TWO DIFFERENT FUTURES FOR THE NATION!
Libs are so fussy all of a sudden about abusing women and cavorting with foreigners! Anyway, my advice is to just wait a few weeks until the election is over and your beloved Democrats will once again be able to follow their hearts and blame America first.
I happen to catch Bill O'Reilly's late version last night, and what I saw from the FOX network whose owner is Rupert Murdock, who is, not only a well known pro-open border Globalist, but a very good friend of George Soros! O'Reilly was taking the baton, like all the other 'Paid to Report' Media to question Trumps true beliefs about whether he really thought the election is fixed, Trump went into the process being fixed with the 'Paid to Report' Media targeting anything he
It appears to me that, like Hillary says, 'Words Matter,' she's been using every word Trump has ever said as a beginner outsider, non-politician since day one. O'Reilly set the bait, and Trump didn't bite, but that doesn't mean Hillary, with the help of the 'Paid to Report' Media isn't digging deep to find out whether or not he has cooties, fallen arches, snores, or doesn't eat with a napkin in his lap!
Voting fraud has existed for awhile, and especially in 2012 when Obama stole the election from wimpy Mitt Romney! 8 times in recent years Democrats complained and contested the vote, so if Trump does it I guess the ole Hillary/Obama double standard insider rule kicks in and Trump's comments are now considered against our Democratic process, and anti-American!
Texas has reverted to 'Paper Ballots' in a lot of computer districts because votes cast for Trump are showing up as a vote for Hillary, and in Colorado voters are being caught voting twice, and in the Carolina's there are reports of numbers of people registered to vote more than 1 state!
With George Soros behind some 307 district voting machines in 16 states you have to, like Trump says, be more than just a little suspicions about the outcome! All Americans, no matter what
CLICK HERE TO SEE HOW AND WHY THIS ELECTION IS FIXED!
In a field of 17 Republican candidates, Donald Trump
wouldn’t have been my 18th choice. I’m still not a fan. But they didn’t just
ask me; they asked everyone. And more of everyone chose Donald Trump. ~~
TODAY, OCTOBER TWENTY EIGHTH HEADLINES, AND WHAT THE OBAMA AND HILLARY'S ‘PAID TO REPORT’ MEDIA ISN’T SHARING WITH YOU!
*Erica Garner blasts Clinton campaign over discussions staffers had about her father’s death in WikiLeaks emails!
Erica Garner, the daughter of police chokehold victim Eric Garner, ripped the Hillary Clinton campaign. “I’m troubled by the revelation that you and this campaign actually discussed ‘using’ Eric Garner … WikiLeaks. “These people will co opt anything to push their agenda. Police violence is not the same as gun violence.
*Schweizer: 12 Days from Election, Clinton World Still Has No Good Answers on Russian Uranium Deal!
Briefly, a Russian government sought federal government approval to purchase a Canadian company called Uranium One which controlled 20 percent of American uranium assets. This required the approval of several federal government agencies, because the deal involved a material (uranium) of national strategic importance. Hillary Clinton’s State Department was one of those agencies which signed off on the deal.
Nine shareholders connected to Uranium One contributed a combined $145 million to the Clinton Foundation before or during the time the review took place. Some of those donations were not publicly disclosed at the time, as the Clintons promised they would.
*Bill Clinton’s business comes back to haunt Hillary in campaign! The emails reveal the overlap between the Clintons’ charitable foundation, Mrs. Clinton’s work as secretary of state and her husband’s for-profit speechmaking. ~~
Hillary hasn’t changed, and at least not in who she is – a corrupt, self-serving liar willing to do or say anything to win and/or sell out to the highest bidder. There isn’t enough Saudi Arabian money in the Clinton Foundation to get me to vote for someone who got rich off “public service” and a “commitment to helping the poor.”
TODAY, OCTOBER TWENTY EIGHTH HEADLINES, AND WHAT THE OBAMA AND HILLARY'S ‘PAID TO REPORT’ MEDIA ISN’T SHARING WITH YOU!
*Erica Garner blasts Clinton campaign over discussions staffers had about her father’s death in WikiLeaks emails!
Erica Garner, the daughter of police chokehold victim Eric Garner, ripped the Hillary Clinton campaign. “I’m troubled by the revelation that you and this campaign actually discussed ‘using’ Eric Garner … WikiLeaks. “These people will co opt anything to push their agenda. Police violence is not the same as gun violence.
*Schweizer: 12 Days from Election, Clinton World Still Has No Good Answers on Russian Uranium Deal!
Briefly, a Russian government sought federal government approval to purchase a Canadian company called Uranium One which controlled 20 percent of American uranium assets. This required the approval of several federal government agencies, because the deal involved a material (uranium) of national strategic importance. Hillary Clinton’s State Department was one of those agencies which signed off on the deal.
Nine shareholders connected to Uranium One contributed a combined $145 million to the Clinton Foundation before or during the time the review took place. Some of those donations were not publicly disclosed at the time, as the Clintons promised they would.
*Bill Clinton’s business comes back to haunt Hillary in campaign! The emails reveal the overlap between the Clintons’ charitable foundation, Mrs. Clinton’s work as secretary of state and her husband’s for-profit speechmaking. ~~
Hillary hasn’t changed, and at least not in who she is – a corrupt, self-serving liar willing to do or say anything to win and/or sell out to the highest bidder. There isn’t enough Saudi Arabian money in the Clinton Foundation to get me to vote for someone who got rich off “public service” and a “commitment to helping the poor.”
No, what’s changed is me. Not through introspection and
reflection, but through watching the sickening display of activism perpetrated
by a covert army with press credentials.
Bias has always been a factor in journalism. It’s nearly
impossible to remove. Humans have their thoughts, and keeping them out of your
work is difficult. But 2016 saw the remaining veneer of credibility, thin as it
was, stripped away and set on fire.
More than anything, I can’t sit idly by and allow these
perpetrators of fraud to celebrate and leak tears of joy like they did when
they helped elect Barack Obama in 2008. You have to know I weighed in not only
in writing but in the voting booth.
The media needs to be destroyed. And although voting for
Trump won’t do it, it’s something. Essentially, I am voting for Trump because
of the people who don’t want me to, and I believe I must register my disgust
with Hillary
Clinton, and so should all Americans who are disgusted with the
way intent and interpretation instead of the letter of the law to bypass
congress, our constitution, and used by the heads of our Justice Department and
FBI to give Hillary the ability to use her ‘Get out of Jail free card!’
After the last debate, when no outlet “fact checked”
Hillary’s lie that her opposition to the Heller decision had anything to do
with children, or her lie that the State Department didn’t lose $6 billion
under her leadership, I couldn’t hold out any longer.
A Trump administration at least will include people I trust
in positions that matter. I don’t know if they will be able to hold him
completely in check, but I know a Clinton administration will include people
who have been her co-conspirators in corruption, and there won’t even be a
media to hold her accountable.
The Wikileaks emails have exposed an arrogant cabal of
misery profiteers who hold everyone, even their fellow travelers deemed not
pure enough, in contempt. These bigots who’ve made their fortune from
government service should be kept as far away from the levers of power as the
car keys should be kept from anyone named Kennedy on a Friday night. My one
vote against it will not be enough, but it’s all I can do and I have to do all
I can do.
I won’t stop being critical of Trump when he deserves it; I
won’t pretend someone is handing out flowers when they’re shoveling BS. But I’d
rather have BS shoveled out of a president than our tax dollars shoveled to a
president’s friends and political allies.
The Project Vertias videos exposed a corrupt political
machine journalists would have been proud to expose in the past. The Wikileaks
emails pulled back the curtain on why that didn’t happen – journalists are in
on it. I can’t pretend otherwise, and I have no choice but to oppose it.
This isn’t a call to arms for “Never Trumpers” to follow
suit; this is a choice I had to make for myself after much reflection. I
wouldn’t presume to tell others how to act any more than I would accept the
same from someone else. I would encourage them to consider what awaits the
country should Hillary win. If they can’t vote against her by voting for him,
at least spend these last two weeks of the election directing their ire toward
Clinton.
Although most are principled, far too many “Never Trump”
conservatives spend more of their time attacking him than pointing out her
corruption. I get it – in him, you see the fight you’ve been a part of being
betrayed, and that leaves a mark.
I’m not saying you should support him, but you shouldn’t
lose sight of the importance of opposing her. If, or when, Hillary 
Clinton takes the oath of office, she needs to have as little support as possible. Frankly, she needs to be damaged. The mainstream media won’t do it; they’re in on it.
Clinton takes the oath of office, she needs to have as little support as possible. Frankly, she needs to be damaged. The mainstream media won’t do it; they’re in on it.
This is my choice, what I must do. Each person has to come
to this decision on their own terms. And the fact remains there simply aren’t
enough “Never Trump” Republicans to make up Trump’s current deficit, and that’s
on him. But I know what I’ve been wrestling with these past few weeks is not
unique to me. And I don’t know about you, but I simply cannot sit around
knowing there was something else I could have done to oppose Hillary Clinton
and I didn’t do it.
A simple protest vote for a third party or a write-in of my
favorite comic book character might feel good for a moment. It might even give
me a sense of moral superiority that lasts until her first executive order
damaging something I hold dear – or her first Supreme Court nominee. But the
sting that will follow will far outlive that temporary satisfaction.
I oppose much of what Donald Trump has said, but I oppose
everything Hillary Clinton has done and wants to do. And what someone says, no
matter how objectionable, is less important than what someone does, especially
when it’s so objectionable. A personal moral victory won’t suffice when the
stakes are so high. As such, I am compelled to vote against Hillary by voting
for the only candidate with any chance whatsoever of beating her – Donald
Trump. ~~ Derek Hunter| Posted: Oct 23, 2016 12:01 AM
IF YOU DON’T LIKE EITHER CANDIDATE THEN VOTE FOR TRUMP’S POLICIES! PART II
In the rest of this article, I will compare the results we could expect from a Clinton presidency with what we could expect from a Trump presidency. (The remainder of this article is an updated form of the political policy sections of my earlier article, “Why Voting for Donald Trump Is a Morally Good Choice.”)
The Supreme Court with Clinton as president!
Hillary Clinton would quickly replace Justice Scalia with another liberal like Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan. This would give liberals a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court even without Justice Kennedy, and 6-3 when he votes with them.
Hillary Clinton would quickly replace Justice Scalia with another liberal like Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan. This would give liberals a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court even without Justice Kennedy, and 6-3 when he votes with them.
But that is not all. Justice Ginsburg is 83, and she has had colon cancer, pancreatic cancer, and has a heart stent. Justice Kennedy is 80. Justice Breyer is 78. A President Clinton could possibly nominate three or four justices to the Supreme Court, locking in a far left activist judiciary for perhaps 30 or more years. She could also add dozens of activist judges to federal district courts and courts of appeals, the courts where 99% of federal lawsuits are decided. Judicial tyranny of the type we have seen when abortion rights and same-sex marriage were forced on the nation would gain a permanent triumph.
The nation would no longer be ruled by the people and their elected representatives, but by unelected, unaccountable, 
activist judges who would dictate from the bench about whatever they were pleased to decree. And there would be nothing in our system of government that anyone could do to stop them.
activist judges who would dictate from the bench about whatever they were pleased to decree. And there would be nothing in our system of government that anyone could do to stop them.
That is why this election is not just about Hillary Clinton. It is about defeating the far left liberal agenda that any Democratic nominee would champion. Liberal Democrats are now within one Supreme Court justice of their highest goal: gaining permanent control of the nation with a five vote majority on the Supreme Court, and then systematically imposing every liberal policy on the nation not through winning elections but through a relentless parade of one Supreme Court decision after another.
Even if Clinton were to drop out of the race (perhaps due to additional shocking email disclosures, for example), our choice in the election would be just the same, because any other Democratic nominee would appoint the same kind of liberal justices to the Court.
Abortion!
On abortion, a liberal court would probably find the ban on partial-birth abortion to be unconstitutional (it was upheld by only a 5-4 majority in Gonzalez v. Carhart, 2007). This would allow babies in the ninth month of pregnancy to be partially delivered out of the birth canal, and then have their skulls crushed so that they are not born alive. Hillary Clinton supports protection of this horrendous practice.
Abortion!
On abortion, a liberal court would probably find the ban on partial-birth abortion to be unconstitutional (it was upheld by only a 5-4 majority in Gonzalez v. Carhart, 2007). This would allow babies in the ninth month of pregnancy to be partially delivered out of the birth canal, and then have their skulls crushed so that they are not born alive. Hillary Clinton supports protection of this horrendous practice.
In addition, the court could find an absolute “right to abortion” in the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution and then sweep away with one decision most or all of the restrictions on
abortion that pro-life advocates have worked for tirelessly over the last 43 years, including ultrasound requirements, waiting periods, parental consent requirements, and prohibitions on non-doctors performing abortions.
Voters should not doubt the power of the Supreme Court to abolish all these laws restricting abortions. Think of the power of the Obergefell v. Hodges 5-4 decision in June, 2015. It instantly nullified all the work that thousands of Christians had done over many years in persuading the citizens of 31 states to pass constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. But no one is campaigning for such laws or amendments anymore, because it would be futile. The Supreme Court has spoken, and therefore the issue is settled in the political system of the United States. We lost – not at the ballot box, but because we had a liberal Supreme Court that nullified the democratic process regarding the definition of marriage.
So it would certainly be with any efforts to place legal limitations on abortion. Nobody would campaign any more for laws to limit abortions, because any such laws would be unconstitutional. The legislative lobbying work of pro-life advocacy groups would be totally and utterly defeated. Millions of unborn children would continue to die.
Religious liberty!
The current liberal agenda often includes suppressing Christian opposition to its views. So a liberal court would increasingly 
nullify rights of conscience with respect to forced participation in same-sex marriage ceremonies or expressing moral objections to homosexual conduct. Already Christians are being pushed out of many occupations. Florists, bakers, and professional photographers have had their businesses destroyed by large fines for refusal to contribute their artistic talents to a specific event, a same-sex wedding ceremony to which they had moral objections.
nullify rights of conscience with respect to forced participation in same-sex marriage ceremonies or expressing moral objections to homosexual conduct. Already Christians are being pushed out of many occupations. Florists, bakers, and professional photographers have had their businesses destroyed by large fines for refusal to contribute their artistic talents to a specific event, a same-sex wedding ceremony to which they had moral objections.
What about protecting people’s religious freedom? Clinton recently said, about Christians who oppose abortion, “Deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs, and structural biases have to be changed.”
Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran in Atlanta was removed from his job because of self-publishing a religious book that briefly mentioned the Bible’s teachings regarding non-marital sexual conduct, including homosexuality, amidst a host of other topics. His situation holds ominous implications for any Christians who hold public sector jobs. In our military services, many high-ranking officers have quietly been forced to resign because they were unwilling to give support to the homosexual agenda.
Mozilla/Firefox CEO Brendan Eich was pushed out from his own company merely because he had donated money to Proposition 8 in California, supporting marriage between one man and one woman. This event has troubling implications for Christians in any corporate executive role who dare to support a political position contrary to the liberal agenda.
Last year Boston urologist Paul Church, a Harvard Medical School faculty member, lost his hospital privileges at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center because he had expressed concerns about the medical dangers associated with same-sex activity.
Are my predictions about this kind of loss of religious liberty too grim? The three conservative justices still on the Supreme Court expressed similar concerns just last month. The case concerned
a Washington pharmacy that has been owned for 70 years by the Stormans family, who are committed Christians. They will likely now be put out of business by the Washington State Pharmacy Board for refusing to dispense an abortion-causing prescription drug. On June 28, 2016, the Supreme Court refused to hear the Stormans’ appeal, in spite of the strong dissent written by Justice Alito (joined by Roberts and Thomas):
“At issue are Washington State regulations that are likely to make a pharmacist unemployable if he or she objects on religious grounds to dispensing certain prescription medications. . . . . there is much evidence that the impetus for the adoption of the regulations was hostility to pharmacists whose religious beliefs regarding abortion and contraception are out of step with prevailing opinion in the State . . . . If this is a sign of how religious liberty claims will be treated in the years ahead, those who value religious freedom have cause for great concern.”
Christian business owners!
If Clinton appoints just one more liberal justice, it is likely that many Christian business owners will be targeted. Hobby Lobby won its 2014 Supreme Court case (again 5-4), so it was not compelled to dispense abortifacients to its employees, but that case could be reversed (the four liberal justices in the minority, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, are still on the court). If that case is overturned, it would force Hobby Lobby out of business, because the Green family had said they would shut down the company of 23,000 employees and over $3 billion in annual sales if they lost the decision. The implications for other Christian business owners with pro-life convictions are ominous.
These incidents show that it is not an exaggeration to say that, under a liberal Supreme Court resulting from Hillary Clinton’s election, Christians would increasingly experience systematic exclusion from hundreds of occupations, with thousands of
people losing their jobs. Step-by-step, Christians would increasingly be marginalized to the silent fringes of society. Is withholding a vote from Donald Trump important enough to pay this high a price in loss of freedom?
Some Christians have even hinted to me that “persecution would be good for us.” But the Bible never encourages us to seek persecution or hope for it. We should rather work to prevent such oppression of Christians, just as Jesus taught us to pray, “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil” (Matthew 6:13). Paul did not encourage us to pray that God would give us bad rulers but good ones who would allow us to “lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way” (1Tim. 2:2).
Christian schools and colleges!
A liberal Supreme Court would also impact education. Christian colleges would likely be found guilty of “discrimination” if they required adherence to the Bible’s standards regarding sexual conduct, or even required affirmation of primary Christian beliefs. Campus ministries like Cru and InterVarsity have already been forced off of many university campuses following the 5-4 Supreme Court decision CLS v. Martinez (2010), which upheld the exclusion of the Christian Legal Society from the campus of Hastings College of Law in San Francisco. And we will likely see more bills like the early form of California’s SB 1146, which would have prohibited Christian colleges from requiring students or employees to hold Christian beliefs or abide by biblical moral standards regarding sexual conduct, and would prohibit colleges from assigning housing based on a student’s biological sex if a student claimed to be transgender. Colleges like Biola and Azusa Pacific could not long survive under those regulations.
With regard to elementary and high schools, laws promoting school choice or tuition voucher programs would likely be declared unconstitutional if they allowed such funding to go to Christian schools. A tax credit program for scholarships to private schools, including Christian institutions, was only upheld by a 5-4 Supreme Court decision in Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn in 2011, and all four liberal justices who voted against it are still on the court. Another possible target of the liberal agenda would be laws that allow for home schooling, if the secular/ liberal governmental hostility to home schooling in European countries is any indicator.
Churches!
Churches would not be exempt from the impact of a liberal Supreme Court. The court could rule that any school district is allowed to ban churches from renting school buildings on Sundays, an action that could severely hinder the work of small churches and church planting in general. (This
was already the ruling of the Second Circuit in the Bronx Household of Faith case regarding New York City public schools.) And some churches in Iowa have now been told that they have to make their bathrooms open to people on the basis of their “gender identity” if the churches are going to be open to the public at all.
Freedom of speech!
Freedom of speech would be increasingly restricted in the public square. In 2014, the Supreme Court ruled that prayers of visiting pastors who prayed “in Jesus’ name” when they opened a city council meeting were allowed under the Constitution, but again it was a 5-4 decision (Town of Greece v. Galloway) and all four liberals who wanted to restrict such prayers are still on the court.
Criminalizing dissent!
Another troubling possibility is that liberal activists, once in power, would further entrench themselves by criminalizing much political dissent. We have already seen it happen with the IRS targeting of conservative groups and with some state attorneys general taking steps to prosecute groups who dare to disagree with activists’ claims about the danger of man-made global warming. We have now seen what no one thought possible – the political corruption of both the IRS and the FBI under the Obama administration. A Clinton administration would be even worse. ~~ Wayne Grudem| Posted: Oct 19, 2016 12:14 AM
Our 'founding fathers,' our Constitution,' and our 'Bill of Rights' have unselfishly backed us for the past 240 years, and I think it's time to step out of our individual caves of political discord and
come together to give them a second chance! Nothing warrants the treatment and disrespect they've had to go through to be barely alive and functioning today, so drop your individual causes, political ideals, and opinions to come together on November 8th to support what has made us exceptional, and help 'Make America Great Again!'
Our 'founding fathers,' our Constitution,' and our 'Bill of Rights' have unselfishly backed us for the past 240 years, and I think it's time to step out of our individual caves of political discord and
NEXT BLOG: 'The Supreme Court with Trump as president!'
Don't forget to follow the Friends Of Liberty on Facebook and our Page also Pinterest , Twitter , tumblr and Google Plus PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks.
Friends Of Liberty is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with the mission to protect and defend individual freedoms and individual rights.
Don't forget to follow While You Were Sleeping on Facebook and our Page also Pinterest , Twitter , tumblr and Google Plus PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks!
Friends Of Liberty is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with the mission to protect and defend individual freedoms and individual rights.
Don't forget to follow While You Were Sleeping on Facebook and our Page also Pinterest , Twitter , tumblr and Google Plus PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks!
No comments:
Post a Comment