Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Majority Of Snap Polls Show Trump Won Debate By A Landslide

dailymail.co.uk ^ | 27 Sep 2016 

Trump and Clinton tangled over the economy, her use of a private mail server and his unwillingness to release his income tax returns on Monday night.
They engaged in a vigorous back-and-forth on the debate stage at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York, as polls showed them locked in a tight race.
However, after the debate's end, polls conducted by a number of media websites showed their readers felt the real estate mogul came out on top.
Trump acknowledged the result, tweeting: 'Wow, did great in the debate polls (except for @CNN - which I don't watch). Thank you!'
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...

Obama's Legacy of Demagoguery and Divisiveness


Frontpagemagazine ^ | September 27, 2016 | Ari Lieberman 


The “Ferguson effect” takes its toll on the African-American community while race relations are at a nadir.


When Obama assumed office in 2009, there were high hopes that the first African American president with bi-racial parents would be able to bridge the racial divide and foster unity in the country. Those hopes were soon dashed. Nearly eight years later, the nation is more polarized than ever, as devastating race riots grip large metropolitan cities with alarming frequency.
Instead of offering hope, Obama gave us demagoguery. Instead of fostering unity he stoked and encouraged divisiveness. Instead of providing concrete solutions, he issued speeches laced with empty rhetoric and platitudes. Instead of calming the nation in times of crisis, he engaged in race baiting.
The first test of Obama’s seriousness in addressing race relations came just six months after being sworn in. Police officers in Cambridge Massachusetts received a call of a possible burglary in progress and responded. When arriving at the scene, they found Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. trying to force his way into his house through a malfunctioning door. The police were unfamiliar with his identity and asked for identification to establish residency. Gates instantly became irate, indignant and uncooperative. It went downhill from there. Gates was arrested for disorderly conduct, though the charges were later dropped.
An event that was essentially a misunderstanding and a local matter was suddenly thrust into the spotlight and propelled to the national stage. You see, Gates, an African American, cried racism. He also happened to be pals with Obama. Obama could have told Gates to work things out with the police or file a complaint with the Civilian Complaint Review Board if he felt slighted. Instead, Obama stoked the flames of hate by publicly siding with Gates, claiming the police “acted stupidly.”
Before ascertaining the facts, Obama rushed to judgment and immediately condemned those entrusted with safeguarding our security. His asinine response would set the administration’s tone for the next seven years. Obama later backtracked on his rush to judgment and offered the arresting police officer, Sgt. James Crowley, a beer but the damage had already been done. The only thing that the African American community took away from the encounter was that the police acted “stupidly,” thus reinforcing preexisting negative perceptions so prevalent within that community.
There is no doubt that some level of tension exists between various police departments and members of the African American community but the president has a responsibility to calm frayed nerves and foster understanding and outreach. Instead, Obama has done the opposite. Race-baiting, tax cheats and serial liars like Al Sharpton are frequent guests of the White House.  According to official records, Sharpton visited the White House on more than 100 occasions and that number excludes official administration visits to him.
Obama’s association with the so-called Black Lives Matter movement is also a source of concern. The White House has played host to leaders of this nefarious movement on a number of occasions. Even more disturbing is the fact that Obama has referred to BLM-inspired demonstrations as “a good thing.”
The George Soros-funded BLM movement was propelled to the national scene after the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson Missouri and the death of Eric Garner in Staten Island New York. Police officers, accused of wrongfully killing the two suspects, were cleared of all wrong-doing after thorough and independent judicial and legal reviews.
Other police officers involved in confrontations in which black suspects died were similarly exonerated. Notably, in the case of Freddie Gray, an African American judge acquitted three police officers in connection with the suspect’s death which ultimately led to the dropping of charges against the remaining three officers charged with wrong-doing.

That did not stop thugs, encouraged by BLM, from taking to the streets and causing mayhem in the form of looting, beatings, destruction of public and private property, obstructing traffic and violently confronting law enforcement. Other high-profile, police-involved confrontations with African American suspects resulted in similar violent demonstrations, with BLM at its epicenter.
Of the nine high-profile confrontations with African-American suspects in recent years, four suspects were armed with functioning handguns. One was armed with an imitation airsoft pistol that had its orange marker – signifying that he gun wasn’t real – removed. All nine suspects either resisted arrest or engaged in felony evasion or other form on non-compliance. Some of the police officers were themselves African American or otherwise non-white placing a wrench in the theory that the killings were motivated by racism.
Keith Lamont Scott, whose killing sparked violent protests in Charlotte, was armed with a handgun when shot. Video footage shows that he was shot after repeated warnings to drop the gun he was holding. The weapon found at the scene was bio-metrically linked to him. His shooter was an African American police officer.
This of course, did not stop Hillary Clinton from pandering and condemning the police before all the facts were fleshed out. Like Obama, Clinton rushed to judgment because of pre-disposed prejudices and cheap electioneering.
The sad irony is that the BLM movement, which cares nothing of the scourge of black-on-black violence and gives it scant mention, has hurt rather than helped the very community it purports to represent. Cities that have witnessed spasms of anti-police violence in response to isolated incidents involving police shootings, have witnessed dramatic spikes in violent crimes, including homicides.
Significant spikes in murder rates were recorded in St. Louis, Chicago, Milwaukee and Cleveland. Baltimore, the city that witnessed several days of violent race riots following the Freddie Gray incident, experienced the most significant increase, up an alarming 20 percent from the previous year. Last week’s multiple shooting in Baltimore, in which 8 people, including a 3-year old girl, were wounded serves to highlight the surging crime problem.
The violence that we are witnessing in these and other inner city areas can be directly attributed to the so-called “Ferguson effect.” Police are avoiding high-crime, inner city areas for fear of adversarial confrontation with hostile elements. Pro-active, anti-narcotics operations that had been so effective in keeping crime rates down have been all but suspended.
Police officers are tasked with making split-second decisions and their lives depend on making the right decisions. If they react too slowly, they risk death. If they react too quickly, they risk termination of employment, lengthy court proceedings and possibly prison.
During Obama’s tenure, there have been at least 10 major race riots and a staggering 60 percent of Americans believe that race relations have worsened. By meeting with race-baiters and issuing inflammatory comments that bear no relation to reality, Obama has lent legitimacy to those who seek to divide America. His legacy will be stained with demagoguery and divisiveness.  

Bernie Clinton

Townhall.com ^ | September 27, 2016 | Stephen Moore 


Someone might want to inform Hillary Clinton that greed and envy are two of the seven deadly sins.

Her new revised tax plan would raise the estate tax to as high as 65 percent -- up from 40 percent, where it is today. She would also apply this hated death tax to as many as twice as many estates.
It's one of her dumbest ideas yet -- and that is saying a lot. It won't raise any revenue to speak of. It's a bow-tied gift to estate-tax lawyers and accountants. Many studies have found that the cost to the economy of taxing a lifetime of savings more than outweighs any benefits. It actually could end up costing the Treasury money by reducing investment in family businesses, which are a major engine of growth for our economy.
But Clinton wants to take us back to the 1970s. According to a Wall Street Journal analysis, the plan would impose a 50 percent rate to estates over $10 million a person, a 55 percent rate to estates over $50 million a person, and the top rate of 65 percent to estates exceeding $500 million in assets for a single person or $1 billion for a married couple.
What Clinton doesn't get is this: Anyone who's smart enough to make half a billion dollars is smart enough to find a way to dodge this confiscatory tax. That's the whole history of the death tax: The very rich never pay it.
So why this act of desperation from Clinton? The answer is fairly obvious. She's sinking in the polls. She's terrified of losing the Bernie Sanders voters by not being tough enough on the superrich. So she's adopted the Sanders tax policy. Sanders has said there's nothing wrong with taking more and more money from people in the top 0.3 percent of incomes.
Clinton: Is a 70 or 80 percent income tax next? This might win over even more Sanders supporters.
I'm not going to explain again the economic argument against the death tax. I'm going to make an ethical and moral argument. Who in her right mind thinks that it's appropriate in America for the government to take two-thirds of someone's lifetime earnings? A billionaire has already paid millions and millions of dollars in taxes over the course of his life. Why is the government the rightful owner of one's legacy -- the sweat and equity and 60-hour workweeks spent building a business -- and not that person's family members?
The origins of the death tax come from the Communist Manifesto. This tax was touted by Karl Marx as one of the strategies to secure government ownership of assets. Think about it: With a 50 percent death tax, over time the government will own 50 percent of the nation's assets. With a 100 percent estate tax -- and Clinton's proposal isn't far from that -- the government eventually owns... everything.
This is a big issue, because over the next 25 years or so, tens of trillions of dollars in assets will be transferred from aging baby boomers to their kids and grandkids. The left wants to get its greedy hands on that treasure chest of money. Every American should resist this power grab by the avaricious political class. They are the real robber barons, worshiping money above all else.
If Clinton were to win and adopt this death-tax policy, the small-business model in America would largely disappear. Why build a legacy if you cannot pass it on? Donald Trump should insist that it is your right as an American to leave your worldly possessions to your children.
Trump would eliminate the death tax. He understands that the proper role of government is to facilitate wealth creation, not to destroy it.
Clinton's campaign justified this new confiscation tax by saying that only a few hundred people every year would pay it. That misses the point. An unjust law is unjust whether it applies to 200 people or 2 million people. Americans understand this principal of basic fairness better than the Yale-educated Clinton does. They don't buy into the politics of greed and envy. That's why two-thirds of voters favor eliminating the tax, not doubling down on it.

Harry Reid’s Mayhem Project

WSJ ^ | Sept. 26, 2016 | WSJ 

Retaking the Senate no longer seems like the cinch that Democrats imagined...and now they’re responding with budget obstructionism that could end with a government shutdown. If they can’t win on the merits, they can attempt to provoke a fake crisis.
The last budget deal runs out...and the Senate will vote Tuesday on a “clean” continuing resolution... The bill also includes $1.1 billion to fight the Zika virus... funding for the recent heroin and addiction bill; and $500 million in disaster aid for Louisiana...
This is exactly what Democrats...said they wanted. “If they want to get out of here,” Democratic leader Harry Reid said... "Do a clean CR and they can leave in 10 minutes...” Naturally, Democrats have responded to a clean CR by synthesizing outrage about something else.
The new wild goose chase is that the bill is...against Flint, Michigan, because it doesn’t include disaster relief for that lead-water crisis. Michigan Democrat Debbie Stabenow pronounced the measure “unacceptable”...
But wait... Sept. 15, Ms. Stabenow...put out a press release declaring that “I am extremely pleased that the Senate has finally passed urgently needed help for families in Flint.” Yes, the Senate has already passed—95-3—a $9.4 billion bill...the House will pass this week, with at least $100 million earmarked...for Flint...
Democrats have gone from demanding no vexatious riders to opposing the bill because of the lack of a multiyear policy rider that is about to become law anyway. Their calculation is that a gridlock scenario will heighten voter antipathy to incumbents...
If that’s the calculation, they shouldn’t be so transparent... Montana’s Jon Tester [said] that his strategy is to “show the fact that the Republicans really haven’t done anything.” What he means is that if they can make Congress look dysfunctional, maybe low-information voters will reward Democrats for promoting the dysfunction.
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...

Obama banking on Hillary to preserve legacy

lowell sun ^ | sept 27 | Peter Lucas 

Apropos of last night's debate: If Hillary Clinton loses to Donald Trump, Barack Obama will be a loser as well. Big Time.
And that is because President Trump will most likely do to Obama what Obama did to George Bush, and that is to kick a man when he is down.
It is a trend Obama started when he became president. It now may come back to haunt him.
You will recall that when Obama became president eight years ago, he used outgoing President George Bush as a punching bag, not occasionally, but all the time. Everything was Bush's fault.
At first people made excuses for the president. He was new and would gain political maturity as he grew into the job.
(Excerpt) Read more at lowellsun.com ...

Hillary’s ‘Deplorables’: Mass Media

Townhall.com ^ | September 27, 2016 | Susan Stamper Brown 

The fix is in. Even if she doesn’t show up for the upcoming presidential debates, Hillary Clinton will be declared the winner.
Hillary will be declared the winner by the same media who covered for her when she disparaged millions of hardworking Americans, saying half of Trump supporters belonged in a “basket of deplorables,” consisting of “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic” individuals.
People haven’t heard much about Hillary’s “deplorables” comment because that kind of behavior doesn’t fit the narrative. So her media friends changed the subject, reporting about “important” things like how cow farts contribute to global warming, rather than all the hot air rising from the Clinton campaign trail. which could paint her in a negative light.
They have so much invested. Politico reports that many big media organizations like NBC Universal, News Corporation, Turner Broadcasting, Thomas Reuters, Comcast, Time Warner and Viacom made donations ranging from the low-thousands to the millions to the Clinton Foundation.
It’s no wonder most Americans don’t trust big media. A Rasmussen Reports survey in May found that 49 percent of likely U.S. Voters think most reporters are biased against Trump; by contrast, only 18 percent believe most reporters are biased against Clinton.
That’s why Hillary gets a pass for calling Trump supporters “homophobes.” That’s also why many media outlets failed to report when Fox News’ William La Jeunesse broke the news that the Clinton Foundation accepted millions in donations from real “homophobes” -- foreign governments well-known for criminalizing homosexuality.
Here’s deplorable:
The media salivate over trivial scuffles at Trump rallies which serve to paint Trump supporters in the worst possible light. But apparently, it wasn’t newsworthy that the father of the Orlando Pulse Club terrorist who killed 49 people is an outspoken Hillary Clinton supporter who showed up at one of her rallies. In fact, Seddique Mateen held up the sign he made supporting Hillary during an interview with a local television station saying, “Hillary Clinton is good for the United States.”
Hillary says Trump supporters are “racist.” The media refuse to let go of David Duke although the Trump campaign let go of him long ago. Thing is, Trump’s never heaped praise on David Duke like Hillary Clinton did for fellow Democrat and former Klan leader, Sen. Robert Byrd. The  Daily Caller reports that Clinton “commemorated” the late Sen. Robert Byrd, calling him her “friend and mentor,” saying he “was a man of surpassing eloquence and nobility.”
Obviously, Hillary’s memory problem extends past her emails and Benghazi to include her recollection of her own party’s ties to racism. And the media glosses over the fact that David Duke was a Democrat until 1989. He was no longer affiliated with the Klan when he joined the GOP.
At a recent press conference, Trump acknowledged President Obama was born in the United States. Shortly after the press conference, headline after headline appeared smearing Trump. Many called Trump a liar for saying the birther issue didn’t originate with him.
What wasn’t widely reported was that McClatchy D.C. bureau chief James Asher (@jimasher) said on Twitter September 15 the birther rumor originated within Clinton’s own 2008 campaign: “@HillaryClinton So why did your man #sidblumenthal spread the #obama birther rumor to me in 2008, asking us to investigate? Remember?”
Or when Breitbart News reported that Patti Solis Doyle, a Hillary Clinton 2008 campaign manager “admitted on Friday [September 16, 2016] that a Clinton campaign volunteer circulated the birther conspiracy theory…”
It’s no surprise a recent Gallup poll found that only 32 percent of Americans trust the media “to report the news fully, accurately and fairly” – a dwindling commodity in a day when it’s hard to distinguish between the National Enquirer and the New York Times.

The Clintstones

3ZMC9XC.jpg

LOGIC?

x3ONO08.jpg

WTF?

HX7Hr5Z.jpg

Obama's Legacy

qz7tCoH.jpg

Just think...

AGDCmDG.jpg

Questions?

zmek9ns.jpg

SPECIAL?

Hill-Special-600.jpg

Understand?

14233267_1207120639326170_85615529955296

Which one?

lqod09Y.gif

Looters

aOytJpG.png

DEAF?

A9rpL2z.jpg

Sense of Entitlement

WU2gEtl.jpg

"We will not..."

yL9RXxk.jpg

The find?

UENFVw0.jpg

Let's discuss it!

tc9lppE.jpg

93%

klO8lPT.jpg

2 for 1

UYk6oVp.png

Presidents

VtRgBKC.jpg

Different Rights?

n9rZjOn.jpg

WHY?

IHiKfxV.gif

GRINNIN'

ynoIDHx.jpg

Pay for Play

IrtNHnT.png