The Winners:
Donald Trump - This is how you do it weasel Republicans.
Ted Cruz - This guy is always on, and his record is bulletproof.
Marco Rubio - This guy is polished, his views on immigration is dramatically improved.
Rising:
Scott Walker - This Forum was not conducive to getting out his message
John Kasich - Had a chance to have his resume known
Stayed Even:
Mike Huckabee - Started out highly ranked
Chris Christie - He hurt Rand Paul, Rand Paul hurt him with the "Hug" reference
Falling:
Jeb Bush - looked awkward
The Losers:
Ben Carson - was not polished, seemed unprepared
Rand Paul - Trump and Christie pounded him but he made good points about the 4th amendment, right message, wrong guy.
Every single one of these guys would be dramatically better than Hillary Clinton or the Disaster known as Barack Obama.
EDIT:
So I am listening to Fox News, they really do not like trump, I don;t want him to be president, but i love the red meat coming from him. The hosts clearly were going after trump and I heard a story that Murdoch hates trump. No matter what fox says, trump did fine.
My two top picks for president? Cruz and then Walker.
Thursday, August 6, 2015
Election Coverage - First Round:
First Round:
Ben Carson: Looked Nervous
Rubio's comment About Hillary Winning On Resume? Bad Bad Bad.
Trump: Kicking Ass, despite tough question
Ted Cruz: Should have spoken longer
Chris Cristie: nyeh
Scott Walker: Got an awful question from Megan Kelly, did well
Mike Huckabee: good answer
Rand Paul: Did well
John Kasich: did okay.
Ben Carson: Looked Nervous
Rubio's comment About Hillary Winning On Resume? Bad Bad Bad.
Trump: Kicking Ass, despite tough question
Ted Cruz: Should have spoken longer
Chris Cristie: nyeh
Scott Walker: Got an awful question from Megan Kelly, did well
Mike Huckabee: good answer
Rand Paul: Did well
John Kasich: did okay.
IT’S TIME TO CALL OUT BLACK RACISM
The media erupted in outrage over trucks flying Confederate flags passing by a black birthday party but continued praising the racist #BlackLivesMatter movement whose tactics include harassing white people by invading “white spaces” and intimidating people trying to eat lunch. A perfect inversion of the sit-ins at lunch counters fifty years ago. Those were a moral crusade to make a space for blacks at the table. This is a racist attack to make whites leave the tableBut in the topsy-turvy race world we have come to inhabit, it is not racism when black racists do it.
Since the Ferguson riots, America has been suffering from a violent outbreak of anti-white racism. It’s time to call it what it is.
If white mobs harassed black people, screamed racist slogans and claimed that even the existence of black people was oppressive, no one would hesitate to describe that ugliness as racism. When #BlackLivesMatter racists do it, it’s excused, defended and even praised as a civil rights movement.
Racism is not civil rights. No group that talks about “white supremacy”, “white privilege” or “white spaces” is a civil rights movement.
It is a racist movement, and anti-civil rights.
Black racism hides behind alleged victimhood. Every act of bigotry, from name-calling to race riots to murder, is justified by the claim that every single white person is part of a conscious or unconscious conspiracy to discriminate against them. This claim, embodied by the racist term “White Privilege”, is classic racism. White people are not responsible for the fact that homicide is the number one cause of death for black males. White people do not sit around conspiring to deny black people jobs. If there is a job problem in the black community in America today it is because of the anti-business policies of a black president and the worst economic recovery on record.
#BlackLivesMatter activists are not victims of racism, they are perpetrators of racism. That is why they reject “All Lives Matter” and insist that only “Black Lives Matter”. Every victimhood excuse made to defend this racist disdain for other races is a lie. The truth is that to black nationalists, only black lives matter. #BlackLivesMatter means that non-black lives don’t and that is the root of its racist violence.
Americans hesitate to call out this vile bigotry because they...
8 Things Obama Got Terribly Wrong on the Iran Deal
Unfortunately for the White House, Obama’s charm offensive won’t solve the major flaws in the Iran deal.
1. The president stated, “Between now and the congressional vote in September, you are going to hear a lot of arguments against this deal, backed by tens of millions of dollars in advertising.”
This assertion is flat-out wrong.
If the substance of the deal were better, the administration wouldn’t have the problems it now has getting congressional support, along with the support of the American people (a majority of Americans, and Israelis for that matter, continue to favor a diplomatic solution).
The administration negotiated a bad deal, and now a majority of Americans and Congress oppose it.
2. “This is the strongest nonproliferation agreement ever negotiated,” commented the president.
In reality, the Iran deal undermines previous U.S. nonproliferation policy by rewarding decades of covert and illegal nuclear activities by Iran, including those involving weapons.
3. The deal “permanently prohibits Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” alleges Obama.
Such a belief betrays an unreasonable degree of optimism that Iran will follow the letter of the deal and will not change its mind in the next 15 years.
The deal only slows down Iran’s drive toward a nuclear weapon, and a majority of the deal’s restrictive provisions expire after 15 years.
This means Iran will gradually be able to increase its nuclear material stockpile and advance its enrichment technologies.
Billions of dollars of unfrozen assets, along with access to advanced technologies, will make Iran’s quest for a nuclear weapon much easier.
4.
Wednesday, August 5, 2015
Group Files to Help States Insure Vote Integrity By Fighting Soros-Backed Voter ID Lawsuits
An election integrity group has filed motions to assist three states
that have been hit with anti-voter ID lawsuits.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation, an election group headed by attorney J. Christian Adams, is seeking to appear alongside the states in court to defend their laws. The group seeks to “provide an understanding of this national strategy and the national implications” of the lawsuits in a way “any singular defendant is unlikely to provide.”
The foundation says the voter ID lawsuits are a coordinated national attack on integrity that can change the outcome of elections.
Lawsuits targeting the three states are being led by Hillary Clinton’s top campaign lawyer and are fueled with money from liberal billionaire George Soros. Many anticipate that the effort will expand to other states as the 2016 elections approach.
“These three coordinated national attacks on election integrity were filed because partisan interests realize process rules can change election outcomes,” Adams said. “Some political candidates prefer elections with dirty rolls and unverified individuals casting ballots at the same time they register to vote. But most Americans do not.”
The motions filed by the group seek to “prevent treasured civil rights statutes such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965 from being turned into...
The Public Interest Legal Foundation, an election group headed by attorney J. Christian Adams, is seeking to appear alongside the states in court to defend their laws. The group seeks to “provide an understanding of this national strategy and the national implications” of the lawsuits in a way “any singular defendant is unlikely to provide.”
The foundation says the voter ID lawsuits are a coordinated national attack on integrity that can change the outcome of elections.
Lawsuits targeting the three states are being led by Hillary Clinton’s top campaign lawyer and are fueled with money from liberal billionaire George Soros. Many anticipate that the effort will expand to other states as the 2016 elections approach.
“These three coordinated national attacks on election integrity were filed because partisan interests realize process rules can change election outcomes,” Adams said. “Some political candidates prefer elections with dirty rolls and unverified individuals casting ballots at the same time they register to vote. But most Americans do not.”
The motions filed by the group seek to “prevent treasured civil rights statutes such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965 from being turned into...
Tuesday, August 4, 2015
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)