Hopeless Cruz-ade to stop Trump

First published April 27, 2016 in the Toronto Sun News

Can anyone “stop Donald Trump” from winning the Republican presidential nomination? It’s looking increasingly doubtful.

“I consider myself the presumptive nominee,” Trump declared Tuesday night after his five-state sweep.

He rightfully should.

Not only did Trump win Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island, he blew the ceiling off his victories, earning over 50% majorities, something critics accused him of being unable to do in previous contests — New York was the first state that Trump won by more than 50%. Conservative voters are speaking decisively that they want Trump as their nominee.

The frontrunner billionaire is well on his way to winning the nomination outright. Trump only needs another 300 delegates to get to the magic number of 1,237 to secure the nomination on the first ballot at the GOP convention in Cleveland in July.

But the remaining candidates, Ted Cruz and John Kasich, refuse to accept the reality of the math — they’re not winning!

In an attempt to revive his campaign, Cruz tried to steal the media spotlight from Trump Wednesday.

Shortly after Trump delivered a foreign policy speech, Cruz announced Carly Fiorina as his vice-presidential candidate. The only problem with this is that normally candidates wait until they win their party’s nomination before announcing their running mate.

In another desperate move to “stop Trump,” the dynamic duo of Cruz and Kasich colluded to hatch a plan to deny Trump delegates. The duelling campaigns issued press releases stating that Kasich would cease campaigning in Indiana to help Cruz win the state. Cruz returned the “gentlemanly” gesture, pledging to end his campaigning in Oregon and New Mexico to help his buddy Kasich win those primaries.

What is this upside world? The Cruz-Kasich agreement sounds like a reality TV show not a presidential election. It is unprecedented in its absurdity. Neither candidate can win on merit so they conspire together to try and deny Trump delegates.

The fact remains that the magic number of 1,237 is one that no candidate can circumvent and neither Cruz nor Kasich is on a trajectory to amass this number.

Instead of focusing on winning contests, Cruz and Kasich continuously bash Trump. They are joined in their heckling by the choir of establishment cronies who continuously whine that the majority of Republican voters don’t want Trump as the GOP nominee. But explain why Trump is winning the majority of the primaries and caucuses and now winning more than 50% of the Republican voters in state-wide contests? According to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, 63% of Republicans now say they would be satisfied with Trump as the party’s nominee.

“If you can’t beat them, keep fighting them” is Cruz and Kasich’s strategy. But it’s a strategy that makes both candidates look weak and petty and makes a spectacle of the GOP more than Trump ever could. The two rear-runners are behaving like spoiled losers instead of Republicans committed to supporting the party’s eventual nominee, which they pledged last year.

If Republicans of all stripes and classes want to beat Hillary this year, perhaps it’s time we stop trying to stop Trump and face the reality that The Donald is winning huge!

Hillary earns the black vote with hot sauce

First published April 20, 2016 in the Toronto Sun News

Why does the liberal media let Hillary Clinton get away with insulting black people? And why do black people reward Hillary for her insults with votes?

Campaigning in New York recently, Hillary did a radio interview on The Breakfast Club, a morning show on Power 105.1, an urban station that appeals to black listeners. Hillary was well-rehearsed. When she arrived, she greeted Charlamagne tha God, one of the three hosts, with a black handshake. Charlamagne laughed that Hillary “cuffed it and everything.”

The female co-host asked Hillary what she carries with her wherever she goes.

“Hot sauce,” Hillary responded, laughing.

Charlamagne laughed and warned her: “Now listen, I want you to know that people are going to see this and say, ‘She’s pandering to black people.’”

“OK, is it working?” Hillary responded with a laugh.

Hillary’s hot sauce revelation was basically an attempt to prove to blacks that she’s committed to fighting for them, if they vote for her.

There’s a stereotype that black people, especially those from the south, love putting hot sauce on everything they eat. Before her hot sauce moment, Hillary made her obligatory visit to “black leader” Al Sharpton and dutifully acknowledged the Black Lives Matter movement. But I don’t know what’s worse: Hillary pandering to blacks, or blacks rewarding her in droves at the ballot box for her insults.

In state after state, including South Carolina, North Carolina, Nevada, Ohio, Florida, and Georgia, blacks have helped Hillary win contests against Bernie Sanders.

Why are so many voting for Hillary? Other than supporting her husband Bill’s 1994 crime bill that imprisoned more blacks than under any other president, she has no record of doing anything for them. That is, unless you count her adopting a black dialect when she spoke to a church in South Carolina in 2007 — in a desperate (and failed) attempt to win that state’s primary and wrest the black vote from Barack Obama in 2008.

Clearly, none of this would be an issue if Hillary was running as a Republican, but she’s running as a Democrat who promises to end the mass incarceration of blacks. But if blacks keep committing a disproportionate number of violent crimes in America, how can they avoid prison?

Apparently, all it takes for Democrat Hillary to earn the black vote is some hot sauce, black lies, and discriminatory jokes.

Trump accuses RNC of conspiring against him

First published April 18, 2016 in the Toronto Sun News

Donald Trump is winning again!

After losing the Wisconsin primary to Sen. Ted Cruz — thanks to that state’s establishment-class support — the pugnacious Republican presidential frontrunner is back swinging with a vengeance! With a nearly 30% lead over Gov. John Kasich, Trump is not only poised to win his home state of New York (with 95 delegates at stake), but he’s also winning the war against the establishment.

Less than a week before the New York primary takes place Tuesday, Trump attacked the Republican National Committee’s (RNC) complicated delegate rules for conspiring against his candidacy.

While Trump has won more contests and delegates than Cruz, these delegates aren’t “bound” to Trump if the nomination goes to a brokered convention in July.

Most delegates are bound according to the results of a state’s presidential preference vote (primary, caucus, convention). If Trump arrives in Cleveland without 1,237 bound delegates needed to win the nomination on the first ballot, his delegates are no longer bound to him and free to support other candidates. How long (how many ballots) a delegate is bound is based on individual state party rule or state law, which adds more confusion to the process.

Anticipating the possibility of a brokered convention, Cruz’s campaign studied party rules and began methodically recruiting delegates in states to support him.

In Colorado, Cruz won 34 delegates, but not by winning a primary or caucus. Colorado is one of six states/territories (North Dakota, Wyoming, Guam, American Samoa and U.S. Virgin Islands) where no presidential primary or caucus is held. Instead, party insiders run to get elected delegates at county and state conventions.

These elected delegates are “unbound” and free to vote for the candidate of their choice. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Trump wrote:

“Delegates are supposed to reflect the decisions of voters, but the system is being rigged by party operatives with ‘double-agent’ delegates who reject the decision of voters.”

Each state party can make up its own rules further confounding candidates outside the political machine like Trump. Wyoming is “rigged” the same way as Colorado. This past Saturday Cruz won 14 delegates in Wyoming’s convention because his campaign spent time learning and manipulating the state’s rules.

The party’s establishment class was shocked and awed that Trump had the audacity to attack the RNC for its hypocrisy.

This notion that Trump or anyone dare challenge the RNC, which epitomizes the Republican party establishment class, is the reason why the GOP keeps losing the White House. The system is rigged and broken to keep campaign consultants, pollsters, politicians, and pundits rich and employed — not to elect presidents.

Yes, the rules are the rules, and to win a presidential candidate should and must learn this complicated, opaque process.

But members of the elite RNC can change the rules at the final hour. In 2012, at the GOP convention in Tampa, the RNC rules committee made up of pro-Mitt Romney delegates created Rule 40 to get Romney the nomination. At the time, presidential candidate Ron Paul threatened a challenge, so the rules committee voted that a candidate must have won at least eight contests to be eligible for the nomination. This effectively disqualified Paul. In an interview, Trump said RNC chairman Reince Preibus “should be ashamed of himself because he knows what’s going on.”

But Preibus, who should no longer be chairman after the party’s loss in 2012, is the problem. Priebus is concerned with holding the establishment club together, which includes party insiders who get elected to state party positions and become delegates to stop outsiders like Trump.

“Mr. Cruz has won only three primaries outside his home state and trails me by 2 million votes — a gap that will soon explode even wider,” wrote Trump. But the RNC mob is determined to foil the will of the people with a system that has been rigged forever. The establishment mob doesn’t care about winning. They care about clinging to their power and influence.

Most Republican voters don’t want to see the nomination process hijacked by party insiders. According to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, 62% of GOP voters believe delegates should nominate the candidate who won the most votes — not the person manipulating delegates.

Donald Trump’s all or nothing white voter gamble

First published April 4, 2016 in the Toronto Sun News

Imagine if GOP presidential frontrunner Donald Trump were to mimic Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan’s gubernatorial campaign and pursue the black vote in cities like Chicago, Philadelphia and Baltimore?

That’s unlikely since Trump decided to capture white working class voters with no college education to whom such a campaign would be a turn-off. That said, running a white-only voter campaign to win the White House in 2016 requires some steep math and delusional thinking. It’s also repugnant.

The next GOP nominee would be wise to hone in on Hillary Clinton’s black vote dominance. In her 32 years of politics and promises to improve black lives, she has done nothing but run her mouth.

Picking up the black vote would be tough for any GOP nominee but the odds would increase if the candidate turned to the Hogan model.

In a huge 2014 upset, Hogan beat his black Democrat opponent, then-lieutenant-governor Anthony Brown. Hogan took his message to predominately black neighbourhoods like Baltimore — and won.

Speaking at Bowie State University, a historically black school, Hogan reminded students of the eight years under Democrat Gov. Martin O’Malley.

“If you’re black, it’s even worse. And if you’re a young, black male, the unemployment rate is twice as high … Look, I’ll be the first to admit that many people in my party are unwilling to reach out to the black community about our ideas, about the promise of empowerment, economic freedom and opportunity. And that bothers me.”

Hogan also featured a black woman in one of his campaign ads who complained of stagnate wages and lost jobs under O’Malley’s administration. Before Hogan’s victory, the last time Maryland had elected a Republican was in 2002.

Trump boasts how blacks and Hispanics “love” him but the evidence is anecdotal at best. And he needs to do more now than ever. His refusal to emphatically repudiate white supremacists’ support is risky.

President Barack Obama won in 2008 and 2012 because he trounced opponents in the minority vote, winning re-election with only four out of 10 white voters.

For Trump to win, he would have to capture at least 65% of the white vote. That’s an increase from the 59% failed Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney won in 2012. No candidate has won 65% of the white vote since Ronald Reagan’s 1984 landslide victory. But Trump has problems with his white electoral math. According to a Washington Post-ABC News poll, more white women view Trump unfavourably, 68%, than 29% who view him favourably.

That’s hardly surprising given his well-publicized disparaging comments about women. Yet Trump can’t win without them. One source familiar with the Romney campaign told me that he believes Trump is even losing “huge chunks” of the votes Romney got.

According to my source, Romney won white women by 14 points, while Trump is losing them to Clinton by eight points. That’s a massive shift. Romney also won 62% of white men with a high school education or less. While it’s possible to push that number higher, it’s difficult, as evidenced by Trump trailing Sen. Ted Cruz Tuesday in Wisconsin’s primary.

I once thought Trump might be the most pro-black candidate running. But he’s the most pro-white candidate. After eight years in the wilderness, Trump and the GOP need to wake up fast.

As a black Republican woman, I am shocked by the continued ignorance of my party. After the reckless failure of the Obama presidency to deliver on his promises, blacks and others in America eagerly want change. Trump needs to get into the black neighbourhoods, the risk is a lot less than his advisers are telling him.

Trump’s Women and Mouth Problem

 First published March 31, 2016 in the Toronto Sun

While I haven’t endorsed any candidate, I’ve supported the spirit of Donald Trump’s presidential candidacy.

But it’s getting hard to continue excusing his un-presidential and childish behaviour. The Republican frontrunner had me with his tough talk on immigration. He’s losing me with his medieval talk on women and abortion.

In an interview with MSNBC host Chris Matthews, Trump said if abortion was banned in the U.S., women should receive “some form of punishment” for having one.

Seriously? Really? That was my reaction when I heard what Trump said. As a woman who is pro-life, I was repulsed by Trump’s ghoulish comments. What kind of “punishment” was Trump envisioning — perhaps women would be waterboarded, flogged or maybe authorities would perform genital mutilation?

Before the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973 that legalized abortion, women were indeed “punished” for getting back-alley illegal abortions. Many became infertile or died as a result of botched abortions. The frontrunner for the Republican nomination essentially thinks women who have abortions deserve to die.

In an op-ed, Trump wrote:

“Let me be clear — I am pro-life. I support that position with exceptions allowed for rape, incest or the life of the mother being at risk.”

But he should have added he’s not pro-life if a woman decides to abort her baby. No wonder women are finding Trump revolting.A recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found 70% of women have a negative view of Trump compared to 21% who view him favourably.

“No pro-lifer would ever want to punish a woman who has chosen abortion. This is against the very nature of what we are about. We invite a woman who has gone down this route to consider paths to healing, not punishment,” said Jeanne Mancini, president of the March for Life Education and Defense Fund.

Trump sounded like King Henry VIII of England, a monarch who beheaded one of his wives, Ann Boleyn, who couldn’t bear him a son and created the Anglican Church of England so he could marry six wives and circumvent the Catholic Church’s ban on divorce. Realizing that his obnoxious, popping off at the mouth got him into hot water, Trump walked back his comments. His campaign issued a statement to clarify:

“If Congress were to pass legislation making abortion illegal and the federal courts upheld this legislation … the doctor or any other person performing this illegal act upon a woman would be held legally responsible, not the woman. The woman is a victim in this case as is the life in her womb.”

This is a familiar pattern of Trump’s. He says whatever he likes, then he and his campaign staff think about it and try to clean up his mess.

“Like Ronald Reagan, on many issues, I have evolved. I am pro-life and have been for a long time,” Trump said in a statement.

A candidate can evolve on issues, but Trump is no Ronald Reagan. The late Republican president thought carefully about policies and articulated his positions to the American people. When white supremacists endorsed Reagan during his reelection campaign in 1984, he swiftly “repudiated” the endorsement. He didn’t softly disavow their support like Trump initially did.

You can’t make America great again — which is Trump’s campaign slogan — if its citizens have no confidence in your ability to think and lead. The time is long overdue for Trump to start behaving like a serious candidate who talks with details rather than insulting sound bites. Trump’s attitude matches that of a spoiled child rather than a presidential candidate. It’s time for Trump and voters to grow up! This is a presidential race, not a reality show contest. Trump’s supporters need to demand more, not less, from his candidacy.



Obama offers weak response to latest terror attack

First published March 27, 2016 in the Toronto Sun

Muslim terrorists continued their global killing rampage in Brussels last week while President Barack Obama’s response was predictably weak.

Instead of rushing back to the U.S. to meet with his national security team and show solidarity with Belgium, Obama attended a baseball game in Cuba Tuesday with that country’s dictator Raul Castro.

Two ISIS suicide bombers blew themselves up at the Brussels airport and another bomb exploded in a subway train. The combined attacks killed nearly 50 people and injured hundreds. This carnage comes just four months after ISIS waged its attack in Paris, one of the deadliest terror attacks in France’s history.

In a field side interview, Obama defended his cavalier decision not to leave Cuba or skip the game because that would be bowing to terrorists.

“What they can do is scare and make people afraid and disrupt our daily lives and divide us. And as long as we don’t allow that to happen, we’re going to be OK.”

But we’re not OK. Terrorists are disrupting and ending lives. Obama’s trip to Cuba was scheduled to highlight his unilateral move last year of renewing U.S. relations with the repressive nation that routinely violates its citizens’ human rights and free speech.

The trip also marks the first time in nearly 90 years that a U.S. president visited Havana. But the optics of Obama dressed in sunglasses, sitting next to a communist dictator watching a baseball game, as ISIS celebrated another deadly terrorist attack, was despicable.

The sad truth is terrorists are winning because America has a president who places his personal ideology above what’s good for the nation. French President Francois Hollande unequivocally declared France is at war with terrorists but Obama refuses to utter those words.

“We stand in solidarity with them in condemning these outrageous attacks against innocent people,” Obama remarked on Brussels.

But these weren’t mere “attacks.” They were terrorist attacks committed by Muslim madmen obsessed with killing “non-believers.”

During his entire presidency, Obama has been more concerned with in engaging in foreign policy imbued with political correctness over American strength. It’s no surprise that Muslim terrorists, who are the ones committing global atrocities like chopping off people’s heads, took heed. Obama’s four years of inaction in Syria allowed ISIS to take root in the country, as its president Bashar al-Assad waged a bloody civil war on Syrians.

By publicly calling ISIS “a JV squad” and not denouncing Muslim radicals by name, Obama also gave ISIS room to grow stronger.

CIA Director John Brennan confessed last year that under Obama, ISIS has grown by as much as 4,400%. Under former president George W. Bush, the CIA revealed that ISIS had been all but decimated to roughly 700 fighters. But under Obama’s presidency, ISIS grew to anywhere from 21,000 to 31,500 fighters concentrated in Iraq and Syria.

Should Americans or the world expect any other result from Obama?

After all, Obama set the stage for his world view when he chose Cairo as a place to give his first foreign policy speech in 2009 in which he apologized to the Muslim world for American greatness. Throughout the speech, Obama defended Muslims more than America. He referred to Muslims committing acts of terror like 9/11 as “violent extremists.”

“In Ankara, I made clear that America is not — and never will be — at war with Islam,” Obama stated to great applause from the crowd.

America is at war with radical Islam. When will Obama start offending the terrorists and calling them by name?