A Sense of Belonging Why Trump Resonates

KC Chiefs vs Redskins FedEx Field 8 Dec 13

KC Chiefs vs Redskins FedEx Field 8 Dec 13

Humans are a social species and are ingrained with a need to belong, and its one of the reasons Trumps campaign is so powerful. Belonging is essential to humanity. We crave the others companionship, and form nearly infinite groups to soothe that craving.

Churches, national citizenship, sports teams, law enforcement organizations, the brother hood of arms, PTA, trade organizations, political parties, unions, civic organizations, political organizations, fan clubs, and rod and gun clubs name but a few.

The importance of our need to belong cant be overstated. Democrat Politicians are masters at using the same desires to belong to divide the country. They try to push each American into ever-smaller groups and to pit those groups against each other. White vs black, haves vs have-nots, LBGT vs non-LGBT, law enforcement vs oppressed, religious vs secular, majority vs minority, working vs unemployed, business owners vs employees, citizens vs immigrant, and the list goes on.

Instead of using groups to divide, Trump is harnessing that need in his quest to become President by uniting Americans. His campaigns slogan is Make America Great Again. So far, its gotten him past a Republican Primary field as large and talented as any in history. Why does it resonate?

First, any American who loves this country wants it to be great.

Second, most Americans recognize that the Democrat Party has been assaulting our country’s greatness for many years. Barack Obama just accelerated that assault, on both social and international levels.

Third, any US citizen who identifies as an American first feels that powerful unifying identity to belong to a group, other Americans.

Fourth, just like NFL football fans unify around their teams draft picks, new star players, and fresh coaches because they want their teams to win, Americans who love our country want it to win. Donald Trump hits that note in his message. You will get tired of winning once Im President because we will win at everything.

Americans love to win, and we love our Country. Trump does to.

How Energized Are Democrat Voters In 2016?

How energized are Democrat voters in the 2016 primaries so far? My last Blog showed that the GOP turnout has blown away both 2012 and 2008 so far, but what about the Democrats?

Using the same comparisons as used for the GOP, CHART 1 shows that the opposite trend prevails in the Democrat primaries. Voter turnout in 2016 is below the 2008 turnout in 11 of the 14 states shown.


  • No totals from 2012 are shown, as President Obama was unchallenged as the incumbent president.
  • Iowa isn’t in the chart due to the State Democrat party’s reluctance to release an official vote total.
CHART 1: 2016 Compared With 2008 Vote Totals. More Votes Were Cast in 11 of 14 Contests in 2008.

CHART 1: 2016 Compared With 2008 Vote Totals. More Votes Were Cast in 11 of 14 Contests in 2008.

When the total votes from all 14 states are compared, as shown in CHART 2, the size of 2016’s Democrat turn out is revealed as lagging far behind 2008. So far, 2.6 million fewer votes were cast in 2016 than in 2012.

CHART 2: 2.6 Million More Votes Were Cast In 2008 In These 14 States Than In 2016.

CHART 2: 2.6 Million More Votes Were Cast In 2008 In These 14 States Than In 2016.

So how would Hillary Clinton be doing if she ran against the winner’s totals from 2008?

CHART 3 compares the winning candidate vote totals from each of the first 14 states, minus Iowa as noted. The data shows that the winner in 2016 would have lost with the same votes in 2008 in 9 of the 14 states.

CHART 3: The Winners In 2016 Would Have Only Carried Only 5 of 14 States vs 2008

CHART 3: The Winners In 2016 Would Have Only Carried Only 5 of 14 States vs 2008

TABLE 1 shows the raw vote totals, and breaks out the states won by then Senator Obama in 2008, and Hillary Clinton, the 2016 front-runner, in blue. Barack Obama would have won 5 states vs. the 9 he actually won in 2008. Hillary Clinton would have won only 5 states, vs. the 9 she has won so far in 2016.

TABLE 1: The 2016 Willer's Votes Would Have Only Carried 4 of 14 States vs. 2008.

TABLE 1: The 2016 Winner’s Votes Would Have Only Carried 5 of 14 States vs. 2008.

So what does this data mean?

First, it indicates that the 2016 Democrat turnout is lagging way behind 2008. Going into this weekends contests, Democrat votes were 2.6 million fewer than in 2008. Added with the GOP increased turnout, there is a delta of 6.3 million votes in favor of Republicans. Some of that delta is the result of democrat and independent voters moving into the Republican primaries.

Second, if the general election follows the path of the primaries, it bodes well for the eventual Republican nominee. The challenge for the GOP is to keep the energy up, carry every primary vote into November, and to unite the party.

What Rubio Failed to State in Response to Christie

Conventional Wisdom is the Marco Rubio Crashed and Burned due to a repetitive statement at Saturday's debate.

Conventional Wisdom is that Marco Rubio Crashed and Burned due to a repetitive statement at Saturday’s debate.

Marco Rubio got hammered in the media, and by many of the GOP candidates because of his poor debate performance Saturday. Criticism stems from his so-called robotic responses in the debate. Ironically, what Rubio said is exactly right, and its right on two levels. He said:

And let’s dispel once for once and for all with this fiction that Barack Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing. He knows exactly what he’s doing.

Rubio said essentially that same statement three more times. Admittedly, each one seemingly more out of place. The fourth time he said it was in response to a challenge by Governor Chris Christie that Marco doesn’t have the experience necessary to be president. Marco Rubio reverted back to that same comment:

I think anyone who believes Barack Obama isn’t doing what he’s doing on purpose doesn’t understand what were dealing with here.

As mentioned, there are two messages in that phrase.

The first message is precisely what Rubio stated.

  1. Barack Obama meant the harm that he’s inflicted on America!

We all know that before he was elected Obama ran on fundamentally changing America. He had to dislike our country to feel compelled to fundamentally alter it. You have to fundamentally change it from something into something else. He ran on passingObama care. He wanted to do that. It was intentional. Hillary Clinton tried and couldn’t get it done. Bill Clinton tried and couldn’t did get it done. Barack Obama did. He’s done immense damage to our military. He’s done immense damage to our relationships with our allies. He’s elevated our enemies. He made a deal with Iran essentially insuring that they’re going to get a nuclear weapon. It’s only a matter of time. He’s done immeasurable damage from his executive orders, to the $10 trillion that he’s added to our national debt, to setting back race relations 50 years. These are leftist progressive ideological results, based upon clear intent as taught by radical leftist Saul Alinsky.

The second message in Rubio’s 4 statements must be inferred because unfortunately, to Marco Rubio’s detriment, he didn’t come out and state it. Perhaps he will in a future debate? Regardless, it’s absolutely as true as 1 above and would have rebutted Chris Christie’s attack that Rubio shouldn’t be president since he wasn’t a governor with executive experience.

  1. Barack Obama was neither a governor nor an executive. He never formally led anything. He was barely a US senator for more than about 179 days before he started running for president. Despite no qualifications beyond being a “community organizer” Obama was wildly effective in instituting his radical agenda.

I think what Marco Rubio was trying to say is that he has every bit, if not more experience than Barack Obama had when he took the oath of office. He is every bit as committed ideologically in opposition to Obama, and will be just as effective in undoing the damage Obama inflicted and will put America back on the right path.

I’m not a Rubio supporter. He’s not my number one pick, but if it was a choice between Marco Rubio and any of the other establishment candidates it’s not even close.

The American Republic Under Assault

President Barack Obama Speaking at DHS Headquarters

President Barack Obama Speaking at DHS Headquarters

The United States is a representative republic founded on the principle that multiple parties are essential to maintaining freedom, ensuring counterweights to oppression within our society. But what if one of our parties decided that they wanted to eliminate the other as a viable competitor. How would they do it? What would be their strategy to eliminate political competition within the United States and established a one party system? There are really only two options that would be viable within the context of the United States. Violent overthrow, the most commonly used method for power consolidation would never happen here, so it must be done in one of two other ways.

Option One: The most reasonable course of action, and the one that most Americans see occurring every day, would be to attempt to convince enough Americans of the power of that party’s ideas and its policies such that on a national, state and local level the ideas and policies of the opposition party would receive little support. There’s a clear historical ebb and flow in the United States that shifts power from party to party. At times Republicans at other times Democrats win the White House and/or the Congress only to lose that power at some point down the road. We’re talking about an option in which there is no down the road and one party maintains its power base in perpetuity. This is very hard to achieve, and unlikely to happen naturally, so it brings us to Option Two.

Option Two: The second option, unlike the first that is open to public debate and decisions, requires subterfuge and disguise in order to succeed. Rather than convincing the electorate of the power of the party’s ideas, this option involves making voters who oppose it irrelevant in the context of local state and national elections. It requires ensuring that more votes get cast for the party than would be cast against it at all levels. How?

1. Import voters who support it, adding them to the existing supporters who when aggregated outweigh and outvote the opposition party. Illegal immigration is one means to achieve this by bringing in millions of people from outside the country, using the power of the federal government, and taxpayer money, to disperse them throughout the country, in all states, counties and cities. The inevitable goal of this illegal immigrant seeding would be to make them American citizens and grant them the right to vote as soon as possible. These millions of voters would likely overwhelm the opposition party.

2. There is a potential however that this tactic alone might not work, and so a second parallel effort would seem like insurance. Another method of buying votes and ensuring long-term support would be to go to the prisons were large numbers of minorities are incarcerated. By using Presidential Pardons to free these prisoners and changing policy within the United States allow felons to vote once they’ve served their time, another guaranteed pool of supporting votes would be in hand.

3. The above two tactics would seem very viable means of ensuring electoral support, but why stop there? What if a party could also use the federal government to resettle vast numbers of voters (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing) from party strongholds into opposition States, Counties and cities and in so doing swing the vote of those counties? Such a policy has never existed in this country in the past, the closest thing being forced busing. In this case it is meant as a long-term resettlement plan at the expense of the taxpayers in the counties into which minorities get moved.

4. A fourth tactic would be icing on the cake. A policy of enabling voter fraud, when exploited by a political party, would further tip the scales. Enabling this policy would require opposition to voter ID laws and the expansion of voting from election day to as many days leading up to the election as possible. It would also be important to expand absentee voting to allow party supporters the opportunities to multi-vote in every election.

Option Twowould be opposed if Americans knew it was underway, so it would require subterfuge, disguise and the cloaking of the policies within lofty terms of morality and fairness, Saul Alinsky 101. It would need cleverly tested statements such as voter ID laws disenfranchise the poor and are racist attempts to return to Jim Crow laws (instituted by Democrats by the way). Comments about expansion of voting opportunities enabling the maximum amount of participation in the democratic system, an essential element to any thriving democracy, would also certainly be thrown about. Resettling people from high-density minority areas to other parts of the country would be touted as righting discrimination and slavery. False statements made while stealing away America’s republic.

As far-fetched as this hypothetical Option Twois, I submit that it is in fact well underway. President Barack Obama and the Democrat party are using tactics mentioned above and probably many others to completely eliminate any viable GOP opposition. What would be the end state if they succeeded? What could possibly be the good that would come to America by creating a single party state? Given the progressive desire to force-feed their way of life and their way of thinking it’s clear what the intent is.

It’s also clear what must be done in opposition. The truth of this effort must be spread, understood and exposed to the light of day. It must be vehemently opposed by every freedom loving American. The rule of law must be upheld, and that starts with securing the border and enforcing America’s immigration laws. The Progressive coils must be unwound. We are at a crossroads America. The future of our Republic depends upon the actions of the American people. The 2016 presidential election is a GOP must win. Freedom is down to it’s last out, in the 9th inning. The future of our country and liberty depend upon it!

What’s The Dark Connection In Democrat Presidencies?

Seal of the President of the United States.svg

“Seal of the President of the United States” by Unknown – Extracted from the title page of PDF document at http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf. Licensed under Public domain via Wikimedia Commons.

There is a curious connection between Democrat administrations that links Bill Clinton’s to Barack Obama’s. The link is the illegal use of the federal government as a weapon to attack their enemies. The American people, particularly conservatives and TEA Party Patriots, are living through the Obama administration’s IRS targeting scandal. This abuse of power involved using the IRS as a weapon to audit, and intimidate hundreds of conservative organizations. Congressional investigations into the scandal continue to uncover evidence, drawing closer to the White House. Every American should shudder at the thought of the IRS getting sent after them, no matter what party they belong to. In America, under our Constitution, we are free to have, and voice our opinions. Freedom of speech is so important that it was the foundation of the First Amendment. The death of that fundamental right would spell the death of America.

Before the IRS targeting scandal came Clinton’s Filegate.

Filegate was a Hillary Clinton scandal that involved the White House asking for, and receiving, over 900 Republican leaders’ FBI files for political opposition research. Excuses were offered, and after a decade the Clintons escaped culpability, despite that fact that “the President’s friend and close advisor, Anthony Marceca, had requested the files”. As terrible as this scandal was, at least it wasn’t so brazen as to target average Americans as the Obama Administration IRS targeting scandal did.

The modus operandi of the progressive left is to intimidate and destroy one’s enemies. Saul Alinski 101! Both Presidents, Obama and Clinton, used the same tactics, and taxpayer dollars, to go after their political enemies. Such authoritarian abuses must stop. Governments should fear their people, not the other way around. Given that Hillary was already part of one intimidation scandal as First Lady, is there any doubt, that she wouldn’t do it again should she become President?