By Bob Bennett
A number of the other GOP candidates whined and carped about Trump’s “insulting Hispanics,” by saying Mexico has been sending criminals here. Then, they whined and carped about his insult to McCain’s sacred heroism status. Two candidates—absurdly—called for Trump’s disqualification as a candidate. But Trump’s numbers soared.
Then, they flipped over Trump’s declaration that he would call “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”
This followed the bloody slaughter of innocents in San Bernardino. Jeb Bush called Trump “unhinged.” Lindsey Graham said the policy was “downright dangerous”—whatever that means; Christie called it “ridiculous”; Rubio tweeted, “I disagree with Donald Trump’s latest proposal. His habit of making offensive and outlandish statements will not bring Americans together”; Speaker Paul Ryan asserted, “This is not conservatism….What was proposed yesterday is not what this party stands for.” As if Ryan is the arbiter of what conservatism is.
The Senate Judiciary Committee even passed a non-binding amendment declaring, “it is the sense of the Senate that the U.S. ‘must not bar individuals from entering into the United States based on their religion.'” One supposes that’s to assure the Muslim world the Senate is not anti-Muslim.
It was drafted by uber-lib Patrick Leahy, but even conservative stalwarts like Mike Lee voted for it. Ted Cruz and Jeff Sessions voted no; the latter, correctly, noted that “with regard to immigration, it is our responsibility to protect the rights and well-being first of the American citizens.”
All of those frothing at the mouth over the mere idea that we might temporarily bar Muslims until we “know what is going on” are clearly unaware of two things: First, when it comes to whom we allow to enter the U.S., we have no idea what’s going on: it was revealed that:
“Officials by policy generally do not check social media postings of applicants due to civil liberties concerns and therefore would not have seen purported evidence of Tashfeen Malik’s radicalization online.” As if non-citizens who are not even in the country have civil liberties.
The second thing those who are hand-wringing over Muslim sensibilities should know, if they took the time to educate themselves, is that Islam is not just a religion: authoritative Islam—the shariah-compliant brand—is a political system as well, one that dictates replacing our Constitution with shariah law. Okay: maybe we wouldn’t bar all Muslims. But let’s do the responsible thing, set aside Political Correctness and talk about national security.
But—despite Trump’s offending yet another sacred cow of the Left—his numbers, a week after the statement were “soaring in a new national survey,” said the NY Daily News. And the other candidates are still playing catch-up; Lindsey Graham is history.
A CNN/ORC International Poll, December17–21st has Trump at 39%, Cruz at 18%, Carson tied with Rubio at 10%. The rest are in single digits, with Jeb Bush bringing up the rear at 3%.
The GOP reactions to Trump’s Muslim statement reveal much about the GOP candidates and the future of the GOP itself. Ted Cruz’s reaction to the Trump Muslim plan was:
“I disagree with that proposal. I like Donald Trump. A lot of our friends here have encouraged me to criticize and attack Donald Trump. I’m not interested in doing so,” reported the Washington Post, adding that Cruz’s plan for Muslims was “a three-year moratorium on any coming from nations where Islamic State forces are wreaking havoc, allowing governors to opt out of receiving any refugees and revoking citizenship for any American who travels abroad in support of Islamic State forces.”—a well- reasoned but tough plan. Rand Paul also submitted a tough bill, banning immigrants from 34 nations at risk for terror, but his numbers are low for other reasons.
The RNC and the other candidates act as if Donald Trump is the American version of Jean-Marie Le Pen, described by his critics in France as the “Devil of the Republic.”
Trump may not be the ideal candidate, but he spoke up, struck a chord in the hearts of voters and struck a nerve in the willowy spines of most of his fellow candidates, excluding Ted Cruz, who’s been battling our Vichy Senate for years.
It seems simple: Trump’s soaring numbers mean voters want their candidates to deal with these issues. They really want it. Any self-respecting dolt would at least pretend to take them up. But his fellow candidates don’t even do that.
That’s because their real complaint is that Trump brought up the issue at all. They would’ve been content to steer clear of the whole “controversy.” Never mind that millions of illegals, combined with Obama’s lawlessness are a dire threat to America.
But, it’s a controversy of their own making, or more properly the making of their advisors, to whom they willingly listened. What a track record GOP advisors have! Two presidential campaigns in a row were lost—versus a Socialist radical. The second race, at least, was unquestionably winnable. Their innovative advice in 2012 was not to criticize Obama. So Romney decided to criticize “The Economy” instead. That was safe.
Since the economy has appeared to improve, the GOP shouldn’t even run a candidate next year, by that reasoning.
The advisors had no hand in the record-breaking wins in state houses and Congress in 2010, 2012 and 2014. All were grassroots-driven, by ObamaCare, and America’s disgust with Obama’s policies.
Other candidates’ reactions to Trump’s statements on illegal aliens and protecting America from jihadis are very instructive: now we know exactly what these candidates would do, if elected.
We know they’ve long been aware of the unprecedented immigration disaster and the president’s unconstitutional, widely despised amnesty, which our Republican Congress illegally voted to fund, as they are aware of the threat of terror on American soil.
And they’re well aware that we’re all livid about it these issues. Any candidates that did not bring them up pre-Trump, or who issued a kill-the-messenger response should be summarily rejected.
Such candidates would rather do nothing about it; they simply pretend the problem doesn’t exist, pretend that ICE and sanctuary cities are not releasing criminal aliens onto American streets—104,000 last year, ICE Director Sarah Saldana finally admitted, when cornered by Ted Cruz at Tuesday’s hearing. Including 193 murderers. And that’s after hearing families of illegal alien victims literally begging Congress to finally do something about this travesty.
In a word: such candidates are RINOs.
They’re mesmerized by the fable that coming out against illegal immigration would cost them Hispanic votes, and cost them the election.
This is a fairy tale on two levels. First, Mitt Romney would not have won, even if he’d gotten 70 percent of the Hispanic vote, because his base, less-than thrilled about his chosen issue of the economy, stayed home. Maybe they would’ve come out if Mitt had brought up the IRS targeting, during the debates. But he didn’t.
Following advice, in a tweet from Axelrod (the ideal GOP advisor), he also didn’t bring up Reverend Wright’s accusation of being offered $150,000 to shut up. From the May 13, 2012 NY Post, quoting Ed Klein’s book:
“After the media went ballistic on me, I received an e-mail offering me money not to preach at all until the November presidential election.”
“Who sent the e-mail?” I asked Wright.
“It was from one of Barack’s closest friends.”
It’s a myth, also, that citizen Hispanics would definitely vote against GOP candidates. What if they were told millions of illegals compete with them and Black Americans for jobs?
Florida is one of the states with the highest Hispanic population. That state lost 547,440 jobs to illegal aliens, in 2013, says FAIRus.org
Would Hispanics surely vote against Republicans if they were told California alone spent $25.3 billion on illegals in 2014 and even Ohio spent $880 million in 2012; if they were told tens of thousands of criminal illegals are simply released onto the streets of America?
For that matter, would Black Americans necessarily vote Democrat, if they were given the same stats?
Baltimore has been in the news, lately. Baltimore is a sanctuary city, since 2003. How has that worked out for Black citizens in Baltimore? According to FAIR, Maryland citizens lost 211,335 jobs to illegal aliens, in 2013.
A lab rat, getting food if he noses the white button at the end of a maze, but an electric shock if he noses the black button, will quickly learn to never touch the black button again.
But establishment Republicans apparently lack the intelligence of lab rats. They endlessly make the same error, election after election. They don’t tell Hispanics those things. They don’t tell Hispanics, if elected, they will immediately change the exceedingly long waits for Mexicans to legally enter the U.S.—some for over a decade. And, forgive a brief digression: they don’t tell them of the War on Christianity, waged by Obama and promised by Hillary to continue. But Trump has.
RINOs prefer to pander by pushing for amnesty in some form. These are Democrat tactics; therefore, they are Democrats dressed up as Republicans.
These candidates must be rejected out of hand. We have a president defying the Constitution, and, as DHS announced the day of that poignant hearing, he intends to dispense even more rights to illegals by fiat. We are indeed heading for Third World statehood.
There are a few exceptions, among the candidates. Find them and choose one.
But this episode tells us something larger: the days of the GOP itself are clearly numbered. There’s zero difference between the performance of Congress under Boehner-McConnell and Congress under Pelosi-Reid. None. Most of the presidential hopefuls openly and shamelessly oppose what Americans have so clearly expressed.