Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Debate’

WATCH: L.A. Times ‘Undecided’ Focus Group Chooses Trump After Last Debate


Reported by JOEL B. POLLAK | 

Read more at https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/10/22/watch-l-a-times-undecided-focus-group-chooses-trump-after-last-debate/

Frank Luntz (Andrew Caballero – Reynolds / AFP / Getty)

Though many participants complained about Trump’s “personality” in general, many also felt he had been more “presidential” on the night. And many complained that Democratic Party nominee Joe Biden seemed vague and elusive in his answers.

 

 

 

Some voters expressed feelings of guilt in admitting they would vote for Trump, but said they simply could not trust Biden to do the job. One said that his age was a concern; another said that voting for Biden felt like voting for an “idea,” since he seemed unlikely to be running his own administration.

Another undecided voter said that he felt that Trump had shown, at least, what he could do over the past four years.

Luntz ended the discussion after asking participants whom they would choose, after watching the debate. Of the eight “undecided” voters he asked, seven chose Trump and one still seemed undecided.

Watch the full event at the Los Angeles Times.

A CNN poll of debate watchers gave the win to Biden by 14 points

 

That was considerably narrower than the margin in CNN’s poll of the first debate, which gave Biden a 32-point win.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). His newest e-book is The Trumpian Virtues: The Lessons and Legacy of Donald Trump’s Presidency. His recent book, RED NOVEMBER, tells the story of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary from a conservative perspective. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

Nolte: Here Are 11 of Joe Biden’s Biggest Debate Lies


Reported byJOHN NOLTE |

Read more at https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/10/23/nolte-here-are-11-of-joe-bidens-biggest-debate-lies/

President Trump trounced Joe Biden during their final debate Thursday night in Tennessee. It wasn’t even close. Biden was looking at his watch because he couldn’t wait to get the hell out of the ring (I’m also told the debate took place in the middle of a Matlock marathon.) I was looking at my watch because I didn’t want it to end.

A quick word on the muting the microphones…

You put boundaries around a filmmaker like Michael Cimino, you get classics like Thunderbolt and Lightfoot and the Deer Hunter. You take away those boundaries, you get Heaven’s Gate. You put boundaries around a Dennis Hopper, you get a classic like Easy Rider. You take away those boundaries, you get a disaster like The Last Movie.

Trump is an artist. He needs boundaries. Threatening to mute his microphone helped him and hurt Biden. It hurt Biden because interrupting (something he did a half dozen times in the first debate before Trump ever interrupted him) is the only debate tactic Biden has. Go back and watch his 2012 vice presidential debate with Paul Ryan.

Trump doesn’t  need to interrupt to win a debate. He’s a gifted debater. The threat to mute the microphones took away Biden’s only go-to move and  forced Trump to win on substance and facts.

One more observation before we get to China Joe’s lies.

Last night, Trump was forced to defend his record, to explain it… And because he has a very good record as president, he was able to.

Because Joe Biden has a terrible record, he was forced to lie… To tell 11 bald-faced whoppers, and here they are… All of Biden’s quotes below come directly from last night’s debate. [emphasis mine throughout]

  1. No One Lost Their Insurance Under ObamaCare

BIDEN:  “That’s why I did not — not one single person, private insurance, would lose their insurance under my plan, nor did they under Obamacare. They did not lose their insurance, unless they chose they wanted to go to something else.”

FACT: Up to six million people lost their private health insurance plan after Obamacare became the law of the land, and the reason people lost their private health insurance is the most immoral things about Obamacare… Obamacare outlawed — actually made it illegal, for private insurance to offer private plans that did not live up to Obamacare’s lofty and ridiculous standards. Essentially, Obamacare demands we all, each and every one of us, pay for Cadillac plans that include all kinds of things we don’t need. So if, for instance, you had a reasonably priced catastrophic  plan with a high deductible — and these are perfect plans for the healthy — Obamacare outlawed them.

So many people lost their private plans that even the Obama-loving media were forced to declare Obama’s promise that “no one would lose their insurance or doctor” the Lie of the Year.

  1. America was Cozy with Hitler

BIDEN: “We had a good relationship with Hitler before he in fact invaded Europe, the rest of Europe.”

FACT: This is such a ludicrous lie it’s hardly worth debunking. Franklin Roosevelt was president during Hitler’s rise. Roosevelt and Hitler both came to power in 1933. The president has sole authority over foreign policy, and at no time was Roosevelt fooled by Hitler. He certainly tried to stop and stay out of the European war, but Hitler’s aggression towards our allies and Hitler’s own hatred of America… This is such a stupid lie.

The reason Biden told this lie is what’s most illuminating. Biden is embarrassed that Trump has been able to do something Obama and Biden could not… Get North Korea to stop rattling its war sabers and firing off missiles.

Before Trump took office, North Korea (like ISIS) was on everyone’s mind. Thanks to Trump’s handling of North Korea (and ISIS), we hardly think about it anymore.

  1. I Never Opposed Fracking

BIDEN:  “I have never said I oppose fracking.”

FACT: Biden spent the entire primary opposing fracking. There’s a ton of video of it. Here’s a taste:

  1. I Didn’t Oppose Trump’s China Travel Ban

BIDEN: “I talked about his xenophobia in a different context. It wasn’t about closing the border to Chinese coming to the United States.”

FACT: Here are Biden’s own tweets attacking the China travel ban as xenophobic:

 

  1. Illegal Aliens Show Up For Asylum Hearings After Being Caught and Released

BIDEN: “The catch and release, you know what he’s talking about there? If in fact, you had family, came across, they’re arrested. They, in fact, were given a date to show up for their hearing. They were released. And guess what, they showed up for the hearing. ”

FACT: Catch and release is America’s gobsmackingly stupid policy of catching illegal aliens in our country and then releasing them back into our country with a notice to show up for an asylum hearing. Yes, we release illegals into our own country after we have caught them. These illegals have already broken the law, but we still release them and tell them to come to a court proceeding, which they will almost certainly lose, which means they will be deported. In other words, they have no incentive to show up.

Through a number of maneuvers I don’t want to get bogged down in here, Trump has made amazing strides in putting an end to catch and release. Biden would reinstate it, and in order to justify it, he’s falsely claiming illegals dutifully show up for their asylum hearings. Well, they don’t. Close to 90 percent do not.

What’s more, it only makes sense that they don’t. Why would they? If they were legitimate asylum seekers, they would have asked for asylum in a legal fashion. These are illegals who snuck in and only ask for asylum after they’re caught.

  1. Raising the Minimum Wage Does Not Hurt Anyone

BIDEN: “There is no evidence that when you raise the minimum wage, business has gone out of business. That is simply not true.”

FACT: Biden wants to more than double the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour, another disastrous one-size-fits-all idea. And now he’s claiming that forcing companies to double payroll expenses (this also increases taxes paid by employers) won’t hurt businesses. He further claims it never has.

The idea that mandating a raise in the minimum wage hurts businesses and workers is not even controversial. Everyone knows it does.

What Trump said is exactly right. This should be left to the states. A $15  minimum wage might make sense in blue states with their unnecessarily high cost of living, but South Dakota and Alabama sure don’t need it.

  1. No One Brought Up Biden’s Troubling Ukraine Conflicts of Interest During Impeachment

BIDEN: “Nothing was unethical. Here’s what the deal, with regard to Ukraine, we had this whole question about whether or not because he was on the board. I later learned of Burisma, a company that somehow, I had done something wrong. Yet, every single, solitary person when he was going through his impeachment testifying under oath who worked for him said I did my job impeccably. I carried out U.S. policy. Not one single solitary thing was out of line. Not a single thing. Number one.”

FACT: Again, we have the video tape proving this is a lie. A whole lot of people involved with impeachment were concerned with Hunter Biden looting Ukraine while his dad, the vice president, was the Obama administration’s point person there.

  1. Trump Never Told Putin to Stop Meddling in American Elections

BIDEN: “And to the best of my knowledge, I don’t think the President said anything to Putin about [election meddling].”

FACT: Oh, isn’t China Joe, whose family received $3.5 million from the former mayor of Moscow, precious when he says to the “best of my knowledge.” He knows damn well Trump has told Putin to butt out — plenty of times.

  1. Hunter’s Emails are Part of a “Russian Plan”

BIDEN: “Look, there are 50 former National Intelligence folks who said that what this, he’s accusing me of is a Russian plan. They have said that this has all the characteristics– four– five former heads of the CIA, both parties, say what he’s saying is a bunch of garbage.”

FACT: The evidence that the Hunter Biden  emails exposing Joe Biden as the head of a crime family trading off his role as vice president to get rich continue to be verified  — and done so on-the-record, including pollster Frank Luntz.

Most importantly, neither Joe Biden nor Hunter Biden nor the Biden campaign have said the emails are not real.

  1. Trump Refused to Take ‘Responsibility’ for the Coronavirus

BIDEN: “220,000 Americans dead. If you hear nothing else I say tonight, hear this. Anyone who’s responsible for not taking control — in fact, not saying, I take no responsibility, initially — anyone who is responsible for that many deaths should not remain as President of the United States of America.”

FACT: Because he’s old and growing senile, Biden garbled this with a double negative, but Biden is claiming Trump refused to take any responsibility for the coronavirus, when the only thing Trump claimed he was not responsible for was the early testing failures, and Trump was in no way responsible for the early testing failures. Trump was VERY specific on this point.

  1. Trump Has Alienated ‘All’ Our Allies

BIDEN:  “[H]e pokes his finger in the eye of all our friends, all of our allies.”

FACT: What in the world is Biden even talking about here? Our relationship with Israel has never been better. He’s convinced Mexico and other countries to make great strides in slowing down illegal immigration. Peace is breaking out all over the Middle East. I could go on and on…

This post has been updated to correct the dates Hitler and Roosevelt came to power. 

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNCFollow his Facebook Page here.

Nolte: Frank Luntz Focus Group ‘Overwhelmingly’ Says Mike Pence Won Debate


Reported by JOHN NOLTE | 

URL of the originating web site: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/10/08/nolte-frank-luntz-focus-group-overwhelmingly-says-mike-pence-won-debate/

COMBO) This combination of pictures created on October 07, 2020 shows US Vice President Mike Pence and US Democratic vice presidential nominee and Senator from California Kamala Harris during the vice presidential debate in Kingsbury Hall at the University of Utah on October 7, 2020 in Salt Lake City, Utah. … ERIC BARADAT,ROBYN BECK/AFP via Getty

Democrat vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris only received two votes out of the 15 undecided voters present. The rest went for Pence.

“It’s overwhelmingly Mike Pence ,” Luntz said as he counted the hands.

When he asked why, the answers sounded like this:

“Mike Pence was more factual. ”

“I felt he was a lot more composed and I wasn’t a fan of her continual facial expressions.”

“He had command of the issues.”

“Harris didn’t look presidential to me.”

“Harris struggled to put together coherent reasons for different questions.”

One person who said Harris won said, “I feel she cared about the people and she looked presidential.”

“]Pence had] straightforward answers, even if I don’t agree with him on policies.”

“He kept his cool. He answered with facts.”

“She was a less fluid communicator.”

When asked to use one word or phrase to describe Pence, the group said, “presidential,  robotic, he could be president,  even-keeled  presidential, bland,  regressive,  professional,  unsympathetic, calm, cool, typical politician, comfortable, no emotion.”When asked to use one word or phrase to describe Harris, the group was much tougher:  “evasive, nervous, focused on the past, shifting blame, caring, snarky and sarcastic, too rehearsed, nervous, evasive, abrasive, unsteady, rigid, un-presidential.”

Overall, a big issue was Kamala’s “annoying” facial expressions and “evasive answers,” most especially her refusal to answer the question about packing the Supreme Court. A question Joe Biden also refuses to answer.

Luntz appeared on Fox News and summed up the undecided focus group with three bullet points.

“The complaint about Kamala Harris was that she was abrasive and condescending. The complaint about Mike Pence was that he was too tired, but … presidential.  If this is a battle over style and substance,” Luntz said, “which is often the case with undecided voters because they simply do not choose on policy — they also choose on persona — this was Mike Pence’s night.”

Point number three was that the focus group was more upset over “Kamala Harris’s reactions to Pence. The smiling, the smirking, the scowling than they … that Mike Pence went over his time.”

“This is clearly a better debate than the first one,” Luntz said, but that it would not change many minds.  “Mike Pence was the winner of tonight’s confrontation.”

It was obvious to anyone who watched the debate that Pence was the clear winner.

When the fake news media are reduced to making an issue out of a house fly and attacking Pence for “mansplaining,” as though Harris is some weak-willed damsel-in-distress unable to take care of herself, you know Pence won.

 Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNCFollow his Facebook Page here.

READ MORE AT https://www.breitbart.com/

25 Questions Kamala Harris Should Be Asked in the Debate


Reported by REBECCA MANSOUR | 

URL of the originating web site: https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2020/10/06/25-questions-kamala-harris-should-be-asked-in-the-debate/

RALEIGH, NC – SEPTEMBER 28: Democratic vice presidential nominee, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) answers questions from the media outside Trophy Brewing on September 28, 2020 in Raleigh, North Carolina. Harris’s campaign swing to the state comes a day before the first presidential debate between running mate Joe Biden and President … Sara D. Davis/Getty Images

Many of these questions were suggested by this author last month, but because they remain unanswered, I offer them again in the hope that the debate moderator will see fit to get answers from the California senator who, if elected, will be one heart beat away from the presidency.

1. After President Trump nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, many Democrats endorsed the idea of “packing” the Supreme Court by expanding the number of seats and filling them with liberal justices. You and Vice President Biden have refused to give your position on court-packing. Are you in favor of packing the court?

2. Do you believe Judge Barrett’s resume as a federal judge, former Supreme Court law clerk, and Notre Dame law professor qualifies her for the job? If not, why not? If so, how do you—as a feminist—justify your apparent ambivalence about even meeting with a qualified woman judicial nominee?

3. Judge Barrett has been attacked by members of your party because of her Catholic faith. This is of great concern to many millions of American Catholics because this appears to be a pattern with your party. In fact, you yourself once attacked a judicial nominee on the basis of his membership in the Catholic organization the Knights of Columbus, which is the largest fraternal organization in the world and includes among its past and present members many prominent Americans like President John F. Kennedy, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), Gov. John Bel Edwards (D-LA), and Vince Lombardi. Do you believe that being a member of the Knights of Columbus disqualifies a person from holding public office? Would you refuse to hire someone on the basis of their membership in the Knights of Columbus or any other Catholic organization? In your questioning of this Catholic judicial nominee, you singled out the issue of the Catholic teaching on the sanctity of life. Would you disqualify a job applicant on the basis of their Catholic beliefs, including their beliefs about abortion? Do you believe that being pro-life disqualifies someone from employment?

4. Your history of attacking a judicial nominee solely on the basis of his membership in a Catholic organization led former Speaker Newt Gingrich to describe you as an “openly anti-Catholic bigot.” Do you disavow this characterization?

5. Should American Catholics or Catholic organizations be forced to pay for other people’s abortions? If elected, would you seek to force Catholics to fund abortions and other practices that are fundamentally in violation of their faith?

6. You recently claimed that you chose to become a prosecutor because you wanted to protect victims of sexual abuse. However, during your 13-year tenure as San Francisco’s district attorney and then California’s attorney general, you refused to prosecute any of the sexual abuse claims brought against Catholic priests, despite the pleas from victim groups. Why?

7. Also, why did your attorney general’s office refuse to release the documents obtained from the San Francisco archdiocese with all the information about priests accused of sexual abuse? Victims’ rights groups have criticized your office for deliberately burying these documents and thereby covering up the crimes and leaving the public unprotected. Why did you do this? The San Francisco district attorney’s office claimed in 2019 that they no longer have these documents in their possession. What happened to them? How can you claim to be a defender of children when you declined to prosecute the abusers of children?

8. Last June, you encouraged your Twitter followers to donate to a bail fund to assist protesters arrested in the Minneapolis, Minnesota, riots. Are you aware that in July this bail fund sprang from jail a man who was accused of sexually assaulting an 8-year-old girl? In August, the fund posted bail for a man accused of assaulting a 71-year-old woman whose home he had burglarized. In June, the fund helped bail out a man accused of stomping and robbing a victim in Minneapolis on the same day George Floyd died. Between June and August, the fund helped bail out six men who were accused of domestic violence, including two who were accused of strangling women in their homes. Do you have any words for the victims of these crimes?

9. Why did your office decline to investigate the health supplement fraud cases involving companies your husband’s law firm represented? Did you, as California’s attorney general, ever purposefully decline investigating or prosecuting clients of your husband’s law firm?

10. You said you believed the women accusing Joe Biden of inappropriate touching. Do you believe Tara Reade? If not, why not? If so, how do you justify supporting him now?

11. Why did you single out journalist David Daleiden for prosecution for undercover journalism that others do without penalty?

12. Your chief-of-staff, Karine Jean-Pierre, wrote an op-ed last year attacking the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and Americans who associate with it, stating “You cannot call yourself a progressive while continuing to associate yourself with an organization like AIPAC that has often been the antithesis of what it means to be progressive.” Do you believe that pro-Israel activism is incompatible with progressive values?

13. The Biden campaign has adopted a version of the Green New Deal that calls for 100 percent renewable electricity generation by 2035. California has adopted similar “green” goals, but now it can’t keep the lights on due to the state’s reliance on wind and solar energy. California’s Democratic Gov. Gavin Newson recently admitted that the Golden State needs a “backup” plan for energy because the current blackouts caused by lack of wind and overcast skies have shown the danger of relying solely on “green” energy. Why would the nation fare any better than sunny breezy California in keeping the lights on if we adopt 100 percent renewable energy?

14. You said in the past that we “need to hold China accountable” for trade violations, but you are against the use of tariffs. How do you intend to hold China accountable? You also said that “we need to export American products, not American jobs.” How do you intend to make sure we don’t export more American jobs to China? How would your policy differ significantly from the same policies that led to the loss of 4 million jobs to China?

15. You have supported the often violent Black Lives Matter uprisings and encouraged them to continue. Have you spoken to any victims of the riots — people who lost loved ones or businesses?

16. Do you believe that the looting of the Magnificent Mile in Chicago was a form of reparations,” as one Chicago Black Lives Matter organizer claimed? Is looting an appropriate form of protest as a means of reparations?

17. Seattle Black Lives Matter protesters stormed a neighborhood, demanding that residents “get the f*** out” and “give black people back their homes” as reparations. Do you support that style of protest? If not, have you condemned it?

18. You recently claimed that it is both “outdated” and “wrongheaded” to think that adding police officers to the streets is the only way to make communities safer. What do you propose we do to stop the current wave of violent crime engulfing our cities?

19. What is the maximum number of illegal immigrants you would allow into the country before securing the border to stop more from entering?

20. The Obama administration deported an estimated 3 million illegal aliens. Was that a bad thing?

21. With 30 million Americans unemployed due to the coronavirus, would you support a halt on work visas for foreign workers competing with Americans for jobs? If not, explain to us why CEOs will not use this huge increase in the supply of labor to freeze and reduce salaries for American workers?

22. A number of prominent tech industry leaders have endorsed your campaign citing your support for increasing the number of H-1B foreign workers. Why is importing more foreign workers to compete with Americans a good idea right now?

23. Wall Street has praised Vice President Biden’s decision to choose you as his running mate. Why do you think financial special interests support you so much?

24. Will you be following the advice of your Wall Street and Silicon Valley donors in negotiating with China? If not, whose advice would you seek out in negotiating with China?

25. You have called on Congress to act on a coronavirus stimulus package, but you skipped a vote on a Republican proposal that would have provided relief to Americans. Are you putting any pressure on members of your party to stop blocking relief legislation for Americans?

Rebecca Mansour is a Senior Editor-at-Large for Breitbart News. Follow her on Twitter at @RAMansour.

LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Report Monday, September 3, 2019


Top Stories

Autopsy Confirms Abortion Clinic Killed Young Woman in Botched Legal Abortion
Book Confirms Abortion Motivated Christine Ford’s False Attacks on Brett Kavanaugh
Judge Dismisses Father’s Lawsuit Against Abortion Clinic for Aborting His Baby Without His Consent
Pete Buttigieg Claims Mike Pence is a Christian “Hypocrite,” But He Supports Abortions Up to Birth

More Pro-Life News
Planned Parenthood Kills 247 Black Babies Every Day, But the Media Calls White Pro-Lifers Racist
Church’s Sign Claims “A Black Vote for Trump is Mental Illness, White Vote is Racism”
Democrat Presidential Candidates Want to Force You to Fund Abortions on Babies in Other Countries
Doctors Told Parents to Have Abortion Because Their Baby Would Die in the Womb, Now She’s 3
Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories

Autopsy Confirms Abortion Clinic Killed Young Woman in Botched Legal Abortion

Tia Archeiva Parks was a 26-year-old mother of a little girl that had just turned four when she walked in to Preterm, a Cleveland abortion facility, on June 7, 2019, for what seemed like a routine abortion in her first trimester of pregnancy. 



LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Report Friday, August 2, 2019


Top Stories

Would Planned Parenthood Stop Abortions to Focus on Women’s Health Care? New CEO Says “Absolutely Not”
Black Activist Says Abortion is the Real Racism: “We’re are Literally Killing Ourselves From the Inside Out”
Texas Town Declares Itself a “Sanctuary for Unborn Children,” Bans Abortion Clinics
Abortion Activists Vandalize Pro-Life Pregnancy Center’s Van, Slash Its Tires

More Pro-Life News
Man Beaten for Wearing “Make America Great Again” Hat
Single Mom Who Rejected Abortion of Twins Graduates With Two Degrees
California Bill Would Mandate Free Abortions at Colleges and Universities
Satanists Challenge Pro-Life Law, Claims it Violates Their Religious Freedoms
Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories

Would Planned Parenthood Stop Abortions to Focus on Women’s Health Care? New CEO Says “Absolutely Not”

Since the sudden, forced departure of Dr. Leana Wen from Planned Parenthood, some have been skeptical about the organization’s motives. 


Without a Guaranteed Right to Life, All Other Legal Rights are Fiction

Arkansas Abortions Drop 6% Last Year, 44% Since 2000 as More Babies Saved From Abortions

shirtPro-life t-shirt by Noeclexis. Good everyday t-shirt for prolife supporters . Also good for pro life marches and demonstrations. Get it on Amazon.

Washington State Assisted Suicides Jump 25%, Many Patients Experience Long and Painful Deaths

Abortion Tells Women: We Can’t Help You Raise Your Child, But We Can Kill Your Baby

Australian State Considers New Law legalizing Abortions Up to Birth

Kamala Harris Brags to Joe Biden During Democrat Debate: I’m More Pro-Abortion Than You

Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com.
Copyright 2003-2019 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved.

LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Report Friday, July 19, 2019


Top Stories

Beto O’Rourke Compares Trump Supporters to Nazis, Calls Huge Campaign Event a “Nuremberg Rally”
Leana Wen: Planned Parenthood Fired Me Because “I Did Not Prioritize Abortion Enough”
SHOCK: Investigation Finds Every Single Girl in One India Region Was Killed in a Sex-Selection Abortion
President Trump’s UN Ambassador Nominee Andrew Bremberg is Pro-Life, So Planned Parenthood is Unhinged

More Pro-Life News
Pray for Former Planned Parenthood CEO Leana Wen, That She Becomes Pro-Life and Accepts Jesus
City Adopts Resolution Opposing Abortion, Confirming Human Life Begins at Conception
Pro-Abortion Professor: Babies Can be Killed in Abortions, Infanticide Because They’re Not Fully Conscious
Feminist Writer: Children Shouldn’t “Belong” to Those Whose Genetics They Share
Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories

Beto O’Rourke Compares Trump Supporters to Nazis, Calls Huge Campaign Event a “Nuremberg Rally”

Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke compared President Donald Trump’s political event in North Carolina last week to Nazi Party rallies held in Germany during Adolf Hitler’s reign. 


This ‘People Who Don’t Want A Border Wall’ Meme Needs To Go VIRAL


Written by Wes Walker on January 17, 2019

If you want to see Democrats torn between winning their Shutdown Showdown and saving their skin for 2020, show them this meme.

We can’t take credit for this meme, it was posted on Instagram by the user ‘dc_draino’. But we sure can agree with and promote the hell out of it. (And you can too!)

Do drug cartels want open borders? Yes.

Do sex traffickers want open borders? Yes.

Do smugglers want open borders? Yes.

Does MS-13 want open borders? Yes.

Do rapists that prey upon the vulnerable border-crossers want open borders? Yes.

They even said so in a memo of their own.

The Center for American Progress (CAP) Action Fund memo, which circulated Monday, called on Democrats to “refuse to offer any votes for Republican spending bills that do not offer a fix for Dreamers and instead appropriate funds to deport them.”

The memo from the left-leaning think tank also said that protecting DACA is not only a “moral imperative” but also a “critical component” in winning elections.

“The fight to protect Dreamers is not only a moral imperative, it is also a critical component of the Democratic Party’s future electoral success,” the memo read.

It finished, “If Democrats don’t try to do everything in their power to defend Dreamers, that will jeopardize Democrats’ electoral chances in 2018 and beyond.”
Source: FoxNews

Why would anyone, of any party POSSIBLY be in favor of open borders?

A federal judge in New York has ruled against the Trump administration’s decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census. — Source: NPR

What difference would that make? Oh, nothing much, just a permanent expansion of the Left’s political power base.

One electoral news site gives us an explanation of what counting illegals does to the electoral college numbers, including an interactive map:

Here’s how the electoral map would look, based on 2013 Census estimates, and using 2016 election results, if only citizens were counted. […]

As we found at the time, “11 states would be impacted. The big loser would be California, which would see 4 of its 55 electoral votes trimmed away. No other state was impacted by more than one electoral vote. FL, NY and TX would lose one each, while seven states (LA, MO, MT, NC, OH, OK, VA) would gain one.” In terms of the 2016 election, Donald Trump would have won an additional four electoral votes, giving him a 310-228 victory, vs. the actual 306-232 result.*

“Fundamentally Transforming,” indeed. Into their own perpetual power base, whether we want it or not.

Just like the Big Tech Companies said they would in the article endorsed by their own management:

Leftist Want A ‘New Civil War’ – This Post Is Disturbing

But we’ve got someone in office who’s putting a stop to that plan. Mr. President, America Stands with you … Rock On!

Professors investigated for presenting opposing viewpoints


 waving flagBy Ashe Schow  (@AsheSchow) 6/22/16  Writer, The Washington Examiner

Complaints about professors’ teachings were made to Northern Colorado’s “Bias Response Team

Two professors at the University of Northern Colorado were investigated after students complained that they were forced to hear opposing viewpoints. The complaints were made to Northern Colorado’s “Bias Response Team,” an Orwellian office on campus that asks students to report their peers and professors for anything that upsets or offends them. When the news outlet Heat Street made an open records request for some of the complaints, it discovered that two students had become so upset about having to hear an opinion they disagreed with they filed reports with school administrators.AWWW Poor Baby

And rather than telling the students to buck up because they might hear those opinions outside of college or on the news or in the media, the schools told the professors to stop teaching that there’s an alternate viewpoint.mental illness

One professor instructed his students to read an article from the Atlantic written by Foundation for Individual Rights in Education’s president Greg Lukianoff and social psychologist Jonathan Haidt titled “The Coddling of the American Mind.” The article explains that allowing students to hide from controversial and upsetting ideas (like through the use of “safe spaces” or “trigger warnings”) actually harms those students by not allowing them to confront those opinions.

After reading the article, the professor asked his students to address controversial topics such as abortion, gay marriage, global warming and transgenderism. The professor made no indication as to what his opinion on the matters was, but one student, who identifies as transgender, was upset that the professor even referenced the opinion that “transgender is not a real thing, and no one can truly feel like they are born in the wrong body.”extra bowl of stupid

Instead of learning how to confront this opinion and be able to adequately teach someone how they are wrong to believe that, the student felt they shouldn’t have had to hear it in the first place.

“I would just like the professor to be educated about what trans is and how what he said is not okay because as someone who truly identifies as a transwomen [sic] I was very offended and hurt by this,” the student wrote in their complaint.mental illness

Never mind that the professor wasn’t even expressing his own opinion — this student just wanted the discussion shut down. And the school obliged.Gaged by the Left

A member of the Bias Response Team “advised [the professor] not to revisit transgender issues in his classroom if possible to avoid the students expressed concerns.” He was also told “to avoid stating opinions [his or those of the authors] on the topic as he had previously when working from the Atlantic article.”Assault

This is what America’s colleges are becoming.

Another Northern Colorado professor was also investigated by the BRT (notice how the acronym sounds like “brat”) for assigning controversial reading on homosexuality.

“Specifically there were two topics of debate that triggered them and personally felt like an attack on their identity (GodHatesFags.com: Is this harmful? Is this acceptable? Is this Christianity? And gay marriage: Should it be legal? Is homosexuality immoral as Christians suggest?),” the BRT’s report said.

As with the other complaining student, this one felt the class should not have to hear an opinion counter to what they believe.

“I do not believe that students should be required to listen to their own rights and personhood debated,” the student wrote. “[This professor] should remove these topics from the list of debate topics. Debating the personhood of an entire minority demographic should not be a classroom exercise, as the classroom should not be an actively hostile space for people with underprivileged identities.”Did you just hear what your mouth said

From the questions posed to the class about the topic, it was pretty clear the professor did not agree that homosexuality is immoral. No matter — universities are now expected to be debate- and discussion-free zones.definetly

The professor was not found to have discriminated against anyone, but a member of the BRT met with him to “have a conversation … [and] listen to his perspective, share the impact created for the student and dialogue about options to strengthen his teaching.”mental illness

Because one student in one class was offended, the professor has to change his teaching method. What it means is that our institutions of higher learning are no longer run by adults.Words are suppose to hurt

Ashe Schow is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.

Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Bernie ACCEPTS Trump’s CHALLENGE to Debate One-on-One, After Hillary Was too Scared


waving flagPosted on May 26, 2016

Screen Shot 2016-05-26 at 9.25.22 AMThis is an interesting turn of events. Trump just made Hillary look like the biggest coward. Who do you think this is going to win this debate?

Bernie Sanders says he’s ready to debate Donald Trump if the billionaire is serious about it. ‘Game on. I look forward to debating Donald Trump in California before the June 7 primary,’ Sanders tweeted early Thursday morning. Trump made the offer Wednesday evening on Jimmy Kimmel,

‘If I debated him, we would have such high ratings,’ said Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. ‘And I think I should give, take that money and give it to some worthy charity. Okay?’

Sanders said after the show that he’d do it.

The U.S. senator had been hoping for another debate against Hillary Clinton before the California Democratic primary, but her campaign said Monday she wasn’t interested. Sanders is behind Clinton in votes and pledged delegates. He must win seven in 10 Democratic voters in California to elbow Clinton out of the race.

Trump told Kimmel on Wednesday that he’d welcome Sanders as his opponent in the general because he believes he’d be easier to beat than Clinton. And he said he would be happy to debate Sanders in California, the last big primary battleground state before the party conventions.

A reporter covering Trump for CBS News said Thursday morning that Republican was not serious about the debating Sanders, though. In the lengthy interview on the talk show Trump commiserated with Sanders over the ‘rigged’ electoral system.

‘What I like about Bernie, when he loses [it’s] because the system is rigged against him like it was against me. The system is rigged.’

‘And if I didn’t win by massive landslides in every state, there was no chance for me to win. He’s having the same thing, except she has a different kind of deal with superdelegates.’

Trump said, ‘I think it’s unfair what’s happening to Bernie Sanders, actually,’ he said. ‘And it’s a system that’s not a good system.’

Sanders could catch up to Clinton in pledged delegates by winning California. A majority of the superdelegates – the party officials and electeds who also get to vote at the convention – are backing Clinton, however. Because of that, she’s less than 100 delegates away from winning the nomination and is readying herself for November. As part of her pivot Clinton has stopped talking about Sanders on the trail. It’s Trump she has her eye on now.

Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

A Debate That MUST Be Shared


waving flagAlthough this debate goes on for over 45 minutes, it is well worth the time to listen. It is a wonderful to help answer New WhatDidYouSay Logoquestions you may have heard about homosexuality and the Bible.

Please watch and share.

Jerry Broussard of WhatDidYouSay.org

 

 

debateBig Gay Hate Machinefreedom combo 2

 

Marriage, Church and the State


waving flagAuthored by avatar  on 30 May, 2015


RNS-SCOTUS-MARRIAGE b

Sometime next month the US Supreme Court will issue its decision on homosexual marriage.

Many of us fear it will be another disaster, like Roe v Wade – a handful of unelected and unrepresentative judges will strike down the nation’s and/or states’ laws and seek to force sodomite marriage on everyone, whether they like it or not.

Everyone concerned about the fundamental institution of marriage, especially Christians, will need to have a major rethink as to how we respond, and what changes, if any, we embark upon. The whole issue of the state’s role in matters of marriage and family may well need to be reassessed.

Libertarians of course have long argued that the state should get out of the marriage business altogether, or at least just let individual states decide on which way to go. I have elsewhere argued against the libertarian position, believing there is a place for the state in this.

Libertarianism and Marriage, Part I

Libertarianism and Marriage, Part IIMore forced

A few simple truths need to be kept in mind here: marriage as an institution has preceded the state as an institution. The state has simply come along and recognized and affirmed the pre-existing and socially valuable institution of marriage. Because marriage is the world’s best institution to ensure the well-being of children, of the next generation, states have always acknowledged the importance of marriage, and have treated it accordingly. Because heterosexual marriage confers such tremendous benefits to society, societies have in turn conferred benefits on marriage.

While other close and committed forms of relationships can be of value, the state has only seen fit to give heterosexual marriage special status and special recognition, and rightly so. But as we go down the road of the state giving equal recognition and status to other types of relations, including homosexual ones, which are not of course in themselves open to procreation, then marriage loses its special place, and in effect is rendered null and void.

So by pushing for sodomite “marriage” we are not broadening marriage – we are destroying it. As I said, we now may have to think again about these sorts of relationships, especially if SCOTUS does its worse as we fear.Same Sex Marriage

One US state has already acted preventively here: Alabama. They have decided that it will stop issuing marriage licenses. One report on this begins this way:

The battle has been raging over redefining marriage in Alabama, as the state’s constitution declares marriage to be between a man and a woman. However, federal courts are attempting to force the state to issue marriage licenses to those practicing sodomy. In an attempt to stop probate judges from issuing licenses arbitrarily, the Alabama Senate passes bill by a vote of 22-3 without having to obtain permission from a government official.

Senate Bill 377, a bill which would end marriage licensing and replace it with a contract process, was approved by the Alabama Senate on May 19. According to the text of the bill, it would abolish the requirement to obtain a marriage license from the judge of probate. “This bill would provide that marriage would be entered into by simple contract, would specify the information required to be included in the contract of marriage, would specify that each party entering into a contract of marriage would submit a properly executed contract to the judge of probate for recording, and would require the judge of probate to forward a copy of the contract of marriage to the Office of Vital Statistics,” reads the synopsis of the bill….

In other words, [Senator Greg Albritton (R-Bay Minette), who introduced the bill] wants the issue of marriage back in the hands of the Church. While the contract portion would be recognized legally, the requirements for marriage to be handled lawfully under the umbrella of the Church would remain intact.

This is one option, but whether it is the best option remains to be seen. As I mentioned above, there can indeed be a role for the state in marriage matters. And by seeking to argue for church-based marriage, while allowing for other forms, we may end up creating a two-tiered (or more) marriage system. This too would work against marriage and its purposes.

The issue of who conducts a marriage or who issues licenses is just a small portion of the debate. The bigger issue here is will we allow marriage to become whatever anyone wants it to become? By letting marriage simply be that which lies in the eye of the beholder, we again effectively destroy marriage.

When marriage can mean anything, then marriage means nothing. So we have to be careful as we seek to resist the harm of a possible SCOTUS ruling that we don’t also create harm elsewhere. One Christian writer has already weighed in on the Alabama decision. Bryan Fischer says it is “a mistake to get pastors out of signing marriage licenses”. He writes:

A rear-guard movement has recently emerged to get the state out of the marriage licensing business altogether, in what will prove to be a vain attempt to slow down the rampage to impose sodomy-based marriage on the entire country.

Alabama’s state senate has made the latest foray in this direction by passing a bill that makes marriage a mere matter of contract. Under this bill, the state would no longer issue marriage licenses but simply enter privately forged marriage contracts in some kind of registry. Civil government would not be approving of such marriages, it would only be recording them. In practice, this means if the Supreme Court imposes sodomy-based marriage on the entire nation next month, Alabama would instantly become the easiest place in America for two homosexuals to get married. All they’d have to do is sign a piece of paper and turn it in. Easy-peasy. I don’t think this is what the well-intentioned legislators in Alabama have in mind. But that’s what they will get.

Other voices are urging pastors to get out of the role of signing wedding licenses on behalf of civil government, as if this represents some inappropriate mixing of church and state. They want a wedding to be a purely spiritual, religious affair with no involvement, participation or recognition by civil government whatsoever.

This, however, ignores the likelihood that gay activists would still go after pastors to press them to do purely religious ceremonies for them. Eventually, they will find a judge who will order pastors to perform such purely religious ceremonies, on the grounds that a (counterfeit) constitutional “right” to have a homosexual wedding ceremony trumps the actual constitutional right to decline to perform one.burke

He raises some valid points here (see his entire article). There is much to think about, and many issues need to be weighed up. The truth is, marriage is under attack, and if SCOTUS does not launch the final nail in the coffin in June, there will be other attempts to do the same. One thing is for sure: it will no longer be business as usual. The church will be impacted by this – big time. How should it respond? Let me close with the words of Rick Scarborough, President of Vision America Action:

Because of the trends and cultural shifts that we have witnessed in culture over the past 40 years, we have all known that this day would likely come and Christians would be put at odds with the culture and the courts. I believe we are there. We are approaching a Bonhoeffer moment in America.Picture2

Outrageous penalties are now being assessed against people of faith and conviction who haven’t changed their position on marriage. Rather it’s the courts that have changed the definitions, the rules and laws that now govern us. They are ruling against Nature’s Law and Nature’s God. Christians are being declared the lawbreakers when we are simply living by what we have always believed, and by a set of laws that the culture historically has agreed to.

My desire as a pastor is to see another Great Awakening, and I pray that those caught up in any sin will find Jesus and God’s grace, but that can only come when there is a biblical standard lifted up and acknowledged as truth. Right now the courts are changing the playing field and declaring that what the natural eye can see and natural law reveals is not truth. Therefore, this is a Bonhoeffer moment. What will we do, and how will we respond?

Civil disobedience will likely have to be one of our responses. But we can and must, in the meantime, pray like never before and work like never before while waiting for this SCOTUS ruling.

freedom combo 2

Inside the ISIS-U.S. border scare


waving flagPosted By author-image Aaron Klein On 04/19/2015

Article reblogged from WND: http://www.wnd.com

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/the-deadly-truth-isis-and-mexican-drug-gangs/

U.S.-Mexico border

U.S.-Mexico border

 

TEL AVIV – While U.S. government agencies have strongly denied a Judicial Watch report claiming there are ISIS camps near the U.S. border with Mexico, lawmakers have expressed fears the global jihadist organization is linking up with deadly Mexican drug cartels. Such a partnership would not only help to facilitate the smuggling of jihadists into the U.S. but could ultimately translate into a devastating terrorist attack on American soil, such as an Electro Magnetic Pulse, or EMP, catastrophe.Suspected ISIS TRaing Camp Mexico

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Northern Command and the Texas Department of Public Safety all have denied the April 14 Judicial Watch report citing unnamed “sources that include a Mexican Army field grade officer and a Mexican Federal Police Inspector.” The sources claimed ISIS “has established its base around eight miles from the U.S. border in an area known as ‘Anapra’ situated just west of Ciudad Juárez in the Mexican state of Chihuahua.” Judicial Watch further reported on an ISIS camp west of Juarez, which the organization said was planning to attack towns in New Mexico.

Rep. Beto O’Rourke, D-Texas, said he contacted the Mexican government, DHS and the U.S. Northern Command, all of whom told him they have no intelligence indicating ISIS is operating on the U.S.-Mexico border. O’Rourke represents the border city of El Paso and the surrounding area. “Stories like these are good at scaring people and getting attention for those who spread them,” wrote O’Rourke on his Facebook page. “But they are terrible for the country’s image of the border, for El Paso’s ability to recruit talent, and for our region’s opportunity to capitalize on the benefits of being the largest bi-national community in the world.”Picture1

Department of Public Safety Deputy Director Robert J. Bodisch also denied the Judicial Watch claims.

“The Department of Public Safety and its intelligence community partners have no such credible information to corroborate or validate this today,” Bodisch wrote in an agency memo.

It’s not the first Judicial Watch report claiming ISIS was using Mexico as a base to stage attacks in the U.S. Last August, the watchdog reported “Islamic terrorist groups are operating in the Mexican border city of Ciudad Juarez and planning to attack the United States with car bombs or other vehicle borne improvised explosive devices,” citing anonymous “high-level federal law enforcement, intelligence and other sources.”

In a report that made headlines last October, two Republican lawmakers told BuzzFeed that suspected terrorists had infiltrated the U.S.–Mexico border and as many as 10 jihadists were captured. The DHS at the time denied the claims.

M13 Gang MembersNumerous U.S. lawmakers have repeatedly warned about ISIS teaming up with drug cartels.

In October, Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., warned in a town hall conversation that “groups like the Islamic State collaborate with drug cartels in Mexico who have clearly shown they’re willing to expand outside the drug trade into human trafficking and potentially even terrorism.” ….. “They could infiltrate our defenseless border and attack us right here in places like Arkansas.” Cotton was likely referencing the Judicial Watch report.

In August, Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, a member of the House Judiciary Committee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, was asked on Newmax TV’s “America’s Forum” whether there was an ISIS-Mexican drug cartel connection.

“My opinion is yes,” he replied. “There seems to be at least a talking to each other. How much? I don’t know. radical-islam-threatBut … drug cartels use the same operational plan as terrorist groups do. They kill their opponents, they behead their opponents, they brag about it and they have operational control of many portions of the southern border of the United States. Mexico doesn’t.’

“The United States doesn’t,” he continued. “Otherwise they wouldn’t be crossing daily with their drugs. They’re as vicious as some of these other terrorist organizations. We need to recognize them that this is an organized international crime group. And we have to deal with them as such.”

The reports of terrorists trying to cross the U.S.-Mexico border also took center stage during the 2012 presidential campaign, when candidates Rick Perry and Mitt Romney both warned terrorists infiltrating via Mexico posed a significant threat to U.S. national security. Texas’s O’Rourke, however, was the public face of the Democrats in responding to those claims. He stated Republicans were simply trying to gin up opposition to immigration reform. “There’s a longstanding history in this country of projecting whatever fears we have onto the border,” stated O’Rourke. “In the absence of understanding the border, they insert their fears. Before it was Iran and al-Qaida. Now it’s ISIS. They just reach the conclusion that invasion is imminent, and it never is.”

Electrical grid

If terrorists are teaming up with Mexican drug cartels, the implications could be cataclysmic. Not only do Mexican drug gangs maintain sophisticated smuggling routes, some of the more dangerous Mexican group have evidenced guerrilla-like tactics already used in terrorist-style attacks.

On Oct. 27, 2013, for example, the criminal drug cartel known as the Knights Templars attacked electrical facilities and blacked out Mexico’s Michoacan state, which boasts a population of 420,000. During the blackout, the Knights Templars reportedly entered towns and villages at will, terrorized the citizens and police, and publicly executed leaders opposed to the drug trade.

In an attack still largely unexplained, on April 16, 2013, a sophisticated assault was carried out on PG&E Corp’s Metcalf Transmission Substation outside of San Jose, California, which supplies power to San Francisco and other areas. A team of gunmen fired sniper and assault rifles on the substation, severely damaging 17 transformers. Peter Pry, executive director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security and director of the U.S. Nuclear Strategy Forum, believes the assault could have been part of a terrorist group’s preparation for a future attack on the U.S. electrical grid.

Jon Wellinghoff, the former chairman of the U.S. agency responsible for grid security, also warned that the Metcalf attack was likely a dry run for a future large-scale attack.

On the same day as the Metcalf assault, North Korea flew its KSM-3 satellite on the optimum trajectory and altitude to evade U.S. radars and carry out a potential EMP attack drill.

Networks within U.S. cities

M13 Gang MembersAn ISIS-Mexican drug cartel alliance could cause pandemonium in U.S. cities. Mexican drug cartels have established major networks within the U.S. Earlier this month it was reported that federal agents arrested 976 suspected gang members across scores of American cities in a large-scale operation in February and March. The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency said 199 of those arrested were foreign nationals. Criminal street gangs are responsible for the majority of violent crimes within the U.S. and are the primary distributors of most illicit drugs, according to a previous report by the Justice Department’s National Drug Intelligence Center, or War DrumsNDIC.

The NDIC was a task force established in 1993 to coordinate law enforcement actions to stop drug trafficking and to curb the growing threat of violent gangs in the U.S. The agency was closed by the Obama administration in June 2011. In October 2011, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement reported that in 2009 and 2010 it arrested 5,270 illegal alien gang members across all 50 states.

A 2011 FBI report draws a far dimmer picture of the nature of criminal gangs operating domestically. According to the FBI, criminal street gangs – mostly comprised of illegal aliens – are acquiring high-powered, military-style weapons to engage in lethal encounters with law enforcement members and citizens alike. States the report: “There are an estimated 1.4 million active street, prison and outlaw motorcycle gang members in more than 33,000 gangs operating in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.” The report notes those numbers reflect an increase from 2009 figures due “primarily to more comprehensive reporting from law enforcement and enhanced gang recruiting efforts.”

In July 2014, WND reported the risk of ISIS infiltrating from Mexico, perhaps with the help of drug gangs. WND senior staff writer Michael Maloof, a U.S. Defense Department analyst under President Bush, warned ISIS could use the Mexican border to infiltrate America, and it could happen “sooner rather than later.” “MS-13 already are in over 1,100 U.S. cities, and, as a consequence, the infiltration capabilities are very, very high and the threat from them can be sooner rather than later,” Maloof warned at the time.Picture6 OARLogo

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


Rotten To “The Core”

Posted on April 22, 2014

Read more at http://conservativebyte.com/2014/04/rotten-core/#gZYLUG7EiMfXVAuB.99

Rotten-To-The-Core

 

Complete Message

 

Needed Reminder: Dissent and Debate a Healthy Byproduct of Freedom


http://clashdaily.com/2014/04/needed-reminder-dissent-debate-healthy-byproduct-freedom/#QJroY7RkmsTv0Zql.99

By Michelle Zook / 9 April 2014

debate-630x383There’s a phrase, often misattributed to Voltaire, which goes something along the lines of, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” While the author of the quote is probably lost to history, there is a lesson to be learned from this: dissent is healthy, but forced agreement stifles liberty.

America is not Nazi Germany or communist Russia. We should not fear government agents lurking about everywhere we go. Neither, however, should we fear each other or each other’s ideas. The forced resignation of the Mozilla CEO this weekend is just another in a long line of popular culture attempting to dictate what is thought, what is said, and what is written. Why must everyone conform to the same line of thought? More importantly, why must there be sanctions or punishments when we do not conform?

I understand that everyone has their own ideas, their line in the sand where they say, “This far and no more.” But we should at least be willing to respect that others have a similar boundary in their individual lives, and that when our boundaries collide, we owe it to each other—and to society as a whole—to have a civil, open debate, and to tolerate dissent.

In the last decade, we’ve seen party lines widen and harden. America is perhaps more polarized than any other time in its history. Even within the GOP, there is talk of a civil war with battle lines being drawn between the party’s social conservatives, neo-conservatives, establishment wing, and the libertarian Goldwater wing (if there’s talk of such an inner ideological war on the left, it’s not so obvious).

Why are we so afraid to sit down and talk? Why must it immediately become a shout-fest, and then we insult each other, and then no one changes anyone’s mind? The GOP can be just as guilty of this as the Democrats; while as of late the left’s hill to die on seems to be gay rights, the right prefers to crucify people over lack of conformity to issues such as immigration, marijuana decriminalization or individual rights.

Now, there are indeed many who view these as important societal issues with serious long-term ramifications for the nation as a whole. And, yes, these issues are—but please realize that these are exactly the feelings that those opposing you may have, too, or that those advocating for gay rights probably do have (and if your immediate response, rather than to sit down and discuss this, is to shout “YOU’RE WRONG, YOU’RE WRONG, YOU’RE WRONG!”, then you’re as much a part of the problem as the Mozilla board, and thank you for your tolerance).

I’m not asking for anyone to concede ground. What I am asking, instead, is that we allow a free exchange of ideas and have a civil, intelligent debate. Decisions and policy are not made lightly or in vacuums. Informed policy is like a good wine; it needs room to breathe, something we cannot have if the environment is too stifled for either side to present options or arguments.

While the Mozilla issue of this weekend brings this sharply to the forefront, it is going to become even more of an issue as candidates begin to step forward for presidential primaries. We need to allow our inner debates to continue, civilly and intelligently, rather than try to shout each other down or just dismiss ideas offhand.

It’s time that both Right and Left remembered that dissent and debate are healthy by-products of a free, open society—and take a long look at the examples in history of those on either end of the political spectrum who decided only one point of view was worth being heard.

What’s So Great About America?


http://eaglerising.com/4468/whats-great-america/#zkpfmrk2zyiVFxYB.99

By / 3 February 2014

Dsouza2In a debate Thursday, January 30th between Weather Underground founder Bill Ayers and Immigrant and scholar Dinesh D’Sousa, that was billed as The Ultimate Fight Between Left and Right, left me dumbfounded by the ignorance of Ayers and the shallowness of the audience’s questions.

It was almost as if the students needed a few more years of study under their belt before they would fully understand what was happening before them on the stage.  Either that or the disease of liberal thinking had already seeped into their minds to such an extent that they were incapable of offering a cogent comment or question.  Most of the questions were mere ramblings.  Perhaps the audience was stacked with Ayers supporters.  Maybe they were tired, perhaps they started drinking a night early, I don’t really know. But it wasn’t what I expected and fell far short of the fireworks I anticipated.

Dinesh was his usual brilliant self.  Making historically accurate assertions and common sense arguments from start to finish.

Bill Ayers on the other hand repeatedly called America, “a contradiction.”  A contradiction between reality and fiction.  A contradiction of who we are versus who we should be.  A contradiction between what was and what we claim what was.  But in his typical leftist ideological way, he became the contradiction of the night.

Ayers, just like President Barack Obama, repeatedly made dualistic claims about almost every point that came out of his mouth and obviously fails to see that he is even doing it.  Like Obama he both blames and then praises the same people for both being the problem and the agitators for change.  Whether it is America in general or the American people specifically they are both to blame for what makes America so bad and for what makes America so good.  He claims we a great people in a great and beautiful nation but we are also a terrible people in a nation full of flaws.  We are great today because we fixed the institutionalized racism of our past.  But we are wretched today because we impose a new type of racism on our black youth by both locking them up and taking away their rights to vote.

The problems facing black youth in America has zero to do with whites or racism and everything to do with morality and liberal social policy. The number of black youth in jail has a direct correlation to the amount of crime committed by that segment of the population.  3% of America, black males, commit upwards of 50% of all crime.  A staggering statistic.  No Bill, the black youth that are in jail are there because they deserve to be there.  As Ted Nugent would say, if you act like an animal you deserve to be locked in a cage.

On one hand Ayers claims all people are precious and valuable, deserving of love and protection, rights, equality and freedom.  He then rails against the oppressive state and the Pentagon specifically, the war machine that drops bombs on people in foreign lands, yet it was he who took it upon himself to use explosives to blow up his fellow Americans along with government buildings his neighbors helped to pay for through their taxes.  It’s okay for him but it’s not okay for the government “of the people.”  Talk about a contradiction!

What is good for Ayers isn’t good for his government?  Even though what they do is protect him equally as his neighbor, from the same terrorists, invaders, or scads of other international and domestic enemies.

Ayers calls Halliburton a criminal enterprise taking millions, perhaps billions in taxpayers money — which is spent on thousands of well paying jobs — and that is somehow a crime, but to hand out the same money in the form of food stamps is noble?

Ayers took strong exception to the idea that the Constitution or it’s Founders were in any way abolitionists.  He claimed several times that if you were alive one hundred and fifty years ago and against slavery, you would have been in a minority and against not only the Founders and the Constitution, but your preacher, the Bible and the law itself.  Sorry Bill that is completely incorrect and a real pathetic misunderstanding of your own countries history.  As a matter of fact it was the Christians, the churches, the preachers, the religious community, the Founders themselves who were the one’s most against slavery (some even as slave holders – unable to free them because of state law) they were the first and truist abolitionists.  It was the Christian Bible preachers who railed against the institution of slavery.  It was the Declaration and the Constitution that were the greatest anti-slavery documents in human history.  Giving rise to the idea that every single human being was precious and should be free.  Each had equal rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of virtue and happiness as their Creator gave to them.  Ayers couldn’t have got it more wrong.  And not only that he has the whole Constitution turned on its head — advocating for the right to pursue vulgar vices and indecencies which is exactly what the Founders detested.

Ayers also astonishingly asserted that America is stolen land and murdered 90% of the indigenous peoples in the process of the colonization of the continent.  Both completely false claims.  Not partially false, completely false.  The fighting, the battles, the wars, the death was equally instigated by the Indians who themselves violated land and hunting treaties and killed men, women and children who families and whole villages indiscriminately.  These were not gentle natives, at one with nature, many of them were often brutal warriors who killed for the sheer sake of it.  Many of the Indian tribes were exactly as the colonists described them, uncivilized savages.

Ayers lives in a world of make believe, a world of woulda, coulda, and shoulda.  None of those worlds exist.  As D’Sousa rightly pointed out we can only compare America to all the other nations of the earth.  Not to a make believe utopian vision, that is an impossible dream.  But the dream non-the-less allows the dreamers to do evil, contemplate evil, accept evil, cheer for evil, advocate for evil, because, like all totalitarian socialist Marxists they live the contradiction.  Their dualistic thinking informs them that the ends justifies the means.  They will save humanity even if it means killing off hundreds of millions of them to achieve their glorious ends.  The rule of law, the rights of men and morality do not apply to them, for they alone are on the ultimate humanitarian mission — so great in fact that it actually allows them to take the lives and property of those they claim to be saving and calling precious.

Ayers asked the audience if Nelson Mandela was someone they supported. A hero fighting against the apartheid state of a white minority governed South Africa.  But Ayers fails to bring to the surface the contradiction that is Nelson Mandela.  Mandela was a terrorist, like Ayers in his younger years and a fighter of equality later on that cannot simply be washed away like sins in a baptistry because he has seen the light.  Having been convicted of terror and murder and sentenced to life in prison — Mandela was the benefactor of a world gone politically correct, that effectively ganged up on South Africa through sanctions and a globe campaign of shame, which brought an end to Apartheid which brought Mandela out of prison and onto the world stage.

occupy_optBut like the short-sightedness of Jimmy Carter removing the Shaw of Iran, what replaced it was even worse.  Things in Iran are worse now, things in South Africa are worse now.  But reality cannot compete with utopian visions of dreamers.  Mandela’s success is only partially his own.  While Mandela stood tall at the end of his life — he never paid his due to those he murdered, those precious lives he took while he played God and burned them alive in what became known as “necklacing.”  He never paid for the price for being the one who chose who lived and who died in his angry quest for power and glory and yes equality.  But in his pursuit of equality he denied those very same rights to others.

Lastly while Ayers rightly rails against intrusive government, against the marriage of government and big business, (conservatives and liberals agree) against the departments of government that fight wars and gather intelligence, he loves those parts of government that take from one citizen and hand it over to another.  Those departments that gives to those who somehow deserves it more than the one who earned it.  Those departments that impose upon children, or the elderly, or workers, or businesses, or homeowners, or investors, the liberal policies for which he advocates.  He only hates the parts he dislikes.  He is all for massive government — how can it be any other way for a Marxist.

Ayers professes that everyone has a right to schooling and health care (and I’m sure a whole host of other things not mentioned).  I presume that extends to the right of a job and a livable wage, and every social hammock that can be filled with a lazy buttocks?  But that America is not Dinesh’s America, that America is not my America, that America is not the America our Founders created when they declared that “ALL men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Ayers doesn’t understand that a right is what we all possess equally and at the same time.  A right is not, can not be anything for which one man must pay on behalf of another man.  For when one man must exchange his labor for the benefit of another — no matter the income disparity — you have unequivocally crossed the line into injustice.  And injustice is where liberty ends and the contradictory ideology of Marxism begins.

See the one hour, plus, debate here;

Debate

About the author: David Whitley

<img alt=” src=’http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/8de9b76e3c0eb6e1da9ea0a800364397?s=80&d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D80&r=G’ class=’avatar avatar-80 photo’ height=’80’ width=’80’ />

David is a deacon at Orange View church of Christ and a perpetual student of religion, politics and American history. David lives in Southern California with his wife and their three children.  In 1994 David self published a 300 page compilation of right of center groups and individuals called “The Conservative Directory,” subtitled; The Little Black Book of the Cultural Counter Revolution.  It was honored with praise from Charlton Heston, Bay Buchanan, Joseph Farah among many others.  You can follow him on Twitter @cogitarus

Read more at http://eaglerising.com/4468/whats-great-america/#zkpfmrk2zyiVFxYB.99

*UPDATED* THE LIST: UNNECESSARILY SHUT DOWN BY OBAMA TO INFLICT PUBLIC PAIN


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/05/list-obama-closures-for-shutdown

While our president still enjoys his essential employees and locations: the White House chefs, Camp David, and a military golf course, there doesn’t seem to be any question that in mercenary pursuit of a political win, this White House is determined to unreasonably punish as many everyday people as possible. And this includes children sick with cancer. That might sound like hyperbole, but it is not.

Although Barack Obama’s chefs have been deemed “essential,” employees at the National Institutes of Health who offer last-chance experimental cancer treatments for children suffering from cancer have not. Worse still, House Republicans have offered to compromise with the president and single the NIH out for funding. The White House has threatened a veto.

Using children sick with cancer as pawns is community organizing on steroids. And the media are covering for him. When the media thought they could emotionally blackmail the GOP with these sick children, telling their story was all the rage. Now that it is Obama and Senate Democrats wrist-flicking refusing treatment for these children, suddenly the media aren’t too interested in telling their story.

There are many other examples of this president’s cold-hearted fanaticism and willingness to punish people for reasons that seem to have much more to with spite than what is and is not “essential.” In fact, there are a number of examples where Obama seems to be spending more money and using more resources to close and block and inconvenience than to just leave it alone.

The media may or may not report on these individual occurrences, but what they will never do is provide the American people with the full context and scope of Obama’s shrill pettiness.

Below is a list of illogical, unnecessary, and shockingly spiteful moves our government is making in the name of essential and non-essential.

This list will be regularly updated, and if you have something you feel should be added, please email me at jnolte@breitbart.com or tweet me @NolteNC.

1. Treatments for Children Suffering From Cancer – The GOP have agreed to a compromise by funding part of the government, including the National Institutes of Health, which offers children with cancer last-chance experimental treatment. Obama has threatened to veto this funding.

2. The World War II Memorial – The WWII memorial on the DC Mall is a 24/7 open-air memorial that is not regularly staffed. Although the White House must have known that WWII veterans in their eighties and nineties had already booked flights to visit this memorial, the White House still found the resources to spitefully barricade the attraction.

The Republican National Committee has offered to cover any costs required to keep the memorial open. The White House refused. Moreover, like the NIH, the GOP will pass a compromise bill that would fund America’s national parks. Obama has threatened to veto that bill.

3. Furloughed Military Chaplains Not Allowed to Work for Free – Furloughed military chaplains willing to celebrate Mass and baptisms for free have been told they will be punished for doing so.

4. Business Stops In Florida Keys – Although the GOP have agreed to compromise in the ongoing budget stalemate and fund the parks, Obama has threatened to veto that funding. As a result, small businesses, hunters, and commercial fisherman can’t practice their trade. While the feds have deemed the personnel necessary to keep this area open “non-essential,” the “enforcement officers” to ensure no business is done are “essential.”

5. Obama Blacks Out Sports, Entertainment Programming to Overseas Troops – The American Forces Network (AFN) that provides American sports and entertainment programming to our troops stationed abroad, has been shut down. For some reason, though, AFN News will still broadcast news, just not any of the popular and fun stuff.

Camp David is essential, but popular programming for heroes overseas is non-essential.

6. Obama Closes D-Day Memorial – The GOP have offered to compromise and fund the National Parks. Obama has said he will veto this compromise legislation. As a result, along with 24 other military cemeteries, the D-Day memorial in Normandy has been barricaded.

7. Obama Tries to Close Privately-Funded Mt. Vernon – Although George Washington’s Mt. Vernon estate is privately funded, the feds blocked visitors from entering the parking area because the Park Service maintains the lot. Apparently, the New Media publicity resulted in the feds backing down.

8. Obama Closes Over 100 Privately-Managed Parks That Cost No Money to Run –  The U.S. Treasury actually makes money from the rent paid by a private company that “employs about 400-500 camp workers and managers across about a dozen states.” No federal money is used to operate these parks. No federal employees are used to staff these parks. Taxpayers make a profit from these parks. Still, Obama had them closed and as a result 400-500 employees and a private business are taking it in the neck.

9. Obama Closes Self-Sustaining Colonial Farm It Hasn’t Supported Since 1980 – “For the first time in 40 years, the National Park Service (NPS) has finally succeeded in closing the Farm down to the public. In previous budget dramas, the Farm has always been exempted since the NPS provides no staff or resources to operate the Farm.”

10. Obama Tries to Close State-Run Parks in Wisconsin – “The park service ordered state officials to close the northern unit of the Kettle Moraine, Devil’s Lake, and Interstate state parks and the state-owned portion of the Horicon Marsh, but state authorities rebuffed the request because the lion’s share of the funding came from state, not federal coffers.”

11. Obama Closes Vietnam Memorial – The GOP have passed compromise legislation that would fund national memorials and parks, and open them to the public. Obama threatened a veto. Apparently, the “essential” government employees are those erecting barricades, not those who could keep the memorial open.

12. Obama Closes Privately-Owned Hotel, Police Block Parking Lot – “The operator of a 51-room inn located on U.S. government-owned land in North Carolina abandoned his defiant stance on Thursday to keep the property open despite being ordered to close as part of the federal government shutdown.”

October is this inn’s prime season. The GOP have offered compromise funding opening the parks. Obama said he will veto that compromise.

State troopers blocked customers from entering the inn’s parking lot.

13. Park Service Ranger: ‘We’ve Been Told to Make Life As Difficult For People As We Can’ – “It’s a cheap way to deal with the situation,” an angry Park Service ranger in Washington says of the harassment. “We’ve been told to make life as difficult for people as we can. It’s disgusting.”

14. Obama Forces Residents Out of Private Homes – “The government shutdown is being felt close to home for some locals. They say they’re being forced out of private homes on Lake Mead because they sit on federal land.”

The GOP have agreed to fund the parks. Obama has threatened a veto.

15. Acadia Park In Maine Shut Down – ‘”We’ve been training for two years at CrossFit for this hike — no kidding,” Hart said. She added that the shutdown should be as inconvenient for the Washington politicians who caused it as it is for average citizens.’

The GOP have agreed to fund the parks. Obama said he will veto.

16. Historic Restaurant Open During Last Shutdown Forced to Close – “An iconic Philadelphia restaurant has been forced to close its doors and turn away booked parties because of the government shutdown. …

“Restaurant public relations director Molly Yun said they were notified there was a possibility a closure might happen, but they were allowed to remain open during the last government shutdown 17 years ago.”

The restaurant is part of the federal park system, which the GOP have agreed to fund. Obama said he will veto the funding.

17. Obama Shuts Down a Road Tha Goes Through CO Park: “The Forest Service announcement, in turn, led the Pitkin County commissioners to order that Maroon Creek Road be shut down at the height of the colorful leaf-changing season. Ahead of what is to be one of the busiest weekends of the fall, the road is to be closed to vehicles at T-Lazy-7 Ranch, pending a resolution to the government shutdown.”

The GOP have agreed to fund the parks. Obama said he will veto that compromise funding.

18. Residents Plan Protest of Cape Hatteras Closing – “Businesses and residents on the Outer Banks have planned a peaceful protest of the closure of Hatteras Island’s beaches due to the government shut down.

“The U.S. House Wednesday passed a measure to reopen national parks and monuments. It will now go to the U.S. Senate.”

In the unlikely event the Democrat Senate passes the bill, Obama has threatened a veto of any compromise legislation opening the parks.

19. Obama Blocks People From LOOKING at Mt. Rushmore – “Blocking access to trails and programs at South Dakota’s most popular attraction was one thing, but state officials didn’t expect Congress’ budget stalemate to shut down a view of Mount Rushmore.

“The National Park Service placed cones along highway viewing areas outside Mount Rushmore this week, barring visitors from pulling over and taking pictures of the famed monument.

The cones first went up Oct. 1, said Dusty Johnson, Gov. Dennis Daugaard’s chief of staff. The state asked that they be taken down, and federal officials did so with some of them. The state was told the cones were a safety precaution to help channel cars into viewing areas rather than to bar their entrance.”

20. Crucial USDA Websites Taken Down – “The U.S. Department of Agriculture has turned off its entire website in response to the government shutdown, leaving farmers, reporters and others with no way to access any of the agency’s information online. …

“USDA’s total website shutdown goes far beyond the response of other federal agencies, and seems to be part of an effort to make people feel the effects of the shutdown. Thursday morning calls to USDA’s press office seeking an explanation were not answered.”

This website is down and yet the ObamaCare and White House websites are up.

21. St. Louis Gateway Arch Closed – The GOP have agreed to compromise legislation funding the parks. Obama has threatened a veto.

22. Park Shutdown Bounces Rowers from Potomac – “The ripple effect of a government shutdown has pushed rowers from the Potomac River.

“Multiple high schools rent space at the Thompson Boat Center in Georgetown. But like other places controlled by the National Park Service, it closed Tuesday morning.”

The GOP have agreed to compromise funding opening the parks. Obama has threatened a veto.

23. Thompson Boat Center Closed In DC – The GOP have agreed to fund the parks. Obama said he will veto.

24. Obama Closes Military Commissary – “Military members, veterans and families who shop at local tax-free store are shocked to discover the store’s doors locked; no progress to end stalemate in Washington.”

While the government has deemed the White House chefs “essential,” working class military personnel have lost their tax-free store privileges.

Military personnel and their families tell me that they have never lost these privileges in previous shutdowns.

25. Arizona Offers to Fund Grand Canyon, Obama Says ‘Drop Dead’ – “Obama has ordered the Grand Canyon to stay closed, even after the state of Arizona and local businesses have offered to cover the costs necessary to keep it open. In other words, the shutdown isn’t about the money — it’s about hurting the American people just because he can.”

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: