Slate implies racism drives Conservatism

From my FB Page

Here is an article from ‪#‎Slate‬. As you know, Slate does not have the slightest idea of what makes Conservatives tick. But in reading this article, I find they THINK they do!!! The whole article leans towards calling ‪#‎Racism‬ the primary motivation for all things ‪#Conservative‬.

Several times during the article they cite “white backlash” whatever that is. They throw in George Wallace, then say something inferring that Reagan was a ‪#‎racist‬.

Here’s an excerpt : Republican voters have been mobilized and organized by the politics of white backlash, and the degree to which conservative organs like National Review have been active participants in the process. The classic example is William F. Buckley’s infamous 1957 editorial, “Why the South Must Prevail,” where the National Review founder and premier conservative intellectual made the case against the civil rights movement. “The central question that emerges,” writes Buckley, “is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically. The sobering answer is Yes—the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race.”

WTF does 1957 have to do with the 2016 election would be my first question. You see how they are playing it??? They rattle on with a bunch of rhetoric that the bottom line for Conservatives is Race!!! That is exactly what they are implying with every carefully placed word!!! It really does not bother me, because the readers (and writers) over at #Slate are very weak of mind. I know this. Yet at the same time that’s the point. They are pouring this garbage down the throats of weak minded individuals who will believe it, and form opinions based on this nonsense!!!

One thing I’ll tell you, they are SCARED of ‪#‎TedCruz‬!!! They are like little girls squealing as the neighborhood bully takes their dolls. The simple minded buffoons at slate want ‪#‎Trump‬ to be the candidate, because they all know that once Ted Cruz wins the Presidency “The jig is up!!!”

PS.   Be sure to watch the video of Trump at the end of the page, it’s full of classic “I’m not gonna say that” from Trump, showing his idiocy

You can read the rest at http://www.slate.com/…/gop_elites_prefer_donald_trump_to_te…

Yes, They Are Coming for Your Guns | FrontPage Mag

It’s not paranoia if they’re really gunning for you.

January 25, 2016

Mark Tapson

191

Progressives love to ridicule Americans who are concerned that their Second Amendment rights are being threatened by a gun control-obsessed Obama administration. “No one is coming for your precious guns,” the hoplophobes taunt. “We just want commonsense gun laws.” Except that the pursuit of “commonsense gun laws,” which already exist, is just a smokescreen – President Obama and his crew really are coming for your precious guns.

Obama has made it no secret that he intends to push hard for stricter gun control in his final stretch in office. He emphasized that determination by appearing to be overcome with emotion when discussing the Sandy Hook shooting in a speech on gun control on January 4. That tearful moment – staged or not – spoke powerfully to his fan base, because leftists are all about feelings rather than facts; they feel for the children lost to gun violence, and if you object to “commonsense gun laws” then you are obviously a heartless right-winger who doesn’t care if children die. Never mind that the measures they want to implement not only would not have prevented most mass shootings, but – like the impotency of “gun-free zones” – they are more likely to prevent law-abiding gun owners from defending themselves and their loved ones from mass shooters.

Just prior to that speech, Obama issued executive actions expanding background checks on people buying firearms online or at gun shows. “This is a dangerous level of executive overreach, and the country will not stand for it,” Speaker Paul Ryan responded. “The president is at minimum subverting the legislative branch, and potentially overturning its will.”

Also at the beginning of the year, the Obama administration finalized a rule allowing health care providers to report the names of mentally ill patients to an FBI firearms background check system. Now watch the definition of “mentally ill” begin to expand to include any belief or behavior that the left would like to stamp out – fervent adherence to the Constitution, homeschooling, and climate change “denial,” for example – enabling the government to categorize those gun owners as mentally ill and disarm them.

That’s not all. The Washington Examiner announced that Obama plans to build a new gun control force of 430 agents, more than eight times the size of the team of commandos he is sending to the Middle East to take on ISIS.

And yet in a televised townhall meeting a few days later, Obama treated concerns about gun control overreach as paranoia. CNN moderator Anderson Cooper asked the President about worries that his administration wants to seize all firearms as a precursor to imposing martial law. He blamed that notion on the National Rifle Association (NRA) and others who worry that “somebody’s going to come grab your guns.”

Obama dismissed that concern as crazy talk. “Yes, that is a conspiracy,” he said, then added unconvincingly: “I’m only going to be here for another year. When would I have started on this enterprise?”

Actually, the legal groundwork for that enterprise has long been underway, and it is picking up momentum, especially in California, which is always on the cutting edge of progressive lunacy. Already this month, three separate gun control bills attempting to categorize just about every firearm as an “assault weapon” have been introduced in California, which already has the strictest gun laws in the country and nothing to show for it except increasingly fed-up, law-abiding gun owners.

Senate Bill 880, authored by Democrat Senators Isadore Hall III and Steve Glazer, would change the definition of “assault weapon” to include any semi-automatic, centerfire rifle, or even semi-automatic handgun that does not have a “fixed magazine” but has any one of a list of “evil features.” The bill defines “fixed magazine” as one that “cannot be removed without disassembly of the firearm action.” This would include potentially millions of firearms, including handguns, that would then need to be registered as “assault weapons” with the Department of Justice.

“Senate Bill 880 is another bill representative of the gun control frenzy we’re seeing from big-city Democrats these days,” says Brandon Combs, president of the Firearms Policy Coalition. “Legislators like Hall and Glazer absolutely want to take your guns one bill at a time.”

That goes for California’s fifteen-year-old Unsafe Handgun Act, which includes a roster of handguns that meet the state’s increasingly stringent safety requirements; that roster is getting gradually smaller. The Calguns Foundation estimates that “at the current rate the number of approved handguns will dwindle to practically zero within the next six years… leaving a state of some 38 million unable to purchase new semi-automatic handguns.”

As Eugene Volokh puts it at The Washington Post, calls for bans on the sale or home possession of semiautomatic weapons in general are increasing. “These aren’t calls for restricting supposedly narrow categories of guns that are allegedly used predominantly by criminals,” he writes. “These are calls for banning the sorts of guns that tens of millions of law-abiding Americans have in their homes.”

California Attorney General and anti-gun extremist Kamala Harris recently announced that over the last two years her Department had “doubled the average number of guns seized annually.” She is now backing a separate bill that would require all rifles sold in the state to have permanently fixed magazines. “The devastation wrought by gun violence on innocent victims, children and families in this country, is an international embarrassment,” Harris said in a statement.

International embarrassment? Here is something the internationalist left doesn’t understand: what the rest of the world thinks about American guns is irrelevant. The rest of the world is not America. No other country has or even understands our Constitutionally-guaranteed Second Amendment right. So no other country’s opinion matters.

The leftist media too like the idea of drastic anti-gun measures. Last December The New York Times posted a front-page op-ed for the first time since 1920. “End the Gun Epidemic in America” proposed reducing the number of firearms “drastically — eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition.” As for the Second Amendment: “No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation”:

Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

The NRA is trying to counter the left’s anti-gun hysteria. For example, the organization has recently partnered with my friend Amelia Hamilton, a conservative blogger and author of the Growing Patriots series of children’s books, to produce a series of amusing fairy tales reimagined to show what might happen if some of the hapless characters like Hansel and Gretel were trained in the safe use of firearms. “Little Red Riding Hood (Has a Gun),” for example, depicts an armed Red and her armed grandmother successfully defending themselves against the Big Bad Wolf. The Huffington Post huffed and puffed that by doing so, the NRA is trying to put guns into the hands of children.

HuffPost also complains that in the Little Red Riding Hood tale, “the NRA doesn’t explore what would happen if the Big Bad Wolf showed up at the door wielding a firearm himself.” Well, what if he did? All the more reason for Little Red and her grandmother to have their own firepower to defend themselves – that’s why a handgun is called “the great equalizer.” But the left likes to believe that good guys with guns are inept, untrained, and a danger to themselves and others, so having a gun for self-defense only invites more potential for harm.

In the aforementioned townhall meeting, for example, a rape victim confronted Obama about his gun control measures and said she would never allow herself or her family to be victimized again. Here is the President’s condescending response:

There are always questions as to whether or not having a firearm in the home protects you from that kind of violence… What is true is that you have to be pretty well-trained in order to fire a weapon against someone who is assaulting you and catches you by surprise. What is also true is always that possibility that firearm in the home leads to a tragic accident.

Translation: unless you’re a Navy SEAL, you can’t be trusted with a handgun to protect yourself. You’ll just end up hurting yourself or a loved one.

In any case, our Constitutional right to own firearms ultimately isn’t about self-defense, or even hunting; it’s about Americans defending ourselves against a tyrannical government. The fact that gun and ammunition sales as well as NRA memberships have soared since Obama took office is a clear indication of just how concerned Americans are that we are potentially facing just such a threat from the Obama administration and a possible future Clinton administration.

Candidate Hillary Clinton is, if anything, prepared as President to go even further to remove guns from American society. She has spoken favorably of the possibility of initiating something here like the Australian mandatory gun buyback program. And yet she has ridiculed the NRA for believing that the gun rights organization is the only thing keeping “the black helicopters from landing in the front yard and people’s guns being seized.”

Hillary, who travels with a phalanx of armed guards, can mock all she likes, but if she, Obama, and the radical left continue pushing this issue, they will discover that, like Brooke Shields and her Calvin Klein jeans, Americans won’t let anything come between them and their guns. If it comes to a showdown over gun confiscation, American gun owners will have a firm answer for the government: Molon labe.

Mark Tapson is the editor of TruthRevolt.org and a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

Tags: Guns, Left, Obama

Share

About Mark Tapson

Mark Tapson, a Hollywood-based writer and screenwriter, is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and the editor of TruthRevolt.com.

Source : FRONTPAGE MAG

Chicago Democrat Sworn into Office from Jail

Typical Democrat! “A Felon that steals from Taxpayers” will soon become the actual Webster’s definition of “Democrat” if Democrats hold their present course!!! Exhibit A is found in this FrontPage Mag article by Daniel Greenfield

January 25, 2016

Daniel Greenfield

44

Wouldn’t it just be more convenient to move the city government into prison or to just treat government buildings as prisons? It would save commuting time and make trials much simpler.

Just ask Bob Battle.

Locks and bars didn’t stop East Chicago Councilman Robert Battle’s inauguration.

The newly sworn-in Battle can retain his public title and annual salary of $42,356 a year despite being held in Porter County Jail on federal drug and homicide charges.

He is pleading not guilty to a five-count indictment alleging he possessed cocaine and marijuana and killed a street gang member as part of a drug-dealing conspiracy.

Democrats are oddly unhappy, even though they seem to be big fans of Obama’s “free the drug dealers” plan. Not to mention restoring voting rights to felons.

“I can’t remember a situation like this,” Sheriff John Buncich, chair of the Lake County Democratic Central Committee, told the Tribune in November, when Battle was reelected just a few weeks after being charged with murder and drug dealing. “It’s wrong for the taxpayers, wrong for our party.”

How, exactly, a man charged with murder and drug dealing just days before an election could win reelection says a lot about life in this poor northwestern corner of Indiana.

The answer: he’s a Democrat.

Battle ran unopposed, winning with just 308 votes in a city of about 30,000 people.

Battle didn’t even vote for himself because he was in jail and didn’t request an absentee ballot, Buncich told NWI.com.

“I just think it’s just a matter of people not knowing [about the charges] and voting for the party they are familiar with,” Eisenstein told the Tribune.

That’s what happens when you have a one-party system.

As early as April, the agents with the Drug Enforcement Agency and the Lake County High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area task force were tapping his phone and investigating him for drug trafficking, according to an Oct. 14 indictment obtained by the Tribune.

On Sept. 23, officials caught Battle with 73 grams of marijuana and $100,700 in cash in his car, according to the indictment. Police also linked him to nine ounces of cocaine and three stolen guns found elsewhere, according to the documents.

Roughly three weeks later, Battle allegedly shot Camarillo in an alley behind Battle’s apartment. Battle said that he killed Camarillo in self-defense after Camarillo pulled a knife on him, according to court documents. But the Lake County Coroner’s Office ruled that Caramillo was shot once in the back, and police failed to find a knife at the scene, the Tribune reported.

Forget Trump, this is a guy who actually got reelected after shooting somebody in the back. Now those are real political skills. But the Democrats, despite their protests now, let it happen.

In 2014, reputed Imperial Gangster Eddie “Macho” Torres tesitified that East Chicago Councilman Robert “Coop” Battle had been involved in the drug trade in the past. Add that to the multiple arrests for possession of marijuana and you get a picture of a candidate most political parties would want to dump. Not so with the Lake County Democratic Party. Battle could have been easily removed from the ballot in several ways, but no one ever challenged him.

Election Board records show that Robert Battle filed a pre-primary report in 2011 showing that Battle neither received nor spent money in the campaign. While that alone should be enough for a challenge, he never filed a single report after that. Candidates are required to file 3 reports in an election year and an annual report in non-election years. Despite that, Battle appeared on the 2015 ballot unchallenged.

What’s the difference between a criminal and a Democrat? No, seriously. What’s the difference?

About Daniel Greenfield

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

Read More

Source : FRONTPAGE MAG

States Step Up Efforts to Nullify Federal Gun Control Edicts| The New American

Sunday, 24 January 2016

States Step Up Efforts to Nullify Federal Gun Control Edicts

Written by  Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.

If now ye suffer grievously through cowardice all your own,

Cherish no wrath against the gods for this,

For you yourselves increased the usurper’s power by giving him your guard in his hands,

And now, therefore, as his servants you must do as he commands.

— Solon, the Lawgiver of Athens, circa 560 B.C.

 

Since the day he was inaugurated, Barack Obama has pursued twin policies of civilian disarmament and converting local police into a federally funded standing army free from the fetters of local accountability.

He is so sincerely dedicated to achieving these goals that he has usurped the lawmaking powers of Congress and has issued edicts that he promises to enforce with thousands of federal agents who, while the people are being left defenseless, count on an ever-increasing arsenal of military-grade weapons and billions of rounds of ammunition.

Our Founding Fathers were aware of the potential for presidents to accumulate powers not granted them in the Constitution, and they relied on the states to serve as barricades to protect the people from federal officials who would betray them and their oaths of office.

The principal and most effective weapon of state resistance to federal overreaching is nullification. This antidote can stop the poison of all unconstitutional federal acts and executive orders at the state borders and prevent them from being imposed on the people.

Every state in this union retains this right of refusal owing to their role as creators of the federal government because they, the states, created the federal government and reserve the right to resist the exercise by Congress of any powers not specifically granted to it by the states in the Constitution.

States are, it is true, bound by the terms of their agreement (the Constitution) that created the federal government, but they have no obligation to sustain acts of the central government that go beyond the boundaries of that agreement.

This principle is easy to understand by answering the following question: Would anyone enter into an agreement with others to create an entity that would have unlimited authority over them?

Fortunately, when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms, not only did the states give no power to the federal government to interfere in it, but they explicitly prohibited it from infringing whatsoever on this critical liberty.

The Second Amendment states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Now, in the era of an executive without consideration for any constitutional restraints on his power, states must come to the defense of the rights of the people, and many states are doing just that.

As of the date of publication of this article, at least 15 states are in the process of passing bills that would stop the enforcement of federal gun control measures — congressional, executive, and judicial — at the state borders, protecting this fundamental freedom from the application of unconstitutional acts.

James Madison would applaud these state governments’ “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” when those officers are attempting to enforce unconstitutional orders.

Thanks to the educational efforts of organizations such as the Tenth Amendment Center and The John Birch Society, many more state lawmakers are becoming aware of their obligation to deny any aid to the statists in Washington, D.C. and the armies of agents that are sent, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, “to harass our people and eat out their substance.”

Americans determined to defend their right to mount armed resistance to the imposition of tyranny on a once self-governing people must seek out those candidates who will not cower in the face of federal threats if the states are to be successful in nullifying the current administration’s attempts to control the owning, buying, selling, trading, and transferring of all weapons and ammunition.

While there are many state representatives fighting to defend this freedom, the situation in Virginia is disheartening, particularly considering the Old Dominion is the home of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, the authors of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, the clearest explanations of the principles protecting the sovereignty of states and the liberties of their people from usurpations by the federal authority.

Consider this report from the Tenth Amendment Center published on January 18:

New documents show that Virginia police are not only admitting to regularly helping the feds enforce federal gun control measures, they’re also worried about losing the funding that comes with it.

House Bill 83, filed in the Virginia state House, would prohibit state agencies and officers from enforcing new federal gun control laws. The bill has been referred to the Appropriations Committee over financial concerns.

According to state documents, although the bill is not expected to have a “direct fiscal” impact on the Department of State Police, the department is claiming that there is a “potential of reduction or elimination of federal grants that they currently have related the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).”

Among those federal grants are for mental health Web service between the state Supreme Court and the police department.

“The first thing that comes to mind is that Virginia state police is outright admitting to being actively involved in helping the feds enforce federal gun measures,” said Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. “There’s nothing in the constitution that requires Virginia to help the feds violate your rights — and this needs to stop.”

Fortunately, on that same day South Carolina’s state legislature saw the introduction of a bill that would:

Prohibit the use or allocation of public funds, personnel, or property to implement, regulate, or enforce a federal law, executive order, regulation, or rule regulating the ownership, use, or possession of firearms, ammunition, or firearm accessories.

That is the kind of language needed if nullification is to perform its proper function, that of forcing the federal beast back inside its constitutional cage and maintaining the manifold rights of the people.

If nullification is to be successfully deployed and defended, other states lawmakers must follow the example of the state lawmakers in these 15 states and remember that the Constitution is a creature of the states and that the federal government was given very few and very limited powers over objects of national importance.

The Founders believed and enshrined in our Constitution the timeless principle of liberty that if an act of Congress exceeds the scope of the enumerated powers given to the federal government in the Constitution, then that act was not made in pursuance of the Constitution and is therefore “merely [an act] of usurpation”; it is not only not the supreme law of the land, but it is not law at all.

As Alexander Hamilton explained The Federalist, No. 28:

It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system, that the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority. Projects of usurpation cannot be masked under pretenses so likely to escape the penetration of select bodies of men, as of the people at large. The legislatures will have better means of information. They can discover the danger at a distance; and possessing all the organs of civil power, and the confidence of the people, they can at once adopt a regular plan of opposition, in which they can combine all the resources of the community. They can readily communicate with each other in the different States, and unite their common forces for the protection of their common liberty.

If states permit the federal government to rob the people of their ability to resist tyranny, then all other liberties will be at the mercy of that same federal force, for a disarmed populace is a slave populace.

Source : The New American

Did Trump Vote for Obama??? | Glenn Beck

Let’s hypothesize for a moment that Donald Trump did actually vote for Obama in the 2008 election. If so, should it matter? If a presidential candidate’s long-standing track record, opinions and stated beliefs hold any value, it should. Glenn has emphatically stated his belief that Trump voted for Obama in the 2008 election, laying out a series of facts that would make it hard to believe otherwise. Take a look at some of those facts below. Does it matter? Should you care? If you’re unsure, ask yourself this question: Would you have ever voted for Obama under any circumstances? Take the poll below.

Source: http://www.glennbeck.com/did-trump-vote-for-obama?utm_source=glennbeck&utm_medium=contentcopy_link

Alliance for Fair Coverage of Life Issues

The media are no longer the watchdogs for the American public, but the lapdogs of a liberal agenda committed to the destruction of life. The Alliance for Fair Coverage of Life Issues calls out journalists for their ongoing blackout of pro-life news and demands reporters live up to the standards of journalistic integrity by covering life issues.

The March for Life Media Censorship

The three broadcast networks – ABC, CBS and NBC – have promoted Planned Parenthood, downplayed scandalous abortion videos and given little attention to the march and other pro-life events.

Last year, 200,000 people filled Washington, D.C. for the annual March for Life commemorating the 57 million babies snuffed out since 1973’s Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. Only CBS mentioned the march, allotting just 15 seconds. That was only one second for every 13,000 people who put work, school and other obligations aside to travel from as far away as the West Coast. That was only one second for every 3.8 million babies aborted in the last four decades.

In 2014, the networks devoted 46 seconds to the hundreds of thousands marching in Washington, D.C. Yet, ABC, NBC and CBS spent six times that on the National Zoo’s new panda cub and four-and-a-half times that on the Climate March.

Since 2013, the networks have devoted just 78 seconds to the March for Life – slightly more than they might have spent broadcasting a couple of burger ads.

This year, ABC, CBS and NBC have no excuse to silence these pro-life voices. This year, the Center for Medical Progress released horrific videos exposing Planned Parenthood’s harvesting of aborted baby parts. This year, CMP’s David Daleiden proved a game-changer not only in the pro-life movement but also in Congress.

This year, it’s time for the networks to stop censoring the news and to tell the truth about the March for Life.

To hold the media accountable on life issues, Alliance for Fair Coverage of Life Issues encourages citizens to contact the network representatives listed below to demand coverage of the march and pro-life issues. Tell @ABC, @CBSNews and @NBCNews to #CovertheMarch on Twitter.

Mr. Steve Burke

CALL NOW:
(877) 784-9793

President, NBC Universal
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10112

Mr. David Rhodes

CALL NOW:
(877) 734-8032

President, CBS News
524 W. 57th Street
New York, NY 10019

Mr. Ben Sherwood

CALL NOW:
(877) 660-5301

President, Disney-ABC Television Group
47 West 66th Street
New York, NY 10023

Outlined below are some important talking points:

1. Last year, despite hundreds of thousands of marchers, ABC and NBC failed to even mention the March for Life. CBS allotted just 15 seconds. This is NOT journalism. This is bias.
2. Since 2013, ABC, CBS and NBC have spent just 78 seconds covering the March for Life.
3. This year, after the Planned Parenthood videos and Congress’ push to defund Planned Parenthood, there is no excuse to ignore the march other than a pure liberal bias.
4. Ask the media to cover the March for Life fairly and accurately. This includes:
   • Details of the March and its purpose
   • Accurate number of attendees based on the official headcount
   • Speakers and their topics
   • 2016 March for Life theme: “Pro-Life and Pro-Woman Go Hand-in-Hand”
   • Focus on the pro-life rally and attendees, not the outnumbered minority of pro-choice protesters. This rally is not about them, it’s about the unborn

Alliance for Fair Coverage of Life Issues Guidelines

To regain the trust of the American public, Alliance for Fair Coverage of Life Issues urges journalists to adhere to the following guidelines while reporting on life issues:

1. Report on life issues of public interest.

The media have an obligation to report on life, from the unborn to the elderly. That includes videos questioning a taxpayer-funded organization and events like a congressional vote to defund Planned Parenthood.

2. Report on the pro-life movement.

Report on the March for Life and on the movement’s nationwide protests and other pro-life events. Don’t censor voices according to an agenda.

3. Include pro-life voices.

As journalists, remember to include experts who defend life, from conception until natural death, regardless of personal ideology.

4. Refuse conflict-of-interest awards.

Reject awards or benefits, as a journalist, from special interest organizations that expect something in return. And they often expect something in return.

5. Don’t Dismiss. Investigate.

Take seriously the claims against abortion organizations like Planned Parenthood. Don’t assume the talking points of one side. Look into health complaints at facilities and report on patients that have been harmed by abortion.

Alliance Partners:

---

Alliance for Fair Coverage of Life Issues encourages citizens to petition news outlets to show scenes like these to the American public, instead of engaging in censorship:

March for Life 2015:

March for Life 2014:

March for Life 2013:

http://www.mrctv.org/embed/119638

The mission of the Media Research Center is to create a media culture in America where truth and liberty flourish. The MRC is a research and education organization operating under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and contributions to the MRC are tax-deductible. Copyright © 2016, Media Research Center. All Rights Reserved.

©Copyright 2016, Media Research Center  |  All Rights Reserved  |  About MRC  |  Contact Us

Source : Alliance for Fair Coverage of Life Issues

and the Media Research Center

Cruz Commander – TV Ad

Sit back and watch #CruzCommander (IN CHIEF) in his new ad with the boys from Duck Commander!!!

This 2012 photo released by A&E shows, from left, Phil Robertson, Jase Robertson, Si Robertson and Willie Robertson from the A&E series, “Duck Dynasty.” The A&E channel says “Duck Dynasty” patriarch Phil Robertson is off the show indefinitely after condemning gays as sinners in a magazine interview. In a statement Wednesday, Dec. 18, 2013, A&E said it was extremely disappointed to read Robertson’s comments in GQ magazine. (AP Photo/A&E, Zach Dilgard)

We are voting for you!!! ALL of us!!!

WASHINGTON– Sen. Ted Cruz spent the weekend duck hunting and winning over Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson’s endorsement.

The campaign released a new ad with the endorsement, showing Cruz and Robertson huddled in a duck blind, covered head-to-toe in camouflage and donning dark face paint.

Cruz said at a gun rally yesterday they were blowing ducks out of the sky.

“My qualifications for president of the United States are rather narrow,” Robertson said in the ad, quieting concerns over Cruz’s natural-born citizenship.

“Is he or she Godly, does he or she love us, can he or she do the job, and finally would they kill a duck and put him in a pot and make him a good duck gumbo?” he said.

Robertson tells Cruz he is “one of us, my man” earning Robertson’s vote.

Robertson and Cruz last met at a rally against the Iran nuclear deal in September. At the time Robertson said “I was anti [establishment] when anti wasn’t even cool,” noting that Cruz, along with his rival Donald Trump were true anti-establishment candidates.

Source : The Dallas Morning News

 

 

Dear Christians, If You Vote For A Godless Man, You Are Asking For Tyranny | The Blaze

Jan. 19, 2016 12:22pm

Matt Walsh

Matt Walsh is a blogger, writer, speaker, and professional truth sayer.

It’s very simple. If a man has no moral center, if he has ambition but no faith, if he does not demonstrate humility or integrity, I will never vote for him for president. I don’t care who he is, what he’s done, what he says, or what positions he holds. None of that will matter when we are living under his tyranny, and tyranny is sure to follow when you give unspeakable power to a man who believes he is God.

I’ll put this another way: if you vote for a man who worships himself over God, you deserve the tyranny that happens next.

You deserve it because you chose it, just as the souls in Hell deserve Hell because they chose it. If you go to the ballot box and say, “I am going to do my part to put this self-absorbed pagan in charge of my nation” you are directly consenting to the inevitable result. You are embracing it. You are literally asking for it.

I know this will not resonate with atheists, but for us God-fearing folk it is extraordinarily obvious and irrefutable that we ought to only vote for other God-fearing folk. John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” I think it goes without saying that if the governed ought to be moral and religious, certainly the governors ought to be the same, and arguably more so.

That brings me to Donald Trump. I’ve tried to talk sense into Trump fans a thousand different ways and to no avail. It is a mob mentality driving Trump-mania, and mobs are famously difficult to reason with.

There is no use in trying to appeal to them as one group, anyway. Many elements comprise the Trump base, and most of them have values and principles that are completely antithetical to what any real conservative believes. But in the middle of this bizzare Trumpling potpourri are, apparently, Christians. Perhaps a vast number of them.

Indeed, many Christians have fallen for the Donald; there’s no way he could be doing well in Iowa without them. The melding of Trumpianity with Christianity has been among the more awkward and grotesque phenomenons I’ve ever witnessed in my life. I watch it unfold feeling like a guy whose best friend just started dating the town floozy. I try to tell him that she’s sleeping around, she’s betraying him, she’ll break his heart, but he’s too smitten to hear me. I fear many of my brothers and sisters in Christ are making the same mistake, and the spectacle is causing me an immense amount of emotional and spiritual pain.

The situation boiled over on Monday when Trump was invited to speak at Liberty University, a private Christian college in Virginia. After that display, I had no choice but to write this final desperate plea to Christian Trump fans.

Granted, all presidential candidates have been offered an audience at the university, but one wonders if they all receive such an adoring welcome. Jerry Falwell Jr., president of the university, came out to introduce the great Trump. Falwell showered him with effusive, worshipful praise, calling him a “visionary,” a “breath of fresh air” who “speaks truth.”

Falwell said his “admiration” for Trump continues to grow, and he’s especially excited whenever he gets to visit the Donald’s offices in New York. With each sycophantic sentence he sounded less like the head of an academic institution and more like a boy bragging about his dad to his friends on the playground.

Falwell rattled off a list of Trump’s charitable endeavors, calling him generous and friendly and personable. He beamed that Trump “cannot be bought” because he’s not a “puppet on a string,” unlike “other candidates.” The unrepentant butt kissing went completely off the rails when Falwell hailed Trump’s “servant leadership” and insisted that Trump “lives a life of loving and helping others, as Jesus taught.” Falwell didn’t stipulate whether trying to steal property from elderly widows so he can build casinos fits under the “loving and helping others” umbrella.

He dismissed Christian criticisms of the candidate by saying the qualities needed to run the country aren’t the same as the qualities needed to run a church. Finally, in a moment that appeared to be a desperate cry for help, Falwell began comparing Trump to Jesus, Martin Luther King Jr, and his own father. After about 15 excruciating minutes, he wrapped up his introduction/adoration ritual by declaring that Trump “loves this country and desires more than anything to make American great again.”

It wasn’t an endorsement. It was practically a marriage proposal.

I didn’t watch the Trump spiel that followed in full, but I did see him begin his remarks, as Jesus used to do, with the requisite 10-minute boast about his poll numbers. Trump did make one attempt to pretend to know something about the Christian faith, and it was, as Trump would say, a total disaster:

“And I asked Jerry, and I asked some of the folks, because I hear this is a major theme right here. But two Corinthians, right? Two Corinthians 3:17. That’s the whole ballgame. Where the spirit of the Lord — right? Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. And here there is Liberty college…. But this is really, is that the one? Is that the one you like? I think that’s the one you like. Because I loved it. And it’s so representative of what’s taken place. But we are going to protect Christianity… And we’ve gotta protect it. Because bad things are happening. Very bad things are happening… If you look at this country, it’s gotta be 70 percent, 75 percent, some people say even more. No matter where I go, we’re having tremendous crowds and we’re setting records…”

Some people are having fun at Trump’s expense because of how he pronounced the verses — “two” instead of “second” — but that’s an unfair criticism. Obviously Trump can’t be expected to know the correct pronunciations. The guy can’t even name a book in the Bible, for goodness sake. And that’s because Trump is not a Christian by any stretch of the imagination.

Trump says he loves God but he never asks for forgiveness because he doesn’t need it. When asked to clarify that bit of heresy this past weekend, he explained that he’s “good” and he “lives a very good life.” Then he cited his poll numbers.

His behavior doesn’t appear to be any more “Christian” than his theology. We won’t talk about the fact that he’s a serial adulterer who abandoned his family (twice) to shack up with younger women. We won’t get into how his ex-wife once alleged that he ripped out chunks of her hair and violated her. We won’t delve into how the great Christian Trump sent his lawyer to intimidate and censor journalists who write about those accusations, and how his attorney recently told The Daily Beast, “I’m warning you, tread very f**king lightly, because what I’m going to do to you is going to be f**king disgusting. You understand me?” (Is that what you call “servant leadership,” Mr. Falwell?)

We don’t even need to get into alleged ties to the mob or financial scams or his confession that he bribes politicians. We won’t harp any longer on the fact that he spent most of his adult life espousing views and funding politicians who enact legislation directly contradictory to Christian teaching. We won’t talk about his support for a woman’s legal right to murder a fully developed infant all the way into the ninth month of pregnancy.

To be clear — but, like I said, I’m not harping on it — Trump believed that it should be legal to stab a child in the skull as it is in the process of being birthed, cut a hole in its head, and suck its brain out through a tube. Trump thought such atrocities should be legally protected, and he thought that up until the moment when he developed an ambition to run for president as a Republican. Even after this miraculous conversion, he still says abortion isn’t murder, that he’s only pro-life “with caveats,” and that Planned Parenthood “serves a good function.” Worst of all, he’s made it clear that he wouldn’t mind putting radical pro-abortion zealots on the Supreme Court.

But whatever. That was then, this is now. Well, a lot of it is now, too. Probably all of it. But forget that. Let’s pretend he was by his own admission a conniving, ethically bankrupt, womanizing, billionaire elitist TV star who believed in the legal legitimacy of butchering viable infants, but that all ended a few years ago when he turned 65 and finally grew up.

So what about now? Is he running as a Christian today? We know he can’t speak semi-coherently about the Bible, he has no understanding of basic Christian teaching, he thinks Christianity does not require us to ask for forgiveness, and our relationship with Christ can be measured using polling data, but does he otherwise carry himself as anything resembling a Christian?

I don’t see it, do you?

I see a guy who lies constantly and blatantly. I see a man who changes his positions and his principles at the drop of a hat. I see a deeply immature man who insults people on Twitter but lacks the courage to face them in person. I see someone who fashions himself “politically incorrect” but is really just a cruel and bitter old man who thinks it’s funny to mock the disabled. I see a man with no honor who launches vulgar attacks on women and then lies about what he said. I see a phony who brazenly exploits the fears of the American public. I see a guy whose recklessness and greed drives his businesses into bankruptcy, and I see a guy who tries to silence journalists when they report on it. I see a guy who jazzes up the crowd at campaign rallies by bragging about his money and threatening to throw protesters out into the cold without their coats. And so on.

Christian?

Really?

Where? How?

Look, I know none of these criticisms resonate with many Trump fans because Trump fans are fans of Trump. Period. That’s all. The end. They like him and whatever he says and whatever he does. It’s a cult of personality like any other the world has seen.

That’s why I’m only talking to Trump’s Christian supporters. The question you have to ask yourselves is this: Is there any evidence at all that Trump is a Christian? I think the answer is clear.

Next you must ask: Should we, as Christians, elect someone whose actions and beliefs run counter to our core values? Should we elect someone who is not only godless, but represents himself as God fearing for the sake of using and manipulating us?

Again, the answers are clear. Any Christian who is serious about his faith knows, first, that man separated from God cannot be trusted. Our faith and trust should be in God alone, and we can trust another man only to the extent that he has faith in God. A man who rejects God is a man with no true strength, no identity, and no fidelity to truth. A man who rejects God is a man spinning uncontrollably in the darkness; a man who soon becomes his own golden calf, his own idol, the center of his own universe. How could any Christian possibly choose to elevate such a man to our nation’s highest office?

Second, our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and it will only be saved if it returns to those principles. That is, if it rediscovers its reverence for God, its belief in the dignity of human life, its understanding of justice and Natural Law, its respect for and recognition of Truth, etc. If our country continues to ignore and undermine these values, we will be destroyed. We may or may not retain our name and our borders, but what’s contained inside will be dead and rotten and not worthy of saving anymore. This reclaiming of our foundational ideals will not happen just by electing a Christian president, but I fail to see how electing a power hungry secularist liberal could possibly help the effort.

Third, everything we do must be for the glory of God.

“Whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God” – 1 Corinthians 10:31.

I do not think voting is excluded from this directive. We should make our politics subordinate to the Gospel, not the other way around. When we vote we should think, “Am I glorifying the Lord with this decision?”

Falwell suggested that the abilities of a pastor and president need not be the same. Perhaps Falwell is correct that their resumes ought to look a little different, but certainly he must realize that their character traits should be virtually identical:

Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task.  Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?)… He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap. – 1 Timothy 3

Yes, Paul is not specifically telling us what sort of man should be president of the United States, but he is listing characteristics necessary for effective leadership. Temperate, self-controlled, respectable, not a lover of money, able to manage his family, etc. As Christians, should we not take this into account when we decide who to put in charge of the entire country? Can you as a Christian possibly argue that our nation would be somehow hurt by a leader who carries himself in this manner? Can you say Trump fits the bill here? I mean can you say it without laughing?

I’m not telling you who to vote for. Even someone who appears to behave and speak as a Christian may still be a wolf in sheep’s clothing. We can’t know for certain. But when the truth is advertised so clearly, when the character of a man and the sincerity of his convictions (or lack thereof) are made so obvious, we must respond accordingly. We can’t close our eyes to the truth, no matter how unpopular the truth may be.

Our country will not be helped by more godless, self-serving, petty, morally weak leadership. We’ve had quite enough of that, and I think it’s time to go a different route. A man of faith and integrity in the White House — now there’s a novel approach.

At least it’s worth a try, wouldn’t you say?

–

TheBlaze contributor channel supports an open discourse on a range of views. The opinions expressed in this channel are solely those of each individual author.

Source : http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/dear-christians-if-you-vote-for-a-godless-man-you-are-asking-for-tyranny/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Firewire%20-%20HORIZON%201-19-16%20FINAL&utm_term=Firewire

 

 

What is the predominant refugee group in your state? | Refugee Reserttlement Watch

Posted by Ann Corcoran on January 3, 2016

Oregon Live has produced this very cool map.  Please read the story to learn more.

For all of our new readers, go here, to see the federal list of refugee contractors working near you.  You should also see our Frequently Asked Questions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source : Refugee Resettlement Watch

 

I posted this under “welfare” because these refugees are mostly, if not completely supported by the taxpayers, including their housing, food, transportation, and medical costs. So you may want to get another job so you can support them.