President Pardons Arpaio, Speaker Ryan Grumbles


John R. Houk

© August 27, 2017

 

President has pardoned Joe Arpaio from a Leftist Judge convicting him of contempt for not standing down to enforcing immigration law. I wasn’t surprised that the Leftist MSM and the Dems went to fits over the pardon. BUT I am extremely disappointed that Speaker of the House Paul Ryan condemned the President’s pardon.

 

I have been willing to give Rep. Ryan the benefit of the doubt in his part-time negativity to the Trump agenda. I have felt he had been a man that stuck to his principles before politics.

 

Ryan’s condemnation of the Arpaio pardon means he is placing politics over Conservative principles. NOW I am on the dump Ryan as House Speaker train.

 

JRH 8/27/17

Please Support NCCR

**************

Donald Trump Pardons Sheriff Joe Arpaio

 

By CHARLIE SPIERING

25 Aug 2017

Breitbart Big Government

 

Donald Trump & Joe Arpaio

 

President Donald Trump pardoned Sheriff Joe Arpaio on Friday evening, citing his record of service to his country.

 

“Arpaio’s life and career, which began at the age of 18 when he enlisted in the military after the outbreak of the Korean War, exemplifies selfless public service,” read a statement from the White House.

 

The Arizona sheriff, now 85-years-old, is considered a hero among supporters of immigration enforcement. Arpaio served in the Army before becoming a police officer in Washington DC and Las Vegas and a special agent in the DEA. He became the Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona in 1992.

 

“After more than fifty years of admirable service to our Nation, he is worthy candidate for a Presidential pardon,” the statement concluded.

 

Arpaio was convicted in July 2017 for violating a federal judge’s order to not detain suspected illegal immigrants. He faced up to six months in jail for the conviction and possible fines.

 

Arpaio endorsed Donald Trump for president in January 2016, as he was campaigning against primary challengers in Iowa.

 

“I have fought on the front lines to prevent illegal immigration,” Arpaio said when he endorsed Trump. “I know Donald Trump will stand with me and countless Americans to secure our border.”

 

++++++++++++

Paul Ryan breaks with Trump to condemn pardon of Joe Arpaio

 

By Kyle Feldscher

Aug 26, 2017, 6:15 PM

Washington Examiner

 

House Speaker Paul Ryan, left, sips from a Boeing mug as he sits with the Boeing Co. CEO Dennis Muilenburg Thursday, Aug. 24, 2017, in Everett, Wash. Ryan toured the factory before speaking with and taking questions from some workers there, mostly on tax reform. (AP Photo/Elaine Thompson)

 

House Speaker Paul Ryan is breaking with President Trump over the latter’s decision to pardon former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio on Friday.

 

“The speaker does not agree with the decision,” said spokesman Doug Andres. “Law-enforcement officials have a special responsibility to respect the rights of everyone in the United States. We should not allow anyone to believe that responsibility is diminished by this pardon.”

 

Ryan becomes the highest-ranking GOP lawmaker to break with Trump over the decision to pardon Arpaio, who was convicted of contempt of court for refusing to stop detaining Latinos on suspicion of being illegal immigrants.

 

The decision was announced Friday and has been roundly criticized by Democrats and some Republicans, including both Arizona senators.

 

Arpaio was a political surrogate for Trump on the campaign trail and it was widely believed Trump would announce his pardon during a rally in Phoenix Tuesday night.

 

While Trump demurred at the idea of announcing the pardon then — he said he didn’t want to create controversy — the decision was eventually announced as Hurricane Harvey bore down on the southeastern Texas coast Friday night.

 

It’s Trump’s first pardon and it’s one of the earliest first pardons for a president in modern administrations.

_____________

President Pardons Arpaio, Speaker Ryan Grumbles

John R. Houk

© August 27, 2017

__________

Donald Trump Pardons Sheriff Joe Arpaio

 

Copyright © 2017 Breitbart

____________

Paul Ryan breaks with Trump to condemn pardon of Joe Arpaio

 


Copyright 2017. Washington Examiner. All Rights Reserved.

 

Hmm … FBI Reopens Crooked Hillary Investigation


crooked-hillary-the-criminal

Posted October 29, 2016

John R. Houk, Editor

 

The FBI has informed House Committee Chairmen that it is reopening the investigation of Crooked Hillary:

 

comey-letter-to-gop-cropped-enlarged

Comey Letter to GOP Chairmen – cropped & enlarged (hat tip Red State)

 

Did an open FBI rebellion change Director Comey’s mind on Crooked Hillary?

 

Did guilt overtake Director Comey enough to disobey Attorney General Lynch and President Barack Hussein Obama on giving Crooked Hillary a pass?

 

Hmm?

 

Below are a couple of news cycle reports on the uh – the Weiner Probe – and Huma Abedin and Crooked Hillary investigation.

 

JRH 10/29/16

Please Support NCCR

********************

New Clinton emails found during Anthony Weiner sexting probe

 

By Daniel HalperJamie Schram and Bob Fredericks

October 28, 2016 3:30pm Updated October 29, 2016 | 2:18am

New York Post

 

Anthony Weiner’s lurid communications from his latest sex scandal prompted the FBI to reopen its probe into Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail server — a bombshell development that rocked the presidential race Friday.

 

FBI Director James Comey told members of Congress in a letter that “in connection with an unrelated case, the FBI learned of the existence of e-mails that appear to be pertinent’’ to his probe.

 

A law-enforcement source told The Post the e-mails came from an electronic device seized from Weiner and his wife, top Clinton aide Huma Abedin, as part of the federal investigation of Weiner’s ­sext messages to a 15-year-old girl.

 

The feds confiscated four devices from the two, including a laptop Weiner used to send sleazy messages to the teenager.

 

They also found e-mails that Abedin either sent or received on the laptop they shared. The lead investigator in that case reported them to Comey.

 

Hillary Clinton blasted the release by Comey, claiming that nothing new would be found and he should be more forthcoming about the probe.

 

“The American people deserve to get the full and complete facts immediately,” Clinton said. “We don’t know the facts, which is why we’re calling on the FBI to release all the information it has.”

 

A senior law-enforcement official told NBC that the FBI director’s letter was sent to lawmakers “out of an abundance of caution.”

 

In a separate letter to FBI employees, Comey said “we don’t ordinarily tell Congress about ongoing investigations, but here I feel an obligation.”

 

He added: “Given that we don’t know the significance of this newly discovered collection of e-mails, I don’t want to create a misleading impression.”

 

Comey said that because months ago he had announced that the investigation was complete, he wanted to “supplement the record.”

 

The feds have not read the e-mails in question because the warrant they got for their seizure covered only Weiner’s messages.

 

They have to get a new warrant to read Abedin’s e-mails, NBC ­reported.

 

Abedin split from the disgraced ex-congressman in August after The Post revealed that he had sent lewd messages to the girl.

 

Comey said the latest e-mails — which were not sent by Clinton, according to CNN — would be checked to determine if they contained classified information.

 

“I cannot predict how long it will take us to complete this additional work,” Comey added, 11 days before the presidential election.

 

NBC News reported that many if not all of the e-mails may be duplicates of messages the feds already have access to.

 

Clinton learned of the startling development while flying to a campaign stop in Iowa.

 

She spent about 25 minutes on board after her jet landed in ­Cedar Rapids before emerging and then ignored questions shouted by reporters.

 

NYP VIDEO: Hillary Clinton email scandal timeline ARTICLE
//players.brightcove.net/4137224153001/ed38fae1-4db1-4308-8095-399a04010bc1_default/index.html?videoId=5117105279001

 

But her campaign chair, John Podesta, issued a blistering statement condemning Comey for ­reopening the probe so close to Election Day.

 

“It is extraordinary that we would see something like this just 11 days out from a presidential election,” Podesta fumed.

 

“The director owes it to the American people to immediately provide the full details of what he is now examining. We are confident this will not produce any conclusions different from the one the FBI reached in July” when Comey decided to not pursue criminal charges against Clinton.

 

Democratic leaders were stunned. “Good grief,” tweeted Democratic National Committee chair Donna Brazile.

 

Donald Trump applauded the FBI’s move, saying the political system “might not be as rigged as I thought,” during a campaign stop in Manchester, NH.

 

“I think they are going to right the ship, folks. Perhaps, finally justice will be served,” he said.

 

VIDEO: Trump: ‘Hope Justice Will Finally be Served’

 

“Hillary Clinton’s corruption is on a scale we have never seen before,” added Trump, who has repeatedly hammered Clinton over her private e-mail server. “We must not let her take her criminal scheme into the Oval Office.”

 

Trump and many GOP lawmakers had earlier bashed Comey, ­accusing the FBI chief of letting Clinton off the hook.

 

The director was also taking heat from his own agents who disagreed with his decision not to prosecute Clinton, sources said.

 

House Speaker Paul Ryan said Clinton has to accept blame.

 

“Yet again, Hillary Clinton has nobody but herself to blame. She was entrusted with some of our nation’s most important secrets, and she betrayed that trust by carelessly mishandling highly classified information,” he said.

 

Clinton had been gaining ground in public polls following the release of footage showing Trump talking about groping women, and many analysts said his odds of winning the White House were plunging.

 

Analysts said the reopening of the e-mail probe was a gift to the GOP nominee.

 

“The damage has been done,” said Democratic strategist Jim Manley, a former top aide to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid.

 

“House Republicans and/or the Trump campaign aren’t going to let it go for the next 10 days.”

 

The feds began to investigate Weiner, 52, after he sent a slew of sexual messages and shirtless selfies — including one showing him on a bed with his toddler son — to the teen.

______________

Breaking: FBI to Reopen Investigation into Hillary Clinton’s Email Server

 

By DEBRA HEINE

OCTOBER 28, 2016

PJ Media

 

Congressional Republicans put out the word Friday that the FBI is reopening its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of state. This shocking development comes just eleven days before the general election. FBI Director James Comey announced the news in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee this morning.

 

“In previous congressional testimony, I referred to the fact that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had completed its investigation of former Secretary Clinton’s personal email server. Due to recent developments, I am writing to supplement my previous testimony,” Comey wrote.

 

“In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation. I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday, and I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation,” he added.

 

“Although the FBI cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant, and I cannot predict how long it will take us to complete this additional work, I believe it is important to update your Committees about our efforts in light of my previous testimony,” Comey concluded.

 

Jason Chaffetz, the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, immediately tweeted that the case has been reopened:

 

Jason Chaffetz 

@jasoninthehouse

 

FBI Dir just informed me, “The FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation.” Case reopened

 

11:57 AM – 28 Oct 2016

 

House Speaker Paul Ryam [sic] put out the following statement:

 

paul-ryan-tweet-on-fbi-re-investigating-hillary

Paul Ryan tweet on FBI re-investigating Hillary

 

Paul Ryan

@SpeakerRyan

 

BREAKING NEWS → The FBI is reopening its investigation into Secretary Hillary Clinton.

My full statement ⇩

12:28 PM – 28 Oct 2016

 

The information was released “basically without warning,” said MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt, who had just gotten off the phone with a Senate Judiciary Committee Republican spokesman.

 

“They didn’t know this was coming; the committee hadn’t asked additional questions about Hillary Clinton’s emails,” Hunt said.

 

VIDEO: MSNBC: FBI re-opening investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server

 

Posted by Washington Free Beacon

Published on Oct 28, 2016

 

______________

Breaking! FBI Reopening Clinton Email Case!

 

By Onan Coca 

October 28, 2016

Constitution.com

 

UPDATE: Several media outlets are now reporting that the FBI was led to the discovery of the new Clinton Email scandal evidence through the investigation into disgraced New York politician Anthony Weiner!

 

The FBI has reopened its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server while secretary of state after discovering new emails – apparently during the probe of former Rep. Anthony Weiner’s sexting – in a stunning turn of events just days before the presidential election

 

An FBI source, though, confirmed to Fox News that the new emails were discovered after the bureau seized devices belonging to disgraced Rep. Weiner and his wife Huma Abedin, a top Clinton aide who recently announced she was separating from the former congressman. The New York Times first reported on the Weiner investigation connection, noting the FBI had been probing texts Weiner sent to a 15-year-old girl.

 

Original Story:

 

VIDEO: FBI for HRC 

 

Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) just announced that the FBI just discovered new emails pertinent to their case against Hillary Clinton. They are reopening the investigation!

 

FBI Dir just informed me, “The FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation.” Case reopened

 

Jason Chaffetz

@jasoninthehouse

 

FBI Dir just informed me, “The FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation.” Case reopened

 

11:57 AM – 28 Oct 2016

 

FBI Director James Comey sent a letter to 8 different Congressional Committee Chairmen saying:

 

“In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear pertinent to the investigation. I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday, and I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.”

 

comey-letter-to-gop-committee-chairmen

Comey Letter to GOP committee chairmen

 

__________________

New Clinton emails found during Anthony Weiner sexting probe

 

© 2016 NYP HOLDINGS, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 

________________

Breaking: FBI to Reopen Investigation into Hillary Clinton’s Email Server

 

Copyright © 2005-2016 PJ Media All Rights Reserved

________________

Breaking! FBI Reopening Clinton Email Case!

 

Copyright © 2016 The Constitution. All Rights Reserved. 

Trump Touches Politically Incorrect Nerve


Ban Muslim Immigration

By John R. Houk

© December 11, 2015

Donald Trump is taking all kinds of flak for saying we should ban Muslims coming to the USA until we figure out “… what the hell is going on?”

VIDEO: Donald Trump on Muslims (C-SPAN)

 

Posted by C-SPAN

Published on Dec 8, 2015

Donald Trump statement on Muslims. Watch the full campaign rally here in South Carolina here: http://cs.pn/1N9jJFI

I expected America’s Left (i.e. Democrats) and Muslim Apologists to go apoplectic against Trumps call for a ban on Muslims coming to America. I was a little taken back by the hysteria of Republicans and Conservatives that joined the American Left.

Since the original Trump call it is becoming clearer he is modifying his Muslim moratorium to Muslim immigrants which makes more sense than a total ban of other Muslims coming to visit as tourists, businessmen or diplomatic political figures. Geopolitically banning ALL Muslims would be financial and political nightmare. On the other hand banning Muslim immigrants until we figure out what the hell we are going to do about separating American-hating Muslims from Muslims willing to assimilate to the American culture upholding the U.S. Constitution as the law of the land.

Check out some of the GOP/Conservatives condemning Trump for a temporary stoppage of Muslim immigration – again – until we figure out what the hell is going on:

Nearly every fellow Republican candidate — with the notable exception of Ted Cruz — issued strongly-worded denunciations. Jeb Bush even wondered if Trump was a plant in the service of Hillary Clinton. (RELATED: Trump’s Republican Rivals Slam His Muslim Moratorium Proposal)

The focal point of House Speaker Paul Ryan‘s Tuesday press conference was excoriating the front-runner’s proposal and stating how it wasn’t conservative and wasn’t what the Republican Party was about. (RELATED: Paul Ryan Condemns Trump’s Muslim Moratorium Proposal: ‘This Is Not Conservatism’)

Arguably, the most shocking denouncer of all was Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus — the party official most concerned with keeping Trump in the GOP fold. Priebus condemned the proposal as against “our American values” and said he in no way agreed with it.

The least shocking element incensed by the proposed Muslim ban were the majority of conservative media outlets and figureheads who’ve long made it known that they disdain the real estate mogul. Their attacks were just a bit more intense this time around. (The GOP Establishment Is In For A Shock Over Trump’s Muslim Moratorium; By Scott Greer; Daily Caller; 12/9/15 12:20 AM)

My personal stand on the theopolitical religion of Islam definitely is not a politically correct one. In my selected readings of the Quran, Hadith and Sira shows Islam is virulently against Christianity and Judaism. In the case of Christianity Islam condemns the centrality of Christian faith in denying Jesus Christ is the Son of God; died on the Cross, buried in a tomb and after three days arose from the dead in a Holy Resurrection now dwelling at the right hand of the Father continuously interceding for Believers in Christ Jesus. This Islamic DENIAL makes Islam an antichrist religion. Ergo I have no problem with Trump’s original statement before clarification was added.

Other religious faiths may disagree with Christian beliefs but that is a matter of choice and I am not bothered by that choice. Faith in Christ is a choice also. The difference between other non-Muslim religions and Islam is that none of them specifically pinpoint Christianity as a lie that should be dealt with in this life before death. In Islam a lack of submission to Islamic Supremacy is a death sentence politically, culturally or both in Muslim dominated lands. Europe is now experiencing this Muslim intolerance in Muslim dominated conclaves that are no-go zones.

A recent Facebook post by Rev. Franklin Graham is a voice crying in the wilderness in support of Donald Trump’s ideas about Muslim immigration to the USA:

For some time I have been saying that Muslim immigration into the United States should be stopped until we can properly vet them or until the war with Islam is over. Donald J. Trump has been criticized by some for saying something similar. The new Speaker of the House Paul Ryan said yesterday that he disagrees—saying that “such views are not what this party stands for and more importantly it’s not what this country stands for.” Politicians in Washington seem to be totally disconnected with reality.

Research shows that there are 2.75 million Muslims living in the U.S. According to a poll commissioned by the Center for Security Policy, 51% of Muslims living in America believe “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to sharia” (Islamic law) instead of the U.S. Constitution. 29% agree that violence against those who insult Mohammad is acceptable, and 25% agree that violence against America can be justified as part of global jihad. Among males under the age of 45, that number rises to 36%. And 29% of males under 45 believe that violence against America is justified in order to make Sharia the law of the land. This is frightening.

Our politicians are not listening to the truth—my prayer is that God will open their eyes. This affects our security and the future of our nation. If you agree, email your Congressman or Senator today, and SHARE this with others (be sure to copy & paste this text when sharing). [Franklin Graham; Facebook; 12/9/15 7:52am]

Rev. Graham included a link to “Priebus, Ryan and McConnell rip Trump anti-Muslim proposal – CNNPolitics.com” which undoubtedly highlights the Communist News Network’s … err, I mean … CNN’s view of Trump’s call to ban Muslim immigration.

Yeah just in case I was not clear – BAN Muslim Immigration!

Below Bob Unruh adds some detail to Rev. Graham’s and Trump’s thoughts on Muslim immigration to the USA.

See Also:

Is Trump right about halting Muslim immigration?By Bobby Eberle; GOP USA – The Loft; 12/9/15 7:13 am

DONALD J. TRUMP STATEMENT ON PREVENTING MUSLIM IMMIGRATION Donald J. Trump Press Release; 12/7/15

Voters Like Trump’s Proposed Muslim BanRasmussen Reports; 12/10/15

Why Franklin Graham says Donald Trump is right about stopping Muslim immigration By Sarah Larimer; Washington Post; 12/10/15 [WaPo adds “Evangelical” discontent over Graham’s agreement with Trump.]

JRH 12/11/15

Please Support NCCR

*************************

Franklin Graham: 144,000 American Muslims not ‘peaceful’

Endorses Trump’s closed border plan: ‘Our politicians need to realize the dangers’

 

By BOB UNRUH

December 10, 2015

WND

Franklin Graham, who heads the Samaritan’s Purse organization as well as the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, has endorsed GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump’s idea of halting Muslim immigration into the United States, at least temporarily.

He warns there’s a good reason: some 144,000 Muslims already in the United States “who openly say without hesitation that violence in the name of Islam is justified!”

Graham’s comments have been posted over the last 24 hours on his Facebook page, where he noted the mantra from “political leaders and world experts” that “the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful people.”

“Some have suggested that as many as 99 percent fall into this category. Well, we don’t have to guess or estimate; the Pew Research Center has released extensive research on how Muslims in the U.S. self-identify on questions of violence – and the conclusions are frightening.”

Graham cited the 1.8 million Muslim adults in the United States.

“Pew Research released that eight percent of adult Muslims in the U.S. said that suicide bombings and other forms of violence in the name of Islam are ‘sometimes’ or ‘often’ justified. Think about it – that’s 144,000 Muslims who openly say without hesitation that violence in the name of Islam is justified!

“That’s not ‘peaceful’ and that’s not a small number – it’s about the size of the entire population of Syracuse, New York!” he wrote.

“House of War: Islam’s Jihad Against the World” conveys what the West needs to know about Islam and the violent, expansionary ideology that seeks the subjugation and destruction of other faiths, cultures and systems of government

“I’m 100 percent sure of this – our nation and our politicians need to realize the dangers of allowing people into this country that are not properly vetted.”

Earlier he wrote, in endorsing Trump’s idea, that the simple fact a part of America’s Muslim population believes the Constitution should be ruled by Shariah is a concern.

“For some time I have been saying that Muslim immigration into the United States should be stopped until we can properly vet them or until the war with Islam is over,” he wrote.

“Research shows that there are 2.75 million Muslims living in the U.S. According to a poll commissioned by the Center for Security Policy, 51 percent of Muslims living in America believe ‘Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah’ [Islamic law] instead of the U.S. Constitution.”

He continued, “Twenty-nine percent agree that violence against those who insult Mohammad is acceptable, and 25 percent agree that violence against America can be justified as part of global jihad. … This is frightening.”

Trump had called for a halt to Muslim immigration into the U.S. until those in Washington can figure out what to do regarding Islamist terror, especially that inside the U.S. His comments came in the aftermath of the Islamic terror attack in California where a radicalized husband and wife shot and killed 14 and wounded another 21 at a county Christmas party.

Trump has made it clear he is not insulting a religion, but addressing a security concern.

The result of Trump’s comments is that he’s gotten more popular in polls and the Washington Times reported now nearly two-thirds of “likely Republican primary voters support Donald Trump’s plan to bar Muslims from the United States.”

That report cited a Bloomberg Politics poll showed 65 percent of likely Republican voters approved of the Muslim ban, compared to 22 percent who opposed it and 13 percent who didn’t know.

WND had reported on the Pew results just this week. [A]nd the report explained that with only 1 percent of the nation’s population, Muslims managed to account for half of all the nation’s terror attacks following the 9/11 terror attacks.

Mark Krikorian, chief of the Center for Immigration Studies, explained, “That means Muslims in the United States are about 5,000 percent more likely to commit terrorist attacks than non-Muslims.”

The Pew results also suggested a political reason for a Democrat White House to be pursuing hundreds of thousands of such immigrants to bring to the U.S.

Pew found that 70 percent of Muslims in the U.S. vote Democratic, while only 11 percent vote Republican.

“House of War: Islam’s Jihad Against the World” conveys what the West needs to know about Islam and the violent, expansionary ideology that seeks the subjugation and destruction of other faiths, cultures and systems of government

__________________________

Trump Touches Politically Incorrect Nerve

Ban Muslim Immigration

By John R. Houk

© December 11, 2015

_______________

Franklin Graham: 144,000 American Muslims not ‘peaceful’

 

© Copyright 1997-2015. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.

So … Conservatives are an Outside Group among Republicans


RINO Republican caricature

John R. Houk

© January 9, 2014

 

In the Republican Party the GOP Elitists wield the power and the Tea Party Conservatives get out the grassroots urging voters to vote favorably for pro-Republican issues. A marvelous revelation is beginning to emerge among Conservative activists and voters active within the Republican Party. That revelation is that Republican Elitists are only on board with Conservative principles of limited government and fair taxes only when it suits the Elitists to gain political power.

 

Let’s be honest in the USA political power is attained by eligible voters participating in America’s constitutional process in selecting candidates for Office in the Legislative Branch and in the Executive Branch. The Executive Branch on a Federal Level pertains to the Office of President of the United States (POTUS) and on a State and Local Level for such Offices as Governor, Lieutenant Governor, perhaps a few State-level Cabinet positions, County Commissioners, Sheriffs and Mayors.

 

The goal of political power to achieve political ends is for a Political Party to control the Office of POTUS primarily. The political ends are attainable when a Political Party controls both Houses of Congress. AND supposedly the political power dream is for a Political Party to control POTUS, the Senate and the House. AND it is considered favorable if the Political Party controlling the Office of POTUS is able to select Judiciary Branch Judges that favor a Political Party’s political agenda especially the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).

 

Here is the political reality of 21st century American politics. There is a Left and Right agenda. This two-sided coin of agendas is all about how to interpret the U. S. Constitution. The 21st century American Left desires to interpret the Constitution under the reasoning of a Living Constitution.

 

In general a Living Constitution is interprets law on the basis of the greater good of society’s overall belief system. What is good for society uses the Constitution as a template to launch legal change to conform to society’s perceived norm.

 

In general the Right agenda is to interpret the U.S. Constitution under the Original Intent of America’s Founding Fathers as a foundation for law that is changed by the will of the voters rather than imposed by government to remold society’s belief system.

 

The Left-Right political ideals have roughly been translated in America’s development of a Two-Party political system in which neither extreme view attains absolute political power constitutionally but through the vision of the Founding Fathers’ vision of protecting American citizens from oppressive and/or corrupt government Checks and Balances were to be the hallmark of governing in the American Republic.

 

In the first 100 years or so of the American Republic a Left-Right political gap was nearly non-existent. The emerging political struggle in the USA seemed to center on the economic principles Big Business urbanization and the disparity with the one-time backbone of early America the economy centered upon rural industry such as family farms. People of property were the original enfranchised voters of the American Republic. The un-propertied citizens were not considered capable of participating as a political influence in government on a Local, State and especially a Federal level. The Civil War was as much about the rural political Elites of the South sensing a threat to their economic base from the Big Business urban Elites of the North. And within the North those Elites of power were centered in the North East (New York, Pennsylvania and the New England States). The backbone of the rural Southern economy was slave labor. The abolition of Slavery became the spark that ignited conflict between the agendas of Northern Elites and Southern Elites. Thank God the immorality of slavery was abolished even though the actual struggle was with Northern and Southern economics and power control. It is my opinion that President Lincoln’s obstinacy in preserving the Union of all the States in the American Republic is what led to the possibility of the USA becoming a super power today.

 

Thanks to a godless German Karl Marx and urbanized labor producing even Bigger Business in the Western World a new political disparity began to emerge between the working class and Industries’ Wealthy Elites. As the working class replaced the family farm as the backbone of the economy in Western Society, voting enfranchisement began to be extended to all voting age males and by early 20th century to include all voting age females. This began the change of the political dynamics in Western nations in which moral consciences began to enforce better living conditions and labor safety issues that affected the new backbone of the Western Economy. BUT still the wealthy Elites were the actual power brokers politically with votes becoming a restraint upon excesses of political Elitist agendas.

 

Marx’s bitter vision of the less wealthy working class rising up to forcefully appropriate industrial control the utopian dream of spreading the wealth caught emotions of the Western World’s better educated people which ironically ultimately influenced a significant people from the wealthy class to begin spreading the power in better equity among voting citizens. And those that became dedicated to the Marxist vision adopted an activism to change society by force. Hence the success of Vladimir Lenin and his cadre of followers that infected Russia’s poorest of the poor in the still existing Russian Serfs of the early 20th century. The successes of Lenin to instill a new power Elite in Russia replacing the Boyer (Nobles) led Monarchist Elites would soon lead to Russian disillusionment. The Serfs that indeed experienced a better living circumstance had to yield to the all-pervasive power structure of the top-down Soviet-Communist State. Eventually the Soviet vision of Communism was adopted by China’s Mao Zedong who adopted Leninist-Marxism to conform to Chinese culture but still making utopian promises to China’s extreme have-nots.

 

Before the 21st century came to be it became clear that Soviet Communism was just another form of absolute power corrupting absolutely. The USSR incentiveless economy could not bring the kind of economic liberation that the more Capitalistic Economies of the Western World brought to an entrenched Middle Class that had a better life than Marx’s so-called oppressed working class would be doomed to experience. Thanks to a Reagan-led revolution of an emphasis of a Market Economy and the incentives that prospered American ingenuity, the USA was able to outspend the Soviet economy. In the 1960s Khrushchev threatened to bury America. In reality Reagan’s America buried the Soviet Union forcing its collapse without a single actual military confrontation.

 

But the call of Communist utopianism and the elusive promise of an egalitarian society in which people attain a humanistic equality absent the restraining instruments of religious (in my case Biblical) morality has reared its head in stealth. Since forced Marxist-Communism has been demonstrated to be a failure with the demise of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), how can these lovers of a Communist society transform the world?

 

The stealth paradigm for the new Communist agenda to transform the world moves away from Leninist-Trotskyist-Stalinist principle of armed revolution. The new Communism is societal infiltration on a cultural level. The prime mover of this new Communism (maybe neo-Communism) was an Italian who died just before the beginning of WWII. At one time this Italian was considered the father of Eurocommunism. In the 1970s and 80s Eurocommunism was making serious inroads politically in Western Europe. The various national Communist Parties of Western Europe were actually gaining electoral support on a national basis in European nations. The greatest inroads accomplished by Eurocommunism were primarily in Italy and France. Eurocommunism has since receded as a political force in Western Europe. Without further study my guess for the lack of electoral interest in Eurocommunism is largely due to Western Europe adopting a Socialist political paradigm separate from Marxist-Leninist revolution.

 

Even so the Western European Socialist paradigm is part and parcel of the Italian person considered the father of Eurocommunism – Antonio Gramsci. Gramsci died in 1937 after years of incarceration for his Marxist political beliefs. Gramsci’s Marxist theories essentially postulated that Communism triumphs over a Capitalist society more by slow a transformation than an instant armed revolution. It is good speculation that Gramsci’s slow transformation paradigm was influential on Obama-Hillary hero Saul Alinsky. Here is an excerpt from DTN that gives a snapshot of the Alinsky methodology:

 

After completing his graduate work in criminology, Alinsky went on to develop what are known today as the Alinsky concepts of mass organization for power. In the late 1930s he earned a reputation as a master organizer of the poor when he organized the “Back of the Yards” area in Chicago, an industrial and residential ethnic neighborhood on the Southwest Side of the city, so named because it is near the site of the former Union Stockyards; this area had been made famous in Upton Sinclair’s 1906 novel The Jungle. In 1940 Alinsky established the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF), through which he and his staff helped “organize” communities not only in Chicago but throughout the United States. IAF remains an active entity to this day. Its national headquarters are located in Chicago, and it has affiliates in the District of Columbia, twenty-one separate states, and three foreign countries (Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom).

By the late 1960s, the Black Power movement would drive Alinsky and his organizing crusades out of the projects in African-American neighborhoods, leaving him no choice but to shift his focus to white communities. For this purpose, he established the Citizens Action Program (CAP), in 1970. As Stanley Kurtz writes in his 2010 book Radical in Chief: “Alinsky was … convinced that large-scale socialist transformation would require an alliance between the struggling middle class and the poor. The key to radical social change, Alinsky thought, was to turn the wrath of America’s middle class against large corporations.”

In the Alinsky model, “organizing” is a euphemism for “revolution” — a wholesale revolution whose ultimate objective is the systematic acquisition of power by a purportedly oppressed segment of the population, and the radical transformation of America’s social and economic structure. The goal is to foment enough public discontent, moral confusion, and outright chaos to spark the social upheaval that Marx, Engels, and Lenin predicted — a revolution whose foot soldiers view the status quo as fatally flawed and wholly unworthy of salvation. Thus, the theory goes, the people will settle for nothing less than that status quo’s complete collapse — to be followed by the erection of an entirely new system upon its ruins. Toward that end, they will be apt to follow the lead of charismatic radical organizers who project an aura of confidence and vision, and who profess to clearly understand what types of societal “changes” are needed. (Saul Alinsky; By John Perazzo; Determine The Networks; April 2008)

 

Hillary Clinton’s 1969 College Essay on Saul Alinsky shows his influence on her. Alinsky’s influence on Obama was a bit more indirect than Hillary’s but perhaps also a bit more hands on in applying the Alinsky Method. Check this out from David Horowitz:

 

Unlike Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama never personally met Saul Alinsky. But as a young man, he became an adept practitioner of Alinsky’s methods. In 1986, at the age of 23 and only three years out of Columbia University, Obama was hired by the Alinsky team to organize residents on the South Side [of Chicago] “while learning and applying Alinsky’s philosophy of street-level democracy.”10 The group that Obama joined was part of a network that included the Gamaliel Foundation, a religious group that operated on Alinsky principles. Obama became director of the Developing Communities Project, an affiliate of the Gamaliel Foundation, where he worked for the next three years on initiatives that ranged from job training to school reform to hazardous waste cleanup.

 

 

Three of Obama’s mentors in Chicago were trained at the Alinsky Industrial Areas Foundation,12 and for several years Obama himself taught workshops on the Alinsky method.13 One of the three, Gregory Galluzo, shared with Ryan Lizza the actual manual for training new organizers, which he said was little different from the version he used to train Obama in the 1980s. According to Lizza, “It is filled with workshops and chapter headings on understanding power: ‘power analysis,’ ‘elements of a power organization,’ ‘the path to power.’ … The Alinsky manual instructs them to get over these hang-ups. ‘We are not virtuous by not wanting power,’ it says. ‘We are really cowards for not wanting power,’ because ‘power is good’ and ‘powerlessness is evil.’”14

 

According to Lizza, who interviewed both Galluzo and Obama, “the other fundamental lesson Obama was taught was Alinsky’s maxim that self- interest is the only principle around which to organize people. (Galluzzo’s manual goes so far as to advise trainees in block letters: ‘Get rid of do-gooders in your church and your organization.’) Obama was a fan of Alinsky’s realistic streak. ‘The key to creating successful organizations was making sure people’s self-interest was met,’ he told me, ‘and not just basing it on pie-in-the-sky idealism. So there were some basic principles that remained powerful then, and in fact I still believe in.’” On Barack Obama’s presidential campaign website, one could see a photo of Obama in a classroom “teaching students Alinskyan methods. He stands in front of a blackboard on which he has written, ‘Power Analysis’ and ‘Relationships Built on Self Interest,…’”15 (Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution: The Alinsky Model; By David Horowitz; Discover The Networks; © 2009 – PDF Document)

 

Both Hillary and Obama had a Middle Class upbringing with Left oriented families. There is no surprise that Hillary and Obama radicalized toward the Left both being attracted to activism pointed toward the underprivileged. In the 1950s and 60s such activism typically led to an attraction to Marxist principles to transform America to an egalitarian utopia.

 

We Conservatives like to call Republicans with a diluted to nonexistent Conservatives as Republicans in Name Only (RINO). How much diluted Conservatism do we accept as Conservative before we bend our ears back and shout RINO? Let’s take Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and former GOP Vice Presidential Nominee in 2012. After perusing OnTheIssues.org Ryan definitely has a Conservative pedigree. And yet Tea Party Conservative express vitriol towards Ryan for coming up with a give-n-take Budget that obviously only places a dent in the Budget instead of putting a Budget together that exudes Less Government, Less Government Spending and better taxes. Frankly it will be impossible to pass a Budget that will make Conservatives happy with a Socialist minded President and a Dem Party Senate dominated by the principles of Marxist-Socialism. Regardless of the criticism some movement is better than zero. My concern about Paul Ryan rather than defending his Conservative pedigree he may be joining the Republican Establishment to vacate Tea Party Conservatives from the GOP.

 

Tea Party Conservatives believe the GOP Establishment should excised from the Republican. Obama’s Left Wing fringe is praying (to whoever the ungodly pray to) the Republican Establishment ejects Tea Party Conservatives, Social Conservatives and those known as the Religious Right. I found a guy that is a homosexual Leftist that actually the Conservative Wing of the GOP as the Fringe Right. The reality this ungodly dude exemplifies the Fringe Left dominating the Democratic Party. Check out this support for the Republican Establishment:

 

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) finally told Tea Party extremists to jump in a lake. He was incensed by reflexive criticism from outside pressure groups that bitterly opposed a new budget deal negotiated by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc) and Sen. Patty Murray, (D-Wash). The Ohio Republican realized that these implacable “conservatives” had their own agenda that did not include what was best for the American people. So radical was their position, that they would risk another government shutdown, which would be a calamity for the Republican Party.

 

 

In my view, the Republican brain trust should abandon its reliance on social conservatives and Tea Party activists. They haven’t already done so out of fear that it would be political suicide that would cost them their base. However, by dumping these extremists, the GOP would almost immediately gain new credibility with Independent voters. They would also put conservative Democrats into play who lean right, but won’t vote for GOP candidates because of their retrograde views on social issues.

 

 

Dumping the Tea, as well as the Religious Right, would also increase the Republican odds of winning the presidency. In the last couple of election cycles, the GOP primaries attracted two types of presidential candidates: Those who are crazy (Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann) and those who abandoned their principles and pretended to be insane in order to win (John McCain and “severe conservative” Mitt Romney). The influence of radical elements in the primaries produced flawed candidates who appeared plastic and insincere. A worst-case scenario was the drafting of the unqualified Sarah Palin for Vice President, which badly damaged McCain’s credibility.

 

… (John Boehner Should Stop Fishing In the Tea Party Piranha Stream; By Wayne Besen [Leader of group Truth Wins Out]; Falls Church News Press; 12/17/13 4:16 PM)

 

So if the Fringe Left views the Republican Establishment as an ally in the sense of the enemy of my enemy is my friend, why indeed should Tea Party Conservatives remain a part of a Political Party in which the power structure does not desire Conservative Principles or Conservative Values? My God my fellow Americans! The Republican Establishment is calling the Conservative base that retook the House in 2012 is being vilified as fringe outside groups and basically must discover their pecking order within the GOP.

 

JRH 1/9/13

Please Support NCCR

Pundits on Biden-Ryan Debate


VP Debate 2012- Biden or Joker

John R. Houk

© October 12, 2012

 

Last night’s Biden/Ryan debate was a demonstration on how Democrats will shout down an opponent when confronted with the facts of fundamental failure of the Obama Administration.

 

Thus as the day and week moves forward I predict the Dems will say VP Biden won by virtue of blustering and not allowing Rep. Ryan to elaborate on the facts. If you are a Republican VP Biden’s performance was that of an insane person smiling like a creep sometimes and masking shock to condescend to the kid’s facts. Not that Ryan is a kid; he is a man in his forties. But old foot-in-mouth Biden would not give Ryan a chance to stick his foot in his mouth.

 

The Joker - Jack NicholsonI like what William L. Gensert wrote about Biden’s gyrations:

 

His smile was frightening.  For most of the night Joe Biden looked like the Joker — Nicholson not Ledger.

Vice President Joe Biden is the Joker and the current person a heartbeat away from the Office of President.

 

The most even handed news report on the debate that I have found is from Richard Wolf which I found at Portland WCSH News.

 

JRH 10/12/12

Please Support NCCR

*******************************

Biden, Ryan clash over economy and terrorism

 

By Richard Wolf, USA Today

Oct 12, 2012 11:00 AM

WCSH6.com

 

DANVILLE, Ky. — A virtually deadlocked race for the White House spreads out to six states over the next few days following a confrontational vice-presidential debate that highlighted huge differences over the economy and taxes, health care, terrorism and the threat of war.

 

Vice President Biden and his Republican challenger, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, quarreled Thursday night over the records of their running mates: President Obama’s stewardship of the economy and foreign policy, and Mitt Romney’s claim that he can do better on both fronts.

 

The debate at Centre College in Danville, Ky., gave Biden a chance to stop Romney’s momentum since his commanding performance in the first presidential debate in Denver last week. It gave Ryan the opportunity to define himself for the American people and continue that momentum as the race enters its final 26 days.

 

Both sides came away pleased. “I thought Joe Biden was terrific tonight,” Obama told reporters after the 90-minute debate had concluded. A CNN poll of 381 registered voters who watched the debate showed Ryan the winner, 48%-44%.

 

Throughout the debate, Biden sought to do what Obama had not last week: fight back. He grinned and shook his head continually to show his disagreement with Ryan and interrupted the young congressman frequently. When Ryan accused the administration of “projecting weakness abroad” by not solving problems in Iran, Syria, Libya and elsewhere, Biden shot back, “The last thing we need now is another war.”

 

And when Ryan berated Obama’s economic policies, proposed tax increases and “devastating cuts to our military,” Biden said, “I’ve never met two guys who are more down on America, across the board.”

 

Ryan, new to the national stage and in his first televised debate, was unflappable. “What we are watching on our TV screens is the unraveling of the Obama foreign policy,” he said, criticizing in particular the assassination of U.S. ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens. “Problems are growing abroad, but jobs aren’t growing here.”

 

Unlike the more formal presidential debate last week in Denver, Biden and Ryan interrupted each other frequently as they sought to separate facts from fiction. When Biden referred to Romney’s statement that 47% of Americans feel they are victims, Ryan quipped, “As the vice president knows, sometimes the words don’t come out of your mouth the right way.”

 

The debate served different purposes for the two campaigns. Biden needed to help Democrats recover from Obama’s lackadaisical performance last week; Ryan sought to continue the momentum that Romney’s strong effort produced in national and swing state polls.

 

Before the next presidential debate Tuesday, the candidates and their wives were set to visit six of the nine states still very much in play: Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Colorado and Nevada. The others are Florida, Iowa and New Hampshire.

 
The debate offered a clear generational contrast between a nearly 70-year-old vice president who was elected to the Senate in 1972 and a 42-year-old challenger who was 2 years old at the time.

 

Vice presidential debates have not proven very important in the past — not even in 1988, when Democratic Sen. Lloyd Bentsen famously said of Republican Dan Quayle, “Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.”

 

At one point in Thursday’s debate, Ryan said the tax cuts that Republicans want are reminiscent of President Kennedy’s. “Oh, now you’re Jack Kennedy!” Biden said.

 

VIDEO REPORT

 

USA TODAY

________________________

Sharp barbs but no clear winner in testy Biden-Ryan vice presidential debate

 

By Amie Parnes and Justin Sink

10/11/12 11:10 PM ET

The Hill

 

Vice President Biden and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) traded furious blows Thursday night in a highly contentious vice presidential debate.

There was no clear winner in the first and only showdown between the vice presidential candidates, with both sides making strong cases for the running mate at the top of their respective ticket. But perhaps the most prominent feature of the debate in Danville, Ky., was Biden’s incredulous demeanor. The vice president repeatedly dismissed Ryan with laughter, eye-rolling and even an “Oh, god!” in an evening of quips and comebacks.

 

From the outset of the 90-minute debate, Biden sought to portray Mitt Romney and Ryan’s ideas as “malarkey” and depicted his opponent as evasive and untruthful, a theme the Obama campaign has pushed aggressively in recent days.

“With all due respect, that’s a bunch of malarkey,” Biden said. “Not a single thing he said is accurate.”

Biden, clearly looking to rebound from President Obama’s sluggish and subdued performance in last week’s presidential debate, presented a sharp contrast in demeanor and tone from his opponent as they debated topics ranging from Libya to the economy and abortion. The vice president frequently laughed and interrupted his rival as Ryan lobbed criticisms, appearing both confident and dismissive of the Republican nominee.

The Wisconsin congressman battled back with varied success, landing some counterpunches and living up to the earnest and wonky image he has carefully cultivated during his time in Congress. But at other points, Ryan seemed frustrated by Biden’s frequent interruptions.

“I know you’re under a lot of duress to make up for lost ground, but people would be better served if we don’t keep interrupting each other,” Ryan said during a discussion of Medicare.

Biden ran a risk with voters, appearing at times condescending and overly aggressive. His dismissive tone drew fire from many Republicans, who suggested the vice president was being rude to his opponent.

“It’s pretty clear who the grown-up onstage is,” Brendan Buck, Ryan’s spokesman, wrote on Twitter halfway through the debate. “Biden bordering on unhinged,” Tim Miller, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, wrote.

But Biden’s aggressive stance pleased some Democrats who felt the Obama campaign couldn’t afford to lose this debate.

Democratic strategist Paul Begala tweeted, “34 minutes into the VP debate, this is the debate Dems needed. God Bless Joe Biden.”

Obama himself was pleased with his running mate, saying he “could not be prouder” of Biden as Air Force One landed at Andrews Air Force base in Maryland after the president’s trip to Florida.

“I’m going to make a special point of saying that I thought Joe Biden was terrific tonight,” Obama said. “I could not be prouder of him. I thought he made a very strong case. I really think that his passion for making sure that the economy grows for the middle class came through. So I’m very proud of him.”

He called Biden to congratulate him, according to a White House pool report. Romney also called Ryan to congratulate his running mate.

The tone of the evening was set from the opening question, an inquiry into the recent attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

Ryan argued the Obama administration had dropped the ball there, providing inadequate security for the foreign service officers who lost their lives.

“Our ambassador in Paris has a Marine detachment guarding him,” Ryan said. “Shouldn’t we have a Marine detachment guarding our ambassador in Benghazi, a place we knew there was an al Qaeda cell with arms?”

Biden fired back, saying the congressman’s characterization of the administration’s response to a terrorist attack was “malarkey” and that “nothing he said was accurate.”

The vice president went on to cite congressional Republicans’ vote to cut embassy security budgets.

“This lecture on embassy security — the congressman here cut embassy security in his budget by $300 million below what we asked for … So much for the embassy security piece.”

As the debate transitioned to the deficit and debt, it stayed personal, with Ryan pointing out that the unemployment rate in Biden’s hometown of Scranton, Pa., had increased under the Obama administration.

Biden shot back by bringing up the “47 percent” comment that Romney made at a private fundraiser, saying the Republican nominee believed half of Americans were “unwilling to take responsibility of their lives.”

Ryan responded by pointing out Biden’s Achilles’ heel: gaffes.

“I think the VP very well knows the words sometimes don’t come out of your mouth the right way,” Ryan said.

“But I always say what I mean,” Biden retorted.

In fact, the famously gaffe-prone vice president was mistake-free during the 90-minute debate.

Later, Biden was able to put Ryan on his heels by highlighting the fact that the congressman had requested stimulus dollars for his home district despite criticizing the spending.

“I love that,” Biden said. “This is such a bad program and he writes me a letter saying, ‘The reason we need this stimulus, it will create growth and jobs.’ His words.”

But Ryan seemed to pick up momentum later in the debate as it turned to economic questions. Clearly prepared for a tangle on Medicare, Ryan said Republicans would “honor the promises” to seniors on Medicare.

“We would rather have 50 million future seniors determine how their Medicare is delivered to them, instead of 15 bureaucrats deciding what, when, if and where they get it,” Ryan said.

Biden struck back, equating Ryan’s argument to the “death panel” claims made by former vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin.

The conversation was dotted with folksy colloquialisms as Biden sought the upper hand, frequently referring to Ryan as “my friend” and joking that if voters believed that Romney truly supported the auto bailout, “I’ve got a bridge to sell you.”

The debate again got feisty as the candidates engaged on their tax plans, with the two men frequently shouting over one another while discussing who would be most affected by allowing the Bush-era tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans to expire.

“Jack Kennedy lowered tax rates and increased growth,” Ryan said, arguing for the Romney tax plan.

“Now you’re Jack Kennedy?” Biden asked incredulously. “This is amazing.”

“Republicans and Democrats have worked together on this,” Ryan said. “I understand you guys aren’t used to bipartisan deals.”

As the debate moved back to foreign policy, Ryan accused Biden of empowering the Syrian government’s violent response to rebels by negotiating through the United Nations.

“Where are we?” Ryan asked. “After international pressure, then President Obama said [Syrian President] Bashar Assad should go. It’s been over a year. He has slaughtered tens of thousands of his own people.”

Biden countered, asking, “What would my friend do differently?

“You notice he never answers the question,” the vice president said.

Toward the conclusion of the debate, the candidates were pressed on their stances on abortion. Both Roman Catholics, Ryan and Biden differed on how their faith and public policy should be interwoven.

“I don’t see how a person can separate their public life from their private life. My faith informs me how to take care of the vulnerable, how to make sure that people have a chance in life,” Ryan said.

Biden said he accepted his church’s position on abortion “as what we call a de fide doctrine.”

“I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews and I just refuse to impose that on others,” Biden said. “Unlike my friend here, the congressman, I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people, women, they can’t control their body.”

In the debate’s concluding moments, the candidates were asked to comment on the tenor of the presidential contest so far — an apt question, considering the night’s testy proceedings. Debate moderator Martha Raddatz, who was noticeably more firm in shaping the debate than moderator Jim Lehrer a week ago in Denver with the presidential candidates, asked the question in the context of a soldier who had expressed dismay over the political atmosphere.

Biden pivoted into a discussion of the “sacred obligation” of the government to honor the soldier’s service — and hit Ryan again on his running mate’s “47 percent” comment.

“He shouldn’t be thrown into a category of 47 percent who don’t pay their taxes while he was out there fighting,” Biden said.

Ryan similarly turned the question into an attack on his opponent, arguing that “we’re not getting leadership” under Obama.

“What do we have from the president?” Ryan asked. “He broke his big promise to bring people together to solve the country’s biggest problem. I would tell him we don’t have to settle for this; we can do better than this.”

__________________________

Joe Was the Only One Laughing

 

Nate Jackson for The Patriot Post Editorial Team

October 12, 2012

The Patriot Post

 

“If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet.” –Proverbs 29:9

 

Conventional wisdom says that vice presidential debates don’t move the needle in elections, and last night’s debate was probably no exception. That said, Thursday night’s debate couldn’t have contrasted two more different candidates. Paul Ryan, the respectful, serious and earnest policy wonk, against Joe Biden, who behaved like a drunken clown and a jerk and paid due homage to the mascot of the Democrat Party — the Jackass. (SlantRight Editor: Highlight emphasis mine)

 

VP Debate 2012- Biden-Clown vs Ryan toon

 

On substance, Ryan held his own against Vice President Chuckles, despite having to face a second debate opponent in “moderator” Martha Raddatz of ABC News. Yet on style, whether the subject was the terrorist attack on our Libyan embassy, the ailing economy or abortion, Biden smiled, laughed, sneered, rolled his eyes and strategically interrupted Ryan every time the congressman hit his stride on an answer. And if it wasn’t Biden interrupting, it was Raddatz.

 

Biden is obviously a disciple of Saul Alinksy (sic), who in his “Rules for Radicals,” Rule No. 5, said, “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.” Clearly, the Obama team decided that the president’s failure last week was that he was “too polite,” and that Biden had to use ridicule to shore up their anxious base. The result was appalling, but then again, Biden has been rehearsing his socialist obfuscation and diversion in Washington for 40 years.

 

With that, here are a few high- and lowlights.

 

Libya: Biden blamed the intelligence community for the ever-changing story coming from the White House, and flat out lied when he claimed ignorance as a defense. “[W]e weren’t told they wanted more security” at the embassy, he said.. But the bottom line is READ THE REST

____________________________

Pundits on Biden-Ryan Debate

John R. Houk

© October 12, 2012

___________________________

Biden, Ryan clash over economy and terrorism

 

Copyright ©2012 Pacific and Southern Company, Inc.. All rights reserved.

____________________________________

Sharp barbs but no clear winner in testy Biden-Ryan vice presidential debate

 

© 2012 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsidiary of News Communications, Inc.

____________________________________

Joe Was the Only One Laughing

 

The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of our readers. The Patriot Post is protected speech pursuant to the “unalienable rights” of all men, and in accordance with the First (and Second) Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. Copyright © 2012 The Patriot Post.

 

PUBLIUS

Paul Ryan Should bring in Social Conservatives


Romney-Ryan

John R. Houk

© August 16, 2012

 

Bob Unruh has written an article about Dr. James Dobson’s personal thoughts on presumptive GOP Nominee Mitt Romney. In essence Dobson advises Romney with Conservative Social Values.

 

Dobson is absolutely correct. It is Social Issues that Conservatives have labeled Romney – The anybody but Obama candidate. As the Governor of Massachusetts Romney was not exactly the paragon protector of Social Conservatism. The case can easily be made Romney believes a woman’s right over her own body overrides the unborn life that is in her womb. There is also some questionability where Romney stands on Same-Sex Marriage versus Traditional Marriage between one male and one female. And Romney’s lackluster Social Conservatism is a bit surprising since he is a big dog in the Mormon Church (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints). For all of the Mormon Church’s lack of Christian orthodoxy Mormons have nailed Social Conservatism (Check out the Mormon stance on abortion).

 

If Romney wants to move up the likability scale among the GOP base he should embrace Social Conservative issues. Romney’s pick for Vice President running mate Paul Ryan is a good beginning to embracing Social Conservatism.

 

JRH 8/16/12

Please Support NCCR