This is her card if she wins.
This is The Donald’s card if he wins!
Politics
All posts tagged Politics
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
What did I expect when I sat down to watch the US Presidential Debate on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s (ABC) Channel 24? Yes, I should have known better than to begin watching 20 or so minutes before the debate as that gave me the agony of listening to the Hillary lovers ABC had gathered together so they could spew forth their distaste for The Donald. As I watched and listened for perhaps five minutes I muted the sound until the debate began. Tinitus is sometimes a blessing.
I didn’t continue to listen to the ABC commentary after the debate as I already knew what road they would take but an example of the ABC post commentary from the states is posted below.
Now, two days after the debate who does the ABC see as the winner? Why did I ask? “Mr Trump lost the debate — and he knows it — but it may not matter.” What else would anyone expect from our ABC? http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-28/trump-lost-the-presidential-debate-and-he-knows-it/7883826
However, the ABC’s take on the debate winner differs from other sources. For instance; “Of the 21 polls (including CNN’s) mentioned in the Daily Mail story, Trump won 17 of them, including:
- Time: Trump 58 percent, Clinton 42 percent
- CBS New York: Trump 24K votes, 17,600 votes
- San Diego Tribune: Trump 66 percent, Clinton 34 percent
- Slate: Trump 54 percent, Clinton 46 percent
- Variety: Trump 51 percent, Clinton 48 percent
- Fortune: Trump 51 percent, Clinton 49 percent
- CNBC: Trump 51 percent, Clinton 49 percent” http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Trump-Won-Debate-Snap/2016/09/27/id/750421/?ns_mail_uid=30193271&ns_mail_job=1689800_09272016&s=al&dkt_nbr=pdtyyfys
The ABC is so biased toward the left that I ask myself why I punish myself by watching it? One reason; no two reasons why I do are; I do not pay for cable television so I am limited somewhat on certain news sources and secondly the mute still works.
The first five or six minutes shows their bias but that’s the ABC!
“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
The “One Nation is a political party representing the people of Australia who are concerned that their will is being ignored by the two party system. One Nation is committed to Australian sovereignty, the Constitution and Government of the people by the people for the people. Based on this view we have developed policies reflecting the will of the people. Our role as a political party is to select and recommend to the people candidates that we feel reflect our objectives and policies and are worthy of representing them and their will as dedicated parliamentary representatives.”
What Hanson said was so disturbing to the Greens Senators they walked out. You or I may not agree with everything she said but at least she had the fortitude to speak against the PC Police. So with Mr. Roberts. These two spoke to some real political issues Australia and the United States are facing today; The religion of Climate Change and Immigration by many who may never integrate into a democratic society.
The scary thing is these people can vote! Whether they will take the time or energy to do so is another thing!!!
Hmm, isn’t Karl Marx dead? 
Maybe he is talking about another Karl Marx?
Last year (2015) my wife and I were in the states visitng family. This visit took us to Chattanooga, TN. While we were there two memorable incidents occurred. In Charleston, 
SC Dylan Roof entered a church where blacks were meeting for prayer and murdered nine people. The other memorable incident took place in Chattanooga. My wife and I were eating at a restaurant and our daughter called us from work and told us to stay where we were as a shooter was on the loose. We later learned it was Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez who murdered one sailor and four Marines.
What I want to bring attention to is what transpired after these events. As far as I can find out not much changed after the Chattanooga murders. ISIS (even though it is not Islamic according to the PC folk) is still doing its thing, Mosques are still open, the Koran is still in print and the Islamic flag still flies.
What occurred after the Charleston murders? The Confederate flag was a point of great controversy!! but nothing Islamic seemed to be a point of contention! Even some statues of Confederate soldiers have been desecraated or removed altogether. http://thefederalist.com/2016/05/24/war-on-the-confederacy-is-a-war-on-the-past/ I do not agree with everything in this article but it is worth reading.
My point to ALL of this is how these two situations were treated so much differently. One would think the Confederate Flag pulled the trigger that killed nine people! While the Muslim boy murders military personnel there is not one word of condemning the Koran or Islam! Something is going on here!
The following video is worth your time to watch and hopefully will help you understand the great heritage one has from being from the South; whether black or white.
http://www.southernheritage411.com/
Mr. Obama, it is wrong to kill “innocent” people but is it wrong to kill non-Muslims?
It seems if you are a white conservative male, you are to keep silent unless asked to speak. Well, “A free speech revolution is just over the horizon. Several recent events are demonstrating that Australians are sick and tired of a political class that gets to decide the limits of public debate and restrict the free flow of ideas. Such a system is anti-democratic, and it is being rejected.
Three key events are shaping the debate on freedom of speech, and in particular, the infamous section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. This insidious provision infantilises Australians by presuming we are all so mentally feeble that the law ought to be used to protect us against being offended or insulted.
Section 18C makes it unlawful to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate a person on the basis of race, colour or national or ethnic origin. This law has been the subject of sustained criticism for its clear restriction on freedom of speech.
The first of the three events that are leading to a growing understanding of the dangers of section 18C has its origins back on May 27, 2013. Alex Wood, then a 20-year-old engineering student at the Queensland University of Technology, was looking for a computer on campus on which to do some study. He found a computer lab and sat down to complete his homework at one of the free terminals.
A short time later, Alex was approached by a university administrator named Cindy Prior, who asked Alex whether he was indigenous. He replied that he wasn’t, and the administrator told him that the computer lab was reserved for indigenous students at the university and asked him to leave. Alex obliged, and went looking for another computer lab in which to complete his work. Once he had found another computer, he logged on to Facebook, and posted about his experience at the indigenous computer lab.
His post on the ‘QUT Stalkerspace’ page read: ‘Just got kicked out of the unsigned indigenous computer room. QUT stopping segregation with segregation.’
Several other students replied to Alex’s post. Prior, upon becoming aware of the post, had the comments scanned and sent them to an equity officer at QUT and asked that action be taken against the students. The officer contacted Alex and asked him to delete the post, to which Alex agreed. When he went back to the page, it had already been removed.
This sequence of events has snowballed into what has become a three-year legal saga. Prior first made a formal complaint to the university, but was not satisfied with the result of that process after a year of negotiating with QUT.
She then made a complaint under section 18C to the Australian Human Rights Commission. The AHRC investigated the matter without notifying the students that a complaint had been made against them. And finally, after the AHRC could not resolve the dispute, Prior lodged an application to the Federal Court of Australia. The case is ongoing and a decision is expected soon on whether it will proceed to trial.
This is not the sign of a healthy, thriving democracy. Students at university should be free to write on Facebook pages without racking up hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, and risking official sanction. This is not acceptable in a liberal democracy based on the rule of law.
But the troubling conduct of the AHRC extends beyond conducting secret trials of university students for making remarks online. Just last week, race commissioner Tim Soutphommasane pleaded with the public to make 18C complaints to the AHRC about a cartoon in this newspaper.
The cartoon, by Bill Leak, depicted an indigenous man who appeared not to know the identity of his own son. There’s no doubt the cartoon was provocative – that’s the role of a
cartoonist. They poke and prod accepted wisdom and social conventions in ways that people can find uncomfortable.
But a government bureaucrat using his position to make public pronouncements about what is acceptable to print in newspapers is intensely, classically undemocratic. And Australians are sick of it. One of those Australians is NSW Liberal Democratic senator David Leyonhjelm, who has shown his 
disdain for 18C by lodging a complaint under the provision he wants to repeal.
Leyonhjelm ignored Soutphommasane’s instructions and instead complained about an article by Fairfax’s Mark Kenny, in which Kenny described Leyonhjelm as an ‘angry white male’.
Leyonhjelm has been open about the fact that he is not offended by the description but that others may be. While there is obviously an element of mockery behind the complaint, the case will be a fascinating glimpse into the thinking of the AHRC, and whether there exist double standards depending on the ethnic group to which potentially 18C-breaching conduct is directed.
The tide is going out on 18C. ‘Offend’ and ‘insult’ must go. Watch this space.” http://ipa.org.au/news/3548/time-to-act:-curbs-on-free-speech-must-go
whatyareckon 