Wednesday, March 16, 2016

Mark McKinnon: GOP Establishment ‘Soaked the Place in Kerosene, All Donald Trump Did Was Light a Match’


Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com


by REBECCA MANSOUR15 Mar 20163141
Veteran GOP strategist Mark McKinnon told Breitbart News Daily that the rise of Donald Trump in the 2016 election reflects the fact that for years, the Republican Party “has had no clear vision of the future.” The GOP establishment, he said, “soaked the place in kerosene. All Donald Trump did was light a match.” In this election, “the Republicans are just going to have to burn the house down and rebuild it.”
McKinnon is the co-creator, co-executive producer, and co-host of the Showtime docu-series The Circus, which chronicles the 2016 presidential race.
He spoke with SiriusXM host and Breitbart News executive chairman Stephen K. Bannon about a scene in the episode called “The Reckoning” showing a group of six GOP establishment figures gathered at a private dinner to lament the rise of Donald Trump and discuss what can be done to defeat him.
McKinnon said this particular scene “has lit up the boards like no other scene we’ve done the whole season.”
“A couple of weeks ago we said, ‘Let’s go find the establishment – what’s left of the establishment.’ It turns out there are six guys who are left,” McKinnon joked.
“Old white warhorses,” Bannon laughed. “It’s literally like a smoke-filled room out of something like Tammany Hall.”
“It sounded like you were dropping into a mafia don mob boss meeting, right?” McKinnon joked.
From the candid conversation among these six men, “a couple things were clear,” McKinnon said. “First of all, there really is no coherent establishment, and to the extent there is an establishment, they have no clue how to deal with Donald Trump.”
“You look at the scene, and it’s pretty much an ad for Donald Trump,” he said. “The Trump people see that and say, ‘Well, that’s exactly why we’re supporting Donald Trump.’”
Bannon remarked on how shocking it was that despite having access to the commentariat, the consultants, the K Street lobbyists, and the massive donor money that all comprise the establishment apparatus, these figures still had no cohesive plan to “counter a populist uprising.”
McKinnon agreed, “There was not a coherent notion at all about what to do. In fact, there were very divergent notions.”
He explained:
A couple of them were saying, “We’re part of the RNC, and we’ll ultimately support the nominee.” A couple of them were saying, “We’re making anti-Trump PAC ads.” And a couple of them even said, “Listen, if it’s Donald Trump, then we may have to look at supporting Hillary Clinton” — which was pretty shocking to see. So, yeah, there is absolutely no coherency about what to do about Donald Trump, and that’s why he’s doing so well.

Bannon noted that the key populist issues involving trade agreements and immigration that have animated voters in this election cycle “were not even in the top hundred” on the establishment’s radar. “How did they miss it so badly?” Bannon asked. “These are not dumb people. They’re very smart people. How did they miss it so badly?”
McKinnon recalled that one of the establishment figures in the scene admitted that Trump “had a better finger on the pulse of what the American voter wants” than any of the six of them in that room.
“The one thing I’ve said from the very beginning of this election is that it’s very likely that the Republicans are just going to have to burn the house down and rebuild it,” McKinnon said. “And, you know, they soaked the place in kerosene. All Donald Trump did was light a match, and the place is going up in flames.”
He explained, “The Republican Party, not just for this election cycle, but for a long time, has had no clear vision of the future, and occasionally democracy rises up and takes a hold of the reins, and that’s what’s happening in this election. The voters are saying, ‘Listen, you guys don’t have a clue. So, we’re going to give you one.’”
Bannon commented on the Shakespearean quality of this election cycle:
We have talked about earlier today the Ides of March and the killing of Caesar 2,060 years ago. This race is almost Shakespearean in its presentation. You have the Bushes, you have the Clintons, you have almost like these King Lear types. You have Obama, you have the Pope, you have Trump, you have Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX). Even the side characters in the commentariat – it’s so fascinating – you know, the Black Lives Matter guys. We’re talking about the Black Panthers over the weekend on the weekend show. You know, Angela Davis is now being talked about … It’s brought in so much of modern political history. But have you ever seen a race like this that just has this cast of characters? And the stakes, you know: American sovereignty vs. the globalists; this populist uprising vs. the limited government conservatives? Have you ever seen the issues and the personalities come together in really kind of a Shakespearean way?

“The Shakespeare analogy is a terrific one, and I may steal that from you,” McKinnon said. “We’re trying to think of a name for the next show, I think we’ll find some Shakespeare analogy to throw up there.”
“We just got really lucky that we chose this election to do this show,” McKinnon said. “People are really fascinated by what’s happening because there is this huge drama. There is a sense that there is a real revolution going on. And, you know, Trump is a big part of that. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is a big part of that.”
“We are seeing a complete upheaval, and people are fascinated to watch it and say, ‘What comes next? What’s going to come out of all of this chaos and uprising?’’’ he added.
The Circus, which Bannon called the new “must-watch television” for political junkies, runs on Showtime Sunday nights at 8PM.
Listen to the full interview below:
Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot Channel 125 weekdays from 6:00AM to 9:00AM EST.
Follow Rebecca Mansour on Twitter@RAMansour
Read More Stories About:

Tuesday, March 15, 2016

EXCLUSIVE: Newt Gingrich: If Trump Wins Big in Florida, They Won’t Be Able to Stop Him

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com

AP Photo
by PATRICK HOWLEY15 Mar 2016226
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich tells Breitbart News that if Donald Trump wins big in Florida today, the party “won’t be able to stop him.”
“If Trump gets big numbers in Florida, you’re not going to be able to stop him. You’ll just tear the party apart,” he said.
“If Trump wins Florida by the margin anticipated, then [Sen. Marco] Rubio could stay in just to affect the numbers, but he won’t be a serious candidate anymore,” Gingrich said.
Gingrich is watching Florida closely, but he’s also looking at Ohio, where his former House Budget chairman John Kasich is looking to get a win to keep himself alive going into the convention, amid pressure from Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX).
“If Kasich wins Ohio, he could certainly stay in and be part of a potential negotiating block,” Gingrich said. “But in five Ohio counties, 20 percent of the voters are people who voted in the Democratic primary in the past. That is very, very good for Trump.”
Gingrich threw cold water all over the idea of a brokered convention, which Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol has been plotting. If no candidate gets 50 percent of the delegates on the first ballot, then on the second ballot the pledged delegates can become “un-pledged” and support whomever the party bosses tell them to support.
“It’s childish nonsense,” Gingrich said. “There are two potential presidential nominees. One is named Donald. One is named Ted. The idea that some clever Washington intellectual or power broker — put quote marks around ‘power broker’— can step into an election in which millions have voted and magically change the trajectory of history? It’s goofy. There’s two players standing.”
Gingrich speculated that Trump and Cruz might actually form an alliance, similar to how they did in the early days of the campaign, in order to prevent a brokered convention at the last minute.
“If Trump is at 45 percent does he negotiate with Cruz?”
“They will band together and have 85 percent of the delegates between them,” Gingrich said. “Both of these guys are committed to breaking up the old order.”
“How is somebody who’s never run going to stand up on national television and on social media [as the brokered candidate] and not get run out of town?” Gingrich said, referring to a potential Mitt Romney, who could walk onstage at the convention after a backroom deal.
Gingrich’s statement to this reporter in December that “the country is in rebellion” and that Trump can kick down the doors — which was recently cited by Trump-supporter Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) at the National Press Club — went viral and helped to cement Trump’s position as a formidable Republican candidate ahead of the Iowa caucus.
Early exit polls Tuesday showed Trump taking a commanding lead over Rubio and Cruz in Florida.
Read More Stories About:

A King in His Castle: How Donald Trump Lives, From His Longtime Butler

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com

www.nytimes.com



By JASON HOROWITZMarch 15, 2016
PALM BEACH, Fla. — Everything seemed to sparkle at the Mar-a-Lago estate here on a recent afternoon. The sun glinted off the pool and the black Secret Service S.U.V.s in the circular driveway. Palm trees rustled in a warm breeze, croquet balls clicked and a security guard stood at the entrance to Donald J. Trump’s private living quarters.
“You can always tell when the king is here,” Mr. Trump’s longtime butler here, Anthony Senecal, said of the master of the house and Republican presidential candidate.
The king was returning that day to his Versailles, a 118-room snowbird’s paradise that will become a winter White House if he is elected president. Mar-a-Lago is where Mr. Trump comes to escape, entertain and luxuriate in a Mediterranean-style manse, built 90 years ago by the cereal heiress Marjorie Merriweather Post.
Few people here can anticipate Mr. Trump’s demands and desires better than Mr. Senecal, 74, who has worked at the property for nearly 60 years, and for Mr. Trump for nearly 30 of them.
He understands Mr. Trump’s sleeping patterns and how he likes his steak (“It would rock on the plate, it was so well done”), and how Mr. Trump insists — despite the hair salon on the premises — on doing his own hair.
Mr. Senecal knows how to stroke his ego and lift his spirits, like the time years ago he received an urgent warning from Mr. Trump’s soon-to-land plane that the mogul was in a sour mood. Mr. Senecal quickly hired a bugler to play “Hail to the Chief” as Mr. Trump stepped out of his limousine to enter Mar-a-Lago.
Most days, though, he greeted Mr. Trump with little fanfare, taking the suit he arrived in to be pressed in the full-service laundry in the basement.
The next morning, before dawn and after about four hours’ sleep, Mr. Trump would meet him at the arched entrance of his private quarters to accept a bundle of newspapers including The New York Times, The Daily News, The New York Post and the Palm Beach papers. Mr. Trump would emerge hours later, in khakis, a white golf shirt and baseball cap. If the cap was white, the staff noticed, the boss was in a good mood. If it was red, it was best to stay away.
On Sundays, Mr. Trump would drive himself to his nearby golf course, alternating each year between his black Bentley and his white Bentley.
Mr. Senecal tried to retire in 2009, but Mr. Trump decided he was irreplaceable, so while Mr. Senecal was relieved of his butler duties, he has been kept around as a kind of unofficial historian at Mar-a-Lago. “Tony, to retire is to expire,” Mr. Trump told him. “I’ll see you next season.”
Mr. Senecal, with horn-rimmed glasses, a walrus mustache and a white pocket kerchief in his black jacket, seems to reflect his boss’s worldview: He worries about attacks by Islamic terrorists and is critical of Mr. Trump’s ex-wives.
And like Mr. Trump, he is at ease among the celebrities who visit the estate. But these days, instead of admiring Dixie Carter as she sips crème de menthe by the fireplace and recites soliloquies from the television show “Designing Women,” Mr. Senecal encounters Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey lounging on a couch under the living room’s 21-foot gold-leafed ceiling, or chatting with Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama as he exits the luxurious Spanish Room.
The butler’s up-close observations of Mr. Trump over the years have revealed not only the mogul’s quirks — Mr. Trump rarely appears in bathing trunks, for example, and does not like to swim — but also his habitual, self-soothing exaggerations.
In the early years, Mr. Trump’s daughter Ivanka slept in the same children’s suite that Dina Merrill, an actress and a daughter of Mrs. Post, occupied in the 1930s. Mr. Trump liked to tell guests that the nursery rhyme-themed tiles in the room were made by a young Walt Disney.
“You don’t like that, do you?” Mr. Trump would say when he caught Mr. Senecal rolling his eyes. The house historian would protest that it was not true.
“Who cares?” Mr. Trump would respond with a laugh.
Mr. Trump is abundantly proud of his ability to drive a golf ball, once asking rhetorically during a news conference: “Do I hit it long? Is Trump strong?”
Mr. Senecal suggested that Mr. Trump was perhaps not quite as strong as he imagined, remembering times they would hit balls together from the Mar-a-Lago property into the Intracoastal Waterway.
“Tony, how far is that?” Mr. Trump would ask.
“It’s like 275 yards,” Mr. Senecal would respond, though he said the actual distance was 225 yards.
Still, Mr. Senecal said that Mr. Trump could be generous when the mood struck him, sometimes peeling $100 bills from a wad in his pocket to give to the groundskeepers, whom Mr. Senecal described as appreciative.
“You’re a Hispanic and you’re in here trimming the trees and everything, and a guy walks up and hands you a hundred dollars,” Mr. Senecal said. “And they love him, not for that, they just love him.”
According to Mar-a-Lago lore, Mrs. Post, who was once the wealthiest woman in the United States, scoped out the property that would become the estate in the 1920s by crawling through the junglelike brush between Lake Worth and the Atlantic Ocean. She imported stone from Genoa, Italy, and 16th-century Flemish tapestries that she protected by drawing the drapes in the brightest hours. (They faded after Mr. Trump bought the place and blasted the living room with sunlight.)
When she died in 1973, Mrs. Post left the house to the United States government with the intent that it would become a presidential retreat. But the upkeep proved too expensive, and ownership was transferred back to Mrs. Post’s daughters, who unloaded it to Mr. Trump for less than $10 million in 1985. He turned it into a private club a decade later.
These days, what really seems to bug Mr. Trump is the sound of planes over the property. Whereas Mrs. Post ensured that the nearby airport would divert flights away from the estate during her stays, the same courtesy has not been extended to Mr. Trump, and the constant roar of engines “drives him nuts,” Mr. Senecal said.
“Tony,” Mr. Trump would often shout. “Call the tower!”
The candidate is suing the county-run airport. He has also sued the town in a dispute over the size of his estate’s flagpole; the size of the banquet hall he added to the property; and the size of the club, which, to frighten the local gentry, he once threatened to sell to followers of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon.
More recently, Mar-a-Lago has set off controversy in the Republican primary, as Mr. Trump has been criticized by rivals for hiring employees from abroad to staff the club rather than relying on the local work force.
“There are a lot of Romanians, there’s a lot of South Africans, we have one Irishman,” Mr. Senecal said of the staff, before echoing Mr. Trump’s defense that locals shunned the short-term seasonal work. But he also added of the foreigners: “They’re so good. They are so professional. These local people,” he trailed off, making a disapproving face.
Over the decades, he has grown close to the Trump family. He recalled how Mr. Trump’s father, Fred C. Trump, once stepped out of his limo on the club’s gravel driveway and remarked to Mr. Senecal, “Somebody better get that coin.” The butler went on his hands and knees and after a few minutes found a crusty penny.
“His eyes were incredible,” Mr. Senecal said of Fred Trump. “Mr. Trump has the same eyes.”
He also remembered Donald Trump’s young sons running through the library, paneled with centuries-old British oak and filled with rare first-edition books that no one in the family ever read. When the library became a bar, Mr. Trump put a portrait of himself on a wall, posing in tennis whites.
“I’ve been in other homes in Palm Beach — same exact painting,” Mr. Senecal confided archly. “Just a different head.”
Mr. Senecal adored the Trump children, but found Ivana, Mr. Trump’s first wife, an especially demanding presence. She would instruct him to “get that spot out of that rug” and then do it herself if he failed. She would occasionally tell Mr. Senecal to have the gardeners go inside because she wanted to swim naked in the pool.
In 1990, Mr. Senecal took a sabbatical to become the mayor of a town in West Virginia, where he gained some notoriety for a proposal requiring all panhandlers to carry begging permits. He said that Mr. Trump wrote to him, “This is so great, Tony.”
Mr. Senecal returned in 1992, and took up his old residence in the butler’s room, but was soon asked to move out after Mr. Trump married Marla Maples, who “really didn’t belong here,” Mr. Senecal said. Also, Mr. Trump wanted to rent the room out to members.
A decade later, Mr. Trump decided to put his own imprint on Mar-a-Lago by building the 20,000-square-foot Donald J. Trump Ballroom. The venue made its big debut with the 2005 wedding of Mr. Trump to Melania Trump, whom Mr. Senecal described as exceptionally compassionate. Tony Bennett, whose paintings hang in the mansion, sang. Mr. Senecal greeted guests at the door, including Hillary Clinton. (In the interview, he offered a profane description for Mrs. Clinton, the front-runner in the Democratic presidential race.)
The ballroom later hosted an 80th birthday party for Maya Angelou, thrown by Oprah Winfrey, during which part of the hall was set aside for a “religious ceremony with the hooting and the hollering,” Mr. Senecal recalled. “Mr. Trump was right on into it. It was so great. He was clapping.”
Mr. Senecal’s admiration for his longtime boss seems to know few limits. On March 6, as Mr. Trump made his way through the living room on his way to the golf course, Mr. Senecal called out “All rise!” to the club members and staff. They rose.
Mr. Trump was wearing a “Make America Great Again” cap. It was white, not red. He seemed in a good mood.
COMMENTS

Florida Police: Armed Employee Confronts ‘Active Shooter,’ Stops Him ‘in His Tracks’

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com

by AWR HAWKINS14 Mar 2016363
On March 9, an employee at a Florida business ran out to his car, grabbed his gun, then re-entered the business and confronted an alleged “active shooter,” stopping him “in his tracks.”
The incident occurred at B&L Landscaping in Jacksonville, where police say the alleged “active shooter” is “not a US citizen.”
According to CBS 47, 24-year-old Ezequiel Lopez allegedly opened fire on 55-year-old Andrew Little because he thought “Little disrespected him.” Police indicate that Lopez told them he allegedly planned the shooting because he felt Little “treated him differently that other employees.”
B&L employee Joshua Curry ran to his car to retrieve his own gun after hearing shouts of “active shooter.” He then ran back inside and confronted Lopez.
WOKV reports that witnesses say Curry “stopped the shooter in his tracks.”
Curry said Lopez allegedly told him to drop the gun, but he refused. Curry said, “He’s like, ‘No, you need to put the gun down.’ I was like, ‘That’s not gonna happen man. It’s not. You just killed someone. I can’t take my gun off of you. I can’t.'”
Andrew Little died from a single gunshot wound to the back, and Lopez was charged with murder.
AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.
Read More Stories About:

Monday, March 14, 2016

VIDEO UNEARTHED=> Pastor Calls for Execution of Gays - Then Introduces Ted Cruz at Conference

- The Gateway Pundit -

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com


www.thegatewaypundit.com
In November Senator Ted Cruz appeared at the National Religious Liberties Conference in Iowa, where he courted the support of the conference’s organizer, Colorado-based pastor and radio host Kevin Swanson.
Cruz was introduced on the stage byPastor Kevin Swanson – after he called for the execution of gays at the conference.
Kevin Swanson: Yes, Romans Chapter 1 verse 32 the Apostle Paul does says that homosexuals are worthy of death. His words not mine! And I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ! And I am not ashamed of the truth of the word of God. And I am willing to go to jail…
…Now my friends let me introduce to you the next candidate for the office of President of the United States, folks please make welcome Senator Ted Cruz.
That seems a bit extreme. No?
Pastor calls for executions of gays, is joined on stage by Ted Cruz. So insane I thought it had to be a hoax.https://t.co/WdBufqNKdz
— Patrick Collison (@patrickc) March 13, 2016
Ted’s father Rafael also spoke at the conference.
At the same conference Pastor Swanson begged God to forgive America for Harry Potter.





Democrats ought to have fun with that video clip if Cruz becomes the Republican nominee

What’s Wrong With Hillary?

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com

www.politico.com



Hillary Clinton began her second run for the White House, it must have seemed that the road ahead would rise up to meet her. This time, there would be no political phenomenon in her way—no younger, more charismatic figure who would strip Clinton of the mantle of “change.”

All that stood between her and the nomination were a 74-year old socialist from Vermont and the obscure former governor of a state whose previous best-known politician was Spiro Agnew. Back then, if you had told Clinton’s campaign that she would be outraised by that Vermont socialist, that she would be losing younger Democrats, including young women, by landslide proportions, and that she would be facing a months-long slog through every primary—you would have been accused of smoking some of that now-legal-in-Colorado product.
So what exactly is going on here? Why won’t Bernie Sanders go away? And why does Hillary Clinton’s Bernie problem pose a danger not only to her but to the Democratic Party—even if she does (as it seems highly likely) secure her party’s nomination? Three big reasons: First, Hillary Clinton commands little trust among an electorate that is driven today by mistrust. Second, her public life—the posts she has held, the positions she has adopted (and jettisoned)—define her as a creature of the “establishment” at a time when voters regard the very idea with deep antipathy. And finally, however she wishes it were not so, however much she argues that she represents the future as America’s first prospective female president, Clinton still embodies the past, just as she did in 2008 when she lost to Barack Obama. The combination of those three factors is already playing out in the Democratic primary, where younger voters are turning away from her and embracing a geriatric, white-haired alternative in droves.
The far more serious issue is whether all these factors will seriously threaten her prospects and those of the Democratic Party in November—even at the hands of Donald Trump.
True, the road ahead is still more or less rising in her direction. Clinton leads her likely opponent, Trump, by a significant margin. He—or indeed any GOP nominee—will come out of the convention with his party bitterly, perhaps hopelessly, divided. A Washington Post-ABC News poll reports that nearly two-thirds of Americans say she has the kind of experience necessary to be president. No wonder betting markets make her a nearly 2-to-1 favorite in November.
But there are other factors that make Hillary Clinton look more vulnerable than venerable, and that should give her party cause to pause. Consider the much-chewed-over finding that nearly six in 10 Americans do not consider Clinton honest and trustworthy. In last Wednesday’s debate, panelist Karen Tumulty cut through Clinton’s first explanation—it’s all that right-wing Fox News noise—to note that these doubts were held by the broader public, and by many in her own party.
“Is there anything in your own actions and the decisions that you yourself have made that would foster this kind of mistrust?” Tumulty asked. Clinton’s answer was a combination of confession, self-analysis and pivot. (“I do take responsibility. ... I am not a natural politician, in case you haven't noticed, like my husband or President Obama. So I have a view that I just have to do the best I can, get the results I can, make a difference in people's lives.”)
A look at Clinton’s political career provides a tougher explanation. Those younger voters who doubt her trustworthiness likely have no memory, or even casual acquaintance with, a 25-year history that includes cattle-futures trading, law firm billing records, muddled sniper fire recollections and the countless other charges of widely varying credibility aimed at her. They may even have suspended judgment about whether her e-mail use was a matter of bad judgment or worse.
But when you look at the positions she has taken on some of the most significant public policy questions of her time, you cannot escape noticing one key pattern: She has always embraced the politically popular stand—indeed, she has gone out of her way to reinforce that stand—and she has shifted her ground in a way that perfectly correlates with the shifts in public opinion.
For instance: Many Democrats, including all of the major 2008 presidential candidates save for Barack Obama, stood with President George W. Bush and voted for the authorization to use force against Saddam Hussein. What was different about Clinton, however, was that in her October 2002 speech she said this about Saddam: “He has also given aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of Sept. 11, 2001.”
This assertion, in the words of reporters Don Van Natta Jr. and Jeff Gerth, was unsupported by the conclusions of the National Intelligence Estimate “and other secret intelligence reports that were available to senators before the vote.” It made for a more muscular talking point; it just happened not to be true.
Or consider her “evolution” on gay marriage. Back in June 2014, Clinton got very testy with “Fresh Air” host Terry Gross, who kept pushing Clinton to explain why this shift was not a matter of political calculation. She repeatedly asked the former secretary of state whether her opinion on gay marriage had changed, or whether the political dynamics had shifted enough that she could express her opinion.
“I’m just trying to clarify so I can understand …” Gross began.
“No, I don’t think you are trying to clarify,” Clinton snapped back. “I think you’re trying to say I used to be opposed and now I’m in favor and I did it for political reasons, and that’s just flat wrong. So let me just state what I feel like you are implying and repudiate it. I have a strong record, I have a great commitment to this issue.”
Well, here’s what Clinton said on the Senate floor, speaking in opposition to a constitutional amendment that would have forbidden gay marriage, while making very clear where she stood on the issue.
“I believe marriage is not just a bond but a sacred bond between a man and a woman. ... So I take umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage, or to the fundamental bedrock principle that it exists between a man and a woman, going back into the mists of history as one of the founding, foundational institutions of history and humanity and civilization.”
Again, plenty of Democrats were on record as opposing gay marriage in 2004—the year that voters in 11 states voted to ban the practice by significant margins. What’s striking about Clinton’s speech is the intensity of the language, the assertion that it is a “bedrock principle.” You might think that a conviction so strongly held would not be subject to “evolution,” much less shifting political winds. Not so, apparently—any more than a trade deal can be the “gold standard” one year and an unacceptable threat to American workers the next; or that a generation of potential “super predators” requires draconian crime laws one decade, while the next demands an end to such laws.
Is this kind of analysis subjecting Clinton to a double-standard? Don’t politicians of all stripes change, “evolve,” calculate? Almost all of them do. (Although in the case of Bernie Sanders, you get the sense that if he were told “the building’s on fire!” he’d explain that was because of inadequate regulation caused by the power of millionaires and billionaires to rig a corrupt system that requires a revolution. Not since Cato the Elder ended every speech on every subject by declaring “Carthage must be destroyed” have we seen such consistency in a politician).
The difference with Clinton, I think, goes back to her acknowledgement that she is “not a natural politician.” If her husband brings to mind Harold Hill, the genial salesman from The Music Man who could make you see those 76 trombones, Hillary Clinton sometimes seems a Matrix of consultants, advisers and speech coaches. It’s almost as if her brain and tongue were on a seven-second delay in which every word is subject to a pre-utterance examination for potential damage. And, just as in other areas of life, from the tennis court to the bedroom, performance anxiety can lead to unhappy results—in Clinton’s case, the sense that she can be too clever by half. (Is it remotely plausible that the Wall Street speaking fees are somehow connected to helping New York in the wake of 9/11?) That is one reason why she seems to pay a much higher price for her policy shifts than other politicians do.
Another aspect of Clinton’s weakness is less an issue of personal liabilities than of a misapprehension on her part of what political space she occupies. One of the most revealing statements of the entire campaign was her response to Sanders’ charge that “Secretary Clinton does represent the establishment. I represent, I hope, ordinary Americans.” “Well, look,” Clinton responded. “I've got to just jump in here because, honestly, Sen. Sanders is the only person who I think would characterize me, a woman running to be the first woman president, as exemplifying the establishment. And I've got to tell you that it is really quite amusing to me.”
I don’t believe there’s any dissembling here; I think she really believes that a woman cannot possibly “exemplify the establishment.” Apart from the obvious problem with that view—“Queen Elizabeth, please call your office”—it represents a sentiment much more understandable in 1976 than in 2016. It’s the same kind of confusion that led Gloria Steinem to assert that the only reason young women might be flocking to the Sanders campaign was to meet young men. But it’s more. Think back to the Clintons’ entrance onto the national stage almost 25 years ago. Bill was 46 when he was elected president; Hillary was 45. They were quintessential Baby Boomers, for whom “Forever Young” was not just a Bob Dylan song but an aspiration. The theme song of Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign was “Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow,” and Bill Clinton was often credited with the observation that “every election is about the past versus the future.” (And, he need not have added, the past rarely wins). For Clinton the idea that she could represent “the establishment” is self-evidently absurd. What about her work with the McGovern campaign, the Children’s Defense Fund?
The answer, of course, is that 25 years in the most rarefied circles of political life, countless speeches—where an hour’s work earns you five years’ worth of a middle-class income—a multimillion dollar wedding for your only child, and friendships with every manner of celebrity does tend to make that “establishment” label fit.
In another era, there wouldn’t be much a problem with that label. FDR and JFK had little problem overcoming the burden of wealth and to-the-manor born privilege, and there was a time when “Experience Counts” was actually a campaign slogan (albeit for Nixon in 1960). The problem for Clinton, however, is that, should she be facing Donald Trump, she would be facing an opponent who may be uniquely capable of turning her experience into a liability … not to mention exploiting her other vulnerabilities.
As the notion of a Trump nomination has morphed from ludicrous to probable, analysts left and right have come to something of a consensus. Whether it’s Charles Murray in the Wall Street Journal, speaking for conservatives, or Thomas Frank in the Guardian, opining for liberals, the analysis focuses on the large cohort of Americans who have been effectively shut out of the economy for two decades or more. Trump’s feral insight has been to play on these grievances with a message that defines the cause—and the villains—in unmistakable terms.
We’ve been played for suckers by foreign countries, by our incompetent leaders, by politicians who serve the elite, and who do the bidding of the insiders. We’re letting our worst enemies gain footholds across the Middle East. I don’t need their money; I can’t be bought. And the very crudeness of my language, the threats, even the bullying, tells you I have the stones to take these people on. And if the “experts” think I don't know what I’m talking about—how have the “experts” done in Iraq, in Libya, in protecting the jobs and incomes of regular Americans?
It’s not hard to think of potential Democratic candidates who would be well-equipped to respond to that argument: senators like Elizabeth Warren or Ohio’s Sherrod Brown, a younger Governor Jerry Brown, a Vice President Biden not weighed down by the death of his son. Indeed, Bernie Sanders could claim substantial exemption from Trump’s argument. And it’s certainly possible, maybe more than possible, to see Hillary Clinton winning a comfortable victory by simply gathering votes from those who see Trump as utterly unfit for the office.
But … if the discontent with the economy persists in the fall, or even deepens should the woes of China and Europe reach our shores, there is no Democrat more in the cross-hairs of an angry electorate than Clinton. Everything from her Wall Street financial links to her work as secretary of state become targets of opportunity. Those targets, further, are independent of the more obvious vulnerabilities: the possibility (remote as of now) of an FBI criminal referral; the eagerness of Trump to rebut any charge of misogyny by revisiting the most serious charges of “predator” (Bill) and “enabler” (Hillary) that put some of Bill’s past behavior outside the boundaries of “private” matters.
The polls and the gamblers now say such concerns are misplaced; that the broad American electorate will simply not put so manifestly unqualified and unfit a candidate as Donald Trump in charge of our nuclear codes. But as Iwrote here seven months ago, every once in a while, voters discover they have the power to do something they have never done before; and that discovery itself becomes a significant political force. Should that happen, Democrats will need a candidate well-positioned to resist that power.
It’s far from clear that Hillary Clinton is that candidate.
Jeff Greenfield is a five-time Emmy-winning network television analyst and author.
More from POLITICO Magazine

John Kasich Goes All In For Amnesty: Illegals ‘Made In The Image Of The Lord’

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com

by JULIA HAHN14 Mar 2016Miami, FL30
With Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)’s presidential hopes diminishing as his personal demons catch up with him—from his relationship with billionaire Norman Braman to his role in pushing Obama’s amnesty—the donor class seems to be turning its eyes to John Kasich’s last stand in Ohio.
The hope seems to be that a Kasich win in Ohio will not only deny GOP frontrunner Donald Trump delegates, but will also create a new vehicle for arriving at a contested convention.
Because the Kasich campaign was largely ignored as a non-factor prior to Rubio’s polling collapse, Kasich went months with virtually no scrutiny of even his most bizarre statements on the campaign trail.
However, in recent days, Trump has increasing set his sights on Kasich—whether it be Kasich’s role at Lehman Brothers during the time of economic collapse, as well as Kasich’s support for NAFTA, and Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement—a deal which Donald Trump and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) have warned would destroy Ohio’s auto industry.
In particular, Trump has zeroed in on Kasich’s heretofore overlooked push for massive amnesty. Though it has transpired without much attention, Kasich has quietly amassed a string of bizarre, peculiar, and extreme statements on immigration that places him to the furthest leftward reaches of not just the Republican President field, but the Democratic Presidential field as well. This perhaps underscores an element of seriousness to Kasich’s previous declaration, which he had intended in jest: “I ought to be running in a Democrat primary.”
Below are just some of Kasich’s most bizarre and radical statements on immigration, which have flown under the radar.
1) “God Bless” Illegal Immigrants
Illegal immigrants are a “critical part of our society,” John Kasich told the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce last October. “For those that are here that have been law abiding, God bless them,” Kasich said—arguing that illegals “should have a path to legalization.”
2) “I couldn’t imagine” enforcing our current immigration laws: “That is not… the kind of values that we believe in.”
On the GOP debate stage in February, Kasich told millions of American voters that enforcing the nation’s immigration laws is not “the kind of values that we believe in.”
“I couldn’t even imagine how we would even begin to think about taking a mom or a dad out of a house when they have not committed a crime since they’ve been here, leaving their children in the house,” Kasich said. “That is not, in my opinion, the kind of values that we believe in.”
3) Kasich likened deporting the illegal population to Japanese internment camps
“To think that that we’re just going to put people on buses and ship them to the border—look at our World War II experience where we quarantined Japanese—I mean it’s a dark stain on America’s history,” Kasich said in November.
“We shouldn’t even think about it,” Kasich said of the “nutty” idea:
“I don’t know many people that believe we should deport 11 million people—just because people shout loud doesn’t mean they’re a majority. I think most Republicans would agree that you can’t deport 11 million people. We shouldn’t even think about it. What are you going to do? Break their families up?”

4) Illegal immigrants “are some of the hardest-working, God-fearing, family-oriented people you can ever meet.”
As Newsmax reported in August, when a New Hampshire town-hall attendee asked Kasich about illegal immigration and the burden illegal immigrants place upon the nation, Kasich dismissed the voter’s concern.
“A lot of these people who are here are some of the hardest-working, God-fearing, family-oriented people you can ever meet,” Kasich said referring to illegal immigrants. “These are people who are contributing significantly.”
Kasich made no mention of the fact that 87 percent of illegal immigrant households with children in 2012 were on welfare,according to a 2015 report based on Census Bureau data.
Kasich similarly made no mention of last year’s report from the liberal Migration Policy Institute which found that there are nearly one million illegal aliens in the United States with criminal convictions (820,000). This figure was not an estimation of total crimes committed by illegal immigrants—which would be a much higher number—but only those illegal aliens successfully identified, arrested, tried, and convicted.
5) Allowing ICE officers to do their jobs is not “humane” 
Kasich told CBS last year that he does not support deporting the illegal population: “I don’t think it’s right; I don’t think it’s humane.”
Kasich also compared illegal immigration to cutting in line at a Taylor Swift concert: “I don’t favor citizenship [for illegals] because as I tell my daughters, you don’t jump the line to go to a Taylor Swift concert, you just don’t do it,” Kasich said.
6) America can’t deport illegal immigrants because they are “made in the image of the Lord” 
In June, the Columbus Dispatch reported on a meeting that took place between John Kasich and an illegal immigrant and her son. After their meeting, Kasich said: “They’re just good people. They’re made in the image of the Lord, and you know, there’s a big element of compassion connected to how we treat people who are trying to find a way to a better life.”
If being “made in the image of the Lord” provides an exemption to America’s immigration law, then that would mean that all of the world’s seven billion people would be free to violate America’s immigration laws.
7) Kasich has called for implementing an open borders-style policy where workers can come and go as they please.
In July, Kasich told Fox News’ Sean Hannity that we need to “have a guest worker program so people can come in, work, and then leave. Our program is too narrow now.”
Kasich claim that the nation’s guest worker program, which admits an unprecedented number of foreign workers into the country, is “too narrow” is astonishing—and places him squarely in the tiny minority of the Republican electorate, only seven percent of whom want to increase immigration.
Moreover, Kasich’s call for a guest worker program that will allow workers to come and go as they please represents the central pillar of the open borders philosophy. Under this global one-world theory, any willing employer should be able to hire any willing worker regardless of the country in which they reside—thus removing any right that American workers be entitled to get American jobs. This is similar to the policy European countries have within the European Union—namely, people are entitled to move freely from one country to another. Kasich is essentially laying out how the same legal structure could be adopted for the United States and all the foreign countries of the world.
8) Kasich would enact amnesty within his first 100 days.
In last Thursday’s CNN debate, Kasich told voters that he would enact the largest amnesty in U.S. history within his first 100 days in office. “For the 11 and a half million who are here, then in my view if they have not committed a crime since they’ve been here, they get a path to legalization. Not to citizenship. I believe that program can pass the Congress in the first 100 days,” Kasich said.
9) America shouldn’t address ending birthright citizenship because it’s “dividing people”
Kasich has made clear that he does not want to discuss birthright citizenship as an issue. While Kasich previously supported ending birthright citizenship, he has since reversed his position—meaning he now supports giving the children of illegal immigrants born on U.S. soil automatic citizenship.
“I don’t believe it should be a fundamental part of this whole thing because I think it remains dividing to people, to be honest with you,” Kasich said trying to take the issue off the table. “Let these people who are born here be citizens and that’s the end of it. I don’t want to dwell on it.”
10) Illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay because “they’re here”
“With the 12 million—they’re here,” Kasichsaid explaining why he supports a path to legalization. “If they have been law-abiding, then I believe they should have a path to legalization… look, they have become a very important part of our society.”
When PBS’ Gwen Ifill pressed Kasich on how his position on the issue “rubs a lot of Republicans the wrong way,” Kasich said: “Well, what do you think we’re going to do? Go chasing them down? And put these big lights on top of cars? And go into neighborhoods hunting them down? That’s not—that’s not what America is.”
Kasich again repeated his talking point likening illegally entering the United States and residing here in violation of U.S. immigration law, to cutting in line at a Taylor Swift concert: “Look, nobody likes that they broke the law, they ditched the line. I have told my kids, as much as you love Taylor Swift, you don’t ditch the line to get into a concert.”

Read More Stories About: