to leave it. Woolfe explained, “Many American citizens think that the European Union is simply a group of all the countries of Europe coming together over free trade. There is nothing further from the truth.”

Woolfe continued, “The truth is, this is a new European Union super state in which control over the power of the laws is held in Brussels by unelected civil servants. People can’t vote for them, can’t remove them, but they have 75% of the laws. Control of your law, your freedom, your liberty, your democracy is in the hands of civil servants, not in the hands of politicians.”

John O’Sullivan observed that the issue of national sovereignty favors Brexit supporters since the U.K. only has “one-28th of the EU’s decision-making authority, and thus power.” Therefore, it is in the best interests of those who want more freedom and more say in how to live their own lives to pursue freedom from the European Union.

Moreover, per O’Sullivan, “former chancellor, Nigel Lawson, pointed out that on all the 72 occasions when an issue was voted on in the EU Council of Ministers, Britain had been outvoted every time.” In other words, national sovereignty has been subordinated to supranational authority.

Europe’s refugee crisis and the rise of terrorism on the continent are of major concern to the British people. The European Union’s present open-door policy is anathema to those who want to protect Britain. Woolfe links the escalating terrorism seen in Europe with the immigration crisis[1] which has deluged so many European nations. According to Woolfe, the European Union prevents Britain and other EU nations from securing their borders. He seeks a revamping of the current open-door system to “a managed migration system.”

President Obama Weighs In

President Obama actually  threatened Britain should the British people leave the European Union. Obama said, “I think it’s fair to say that maybe some point down the line there might be a UK-US trade agreement, but it’s not going to happen any time soon because our focus is in negotiating with a big bloc, the European Union, to get a trade agreement done. The UK is going to be in the back of the queue.”

Members of the British Parliament and European Parliament beseeched Obama “to stay out of Britain’s referendum.” In a letter to the President, they wrote, “With so much at stake, it is imperative that the question of exiting the European Union is not one answered by foreign politicians or outside interests, but rather by the British people who must ultimately live with change or the status quo.” They rightly notes that “issues of national sovereignty must be decided exclusively by the people of the United Kingdom.”

Presidential Candidates Respond

Naturally, those who favor statism and the advancement of a big government agenda oppose Britain’s efforts to leave the E.U., while those who favor freedom, limited government, and national sovereignty support Britain’s desire for independence.

Hillary Clinton backed Obama. Her senior policy adviser, Jake Sullivan, said, “Hillary Clinton believes that transatlantic cooperation is essential, and that cooperation is strongest when Europe is united. She has always valued a strong United Kingdom in a strong EU. And she values a strong British voice in the EU.”

Bernie Sanders waffled: “I think the European Union obviously is a very, very important institution. I would hope that they stay in, but that’s their decision.”

Donald Trump equivocated, saying that the Brits “may leave” the European Union but refused to say whether that would be good or bad.

In contrast, Ted Cruz sided with our allies, declaring, “This was nothing less than a slap in the face of British self-determination as the president, typically, elevated an international organization over the rights of a sovereign people.” Cruz pledged, “If Brexit takes place, Britain will be at the front of the line for a free trade deal with America, not at the back.”

Cruz added: “The British people will shape their destiny, and we will stand with them regardless of the outcome of the referendum. As president, I will work to ensure that our special relationship is reinvigorated – and the Obama doctrine of coddling tyrants while castigating democratic allies will finally be at an end.”

[BrotherWatch has endorsed Ted Cruz[2] and the Cruz-Fiorina ticket.[3]]

[Part II – “Death by a 1,000 Pens[4] –addresses the broader implications of the Brexit movement as it pertains to Americans and our own need for independence from an increasingly tyrannical government.]

Update: Congratulations to our cousins across the pond for their stunning victory for Liberty. Will Brexit mark the beginning of the demise of the European Union just as the Soviet Union, one by one, lost its satellite states?

Update: Good commentary by Ian Tuttle on the globalist worldview and animus of those just defeated by Brexit:

“Liberal cosmopolitanism, regnant since the end of the Cold War, has bought completely into its own rightness. It is entirely devoted to an increasingly borderless political future carefully managed by technocrats and tempered by ‘compassion’ and ‘tolerance’ – all of which aims at the maximal amount of material prosperity. It sees no other alternative than that we will all, eventually, be ‘citizens of the world,’ and assumes that everyone will be happier that way.”

“The inability of our political leaders to envision political futures other than the one to which they are wedded has facilitated the polarization, and the unresponsiveness, of our politics. That people are now looking for alternatives is, in fact, entirely reasonable.”

Brexit is a victory for freedom and a blow to progressive statism and supra-nationalism.

Endnotes:

[1]               See “Member of European Parliament Links Terrorism with Immigration Crisis” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-e8.

[2]               See “BrotherWatch Endorses Ted Cruz” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-dw.

[3]               See “Cruz and Fiorina Are Dream Ticket” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-eQ.

[4]               See “CPAC: Death by a 1,000 Pens” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-eV.

Cruz and Fiorina Are Dream Ticket

Wow! I’ve been a Ted Cruz fan from the beginning and have always thought that Carly Fiorina would be a perfect choice for vice president. (Sometimes dreams do come true.) … Now, on to the White House!

Cruz & Fiorina

At CPAC 2015, I had the pleasure of hearing Ted speak live[1] and I was honored to meet Carly.

BrotherWatch has already endorsed Cruz[2] and we now celebrate his choice of running mate.

Fiorina has a proven track record of pursuing a conservative agenda, defending the life of the unborn, opposing political correctness, and promoting the expansion of liberty.

Throughout this election cycle, Fiorina has targeted the flaws and failures of the Obama/Clinton agenda (foreign and domestic) and she has excelled at articulating conservative and Christian views.

Moreover, if Ann Coulter hates her,[3] then Carly Fiorina must be the perfect choice for vice president.

Endnotes:

[1]               See “CPAC: Ted Cruz in Control” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-8b.

[2]               See “BrotherWatch Endorses Ted Cruz” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-dw.

[3]               See “Ann Coulter Hates Carly Fiorina” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-9z.

CPAC: Allied with Japanese Conservatives

Conservatism spans the globe, as evidenced, again, at CPAC. One booth, in particular, caught my eye: the Japanese Conservative Union (JCU). It proclaims its mission statement as “Spread Liberty and Prosperity to Asia and the World through Japan-US Partnership.”

CPAC2016-08

I asked Ryoseki (Ryan) Go about his organization and its presence at CPAC. He explained,

“We created the JCU in April of last year. We are trying to create a conservative movement in Japan. We are also creating a joint think tank with ACU.” The purpose of that think tank, officially launched at CPAC, is “to develop a strategy to deter China’s aggressive behavior in east Asia.”

Go also mentioned two major events that would take place at CPAC: a JCU reception later that day and a speech by Chairman Jikido (Jay) Aeba on the main stage of CPAC on Saturday.

Alliance Against Terrorism & Rogue States

In his speech, Chairman Aeba addressed the U.S.-Japan alliance. As reported in the American Conservative, Aeba “argued … that although the alliance was created to counter the Soviet Union, it must evolve to meet today’s threats. Namely: terrorism, encroachment from China, and rogue states like North Korea.”

Ryan Go echoed those very same sentiments during our exclusive interview. Terrorism and foreign aggression are of particular interest to the JCU. He explained, “Our biggest concern is China’s military development and also North Korea’s nuclear development.” He added, “Those are two big issues which threaten Japan’s independence.” (Indeed, the global impact of those aggressors cannot be overstated.)

As a consequence, Japan needs “to develop a stronger defense so that we can counter those outside threats. We have to defend Japan – that’s our main goal.” He reiterated, “Our main concern is national defense.”

Shared Interests

JCU’s struggle against Japan’s own peace movement and impulses for appeasement necessarily brought to mind pre-World War II Neville Chamberlain and America’s present-day “War Is Not The Answer” crowd (which includes the Obama administration and both remaining Democrat presidential contenders).

Go affirmed, “Right now, in Japan, we have a very big liberal movement which calls for total peace with complete disarmament. They are involved in protests and they dominate the media and education.” Sound familiar?

Personally, it was a delight talking with Ryan. We shared not just security, political, and cultural interests but also personal experiences. When I told Ryan that I was stationed in Misawa in 1979, he recognized the city from northern Japan. When I mentioned having gone through Yokohama, his eyes lit up. Yokohama is his hometown. Strangers united with common interests and a love of liberty.

I remember the Japanese people being very welcoming to Americans living in their midst. After thanking Ryan with what little Japanese I recall, “domo arigato gozaimasu,” Ryan graciously complimented my less-than-perfect accent.

Japan and America have enjoyed a special relationship for over seven decades. It would behoove both nations to build upon our foundation of shared values and interests with renewed vigor to overcome emerging threats which endanger all of us.