Confused? Well, not as much as the leftist laughable loonies who seem to continue to spew their hatred toward anyone that isn’t in bed with them!
Democrats
All posts tagged Democrats
The following is a portion of a speech by Michael Goodwin ‘…delivered on April 20, 2017, in Atlanta, Georgia, at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar.’
Michael Goodwin
‘I’ve been a journalist for a long time. Long enough to know that it wasn’t always like this. There was a time not so long ago when journalists were trusted and admired. We were generally seen as trying to report the news in a fair and straightforward manner. Today, all that has changed. For that, we can blame the 2016 election or, more accurately, how some news organizations chose to cover it. Among the many firsts, last year’s election gave us the gobsmacking revelation that most of the mainstream media puts both thumbs on the scale—that most of what you read, watch, and listen to is distorted by intentional bias and hostility. I have never seen anything like it. Not even close.
It’s not exactly breaking news that most journalists lean left. I used to do that myself. I grew up at The New York Times, so I’m familiar with the species. For most of the media, bias grew out of the social revolution of the 1960s and ’70s. Fueled by the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War movements, the media jumped on the anti-authority bandwagon writ large. The deal was sealed with Watergate, when journalism was viewed as more trusted than government—and far more exciting and glamorous. Think Robert Redford in All the President’s Men. Ever since, young people became journalists because they wanted to be the next Woodward and Bernstein, find a Deep Throat, and bring down a president. Of course, most of them only wanted to bring down a Republican president. That’s because liberalism is baked into the journalism cake.
During the years I spent teaching at the Columbia University School of Journalism, I often found myself telling my students that the job of the reporter was “to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” I’m not even sure where I first heard that line, but it still captures the way most journalists think about what they do. Translate the first part of that compassionate-sounding idea into the daily decisions about what makes news, and it is easy to fall into the habit of thinking that every person afflicted by something is entitled to help. Or, as liberals like to say, “Government is what we do together.” From there, it’s a short drive to the conclusion that every problem has a government solution.
The rest of that journalistic ethos—“afflict the comfortable”—leads to the knee-jerk support of endless taxation. Somebody has to pay for that government intervention the media loves to demand. In the same vein, and for the same reason, the average reporter will support every conceivable regulation as a way to equalize conditions for the poor. He will also give sympathetic coverage to groups like Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter.
A New Dimension
I knew all of this about the media mindset going into the 2016 presidential campaign. But I was still shocked at what happened. This was not naïve liberalism run amok. This was a whole new approach to politics. No one in modern times had seen anything like it. As with grief, there were several stages. In the beginning, Donald Trump’s candidacy was treated as an outlandish publicity stunt, as though he wasn’t a serious candidate and should be treated as a circus act. But television executives quickly made a surprising discovery: the more they put Trump on the air, the higher their ratings climbed. Ratings are money. So news shows started devoting hours and hours simply to pointing the cameras at Trump and letting them run.’ https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/2016-election-demise-journalistic-standards/?appeal_code=MK617EM2&utm_source=housefile&utm_medium=email&utm_content=2016_election_demise_journalistic_standards&utm_campaign=imprimis&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8xC9qvSWV5-xz889Lo2pUynHpbDIeJNdI0N-j9LKB2mTI5Caki20vGUTsvAzQhXcBZKR0gt3XOpDvyC_vrvbTlKbiHlw&_hsmi=53242815
This is “Part III of the undercover Project Veritas Action investigation dives further into the back room dealings of Democratic politics. It exposes prohibited communications between Hillary Clinton’s campaign, the DNC and the non-profit organization Americans United for Change. And, it’s all disguised as a duck. In this video, several Project Veritas Action undercover journalists catch Democracy Partners founder directly implicating Hillary Clinton in FEC violations. “In the end, it was the candidate, Hillary Clinton, the future president of the United States, who wanted ducks on the ground,” says Creamer in one of several exchanges. “So, by God, we would get ducks on the ground.” It is made clear that high-level DNC operative Creamer realized that this direct coordination between Democracy Partners and the campaign would be damning when he said: “Don’t repeat that to anybody.” The first video explained the dark secrets and the hidden connections and organizations the Clinton campaign uses to incite violence at Trump rallies. The second video exposed a diabolical step-by-step voter fraud strategy discussed by top Democratic operatives and showed one key operative admitting that the Democrats have been rigging elections for fifty years. This latest video takes this investigation even further.”
“The issues which today confront the nation are clearly defined and so fundamental as to
directly involve the very survival of the Republic. Are we going to preserve the religious base to our origin, our growth and our progress, or yield to the devious assaults of atheistic or other anti-religious forces? Are we going to maintain our present course toward State Socialism with Communism just beyond or reverse the present trend and regain our hold upon our heritage of liberty and freedom?”
Recent history shows that the murder of the unborn continues whether there is a supposedly “conservative” as President or supposedly “conservatives” in Congress. Will anything change if the Donald gets in this November? There is hope but that may be all there is!
I am David Bennett and I approve this message!
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/youtube-hides-slaps-warning-new-trump-ad-hillarys-health/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTylz2WToXw Youtube thinks this video is dangerous to what or is that to whom?
They have the blood of the innocent on their hands is what they have in common!. Hitler murdered babies, children, teens and adults while Hillary is now just focusing on the unborn but when will that change? When will it be those deemed deplorable?
https://www.facebook.com/liveaction/videos/vb.49651563727/10153921470903728/?type=2&theater
Why do the Republicans even allow these people to be the moderator? Do they have a death wish? Here is an answer to Holt’s correcting Trump on New York’s stop and frisk.
“Debate moderator Lester Holt’s claim that the New York Police Department’s “stop and
frisk” practice was declared unconstitutional because it was racist, an assertion seconded by Hillary Clinton, was more evidence that Holt was heavily biased toward Clinton. The actual facts surrounding the case against “stop and frisk” are these: In the 1968 Terry v. Ohio case, an 8-1 Supreme Court ruling upheld as constitutional law enforcement’s practice of stopping and frisking individuals who they deemed reasonably suspicious. This law has never been overturned and is practiced by police departments across the country to this today.
Holt’s reference to it being declared unconstitutional is based upon a ruling by federal Judge Shira Scheindlin, who ruled in 2013 that the NYPD’s application of the law was racially biased and therefore unconstitutional. Judge Scheindlin was later removed from the case under allegations of her own bias against police — just as Donald Trump correctly noted Monday night. It has been argued that Scheindlin’s ruling would have been overturned based on the circumstances surrounding the case, had then-newly elected mayor Bill de Blasio chosen to pursue it. The judge’s ruling was not concerned with the constitutionality of “stop and frisk” in general, but the specific manner in which it was applied in New York City. Holt completely misrepresented the case in order to challenge Trump’s statements on law and order. Clearly, Trump was correct and Holt was wrong.
The nuances of political gamesmanship are something the Leftmedia has become very adept at applying. It’s always a good practice to apply a healthy level of skepticism to any political claim, especially if the claims are made by the mainstream media.” https://patriotpost.us/posts/45077
“Charles Spurgeon was the premier English preacher in the late 1800s, known as the ‘Prince of Preachers.’ He statement, ‘Of two evils, choose neither’ has been widely quoted by preachers, politicians, and pundits during this political season. However, Spurgeon’s actual quote from The Salt Cellars: A Collection of Proverbs & Quaint Sayingshas nothing to do with voting. It relates to when a Christian is faced with a choice of obvious sins such as lying or stealing–he is to choose neither.
A statement made by Michael Marcavage is often attributed to Spurgeon in an attempt to trash Trump. Marcavage said, “Christians must turn from the endless cycle of voting for the lesser of evils and expecting an unrighteous act to produce a righteous result. From a communist to a cultist, choosing the lesser of two evils is still evil, and never should we do evil that good may come.” The attribution to Spurgeon is used to thump Trump.
Spurgeon declared in his sermon Particular Election: ‘Let us, whenever we shall have the opportunity of using the right of voting, use it as in the sight of Almighty God, knowing that for everything we shall be brought into account, and for that amongst the rest, seeing that we are entrusted with it. And let us remember that we are our own governors, to a great degree, and that if at the next election we should choose wrong governors we shall have nobody to blame but ourselves, however wrongly they may afterwards act, unless we exercise all prudence and prayer to Almighty God to direct our hearts to a right choice in this matter. May God so help us, and may the result be for his glory, however unexpected that result may be to any of us!’
He also said, ‘Discernment is not simply a matter of telling the difference between what is right and wrong; rather it is the difference between right and almost right.’ All men have at times lusted but is a wife to be nonchalant, noncommittal, and nonresistant if her husband watches porn every night? Both are evil, but one is less odious than the other is. No, all sins do not carry the same penalty and are not rated equally offensive. As Spurgeon suggested, discernment is required to differentiate between options–the difference between right and wrong and the difference between wrong and very wrong–ergo, Trump or Clinton!
At the 9/11 terrorist attack, people in the burning Twin Towers had a choice between being burned alive or jumping out the windows. More than 200 people jumped to their deaths. They found themselves in a position where no decision was the “right” decision but had to make a decision. They had to make a choice and they each chose the most preferable one although each decision produced a horrible death. They considered one death less offensive than the other.
John Barber wrote, ‘Imagine our two families are miles from land in a sinking boat. Suddenly, out of the mist, come two boats to save us. One is captained by an adulterer; the other is captained by a thief. Which boat will you get into? You say, ‘Neither one. I’m waiting for the evangelical boat which is captained by a devout Christian who will end abortion.’ I say, ‘You’re kidding, right?’ You reply, ‘Both these guys are reprobates and I’m not going to choose between two evils.’”
“There are no other sane options so which captain do you permit to save you? Of course, you prefer to give your business to a born again, anti-abortionist, conservative, constitutionalist, free enterprise, King James Bible quoting, creationist captain who homeschools his kids and tithes to his local Bible-preaching church. But you don’t have that option and it really doesn’t matter since you are going to drown or be devoured by hungry sharks. You choose the boat that appears to be stronger, safer, and swifter and believe that the character of the captain is irrelevant at this time. However, his ability, his availability, and his agreement to save you are very relevant.
Matt Barber of Barbwire.com wrote, ‘These are perilous times, and we’ve got difficult choices to make. When we’re sinking, sometimes God sends us a boat with a reprobate at the helm. He has a history of doing quite a lot with reprobates.’ That He does.
Many Christians and Conservatives demand perfection but perfection doesn’t exist. Many profess to be principled people who demand a “whole loaf” insisting on getting everythingthey want instead of something. The “half-loafers” see the big picture and are willing to accept small victories always keeping their eyes on their goal. One good example is the Homosexual Lobby. Look where they were only 20 years ago and today they are in the catbird seat. They had one failure after another punctuated occasionally with small victories until they won. Now they have convinced the American people that a hormone-infused teenage boy has the right to ogle nude young girls in bathrooms, shower rooms, etc., and those of us who disagree are brutes, bigots, and bullies! The homosexual crowd accepted less than what they wanted until they got what they wanted.
As a member of the Indiana House of Representatives, I did not always get what I wanted. I never voted for evil but I had to make decisions: a full loaf or half a loaf.
I ask the Never Trumpers and the critics of ‘the lesser of two evil’ principle what a legislator should do when confronted with voting for an imperfect abortion bill as happened in North Carolina.
In the NC legislature, a bill was before the Joint Finance Committee of the House and Senate dealing with abortion funding for poor women. A famous Pro-life leader came to town and convinced the pro-life crowd that they should go for the whole loaf; after all, it was the right thing to do. No abortions. The alternative to the bill was to add an exception for the life of the mother and fetal deformity. The problem was that about 100 babies would be killed if they had a known deformity in the womb. A long-time friend of mine was a full-time lobbyist for the Christian school movement in the state and had the authority to speak for them and the pro-life people. He and another preacher decided to go with the ‘whole loaf’ people who didn’t want any babies killed. They decided that the “lesser of two evils” is still evil.
Senator Harris was manager of the bill and asked my friend and the local pastor in private, ‘Is this what you want me to do? I’ll do whatever you say.’ They told him ‘No exceptions.’ My friend knew they had the votes to pass the bill with the two exceptions that would greatly limit abortions. The Senator followed their admonition and the vote was taken and they lost bigtime. My friend said, ‘I was standing against the concrete wall inside the room and I was sick inside. We had just sounded the death knell for 8,000 babies through tax-funded abortions. I have never gotten over that. We clearly had the power of life and death in our tongues when we talked with Senator Harris. In order to save 100 babies, we sacrificed 8,000 babies.’ I wept when he told me that.
The Christian lobbyist said he can still hear the Senator, a godly Baptist deacon ask, ‘Is this what you want me to do?’ My friend said, ‘It still haunts me to this day.’
He told me, “We tried to respect the position of Christians who would not go the route of the lesser of two evils. We were such nerds! It was the stupidest thing I ever did in my whole life! So, I’ve got a tumor in my soul when it comes to deciding ‘the lesser of two evils.’ I have to be patient with Christians who struggle to escape the ‘lesser of two evils’ dilemma. But there is no escaping it. When that’s what it is, that’s what it is.’ God never promised all our decisions would be easy.
Most people don’t understand that in every election we must choose between the lesser of two evils since no two candidates are equally principled. Our choice is not usually between an openly vile person and a virtuous person who loses his temper at times but between people who in totality are at different places on the general moral spectrum.
I don’t like Trump but I will vote for him even though I’m not sure he is trustworthy; however, I know I can trust Hillary to do what she has always done and she has the cash and consultants if not the character and charisma to actually win the presidency! She will continue America’s slide onto the garbage heap of history so I’ll go with the ‘lesser of two evils’ or ‘half-loaf’ since the other loaf is wormy, worthless, and wicked.” http://donboys.cstnews.com/trump-and-the-fallacy-of-the-lessor-of-two-evils
whatyareckon 