Monday, January 25, 2016

Glenn Beck Tells Iowa Crowd He Prefers Bernie Sanders Over Donald Trump

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio
iHeart.SmythRadio.com

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Glenn Beck endorsed Senator Ted Cruz this weekend for President of the United States.Beck traveled to Iowa to endorse Cruz at a Saturday rally.

This was a big endorsement for Ted Cruz.

Beck reportedly said he preferred Socialist Bernie Sanders over Donald Trump.Seriously?The Hill reported:

Conservative commentator Glenn Beck on Saturday endorsed Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz for the White House.

Beck compared Cruz to the 16th president, Abraham Lincoln, and gave him a compass that belonged to the first one, George Washington.

“I’m taking a very big risk here and gambling on it, but this is how much I believe in Ted Cruz,” Beck said at a Cruz rally in Ankeny, Iowa.

“I’d like you to hold onto that,” he said, passing Cruz the compass, “to make sure your compass is square and you stay true” to your values.

Beck said he had never endorsed a presidential candidate in his 40 years of broadcasting, but he made an exception because of the urgency of the moment…

…He said he even prefers Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a self-proclaimed “democratic socialist” running in the Democratic presidential primary, to Trump.

“Honesty, faith and truth are basic requirements. And quite honestly, I have to tell you, this probably isn’t going to go over very well, that’s why I like Bernie Sanders,” he said. “Bernie Sanders is like, ‘Yep, I’m a socialist.’

“I can actually sit at a table with a man who says, ‘Yes, I’m a socialist, and yes, I don’t like what we are doing, we should be more like Denmark,’ ” he added.

So how exactly will Bernie Sanders push forward the conservative cause?

UPDATE: For the record, Glenn Beck said similar things about John McCain.

COMMENTS

Ingraham Blasts National Review For Damaging GOP’s 2016 Campaign With Anti-Trump Tirade

by JULIA HAHN24 Jan 2016Washington D.C.169

Nationally-syndicated talk radio host Laura Ingraham slammed the National Review for what she described as the publication’s attempt to further shrink the Republican Party.

Ingraham warned not only about National Review’s interference in the primary, but also the effects it may have in the general election. “How is it smart to close the door to Trump’s voters and to populism in general?” Ingraham asked in a Friday column.

Ingraham explained that if Rich Lowry and National Review’s “Manhattan-based editors” continue to alienate blue-collar Americans who are concerned about immigration, trade and foreign policy, “National Review Editor Rich Lowry and his people will be left preaching their narrow doctrine to a smaller and smaller audience.”

Ingraham explained that Trump’s “supporters are pushing for three big things”:

A return to traditional GOP law and order practices when it comes to illegal immigration.

A return to a more traditional GOP foreign policy that would put the national interest ahead of globalism.

A return to a more traditional GOP trade policy that would analyze trade deals from the perspective of the country as a whole and not blindly support any deal — even one negotiated by President Obama.


Ingraham explained National Review’s history of trying to “excommunicate conservatives,” who are skeptical of more foreign military engagements, contradicts the big tent philosophy of Ronald Reagan. “There is room for all voices in the GOP ‘big tent’ — including relative newcomers like Trump, who has garnered such a following,” Ingraham said. “One of the many reasons I loved Reagan is that he understood how important it was to grow the conservative movement.”

Ingraham explained that this is not the first time National Review has expressed its disdain for conservatives with whom the publication disagrees on certain issues. Ingraham writes: “The folks at NR launched a similar effort to excommunicate conservatives in 2003, with a much-hyped cover story titled ‘Unpatriotic Conservatives.’ Back then it was Pat Buchanan and the now-deceased Bob Novak who were the targets.” Ingraham explained that the Nation Review believed that “these ‘disgruntled paleos,’ weren’t truly conservative because they opposed the war in Iraq.”

Ingraham writes, “As it turned out, of course, that small band of thinkers knew more about what was in the national interest than anyone at National Review or myself, who was also a strong advocate for Operation Iraqi Freedom.”

While National Review is determined to take out Trump, the publication hasinvested considerable effort in boosting up mass migration enthusiasts like Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI). While Pat Buchanan has described Trump as the “future” of the Republican Party, Rubio and Ryan’s affection for the longstanding donor-class agenda– i.e. more foreign military engagements, more globalist trade deals and mass migration– seems to make them more compatible with the Republicanism of the past. Jonathan Chait has even observed that when pressed, Rubio is unable to identify a single substantive policy issue that separates him from Mitt Romney or George Bush: when “asked if he disagrees with Bush or Romney on anything at all, Rubio does not directly offer any examples,” Chait writes.

Chait also pointed out that Rubio’s effort to set himself apart from Bush and Romney by saying his agenda is focused on the 21st century seems confused, since Bush and Romney all campaigned for President in the 21st century. Nearly 1/6th of the 21st century will already have been concluded by the time the next President assumes the Oval Office. Chait explains:

Rubio is a George W. Bush Republican who needs to come up with nonsense concepts to deny the fact that he’s a George W. Bush Republican, like pretending his ideas don’t relate to Bush’s because they’re from different centuries. He can’t name a single actual disagreement with Bush or Romney because there aren’t any.


Ingraham warned that if the GOP continues to “devot[e] itself” to defending and expanding the legacy of George W. Bush, it will come at the expense of the country and the Party’s peril:

They [i.e. the National Reviewcontributors] are… inviting those who disagree with Bush on those points to leave conservatism and start seeking their allies elsewhere. This is an absolute disaster for conservatism. It is obvious by now that Bushism — however well-intentioned it may appear on paper — does not work for the average American. It is also clear that Bushism has almost no support within the rank and file of the GOP, much less within the country as a whole. Making the tenets of Bushism into an orthodoxy that conservatives cannot question will cripple conservatism for years to come… If the conservative movement devotes itself to defending the legacy of George W. Bush at all costs, it will become irrelevant to the debate over how to make things better for most Americans.

 


Read More Stories About:

Big GovernmentBig Journalism2016 Presidential RaceLaura IngrahamNational Review

Exclusive – Davi: When Johnny Friendly and His Goons Took Over National Review

by ROBERT DAVI24 Jan 20161,030

For years in the arts, critics have been known to blabber on, many times missing the very importance of what they are witnessing – especially if the work of art is groundbreaking and defies “conventional” thinking.

In music, literature, or art there are legions of stories where something new comes along, but some critics who are so stuck in a conceptual time warp are sadly unable to analyze and see it as something innovative. This happens even in film. Critics have written analysis for films, giving their stamp of approval or disapproval, while never really being held accountable for anything. They have no risk; they do not create! They sit back, pontificate an opinion, which is temporal and of the moment, and then drink another dry martini. A work of art has a unique way of lasting beyond its époque.

There are many of these “establishment types” who year after year spew their volcano of ash into the world attempting to choke those who can create. Then there are the effete intellectuals who decide who or what or how something will be defined and supported. They create nothing, but try to influence – even sometimes campaigning amongst themselves to help shape the groupthink.

The recent issue of National Review is dedicated to the proposition that Donald Trump, the GOP’s presidential frontrunner, is not a true conservative. The 22 contributors in this special issue write their barrage of articles like a Super PAC mounting another attack against The Donald. They all broke the “Conservative Commandment.” While it is perfectly okay for candidates to slug it out – after all, they are vying for the biggest title in the world – I think these conservative pundits should be held to a different rule.

The “Eleventh Commandment” was a phrase used by Ronald Reagan during his 1966 campaign for governor of California. The Commandment reads: “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.”

For years I have heard all of them quote this 11th commandment, feigning shock like Claude Rains in Casablanca when he falsely protested that which he knew was taking place all along. So now, in the back rooms they all band together and perform blasphemy. Ye hypocrites!

Like figures in Madame Tussauds wax museum, they stand together bloodless and stiff – the dead elitists who dare go among us, the Great Unwashed. I have met some of them. Some are nice, but the majority are so elitist that they are like a synod of intellectual snobbery – out of touch with the world and stuck in the dusty rooms they write in, while becoming intoxicated by breathing in the stale air of their own gas.

This current display of solidarity is as smug as the smirk on Glenn Beck’s face, one of the 22 contributors of National Review’s “Against Trump” issue who should know better. Beck had an addiction problem. He went through a “change.” Does this make him any less authentic or sincere in his recovery? By trying to “undefined” Trump, they are saying they can see into his heart and soul. Well, you morons, if you want to see Trump’s heart and soul, look to his children. That more than anything is the measure of a man. And it is not an easy thing to bring up children. What’s more, we know that Trump’s admonishment to his children to not “smoke, drink, or do drugs” can be looked on as the words of someone who respects discipline. Also, Trump to my knowledge is the only candidate in recent memory to mention President Eisenhower! Are you saying that Ike wasn’t considered “conservative”?

Isn’t it in our nature to develop, change, and evolve? The GOP has been on life support. We have heard how it will be harder and harder for them to grow; but now that they have a frontrunner who can infuse new blood into the whole party, they stab him in the back on the steps of the Roman Senate. The attacks they lay on Trump seem to me to be motivated by insider trading gone awry. There seems to be a panicked reaction from the status quo. Elitists hate when an upstart is successful. Over the years alliances have been formed, potential deals made, and expectations shared. They are considered opinion makers, and we are told how we think.

So, to me, they are like those film critics who have never made a film or created anything except give opinions hoping for relevancy. In reality they have contributed to the decline of the GOP. Like the stale politicians who have let the American people down, the establishment types at National Reviewbehind the “Against Trump” issue cling to their own John Friendly political mafia. Johnny Friendly and his goons in the filmOn the Waterfront throw anyone who exposes their irrelevancy off the roof. So, along comes Trump who, like Terry Malloy, can no longer sit by and watch; so he exposes them for what they are.

Trump wants America to get back to work. He has become the hope and voice of the blue-collar men and women who have watched America’s decline and feel ignored. Like the cement blocks that form the foundation of the impressive buildings Trump constructs all across America, we have a growing populace who knows he can do the same for America. This alone should have given pause to National Review, but narcissism is blind, and these 22, like some in the Congress and Senate, forget what they are supposed to stand for.

Let me tell you this: Trump has “conservative” principles, and they are more vibrant and resonating than any we have seen since Ronald Reagan. Those 22 who contributed to National Review’s“Against Trump” issue all have a differing agenda. They are for Cruz or Bush or Rubio or Kasich or any establishment politician — for anyone who has served in politics in my estimation is establishment, and they have alliances with the folks that wrote “Against Trump.”

Like Terry Malloy in On the Waterfront, Trump has seen the hypocrisy from the inside and can no longer stand by and watch. Trump is going up against the political mafia chieftains of the seemingly “conservative old guard.” They are like theMustached Petes who were stuck in the mud of their own self-importance. This is what has happened with Trump. He has seen the decline of the American worker. He has seen the corruption and lies and manipulation, and now he confronts the Johnny Friendlys who want to hold onto political control. Have a look at Brando as he fights for those who have been held hostage:

Lastly, there is no absolute pure strain of “conservatism,” my dear fellow Americans. There are many differing opinions depending on circumstances. William F. Buckley, Jr., who I greatly respected, had once said that if the United States had a parliamentary system, President Bush would be subject to a “no confidence” vote. He was highly critical of the war in Iraq. In the past, Buckley’s nephew Brent Bozell has weighed in on National Review’s relevance. Back in 2012, he posted this to Facebook and Twitter: “National Review’s endorsement of Romney & Huntsman proves only that this is no longer the magazine of William F. Buckley Jr. My uncle would be appalled.”

So, you see, opinions are all over the place, and there are no absolutes – no pure strain of conservatism. The survival of America is at stake, and the 22 writers of National Review are goons trying to muscle and goose-step the America people against the GOP frontrunner, Donald Trump. Now thatis not conservative.

Read More Stories About:

Big HollywoodDonald TrumpGlenn Beck,National ReviewRobert DaviMarlon BrandoWilliam F. BuckleyOn the Waterfront

Iowa GOP Chairman: Party Will Support Donald Trump ‘One Thousand Percent’ if He Wins Nomination

Gage Skidmore/Flickr

by MATTHEW BOYLE24 Jan 2016Muscatine, Iowa658

MUSCATINE, Iowa — 2016 GOP frontrunner Donald Trump received support from yet another major GOP player, state GOP chairman Jeff Kaufmann, in the all-important first caucus state of Iowa.

Kaufmann, who wasn’t officially endorsing Trump for president but is appearing with him on stage and introducing him, said that if Iowans select Trump on Feb. 1, the party is fully committed to electing him president of the United States. Kaufmann has appeared with other GOP candidates at their events, including according to Iowa GOP spokesman Charlie Szold in a comment to the Des Moines Register: Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal, Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Rick Santorum. Szold told Breitbart News this is a “courtesy we extend to all candidates.”

“This morning I woke up and the headlines were ‘There is a civil war in the Republican Party,’” Kaufmann said on the Trump stage. “Folks, we’re not having a civil war. We’re having a vigorous debate because the last eight years has made us mad.”

Kaufmann, who met with Trump before the rally in Iowa at Muscatine High School, said Trump is a “humble, a patriotic and a capable guy.”

“Most of our conversation was about how to get voices again for people that don’t believe they have a voice—I can’t think of anything more Republican than that,” Kaufmann said.

“As the Republican Party chairman, if you’re a Democrat and you’re going to join us on caucus night, I’ve got one word for you: Welcome,” Kaufmann added, an allusion to the fact Trump is likely to win many crossover voters.

“Donald Trump has brought some energy into this party, he has brought some energy into this country and I’ve lived in this particular county for seven generations,” Kaufmann said.

I’m here to tell you right now, on caucus night you’re going to hand somebody to me. And at the end of this process, the nominee is going to be handed to me. Let me be perfectly clear, I don’t want any ambiguity whatsoever. If you vote for him, Donald Trump, as the Republican nominee, the Republican Party of Iowa and this Republican chair will be behind him one thousand percent!


Kaufmann appearing on stage with Trump at this time comes after Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), the longtime Iowa U.S. Senator, joined Trump on stage last week and said that he supports making America great again.

Grassley’s appearance was not an official endorsement, but an unofficial statement of support for Trump’s campaign.

Read More Stories About:

Big Government2016 Presidential Race,Donald TrumpIowaChuck Grassley,Republican PartyIowa GOPJeff Kaufmann

Fox News Poll: Donald Trump Takes Back Iowa with 11-Point Surge

AP Photo/Mary Altaffer

by MIKE FLYNN24 Jan 20164361

new Fox News poll of Iowa shows Donald Trump surging to a strong 11-point lead in the caucuses taking place next week. With just one week until the first votes of the 2016 primary are cast, Trump leads second-place Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) 34-23 percent.

The last two Fox News polls of Iowa, conducted in early January and early December, has Ted Cruz with a slim lead over the GOP frontrunner. In the last two weeks, according to the poll, Trump has gained 11 points and Cruz has lost 4 points.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) remains in a distant third place with 12 percent, but he has lost 3 points since early January. No other candidate has support in the double digits.

The Fox poll has a fairly large 5-point margin of error, higher than its last two polls, but the underlying trend towards Trump is unmistakable. One major factor helping Trump is that Republican voters in general are warming to his candidacy.

In early January, almost one-third of Republicans, 31 percent, said they could not support Trump if he became the nominee. Today, that number is down to 20 percent.

This week, Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassleyappeared at a campaign rally for Donald Trump. He made it clear he wasn’t endorsing Trump and is, in fact, scheduled to appear with Sen. Marco Rubio this weekend, but his appearance is an explicit un-endorsement of Ted Cruz. Grassley has recently criticized his colleague Cruz for his opposition to ethanol and wind power subsidies.

Also this week, Iowa Governor Terry Branstad publicly stated that he hoped Cruz would lose the Iowa caucus, also because of his opposition to ethanol and wind power. As the nation’s top corn producer, the state has a vested interest in maintaining the federal mandate to include ethanol-blended gasoline in motor fuel. The state has also become a leading provider of federally subsidized wind power.

In addition, Sarah Palin endorsed Donald Trump in Iowa early in the week. Her endorsement came just as the Fox poll was starting interviews in the Hawkeye State. The Palin endorsement boosted Trump considerably among voters who identify as “very conservative” and “tea party.”

Among both voters, Cruz had been leading Trump in the last Fox poll. Trump now leads among “tea party voters” and is essentially tied with Cruz among “very conservative” voters. Cruz had held a slim lead among more mainstream “Republican” voters, a group Trump now leads by 9 points.

Trump, it seems, is benefiting from a political perfect storm just before Iowa casts its votes. Palin’s embrace of Trump and the state’s Republican establishment’s united opposition to Cruz has pushed Trump into a strong lead.

This unique combination, if it holds, could allow Trump to run the tables in states voting through the Spring and lock-in the nomination sooner than most would have expected.

That said, a week is a lifetime in politics, and a tea party-establishment coalition likely is tenuous. There is also a final GOP debate on Thursday, just 4 days before the caucus. Still, Iowa seems to be moving towards Trump.

Read More Stories About:

Big Government2016 Presidential Race,Donald TrumpTed CruzChuck Grassley,Republican PartySarah PalinTerry BranstadIowa caucus

Is Donald Trump Conservative? Here’s the Rundown



AP Photo/Richard Shiro

by BEN SHAPIRO24 Jan 201614,785

Is Donald Trump conservative?

This week, Senator Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)has bashed Trump for insufficient conservatism. He explained, “Donald’s record does not match what he says as a candidate.” Cruz isn’t the only one. Last month, Rush Limbaugh said that Trump’s attacks on Cruz reflected the fact that he was not a “genuine conservative.” Mark Levin said in 2011, “Trump is NOT the real deal… He is not a conservative. He was happy to donate to Schumer, Weiner & Emanuel campaigns last year. He was pro-choice recently and now claims to be pro-life. He sounds more and more like Ross Perot.” Andrew Breitbart said at the time, “Of course he’s not a conservative. He was for Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) before he was against Nancy Pelosi.”

I don’t believe Trump is a conservative either; I’ve said that repeatedly. Full disclosure: I’ve also said that I would vote for Ted Cruz if the primaries took place today. I’ve also said that Trump channels conservative anger against the establishment brilliantly, and that he has become a vessel for much-needed conversations on immigration.

With all that said, it’s worthwhile exploring Trump’s worldview. To do that, we must separate two elements of that worldview: his current positions, and his historic positions. The first goes to supposed conservatism, and the second goes to credibility – even if he says he’s conservative today, should you believe him?

We’ll go through the issues here (thanks toConservative Review for a handy guide to Trump’s positions as well). We report, you decide:

Immigration. After a career of flip-flopping on immigration (he ripped Mitt Romney in 2012 for being too harsh on illegal immigration and in 2013 said he hired illegals at his golf courses), Trump has famously taken the most right-wing position on illegal immigration in this race. I wrote about it when Trump released it on his website. Trump wants a wall, shutting down remittances garnered from illegal wages, and foreign aid cuts. He wants strong deportation policies and an end to birthright citizenship. Because many Republicans feel that the immigration issue is the prerequisite for any continuation of a small government republic, Trump has made hay on this issue.

Meanwhile, Trump flipped on Muslim refugees. Originally he said the U.S. would have to take in Syrian refugees; then he said he would take in no Muslim immigrants at all. That position has proved surprisingly durable with the conservative electorate.

Foreign Policy. Trump’s been all over the place here. He’s said we should leave the Islamic State to Russia and expressed sympathy for Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, but also said that we should “bomb the s***” out of ISIS. He has both said that he would topple Bashar Assad and that he would not arm the Syrian rebels. In the end, he said he had a great idea for defeating ISIS, but wouldn’t tell anyone what it was. He’s said that he wouldn’t immediately get rid of the Iran deal, but he stumped against the deal. He’s talked about how he admires China, but then explained he wants to put a 45 percent tariff on Chinese goods. Trump wants to expand the military, but how he would use that expanded military is far from clear.

Abortion. Trump says he’s pro-life. Bethany Blankley of Live Action News gives a solid roundup of the timeline:

1999: Trump says he is “very pro-choice” and said he wouldn’t ban partial birth abortion.

January 2015: Trump says he is “pro-life, with the caveats. You have to have the caveats.” What would those caveats be? He explains: “life of the mother, incest, and rape.” Asked repeatedly whether abortion outside of his “caveats” would be murder, he says, “it depends when.”

August 2015: Trump tells CNN’s Chris Cuomo, “Maybe some of the things [Planned Parenthood does] are good and I know a lot of things are bad… I mean, it’s like an abortion factory, frankly.” He then says he is pro-life and reiterates his “exceptions.” He tells Sean Hannity:

There’s two Planned Parenthoods, in a way. You have it as an abortion clinic. Now, that’s actually a fairly small part of what they do, but it’s a brutal part, and I’m totally against it. They also, however, service women. Maybe unless they stop with the abortions, we don’t do the funding for the stuff that we want. We have to help women. So we have to look at the positives, also, for Planned Parenthood.


Eventually he told Breitbart he’d oppose any government funding for Planned Parenthood.

During the first Republican debate, Trump says that he became pro-life sometime over the last few years, stating:

Friends of mine years ago were going to have a child, and it was going to be aborted. And it wasn’t aborted. And that child today is a total superstar, a great, great child. And I saw that. And I saw other instances. I am very, very proud to say that I am pro-life.


Jamie Weinstein of The Daily Caller asked Trump if he’d have become pro-life if the kid had been a “loser.” Trump said no.

October 2015: Trump says he would appoint his sister, Maryanne Trump Barry, to the Supreme Court – even though she has ruled in favor of partial birth abortion. As to overturning Roe v. Wade, Trump says, “you need a lot of Supreme Court justices, but we’re gonna be looking at that also very, very carefully,”

This week, Trump said that he would think about pick pro-choice former Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown for his vice president. He has never said that he would ban all abortions except for his exceptions – he’sleft vague how early he’d ban abortion.

Same-Sex Marriage. Trump says he’s anti-same sex marriage but that it’s the “law of the land.” In August, he said, “Some people have hopes of passing amendments, but it’s not going to happen. Congress can’t pass simple things, let alone that. So anybody that’s making that an issue is doing it for political reasons. The Supreme Court ruled on it.” In December 2014, he reportedly told gay activist George Takei that he’d gone to a same-sex wedding and found it “beautiful.” Trump did say that he didn’t think Kentucky court clerk Kim Davis should have been jailed.

Religious Freedom. Trump pledges to uphold religious freedom but has not commented on the Indiana Religious Freedom and Restoration Act or any other similar act protecting religious practice in the face of leftist non-discrimination laws designed to quash religious observance.

Entitlements. Unlike virtually all the other Republican candidates, Trump has said he wouldn’t touch entitlements. He says that any Republican attempts to touch these programs will end in electoral defeat. His website currently carries an article from The Daily Signal titled, “Why Trump Won’t Touch Your Entitlements.” He said then, “I’m not going to cut Social Security like every other Republican and I’m not going to cut Medicare or Medicaid. Every other Republican is going to cut, and even if they wouldn’t, they don’t know what to do because they don’t know where the money is. I do.” He bashed Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)’s plans for entitlements for being “too far out front with the issue.” Trump has, however, said that certain parts of Social Security could be moved to private accounts – although he then says that he will save Social Security without cuts by discovering magical barrels of money: “I know where to get the money from. Nobody else does.

Campaign Finance Reform. Trump is for it, and he routinely attacks super PACs. Just last week, he said, “I think you need it.” He added, “Somebody gives them money, not anything wrong, just psychologically when they go to that person, they’re going to do it. They owe them. And by the way, they may therefore vote negatively toward the country. That’s not going to happen with me.” Campaign finance reform places outsized influence in the hands of the government and unions and quashes free speech.

Government Involvement In The Economy. Trump accuses Ted Cruz of being a Wall Street insider because his wife works for Goldman Sachs. Trump himself supported Obama’s 2009 stimulus, TARP, and the 2008 auto bailout. He said in 2009, “I think [Obama’s] doing very well. You do need stimulus and you do have to keep the banks alive.” He’s admitted over and over to paying elected officials to grease the skids on his deals – although, in fairness, he says that’s just how you have to work to get business done. In 2009, he said that the government should cap executive pay. Trump supported the Supreme Court’s egregious Kelo v. New London (2005) decision, in which the court absurdly declared that the government could seize private property and turn it over to another private party so long as the second party paid additional taxes on it. Trump explained, “I happen to agree with [the decision] 100%.”

Education. Trump opposes Common Core but has flip-flopped on whether he’d do away with the Department of Education; he told the South Carolina Tea Party last year that he wouldn’t dump them completely. “Certainly you could cut [that] way down,”Trump said, but added that he’d keep it alive for “coordination,” as Conservative Review points out.

Healthcare. Trump says he’d dump Obamacare but then praises the nationalized health care system of Canada and Great Britain. In 1999 and 2000 he endorsed nationalized health care openly; in 2015, he praised Scotland’s plan while appearing with David Letterman. He has proposed dumping restrictions on health care portability but continues to pump up nationalized health care systems. In September he told Hannity:

As far as single-payer and all — there’s so many different things you could have. Honestly, Sean, to do, to have great health insurance. The one thing I do tell people, we’re going to have something great. We’re going to repeal and replace Obamacare, which is a total disaster.

Tax Plan. Trump’s tax plan is certainly conservative. He proposes lowering the top tax bracket to 25 percent, drops the capital gains tax to 20 percent, dumps the death tax, and drops the corporate rate to 15 percent. The Tax Foundation states:

Our analysis finds that the plan would reduce federal revenues by $11.98 trillion over the next decade. However, it also would improve incentives to work and invest, which could increase gross domestic product (GDP) by 11 percent over the long term. This increase in GDP would translate into 6.5 percent higher wages and 5.3 million new full-time equivalent jobs. After accounting for increased incomes due to these factors, the plan would only reduce tax revenues by $10.14 trillion.

That’s different from his past positions on taxes, which include fighting the flat tax and proposing a wealth tax that would force owners to liquidate their property to pay taxes every year.

Trade. Trump is for international tariffs, including an extraordinarily heavy tariff on Chinese goods, in the mistaken belief that this somehow helps the American economy. Tariffs certainly benefit protected sectors, but they hurt American consumers and destroy American purchasing power. Trump also wants to leave mandatory union dues alone – or at least he hasn’t commented differently on the issue for several years.

Guns. Trump has become progressively more pro-Second Amendment over time. His website states: “The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period.”

So, there you have it: Trump’s mixed record on conservatism, even at present, belies the notion that he sees eye-to-eye with the Tea Party. Actually, Trump is far more populist than conservative — which means he has appeal to blue-collar Democrats, but also that he may not reliably stand by conservative principles in office. In fact, given his repeated position switching, the safe bet is that anything he says today will changed based on convenience. That should not encourage any conservative thinking of Trump in the primaries.

Ben Shapiro is Senior Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News, Editor-in-Chief ofDailyWire.com, and The New York Times bestselling author, most recently, of the book,The People vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against The Obama Administration (Threshold Editions, June 10, 2014). Follow Ben Shapiro on Twitter @benshapiro.

Poll: Donald Trump Gained 15 Points on Ted Cruz in Iowa in Two Weeks – The Washington Post

Joshua Lott/Getty Images

by BREITBART NEWS24 Jan 20161,874

Phillip Bump writes in the Washington Post:

Earlier this month, Fox News released a pollshowing Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) leading Donald Trump by four points. The two had a sizable lead over everyone else in the state, and the poll was confirming what others were showing: Cruz had an advantage.

On Sunday, Fox released another Iowa poll, with substantially different results. Now, Trump is up by 11 points, a 15-point swing in the two weeks between surveys. This poll, too, mirrors the recent trend: Trump has regained the advantage.

It’s still a surprising development. Trump’s gained a lot, across the board, while most of his competitors have slipped. Cruz is still over-performing with conservatives and tea partiers (meaning that his support among those groups is 11 and seven points higher than his overall support), but Trump gained 11 and 17 points with those groups over the past two weeks. Cruz’s support among the groups fell.

[…]

Two weeks ago, the percentage of respondents saying they would “definitely” go out and caucus on Feb. 1 was 59 percent. In this new poll, that dropped to 54 percent, meaning a 10-point swing toward those who would say they will “probably” go to the caucus. Two weeks ago, Trump trailed Cruz by six points among those who would probably vote. Now he leads with that group by 15 — more than his overall lead against Cruz.

[…]

Again, Trump’s gains are across the board, but he’s doing much better with a group of voters that seems less likely to vote. He could certainly win Iowa by an 11-point margin, but that depends on his people turning out — and on his having an operation to encourage them to do so (which the New York Timesreports he doesn’t). In other words, if the election were held tomorrow, the actual results would probably be somewhere in between these two polls, with Trump not doing as well against Cruz as it may appear.

You can read the rest of the story here.

Read More Stories About:

Big Government2016 Presidential Race,Donald TrumpIowaSen. Ted CruzIowa Caucuses