FW: Politics as usual???
Subject: Politics as usual???
http://dailycaller.com/2016/
[http://cdn01.dailycaller.com/
Dem Operative Who Oversaw Trump Rally Agitators Visited White House 342 Times<http://dailycaller.com/
dailycaller.com
A key operative in a Democratic scheme to send agitators to cause unrest at Donald Trump's rallies has visited the White House 342 times since 2009, White House records show. Robert Creamer, who a
Trump vs Hillary? A Pastor's View
If You're On Fence About Your Vote, This Pastor Clarifies How The Very Future of America Is At Stake
I have been asked "the question" so many times regarding Trump or Hillary. By way of background, I have followed every national convention—Republican and Democrat—from the time I was age 9, and have attended most of the GOP Conventions from 1984 to the present. I have watched the news virtually every day from the age of 8. I have never seen anything like what we are observing.
In spite of the unprecedented nature of this election cycle, I will attempt to respond to "the question." I am not demanding that anyone else share my view. But I was asked. Here is my best attempt to answer as I am able to see things at this time:
1. The Democrat and Republican party platforms are as different as night and day, in my opinion, as far apart as evil vs. good. The 51-page Democrat platform is the most leftist ever. (I don't care for the "right vs. left" nomenclature. I am far more concerned with "right vs. wrong.") The Democrat platform contains many points which are anti-biblical. (Time does not permit me here to identify what is meant by "anti-biblical," which is covered in my new book Well Versed: Biblical Answers to Today's Tough Issues.) It is thoroughly socialistic (a socialist is a communist without a gun). The 54-page GOP platform is one of the strongest GOP platforms ever. A biblically alert person could be comfortable with almost all of it. Party platforms are a big issue to me. Although some "blow off" party platforms, I do not. Nor do many people up and down the ballot who are running for office. This is a serious and very important item. I have a hard copy of both platforms in front of me now. Most people have never checked out what the party platforms say. They should. If a person is not drawn to the "top-of-the-ballot" candidate, they ought to at least consider voting for the candidate attached to the best party platform.
2. "God" is never mentioned in the 2012 Democrat Party Platform, while He is mentioned 12 times in the 2012 Republican Party Platform.
3. (The above clearly shows why real Christians will not be Democrats!)
4. Analogy #1: Both candidates are flawed. We all know that. But permit me an analogy: As a pastor, I would rather deal with a church attendee who is blatant and brash in his sinning than one who is devious, lying, cunning and deceptive. Both are problematic, but one is easier to deal with than the other. If I were a pastor bringing correction to a parishioner, I would prefer dealing with a "Trump-type" any day over a "Hillary-type." The chances of making progress with the "Trump-type" are many times greater than the "Hillary-type."
5. Analogy #2: When my (late) wife's remarkable and much loved oncologist said, "Don't take Carol to that alternative (non FDA approved) treatment." I asked, "Why not?" He said, "The unknown." I said, "Doctor, your 'known' is much worse than the alternative treatment's 'unknown.'" (I took her to that alternative treatment. One year later that same oncologist went to the alternative treatment doctor to see how it was that Carol had improved so much. While this alternative treatment did not ultimately save her life, it likely stretched two to three years of life to six years of life—by the admission of another one of her brilliant young oncologists who later said, "Without any medical training or scientific fact, you have put together a protocol of treatment that has moved her into the top fraction of 1 percent of survival rates of all patients with Carol's particular cancer).Application of the analogy: Hillary's "known" is considerably worse—many times over—than Trump's "unknown."
6. Trump has lots of sins in his past (actually, we all do), and—in the present—says things he should not say. I make no attempt to defend any of the things he has said. There is no need to rehearse the wrong things he has said. We know what they are. He should not have thought or said them. But there is no need to rehash them here. So we won't. But let's turn to the other candidate. Although America has had some scandal-ridden candidates in its history, we have never seen any one major party candidate more constantly scandalous as Hillary (along with her husband). She seems to exceed all previous boundaries for wrongdoing. The scandals just don't stop. In the same way we did not take time to list all of Trump's misstatements, neither will we here rehash the seemingly continuous string of horrific scandals of the Clintons.
7. Trump is slowly being surrounded by increasingly good people. From time to time, I receive encouraging calls regarding this. Can these good people impact Trump? We will see. In contrast, I see no reason for any encouragement regarding the people who surround Hillary.
8. Trump is right on approximately 75 percent of the issues. I wish it was 100 percent. It is not. I am in hopes that those beginning to surround him can help him connect the dots on more issues. Hillary is wrong on 100 percent of the issues.
9. This next issue might be one of the most important, but I suspect few will understand its significance. Trump opposes globalism. Hillary thrives on it. Globalism is far more than "geographical" or "eliminating national borders and boundaries." It is spiritual, that is, demonic at its core. Few—very few—understand this. This is quite likely one of the main reasons why Trump is hated. Do your homework on this one. Think "principalities and powers." Serious. Extremely serious.
10. Not voting is not a viable option, contrary to what the "purists" claim. It is not my intention to begin a war of the issue. I know that some radically disagree with this. My view? They have the right to be wrong.
11. Voting for a third party candidate is—regardless of what is said—a complete "throw-away." No third party candidate will be elected, or even come remotely close to being elected. And yes, that matters to me. And for the record, the Libertarian ticket—Johnson and Weld—is nearly as bad on many issues as Hillary. When I listen to them, I am stunned people of their ability have ever made it to elective office.
12. Trump has moved pro-life. Hillary is pro-baby killing, and prides herself on that, and honors the organization—Planned Parenthood—that actually traffics human parts from dead babies whom they have killed. This is below anything we have seen since Nazi Germany. The gall of Hillary! The Clintons have evaded justice for decades and likely will continue to. But they will someday stand before the Great White Throne. They will have to give account of their support of the ripping babies to shreds in the womb. For the record, those who vote for those who support the genocide of pre-borns will also have to give an account.
13. Trump wants to defend the nation (which is the purpose of government). Hillary has a horrific track record as Secretary of State, and due to hundreds of millions of dollars given to her and her husband's foundation, she is beholden to those who want us dead.
14. Hillary claims "everything is fine" in America. This defies every single fact, but facts have never been an interest of Hillary's. Trump understands that it is 11:59 p.m. on the "cultural clock." America is near the end—morally, economically, militarily and, sadly, spiritually. There are very clear identifiable indicators—measurable ones—that America is no longer the world's leading power. That day is over. Hillary will hasten the final destruction. Trump could either slow that down—or possibly, with God's help—reverse it. Maybe.
15. Trump will address the massive government spending. Hillary will expand it above the existing unsustainable debt the U.S. currently is carrying (almost $20 trillion plus unfunded liabilities to Social Security, etc).
16. Trump will expose—and I pray, bring down—"the systemic evil" (crony, deceitful, misuse of capitalism)that reigns among many high-dollar lobbyists. Hillary thrives because of them.
17. Trump will stop the massive overreach of government. Hillary will extend it.
18. Freedoms come in "threes." Political freedom, economic freedom and religious liberty coexist together. Take one away and the other two will eventually disappear. One cannot exist without the other two. The genius of America is that it had all three, until recently. Trump fully grasps the loss of religious liberty. I have heard him speak on it in person on several occasions. He knows that economic and political freedoms are evaporating. He will reverse that. Hillary will decimate all three.
19. Every rational person knows the Supreme Court appointments are paramount. Trump has listed 11 superb potential nominees. Hillary's appointments would snuff out the tiny vestige of the three freedoms that are left (mentioned in the statement above).
20. I make no excuse for wrongdoing or wrongful, hurtful words from either candidate. Candidly, I want King Jesus. He rules in my heart. And yours too, I suspect. And I want him to rule here—now. But that day is not fully manifested—yet. In the meantime, we prayerfully, carefully navigate this challenging election season, with great concern that above all, we honor our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in every arena of our lives, including the voting booth. That is my hope. It is yours as well.
Dr. Jim Garlow
Dr. Jim Garlow is pastor of Skyline Church in San Diego. He is also co-founder of The Jefferson Gathering, a weekly worship service for members of Congress at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C.
Fw: As if we didn't have enough to worry about
Good Lord,
as if We "Didn't Have Enough" to Worry About
I had to take my vehicle to the mechanic the other day for service. The Service Manager, Pete, gave me a ride home, and on the way he told me his theory about the upcoming election and the next four years of U.S. government. At first, I thought it a bit farfetched. But as I listened to him, it began to make sense, scary sense...
I believe that Hillary Clinton will win the election in November, Pete began. Then, sometime between November and January, Hillary will be indicted. The IRS is now investigating the Clinton Foundation, and the whole e-mail thing isn't over yet.
Once under indictment, she wont be able to assume the Office of the President in January. Tim Kaine, who will not actually be the Vice President because neither he nor Hillary have been inaugurated, cannot assume the Presidency.
The Speaker of the House cant move up to it because there is already a sitting President and Vice President. So President Obama, in an Executive Order citing emergency situation, gives himself another four years in office.
Pete believes Obama has been planning this for a while now, knowing he has enough on Hillary to indict her. Had the Attorney General indicted her based on evidence from the FBI, this plan wouldn't have worked because the DNC would have quickly come up with another candidate.
If you think about it, its not that outrageous. Many people on the left, including the President, want Obama to stay another four years. The law prohibits him from being re-elected, so the only ways he can do it is by declaring martial law and suspending the election (which would be a very negative thing for the country) or to declare himself still President because the elected candidate cannot assume her duties.
The latter makes more sense and is actually more feasible. And since its never been done before, it would set a precedent that would be difficult to challenge.
Of course, if Trump wins the election, none of this is going to happen. But what if Pete is correct? Four more years of Obama and a mostly useless Republican House and Senate would give Obama the time he needs to continue destroying/changing the country to fit his stated goals.
I thanked Pete for the ride home and for messing up my day. Now I've got more things to worry about.
Fw: Politics
Subject: Politics
Politicsseized on the fact that the restrictions would go into effect only in November, if Clinton was elected, meaning donors could race to give money before the deadline — but in time to curry favor with a Democratic nominee who is leading in the polls.
The left-leaning columnist Jonathan Chait wrote on the website of New York magazine Friday that the new policy is an “inadequate response to the conflicts of interest inherent in the Clinton Foundation” and demonstrates that Clinton “has not fully grasped the severity of her reputational problem.”
Even with the restrictions, he noted, wealthy individuals would have the opportunity to use foundation donations as “chits.” “Ultimately, there is no way around this problem without closing down the Clinton Foundation altogether,” he wrote.
The foundation is not required by law to disclose its donors, but it has published those names since Clinton was nominated to be secretary of state by President Obama. The disclosure was required under an ethics agreement she negotiated with the Obama administration, as was the requirement that new foreign government donations be submitted to the State Department for vetting. If questions arose, the agreement allowed for the White House to weigh in.
Those rules allowed the foundation to accept millions of dollars while Clinton was in office from seven foreign governments that had already been giving, including nations with which the United States has had complicated relations, such as Qatar and Oman. Foundation officials also later acknowledged that it had accepted a $500,000 donation from Algeria without receiving permission from the State Department, as required by the agreement.
By Rosalind S. Helderman, John Wagner and Anu Narayanswamy August 19 at 10:43 PM
More than half of the Clinton Foundation’s major donors would be prevented from contributing to the charity under the self-imposed ban on corporate and foreign donors the foundation said this week it would adopt if Hillary Clinton won the White House, according to a new Washington Post analysis of foundation donations.
The findings underscore the extent to which the Clintons’ sprawling global charity has come to rely on financial support from industries and overseas interests, a point that has drawn criticism from Republicans and some liberals who have said the donations represent conflicts of interest for a potential president.
The analysis, which examined donor lists posted on the foundation’s website, found that 53 percent of the donors who have given $1 million or more to the charity are corporations or foreign citizens, groups or governments. The list includes the governments of Saudi Arabia and Australia, the British bank Barclay’s, and major U.S. companies such as Coca-Cola and ExxonMobil.
[The inside story of how the Clintons built a $2 billion global empire]
The foundation’s announcement drew skepticism Friday from the right and the left as critics wondered why the Clintons have never before cut off corporate and overseas money to their charity — and why they would wait until after the election to do so.
The restrictions would be more stringent than those put in place while Clinton was secretary of state, when the foundation was merely required to seek State Department approval to accept new donations from foreign governments — permitting the charity to accept millions of dollars from governments and wealthy interests all over the world. They would also be stricter than the policy adopted when Clinton launched her campaign that placed some limits on foreign government funding but allowed corporate and individual donations.
Nina Turner, a former Ohio state senator who was a leading surrogate for Clinton’s rival in the Democratic primary race, Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.), said the restrictions were a good step but should be imposed immediately.
“In my opinion, and in the opinion of lots of Americans, this should have been done long ago,” she said.
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus tweeted Friday that the Clintons’ continued acceptance of those dollars during the presidential campaign is a “massive, ongoing conflict of interest.”
Others questioned why Clinton had now decided that the foundation should rule out donations that she apparently thought were acceptable during her tenure as the country’s top diplomat. “Is it ok to accept foreign and corporate money when Secretary of State but not when POTUS???” Donald Trump Jr., son of the Republican nominee, tweeted Thursday night.
Clinton Foundation spokesman Craig Minassian said that the limits would be imposed “to avoid perception issues while ensuring the people who depend on our programs continue to be served.”
Minassian did not directly answer questions about why the restrictions would be tighter than they were when Clinton was at State. As for why they would not be imposed until after the election, he said that the foundation did not want to presume the outcome and that taking action “before then would needlessly hurt people who are being helped by our charitable work around the world.”
Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Clinton’s campaign, said the constraints on the foundation while Clinton was secretary of state already went beyond legal requirements but the foundation submitted to “even more rigorous standards” when Clinton declared her candidacy and “is pledging to go even further if she wins.”
“At each step, the standard set by the foundation has been unprecedented, even if it may never satisfy some critics,” he said.
The announcement of the new restrictions appeared to be a response to an ongoing political headache for Hillary Clinton, who has faced months of damaging criticism of her State Department tenure amid controversies over her use of a private email server and allegations that foundation donors received special access.
Citing the release of emails showing top Clinton aides responding to requests for meetings with donors, Donald Trump has accused Clinton of creating a “pay to play” climate in her agency — a charge she has denied.
Nearly half of likely voters, 47 percent, said they were bothered a lot by the foundation’s acceptance of money from foreign countries while Clinton was secretary of state, according to a Bloomberg Newspoll in June. That’s similar to the 45 percent of voters who were bothered by Trump’s refusal to release his tax returns.
The new policy was devised by Bill Clinton and daughter Chelsea Clinton, and approved at a foundation board meeting Thursday, according to a foundation official.
Fwd: QUOTE / Christian Values - Jack Graham / Perspective
Pastor Jack Graham opinion on a Political Candidate
Prestonwood Baptist Church
Plano, Texas
******************************
Subject: Christian Values
An Opinion about Donald Trump from a Southern Baptist pastor Jack Graham.
His thoughts regarding Trump.
Of course, Evangelicals can vote for Trump
I want to address the Crisis of Conscience that many Conservative Evangelicalsface when wrestling with what to do with Donald Trump.
As a pastor, I have been party to countless conversations among fellow Christians about whether to support Mr. Trump, or not.
While I do not endorse candidates,
I could easily vote for Mr. Trump this November without endorsing him, his behavior,
his language or his “temperament”.
Let me explain.
To use the now cliché line in many faith circles, we are electing a Commander in Chief, not a Theologian in Chief.
His words and behavior have left many conservatives thinking, “we want to support you Mr.Trump, but why must you make it so difficult?”
It is true we have some concerns. At the same time, we must Face the Facts.
Mr. Trump has ignited a movement that most of us didn’t see coming. I certainly didn’t.
He has been underestimated time and again and despite the establishment’s most ardent efforts to block his nomination, his core appeal resiliently overshadows his flaws.
After spending much of my morning yesterday with Mr. Trump in a small meeting in his office and in a larger meeting attended by 1000 of the nation’s most influential Christian leaders, I would vote for Donald Trump because he has convinced me he will fight for the issues that matter most to conservatives.
And one thing is certain with Mr. Trump – for better or worse, he’s not afraid of a fight.
It’s Trump’s position on three key issues that encourage me.
The first - and most important - is that of The Supreme Court. Trump’s campaign recently released a list of potential Supreme Court Nominees, all of which are judges who will uphold the constitutionwithout attempting to legislate from the bench.
I cannot overstate the importance of this.
Any honest conservative should commend this list of nominees.
The second issue is the protection and sanctity of life. Now I know that candidate Trump has changed his position on this particular issue and many question his sincerity.
But, I’m a pastor and I love it when someone changes their mind and comes over to the right side of an issue!
I choose to believe Mr. Trump has truly converted to support life and will be a protector of the unborn.
And what is thealternative?
Hillary Clinton is clearly in favor of legalized abortion.
There is no choice here for me and millions of evangelical Christians. We will vote life every time. We will vote principle over personality, party, or our pocket books.
The last issue is that of Religious Liberty.
Trump has brought greater voice to the concerns held by many Americans when it comes to our faith.
With a great marketer’s instinct, he sums it up like this, “When I’m President,
we’ll say Merry Christmas again.”
It’s an impressively simplistic - but effective - way of articulating a widely held conviction.
As Christians, we believe the left’s agenda is to marginalize Christianity to the sidelines, diminishing our influence and many of the faith traditions we cherish.
Mr. Trump, to his credit, has made considerable efforts to include evangelicals in his campaign to lead the nation.
He has spoken positively and persuasively of his desire to support Christian faith in America.
We know he has stated many times that he is for us and not against us.
These are the reasons I could vote for Mr. Trump, and encourage others to do the same.
Actually, it’s not that difficult.
Donald Trump says he will support those issues that conservative evangelicals care about.
Hillary Clinton promises she won’t.
I know this as a fact: it is critical that Christian citizens prayerfully vote and participate in the election process. The future of our country depends upon it.
______________________________
Dr. Jack Graham is a former President of the Southern Baptist Convention, and Pastor of Prestonwood Baptist Church in metropolitan Dallas, one of the ten largest churches in America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
