Saturday, August 22, 2015

Big Crowd For Mark Levin's Book Signing Of "Plunder & Deceit" at Tyson'sCorner, VA

If you consider yourself a Constitutional Conservative and you were in Northern Virginia this morning, you most likely would have been at the Barnes and Noble at the Mall in Tyson's Corner, VA, where nationally syndicated talk show host Mark Levin (aka "The Great One") was signing copies of his new #1 bestseller, "Plunder and Deceit, Big Government's Exploitation of Young People and the Future."


Though the book signing started at 10 a.m., a crowd had gathered before the store opened at 7 a.m. to buy the book and get a wristband to get in line. Unlike years past, where a large queue went out the front of the store, outside, around the mall and through adjoining parking lots, the Barnes and Noble staff grouped people into sections. By the time I got there at around 8 a.m., they were already giving wristbands for Section H.




Even after those of us in Section H got our books signed, there was still a large group zig-zagging through various aisles of Barnes and Noble. Keep in mind when I shot this video, sections A through G had already had their books signed.


Here is a shot, from the stairs, of some of those who were among the first to get wristbands, waiting in one section of the store before the event started. These were in wristband groups higher than my section of H.

One candidate for Fairfax County School Board (which really needs some more sane voices to join Elizabeth Schultz), had a novel way of campaigning for the upcoming school board election.



Levin wrote "Plunder and Deceit" with a focus on younger Americans, as a way to help them "find the personal strength and will to break through the cycle of statist manipulation, unrelenting emotional overtures, and the pressure of group think, which are humbling, dispiriting, and absorbing them; to stand up against the heavy hand of centralized government, which if left unabated will assuredly condemn them to economic and societal calamity." That is important, because the liberals who are in charge of the media and popular culture already have a way of propagandizing to young minds the life stories of statists who are endangering their very futures.


But will this statist's dream end in Attica?

The Tyson's Corner appearance was the next to the last of five book signings Levin is doing for "Plunder and Deceit." He's already appeared in Huntington, NY, Ridgewood, NJ, the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. The final book signing will be next Sunday, at Costco in Boca Raton, FL. If you haven't bought "Plunder and Deceit" yet, I suggest you do it!




Wednesday, August 19, 2015

Secret Agreement In Iran Deal Lets The Foxes Guard The Henhouse (Iran Does Their Own Inspections)

This is unbelievable! (AP via The Blaze)
VIENNA (AP) — Iran, in an unusual arrangement, will be allowed to use its own experts to inspect a site it allegedly used to develop nuclear arms under a secret agreement with the U.N. agency that normally carries out such work, according to a document seen by The Associated Press.
The revelation is sure to roil American and Israeli critics of the main Iran deal signed by the U.S., Iran and five world powers in July. Those critics have complained that the deal is built on trust of the Iranians, a claim the U.S. has denied.
The investigation of the Parchin nuclear site by the International Atomic Energy Agency is linked to a broader probe of allegations that Iran has worked on atomic weapons. That investigation is part of the overarching nuclear deal.
The Parchin deal is a separate, side agreement worked out between the IAEA and Iran. The United States and the five other world powers that signed the Iran nuclear deal were not party to this agreement but were briefed on it by the IAEA and endorsed it as part of the larger package.
Without divulging its contents, the Obama administration has described the document as nothing more than a routine technical arrangement between Iran and the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency on the particulars of inspecting the site.
Right! And if you believe that, you can keep your doctor and your old healthcare plan with Obamacare.

Ted Cruz responded (The Blaze).
“Enough,” Cruz told TheBlaze in a statement. “Enough of the concessions, capitulations and backroom deals that make up President Obama’s catastrophic nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran.”
He continued: “The most recent revelation that Iran will be selecting its own inspectors to verify the nature of its nuclear program is made all the more egregious by the fact that as the single largest contributor to the IAEA (support that is mandated in the JCPOA) United States taxpayers will be paying for a farce that is a direct threat to their own security.”
Cruz, who has been an outspoken critic of the Iran nuclear deal since it was announced, argued the agreement is a matter of national security, not politics.
“This is not a partisan issue. It is not about President Obama’s political legacy. It is about the future of our country, and that of our allies,” he told TheBlaze. “We have to stop this disastrous deal.”
The only question is, will there be the will to stop this deal that would lead to Armageddon?  This outrage is opposed by 57 percent of Americans, but will it be another case where our so-called "representatives" ignore the will of the American people, as they did with Obamacare?

Anyone in Congress, regardless of party, who votes to support Obama's Iran deal should be considered a traitor to this nation, because they are voting to fund Islamic terrorism against the US and our allies, as well as a genocidal Regime who is hellbent on creating a second Holocaust.

What Is It GOP? You Can't End Birthright Citizenship, Or You Just Don't Want To End It?

Donald Trump released his plan to secure our nation's borders and stop illegal immigration the other day, with one of the key elements being the end of the "anchor baby" clause, aka "birthright citizenship."

Natually, liberals are in an uproar, saying you can't do that, because of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution (funny how liberals claim to care about the Constitution now!). Even some in the GOP are claiming that, such as Michael Reagan, who made these disappointing comments.
Reagan added Trump's controversial proposal to take "the birthright away from those who came here illegally and gave birth to their children… is never going to happen."
..."There's not a court in the land that's going to overturn and step on the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution with having to do with birthright in this country," Reagan argued. 
Among Trump's fellow 2016 GOP rivals, Marco Rubio proves (along with his membership in the Gang of Eight) how he cannot be trusted on immigration.
"There are people that come to the United States deliberately for the purposes of having a child that's a U.S. citizen."Unlike Trump, Rubio says: "I'm not in favor of repealing the 14th Amendment."
As does the pro-amnesty ¡Yeb! Arbusto.
"That's a constitutional right," Bush told CBS News Chief White House Correspondent Major Garrett during an interview in South Carolina, where he is campaigning. "Mr. Trump can say he's for this because people are frustrated that it's abused. We ought to fix the problem rather than take away rights that are constitutionally endowed."
Speaking to reporters later, he added, "I don't support revoking it."
But Reagan, Rubio, and ¡Yeb! are wrong that you cannot get rid of birthright citzenship without overturning the 14th Amendment.

Mark Levin pointed that out on his radio show last night.


More at National Review Online, on what Levin spoke about.
Although the Constitution of 1787 mentioned citizens, it did not define citizenship. It was in 1868 that a definition of citizenship entered the Constitution with the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. Here is the familiar language: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Thus there are two components to American citizenship: birth or naturalization in the U.S. and being subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Today, we somehow have come to believe that anyone born within the geographical limits of the U.S. is automatically subject to its jurisdiction; but this renders the jurisdiction clause utterly superfluous. If this had been the intention of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, presumably they would have said simply that all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. are thereby citizens. 
Indeed, during debate over the amendment, Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause, attempted to assure skeptical colleagues that the language was not intended to make Indians citizens of the United States. Indians, Howard conceded, were born within the nation’s geographical limits, but he steadfastly maintained that they were not subject to its jurisdiction because they owed allegiance to their tribes and not to the U.S. Senator Lyman Trumbull, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, supported this view, arguing that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.”
 Jurisdiction understood as allegiance, Senator Howard explained, excludes not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” Thus, “subject to the jurisdiction” does not simply mean, as is commonly thought today, subject to American laws or courts. It means owing exclusive political allegiance to the U.S.
Which begs the question to the GOP establishment...are you telling us we cannot end birthright citizenship, or you just don't want to end it? Clearly, the Constitution is not on your side, which makes me think you really don't care to end it.

Sunday, August 16, 2015

Never Mind Trump, The GOP-Establishment's Own Arrogance Will Cost Them 2016 & Us The Country

Let me start of by saying that, so far, if I had to vote in a Republican primary today, I would probably not vote for Donald Trump. Why? I've not been convinced that he is a consistent conservative.

But whether or not Trump lasts through the GOP nominating cycle, I will say this, he has done one thing--he's tapped into the discontent that the GOP base, conservatives, and the Tea Party movement have toward the GOP establishment.

And the GOP establishment has been freaking out this summer, spooked by of their own shadows (as usual) that Trump will cost the 2016 Presidential election to the Democrats. Keep in mind, the GOP country club establishment and their consultants cannot come up with a reason why their candidates are better than Trump, instead, they have only responded by using insults at not just the real estate mogul, but his supporters as well.

John McLame called the thousands of people who attended Trumps' rally "crazies,"


and the guy who deservedly earns the nickname "Porky Pig" from my mother, Karl Rove, called Trump an "idiot".


More recently, GOP-establishment consultant Rick Wilson accused Breitbart news of being "Pravda" for Donald Trump.
Sparks flew between Breitbart News Editor-in-Chief Alex Marlow and Republican consultant Rick Wilson on CNN Friday evening during a discussion of Republican presidential contenders Donald Trump and Jeb Bush, with Wilson comparing Breitbart’s coverage of Trump to the Soviet propaganda outlet Pravda.
After Trump, the business and television personality leading the Republican field, finished a press conference, host Kate Bolduan–sitting in for Erin Burnett on CNN’s OutFront–sought comment from Wilson and Marlow, especially regarding Trump’s attacks on Bush, the former Governor of Florida.
The two men, before addressing each other, established a stark contrast with the other’s view. Wilson defended Bush on several questions and, unprompted, said: “I don’t work for Jeb Bush, and I’m not here to advocate specifically for him.” All the while, he threw a few bombs at Trump. “Every one of these pressers this guy does is a dumpster fire… most of the things that come out of Donald Trump’s mouth have almost no relationship to the truth under any circumstances. He just makes it up.” He wrapped up with a comparison of Trump’s talking point on forcefully taking Iraq’s oil to a “drunk dad at the local corner bar talking smack.”
While harsh, none of these insults quite matched the intensity of Wilson calling Trump “a giant, epic, douche canoe” on Don Lemon’s CNN program Monday.
George Will, the supposed "conservative" at the Washington ComPost, wants to "purge" Trump and his supporters from the party (Legal Insurrection).
A political party has a right to (in language Trump likes) secure its borders. Indeed, a party has a duty to exclude interlopers, including cynical opportunists deranged by egotism. This is why closed primaries, although not obligatory, are defensible: Let party members make the choices that define the party and dispense its most precious possession, a presidential nomination. So, the Republican National Committee should immediately stipulate that subsequent Republican debates will be open to any and all — but only — candidates who pledge to support the party’s nominee.
Before George Will gets on his high horse about who and what a conservative is, it is important to note that he has also attacked the candidacy of US Senator from Texas Ted Cruz, never mind that Will attacked supporters of Ronald Reagan back in 1974, saying.
But Reagan is 63, and looks it. His hair is still remarkably free of gray, but around the mouth and neck he looks like an old man. He’s never demonstrated substantial national appeal. His hardcore support today consists primarily of the kamikaze conservatives who thought the 1964 Goldwater campaign was jolly fun. And there’s a reason to doubt that Reagan is well suited to appeal to the electorate that just produced a Democratic landslide.
I think there is legitimate reason to doubt Trump being a conservative. Even the late, great Andrew Breitbart made the case in 2011. But the route being taken by the GOP-establishment, with their scorched earth policy, is not the way to make the argument.

One of Trump's fellow GOP rivals, (and aforementioned target of George Will) Ted Cruz, gets it (Politico).
“I would … note that an awful lot of Republicans, including other Republican candidates, have gone out of their way to smack Donald Trump with a stick. Now I think that’s just foolish,” he said.
Asked why, Cruz paused and then replied, “Donald Trump had a rally in Phoenix, Ariz. [to which] between 10 and 20 thousand people came out. When you attack and vilify the people at that rally as crazies, it does nothing to help Republicans win in 2016. I’d like every single person at that rally to show up and vote in 2016, knock on doors with energy and passion, and turn this country around. If Washington politicians show contempt and condescension to those [voters,] that is a path to losing at the ballot box.
That's why I say the Roves, McLames, Wills and David Brooks, with their contempt of Trump supporters, are doing all they can to cost the 2016 election, thanks to their own arrogance and desire to foist another Bush on us (an even more liberal one that his father), while the GOP consultants get rich and we lose what's left of the country as it was founded.

If Trump's candidacy flames out (as I'm suspecting it will), the only route for the GOP to cruise to the White House is to nominate a consistent conservative who looks at Trump supporters as allies, not people who need to be purged.

Tuesday, August 11, 2015

BREAKING: Hillary To Surrender E-Mail Server

Big news and it's not on a Friday night (CNN).
Hillary Clinton has instructed her attorney to hand over her private email server and a thumb drive of all her work-related emails to the Justice Department in an effort to blunt an expanding probe into the use of a private email account.
Clinton, now the Democratic presidential front-runner, "directed her team to give her email server that was used during her tenure as (Secretary of State) to the Department of Justice, as well as a thumb drive containing copies of her emails already provided to the State Department," her spokesman, Nick Merrill, told CNN early Tuesday evening. "She pledged to cooperate with the government's security inquiry, and if there are more questions, we will continue to address them."
Merril said in the meantime, Clinton's team "has worked with the State Department to ensure her emails are stored in a safe and secure manner."
The FBI, which is handling the matter, declined to comment Tuesday evening. David E. Kendall, Clinton's lawyer, did not immediately return messages seeking comment.
For Clinton, the move -- which Republicans like House Speaker John Boehner have urged for months -- indicates her campaign sees a growing risk in the issue of her use of a private email server, which has stoked concerns about her trustworthiness.
Since news of her use of a personal email address on a server kept in her Chappaqua, New York, home broke in March, Clinton has insisted that she's turned over all of her work-related emails to the State Department and deleted all others -- but wouldn't turn over her server to the government.
Judicial Watch has been leading the fight in uncovering the Clinton e-mail scandal. For more information, you can check out their website here.

Of course, the Obama Regime and what is now known as the Racial Justice Department has pretty much dragged their feet when it comes to any scandal around the Regime, it makes one wonder if anything is actually going to come of this or not.

Sunday, August 09, 2015

Carly Fiorina: GOP Establishment Wolf In Conservative Sheep Clothing

The biggest buzz from the "Happy Hour" debate on Thursday was the performance of former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, as well as how she followed up later that evening by not giving Chrissy Matthews a thrill up his leg (like Obama did).

I remember Carly well from her failed 2010 Senate run against Barbara "Don't Call Me Ma'am" Boxer, and that really kind of soured my view of her, as to her ability to take on the Left, especially after a more conservative candidate was defeated by her in the primary, as well as how Carly showed her true establishment leaning during that race.

Well, I have a lot of questions for all of the potential GOP nominees, and I'd like start with Carly Fiorina, since she is the "anti-Hillary."

How can we trust you to be a consistent conservative, if you are elected President? Because quite frankly, your words don't match up with your actions.

Video came up this weekend showing how Carly the supposed conservative stood against Ted Cruz in his valiant fight to defund Obamacare in 2013 (Right Scoop).



Everybody could see this train wreck coming. I actually feel badly for John Boehner. I think this is Ted Cruz and President Obama’s shutdown. I think Ted Cruz’s tactics were wrong.
There’s no honor in charging a hill that you know you can’t take, only casualties, although Ted Cruz maybe got name recognition and money along the way. But President Obama wanted this shutdown. And Ted Cruz played right into his hands.
In August of 2013, she said shutting down the government over Obamacare would be the wrong thing to do.




So, in other words, Carly the alleged conservative stood on the side of people like Karl Rove, John McLame and the establishment GOP who all claimed Obamacare was bad law, and it should be repealed. But when the rubber met the road, didn't have the political courage to make the case for the American people, and neither did they make the case that it was Obama who was shutting down the government, because he would sign anything without funding his failed socialist health-care scheme.

And that's not all. Keep in mind her 2010 Senate race was endorsed by former Alaska Governor and 2008 VP nominee Sarah Palin. But what has been the thanks Ms. Fiorina has given Sarah Palin?

Recently, she attacked Palin by blaming her for John McLame's 2008 loss, because Palin didn't meet with Carly the Almighty for economic advice (UK Daily Mail).

Maybe Palin had good reason to not meet with her. Why would you meet with an advisor to your campaign when they publicly attacked you on the air by saying she wasn't ready to run a corporation?


Well, why would I want to take advice on running a company from someone who was fired as CEO of HP and one of the worst high-tech CEOs, for running that company into the ground and shipping American jobs overseas, but before she bailed out with a golden parachute.

Carly is an establishment wolf, who ran I believe because the establishment didn't want Palin to run in 2016. They see Carly as more upclass and elitist than Palin, whom the establihsment looks down their nose at as some backwoods hick from Alaska.

Well, I'd trust the leadership of a redneck woman over a high-class one any day of the week!

Saturday, August 08, 2015

Erick Erickson, Donald Trump, Megyn Kelly and the GOP

It wouldn't be another weekend cycle in the run up to 2016 without another Donald Trump controversy.

Basically, Trump was supposed to speak at the RedState gathering in Atlanta tonight but was disinvitied by RedState editor Erick Erickson for a comment Trump made about Fox host and one of the debate panelists, Megyn Kelly (RedState).
I have tried to give a great deal of latitude to Donald Trump in his run for the Presidency.
He is not a professional politician and is known for being a blunt talker. He connects with so much of the anger in the Republican base and is not afraid to be outspoken on a lot of issues. But there are even lines blunt talkers and unprofessional politicians should not cross.
Decency is one of those lines.
As much as I do personally like Donald Trump, his comment about Megyn Kelly on CNN is a bridge too far for me.
In a CNN interview, Mr. Trump said of Megyn Kelly, “You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes. Blood coming out of her wherever.
It was not the “blood coming out of her eyes” part that was the problem.
The other day, we sent out the agenda for the RedState Gathering. The file had been saved with the “final” tag and the Washington sent it out. But it still had Governor Deal on the agenda and it did not have Donald Trump on it. Obviously, it wasn’t the final.
I called Mr. Trump’s campaign manager and apologized and told him I felt bad for Mr. Trump because he has gotten so much sh*t from so many people and the party itself wasn’t treating the guy at the front of the pack as legitimate.
I think that is true. And I’ve been very sympathetic to Donald Trump because so many of the people who have led the party astray refuse to even treat him as a legitimate candidate.
But I also think that while Mr. Trump resonates with a lot of people with his bluntness, including me to a degree, there are just real lines of decency a person running for President should not cross.
Instead of Trump, Megyn Kelly is speaking tonight.

Let me say I've never meet Erick Erickson. I think I heard him speak one time at one of the first CPACs I attended. I've been critical of him a couple of times over an incident with Jamie Radtke and comments he made about Sarah Palin once, but aside from these two disagreements I think Erick is a pretty shark guy and right on the money. I admire how he's also attending divinity school and find that part of him interesting (especially due to rededicating my own life to the Lord a couple of years ago, and my belief that the solutions we need aren't all political ones, most of them are rooted in spirituality or the lack thereof). Erick has been blunt in his own manner as well. Do you remember the term "Abortion Barbie" when it came to Wendy Davis? That was Erick's creation and the Lefties went bonkers.

But the difference is, Erick's blunt mocking of Wendy Davis had the element of truth to it, which is why it stuck. Trumps mockery of Megyn Kelly, was just mean-spirited and abusive.  Thus, I agree with Erick's decision to disinvite him.

What Trump did was make a martyr out of Megyn Kelly, just like he did John McLame a couple of weeks ago. And that's too bad, because Megyn Kelly deserves some legitimate criticism for some of her questioning, as Mark Levin pointed out last night.


Now I have to agree, why was that the first question asked? Why does Megyn want to appoint herself as the sexism police when she can be accused of hypocrisy after going on Howard Stern's show and discussing subjects like her breasts or her husband's penis. I think there are more important questions to ask rather than something he said about some angry, mean-faced 9/11 troofer.

So why? Could it be that Fox News tried to do the bidding of the GOP establishment in taking out Trump? I wouldn't be surprised. I mean, look at the first question Trump got, which sent him off to explode himself like a suicide bomber last night in his CNN interview. Look also at how Ted Cruz and Rand Paul got very little time in the debate. I start to become suspicious, especially when that network as Karl Rove as one of their consistent commentators, as to their motives in the treatment of Trump, as well as sandbagging Sens. Cruz and Paul.

But that's not to excuse Trump, who is coming off more and more like failed 1990 Texas governor candidate Clayton Williams, who compared rain to rape ("just relax and enjoy it") and bragged about going to the infamous Chicken Ranch as a student at Texas A&M to "get serviced."

For all the problems Trump has created, this mess of his candidacy wouldn't have happened if the GOP leadership and their donors weren't so beholden to the crony-capitalists and open-borders merchants like the US Chamber of Commerce. There is a vacuum of leadership not only in this country but in the Republican Party. Trump, because of his name recognition and money, came out to exploit it by playing on the frustrations of the electorate, who have been burned by a do-nothing GOP Congressional majority who broke their 2014 campaign promises. They side with back benchers like Lindsey Grahamnesty and the putrid ¡Yeb! Bush, who attack Trump and conservatives with more vigor than they do Obama, Hillary, and the Democrats.

What the GOP establishment is trying to do is, instead of undermining Trump's candidacy by pointing to his inconsistent record (for socialized medicine one minute, against it another) and coziness with Democrats, it has gone on a "scorched earth" campaign, which will only embolden him to go third party and tick off potential supporters who will only help a Democrat get elected and thus flush the United States down the toilet. They pulled this at the 2012 GOP Convention with the rules change and I think they pissed off enough people of conservative/libertarian persuasion to either stay home or vote for another candidate, instead of uniting the party and the various factions to win. As we've seen in Virginia in 2013 and Mississippi in 2014, the Bush establishment wing will do all they can to stay in and keep power. That's part of the reason why I consider myself an independent conservative, no longer considering myself a Republican.

So while Trump plays the game of sticking his foot in his mouth again, the question is, will a strong conservative with a proven record and better temperment be allowed to lead the pack, or is the GOP establishment hellbent on keeping power, regardless if it means they lose in 2016?

Friday, August 07, 2015

GOP Debate Thoughts

I didn't get the chance to watch the first GOP debate, with the bottom tier candidates, so I can't really comment on that. I did see the social media buzz about Carly Fiorina.

I don't want to burst anyone's bubble, but Carly would be a disaster in the making if she were the nominee, a Mitt Romney in a skirt. The two problems with her would be the fact she lost her only election in 2010 against Barbara "Don't Call Me Ma'am" Boxer, as well as the fact that Hewlett Packard, under her leadership, went downhill so badly that the board had to fire her,  but not before she escaped with a golden parachute. She might be good VP material.

In the "main event" it was apparent that the Fox News hosts wanted to act almost like Candy Crowley by taking on certain candidates. I think the establishment types at Fox who are so friendly with clowns like Karl Rove were out to do the GOP-e's bidding in trying to take out Donald Trump. Big mistake. Like him or not, Trump has tapped into the discontent so many Americans, regardless of party, feel with the political class in Washington and elsewhere. Why is the GOP led Congress so disliked? Because they are seen as unwilling to fight on important issues, always too cowardly to take a stand because they're afraid of being blamed for a government shutdown.

And I don't blame Trump for saying he could promise to support the nominee. If it is ¡Yeb! Bush, I could not and will not vote in November 2016 because he is no different from any of the Democrat Socialist candidates. But I fear that, if he is not the nominee, Trump may go third party because of a combination of his ego and some frustration at the political class, including the possibility he's put up to it by the Clinton's. If the GOP alienates Trump supporters (as they did grassroots conservatives/libertarians at the 2012 Convention with the rules change) they'll deservedly lose in 2016 and the country will be lost forever.

We didn't hear enough from Ted Cruz last night, and not enough from Rand Paul. Scott Walker got a great line in about Russia knowing what's in all of Hillary's e-mails. Mike Huckabee impressed me with a lot of his answers. Krispy Kreme Christie showed how much of a blowhard he really is. I'm not impressed with Kasich, I still think Ben Carson isn't ready for prime time yet.

Speaking of ¡Yeb!, he was horrible! It doesn't help matters about the Bush family's connection to Planned Parenthood either. God help the GOP if he is the nominee. I've snickered seeing some on conservative message boards say he is the Fredo Corelone of the Bush family.



Lets face it, the GOP cannot win in 2016 if they keep playing to their big donors who are sympathetic to Planned Parenthood, open borders, and crony capitalism. The electorate is wise enough also to know when they're being lied to. They want action, not talk. Perhaps the GOP could take some lessons from the clip below as to the road they should take if they want to win, but also regain the trust of the American voters.