by Jack
With just 5 days to go before the Republicans cast their vote (2/20/15) the Trump Train seems to be unstoppable. The Donald’s jab at “W” during the last debate should have cost him at least 10 points in the polls. If you missed it, Trump said Jeb’s brother made a huge mistake by going into Iraq which has destabilized the Middle East and (allegedly) 
knowing all the while that Saddam was not making WMD’s. Of course that low-blow bombed and drew jeers before the live audience of many Bush supporters, but once again the Donald has the press all talking about his one comment, rather than allowing candidate Bush to talk about his accomplishments and win over voters. It was a tactical masterpiece that nobody, but the Donald, could have pulled off.
I may be singing his praises now for that slick bit of politicking, but that does not make me a Trump supporter. I’m still leaning strongly into the Cruz camp. However, I have to give credit where credit is due. Trump has captured the headlines and the media is once again being played like a puppet.
I wonder what controversial bombshell Trump will drop next? Better yet, what bombshells do the democrats have in store to drop on him? No matter who emerges from the primary, you have to know the dems have some kind of dirt on every candidate, even Ben Carson, who’s quite possibly the nicest man ever to run for high office.
Jack it’s so good to get online and find you here. I do hope you are mending well; we miss you.
Trump is a master at grabbing headlines, you’re right about that. He’s also a master at making mince pie of the debate process which creates a great deal of resentment in me. This man takes competition in politics, which is always nasty, to new lows where even the electorate becomes his target.
This guys a hot shot New Yorker with an ego that stretches higher than his buildings stacked atop one another. He keeps saying everybody loves him. I’m thinking no one more than he loves himself.
Our nation is in trouble. America and the world are in an economic mess. Terrorists are having their way with the free world. Our reputation around the world has never been so low and Russia, Iran and North Korea are taking advantage of our weakened state. This election couldn’t be more critical and our front running choices at this point are a screeching criminal and a loud mouth bully.
I know that any of our candidates would be better than Bernie the nation/economy killer or Hillary the economy killing, ball fumbling, place holder, but I sure hate the thought of our nation being led through troubled waters by a crude, pouting, narcissist.
Thank you Tina, I am doing really well, little physical therapy every day! I should be on more, but have been busy with projects, including taking Olli classes to help me stay better informed! You have been doing an outstanding job and like seeing Harold’s stuff up here too! Between him and Peggy, they come up with some great information. : )
I didn’t think I could dislike someone as much as I dislike Obama and then Trump came along. The man disgust me so much I can not stand to watch him any more. His calling everyone a liar when he own words are used against him would be laughable if it wasn’t so nauseating. I can not imagine what our children are thinking when they hear a presidential candidate use words like Pu$$y and LIAR…. LIAR…. LIAR almost every other word that comes out of his mouth. Enough! I’ve had enough of him. Please people stop voting for this insane idiot.
On another subject I have another great book to recommend. It’s called, “The Jefferson Lies,” the second printing distributed just weeks ago. The original printing was released in 2012, but was pulled by the publisher because of a full out attack by a liberal psychologist. David Barton, the author republished the book by addressing the attack and documenting his findings with over 1,000 footnotes. This is a history book that tells our history as it really was and tells us who our Founders really were and challenges the lies that have been taught to students for the last half century.
This book must be read by every parent and given to every child.
My previous book was “Stealing America” by Denish D’Souza and it too should be read by those who want to understand how our country has been taken control of by a bunch of con men and women who learned the con game from a man who learned it on the streets of Chicago and from the Chicago mob. The same cons and ethics that govern street gangs across the country are the same that exist in DC today.
Obama thought by sticking D’Souza in a confinement center would get him out of the way and teach him to be silent. Instead, his time with criminals exposed the common factors between street theft and the biggest theft of all, our nation’s wealth.
Hope you enjoy reading these two books as much as I have. They’re both like finding hidden treasures buried long ago when only rumors of their existence was all we ever heard of.
Peggy, I agree with you about Trump.
“Obama thought by sticking D’Souza in a confinement center would get him out of the way and teach him to be silent.”
Is it your understanding that Obama personally planned and orchestrated D’Souza’s arrest?
Well Chris, I just wrote a long response and it disappeared. So, I’ll try again hoping this one won’t do the same.
While no breadcrumbs will be found linking Obama to D’Souza’s sentencing I do believe the preponderance of evidence proves there is.
Remember D’Souza gave the $20k to an old college friend and could not have benefited in any way if she had won. She lost.
Here are a few articles I found. Instead of highlighting them all, I’ll let you read them. Let me know what you think. And of course reading his book would be an even better eye opener to what all took place.
Pt. 1 – The Trial: How Dinesh D’Souza Was Criminalized for Making ‘2016’ Film:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_Sp5Cf9jTw
” “The idea of charging him with a felony for this doesn’t sound like a proper exercise of prosecutorial discretion,” the eminent Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz said of the case. “I can’t help but think that [D’Souza‘s] politics have something to do with it. It smacks of selective prosecution.” His punishment continues. Mr. D’Souza must now convince a new therapist that his contrition is sincere. Prisoners of conscience need only confess once, but Mr. D’Souza has not confessed loudly enough for a judge who yearns to be a social worker.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/19/editorial-the-deprogramming-of-dinesh-dsouza/
http://www.dineshdsouza.com/news/american-thinker-judge-bermans-colossally-unethical-psychology-practice/
http://www.breitbart.com/california/2014/09/23/america-s-dinesh-d-souza-sentenced-to-probation-community-service/
Chris, one more.
House Committee Grills Obama’s DOJ On D’Souza Prosecution:
“On December 22, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform sent a letter to Obama’s Justice Department demanding the case file from D’Souza’s 2014 prosecution. Smelling a rat, the Committee is looking into the matter of selective prosecution in D’Souza’s indictment and sentencing—something that D’Souza’s attorneys were denied the ability to investigate for themselves by the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
The Oversight Committee, tasked by the Constitution with combating abuses of power by the agencies of the Executive Branch, gave the DOJ a deadline of December 28 for turning over all materials relevant to the case. Shockingly (or perhaps not so shockingly), Obama’s Justice Department completely ignored the official request for information by the United States Congress.
On January 7, the Committee hauled the Assistant Attorney General in for questioning, and Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz and Subcommittee Chairman Ron DeSantis demanded answers from him.
You can watch the explosive hearing here:
http://www.dineshdsouza.com/news/video-house-committee-grills-obamas-doj-on-dsouza-prosecution/
Peggy: “On another subject I have another great book to recommend. It’s called, “The Jefferson Lies,” the second printing distributed just weeks ago. The original printing was released in 2012, but was pulled by the publisher because of a full out attack by a liberal psychologist.”
My understanding is that this is incorrect. According to Wikipedia, “A group of 10 conservative Christian professors reviewed the work and reported negatively on its claims, saying that Barton has misstated facts about Jefferson.”
I haven’t read the book nor do I remember which specific claims were revealed to be false. But the fact that the book has been republished by World Net Daily–a site best known for peddling 9/11 truther and birther nonsense–doesn’t bode well for its accuracy.
Chris, with no ax to grind and just someone looking for the truth let me share what I know. But, first I will admit I do have a problem with the fact that a group of individuals were able to censor a writer and getting his book banned because they didn’t agree with his findings. Comes too close to book burning for my comfort.
The book Barton wrote in 2012 was pulled by the publisher because it came under attack. The leader of that attack’s name is Warren Throckmorton, a psychology professor at Pennsylvania’s Grove City College. During the same time Barton was researching and writing his book Throckmorton was doing the same.
https://www.au.org/church-state/october-2012-church-state/featured/the-barton-lies-debunked
I am not able to locate the preface Barton wrote in his new book where he addresses most of the issues the attackers had with his original book. It is available as a PDF file at Wallbuilders.com Defending The Jefferson Lies: David Barton Responds…
From the Amazon site.
“Despite the wildly popular success of the original hardcover edition, or perhaps because of it, a campaign to discredit Barton s scholarship was launched by bloggers and a handful of non-historian academics.
What happened next was shocking virtually unprecedented in modern American publishing history. Under siege from critics, the publisher spiked the book and recalled it from the retail shelves from coast to coast. The Jefferson Lies is thus a history book that made history becoming possibly the first book of its kind to be victimized by the scourge of political correctness.
But more than three years later, it s back as an updated paperback edition in which Barton sets the record straight and takes on the critics who savaged his work.”
I also did go into the Library of Congress web site and drilled down looking for what I could find on Jefferson, our Founders and the influence religion had in our nation’s creation and the writing of our style of government. Here in part are my findings. (Some of the original documents are available to view.)
Religion and the Founding of the American Republic:
“The efforts of the Founders of the American nation to define the role of religious faith in public life and the degree to which it could be supported by public officials that was not inconsistent with the revolutionary imperatives of the equality and freedom of all citizens is the central question which this exhibition explores.”
Religion and the Founding of the American Republic:
“The Continental-Confederation Congress, a legislative body that governed the United States from 1774 to 1789, contained an extraordinary number of deeply religious men. The amount of energy that Congress invested in encouraging the practice of religion in the new nation exceeded that expended by any subsequent American national government. Although the Articles of Confederation did not officially authorize Congress to concern itself with religion, the citizenry did not object to such activities. This lack of objection suggests that both the legislators and the public considered it appropriate for the national government to promote a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity.
Congress appointed chaplains for itself and the armed forces, sponsored the publication of a Bible, imposed Christian morality on the armed forces, and granted public lands to promote Christianity among the Indians. National days of thanksgiving and of “humiliation, fasting, and prayer” were proclaimed by Congress at least twice a year throughout the war. Congress was guided by “covenant theology,” a Reformation doctrine especially dear to New England Puritans, which held that God bound himself in an agreement with a nation and its people. This agreement stipulated that they “should be prosperous or afflicted, according as their general Obedience or Disobedience thereto appears.” Wars and revolutions were, accordingly, considered afflictions, as divine punishments for sin, from which a nation could rescue itself by repentance and reformation.
The first national government of the United States, was convinced that the “public prosperity” of a society depended on the vitality of its religion. Nothing less than a “spirit of universal reformation among all ranks and degrees of our citizens,” Congress declared to the American people, would “make us a holy, that so we may be a happy people.”
Proposed Seal for the United States:
“On July 4, 1776, Congress appointed Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams “to bring in a device for a seal for the United States of America.” Franklin’s proposal adapted the biblical story of the parting of the Red Sea (left). Jefferson first recommended the “Children of Israel in the Wilderness, led by a Cloud by Day, and a Pillar of Fire by night. . . .” He then embraced Franklin’s proposal and rewrote it (right). Jefferson’s revision of Franklin’s proposal was presented by the committee to Congress on August 20. Although not accepted these drafts reveal the religious temper of the Revolutionary period. Franklin and Jefferson were among the most theologically liberal of the Founders, yet they used biblical imagery for this important task.”
Aitken’s Bible Endorsed by Congress:
“The war with Britain cut off the supply of Bibles to the United States with the result that on Sept. 11, 1777, Congress instructed its Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 Bibles from “Scotland, Holland or elsewhere.” On January 21, 1781, Philadelphia printer Robert Aitken (1734-1802) petitioned Congress to officially sanction a publication of the Old and New Testament which he was preparing at his own expense. Congress “highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion . . . in this country, and . . . they recommend this edition of the bible to the inhabitants of the United States.” This resolution was a result of Aitken’s successful accomplishment of his project.”
Aitken’s Bible:
“Aitken published Congress’s recommendation of September 1782 and related documents (Item 115) as an imprimatur on the two pages following his title page. Aitken’s Bible, published under Congressional patronage, was the first English language Bible published on the North American continent.”
Settling the West:
“In the spring of 1785 Congress debated regulations for settling the new western lands–stretching from the Alleghenies to the Mississippi–acquired from Great Britain in the Peace Treaty of 1783. It was proposed that the central section in each newly laid out township be reserved for the support of schools and “the Section immediately adjoining the same to the northward, for the support of religion. The profits arising there from in both instances, to be applied for ever according to the will of the majority.” The proposal to establish religion in the traditional sense of granting state financial support to a church to be controlled by one denomination attracted support but was ultimately voted down.”
Northwest Ordinance:
“In the summer of 1787 Congress revisited the issue of religion in the new western territories and passed, July 13, 1787, the famous Northwest Ordinance. Article 3 of the Ordinance contained the following language: “Religion, Morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, Schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged.” Scholars have been puzzled that, having declared religion and morality indispensable to good government, Congress did not, like some of the state governments that had written similar declarations into their constitutions, give financial assistance to the churches in the West.”
Christianizing the Delawares:
“In this resolution, Congress makes public lands available to a group for religious purposes. Responding to a plea from Bishop John Ettwein (1721-1802), Congress voted that 10,000 acres on the Muskingum River in the present state of Ohio “be set apart and the property thereof be vested in the Moravian Brethren . . . or a society of the said Brethren for civilizing the Indians and promoting Christianity.” The Delaware Indians were the intended beneficiaries of this Congressional resolution.”
A Delaware-English Spelling Book:
“David Zeisberger (1721-1802) was a famous Moravian missionary who spent much of his life working with the Delaware Indians. His Spelling Book contains a “Short History of the Bible,” in the English and Delaware languages, on facing pages.”
Religion and the Founding of the American Republic
Religion and the Federal Government, Part 1:
“In response to widespread sentiment that to survive the United States needed a stronger federal government, a convention met in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 and on September 17 adopted the Constitution of the United States. Aside from Article VI, which stated that “no religious Test shall ever be required as Qualification” for federal office holders, the Constitution said little about religion. Its reserve troubled two groups of Americans–those who wanted the new instrument of government to give faith a larger role and those who feared that it would do so. This latter group, worried that the Constitution did not prohibit the kind of state-supported religion that had flourished in some colonies, exerted pressure on the members of the First Federal Congress. In September 1789 the Congress adopted the First Amendment to the Constitution, which, when ratified by the required number of states in December 1791, forbade Congress to make any law “respecting an establishment of religion.”
The first two Presidents of the United States were patrons of religion–George Washington was an Episcopal vestryman, and John Adams described himself as “a church going animal.” Both offered strong rhetorical support for religion. In his Farewell Address of September 1796, Washington called religion, as the source of morality, “a necessary spring of popular government,” while Adams claimed that statesmen “may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand.” Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the third and fourth Presidents, are generally considered less hospitable to religion than their predecessors, but evidence presented in this section shows that, while in office, both offered religion powerful symbolic support.”
Religion and the Constitution:
“When the Constitution was submitted to the American public, “many pious people” complained that the document had slighted God, for it contained “no recognition of his mercies to us . . . or even of his existence.” The Constitution was reticent about religion for two reasons: first, many delegates were committed federalists, who believed that the power to legislate on religion, if it existed at all, lay within the domain of the state, not the national, governments; second, the delegates believed that it would be a tactical mistake to introduce such a politically controversial issue as religion into the Constitution. The only “religious clause” in the document–the proscription of religious tests as qualifications for federal office in Article Six–was intended to defuse controversy by disarming potential critics who might claim religious discrimination in eligibility for public office.
That religion was not otherwise addressed in the Constitution did not make it an “irreligious” document any more than the Articles of Confederation was an “irreligious” document. The Constitution dealt with the church precisely as the Articles had, thereby maintaining, at the national level, the religious status quo. In neither document did the people yield any explicit power to act in the field of religion. But the absence of expressed powers did not prevent either the Continental-Confederation Congress or the Congress under the Constitution from sponsoring a program to support general, nonsectarian religion.”
Franklin Requests Prayers in the Constitutional Convention:
“Benjamin Franklin delivered this famous speech, asking that the Convention begin each day’s session with prayers, at a particularly contentious period, when it appeared that the Convention might break up over its failure to resolve the dispute between the large and small states over representation in the new government. The eighty one year old Franklin asserted that “the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this Truth–that God governs in the Affairs of Men.” “I also believe,” Franklin continued, that “without his concurring Aid, we shall succeed in this political Building no better than the Builders of Babel.” Franklin’s motion failed, ostensibly because the Convention had no funds to pay local clergymen to act as chaplains.”
Proposed Constitutional Amendments: (Jefferson’s home state.)
“The Virginia Ratifying Convention approved the Constitution with the understanding that the state’s representatives in the First Federal Congress would try to procure amendments that the Convention recommended. The twentieth proposed amendment deals with religion; it is an adaptation of the final article in the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776 with this additional phrase: “that no particular religious sect or society ought to be favored or established by Law in preference to others.”
Madison’s Notes for the Bill of Rights:
“Madison used this outline to guide him in delivering his speech introducing the Bill of Rights into the First Congress on June 8, 1789. Madison proposed an amendment to assuage the anxieties of those who feared that religious freedom would be endangered by the unamended Constitution. According to The Congressional Register Madison, on June 8, moved that “the civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext infringed.”
The Rhetorical Support of Religion: Ashington and Adams:
“The country’s first two presidents, George Washington and John Adams, were firm believers in the importance of religion for republican government. As citizens of Virginia and Massachusetts, both were sympathetic to general religious taxes being paid by the citizens of their respective states to the churches of their choice. However both statesmen would have discouraged such a measure at the national level because of its divisiveness. They confined themselves to promoting religion rhetorically, offering frequent testimonials to its importance in building the moral character of American citizens, that, they believed, undergirded public order and successful popular government.”
“To Bigotry no Sanction”:
“President George Washington and a group of public officials, including Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, left New York City, the temporary capital of the United States, on August 15, 1790, for a brief tour of Rhode Island. At Newport, Washington received an address of congratulations from the congregation of the Touro Synagogue. His famous answer, assuring his fellow citizens “of the Stock of Abraham” that the new American republic would give “to bigotry no sanction, to persecution not assistance,” is seen here in the copy from Washington’s letterbook.”
The State Becomes the Church: Jefferson and Madison:
“It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson’s example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House–a practice that continued until after the Civil War–were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a “crowded audience.” Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers. Jefferson’s actions may seem surprising because his attitude toward the relation between religion and government is usually thought to have been embodied in his recommendation that there exist “a wall of separation between church and state.” In that statement, Jefferson was apparently declaring his opposition, as Madison had done in introducing the Bill of Rights, to a “national” religion. In attending church services on public property, Jefferson and Madison consciously and deliberately were offering symbolic support to religion as a prop for republican government.”
“A Wall of Separation”:
“Thomas Jefferson’s reply of January 1, 1802, to an address of congratulations from the Danbury (Connecticut) Baptist Association contains a phrase familiar in today’s political and judicial circles: “a wall of separation between church and state.” Many in the United States, including the courts, have used this phrase to interpret the Founders’ intentions regarding the relationship between government and religion, as set down by the First Amendment to the Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . .” However, the meaning of this clause has been the subject of passionate dispute for the past fifty years.
Presented here are both the handwritten, edited draft of the letter and an adjusted facsimile showing the original unedited draft. The draft of the letter reveals that, far from dashing it off as a “short note of courtesy,” as some have called it, Jefferson labored over its composition. Jefferson consulted Postmaster General Gideon Granger of Connecticut and Attorney General Levi Lincoln of Massachusetts while drafting the letter. That Jefferson consulted two New England politicians about his messages indicated that he regarded his reply to the Danbury Baptists as a political letter, not as a dispassionate theoretical pronouncement on the relations between government and religion.”
I’m ending my selection of the documents here, because it appears to be an endless supply and I’m running out of time.
I will leave you to evaluate the information I’ve provided and to do further research on your own to answer your question.
https://www.loc.gov/topics/content.php?cat=8
https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/
https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel04.html
https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel04.html#skip_menu
https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html
https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html
Forgot to include in Barton’s book the 1,000 or so footnotes he provided runs from page 269 to 346. We all know authenticity is provided with footnotes. They are required in any research paper. My understanding is one or more of the attackers used no footnotes to authenticate their argument. Again, I’ll let you draw your own conclusion.
Peggy:
“I will admit I do have a problem with the fact that a group of individuals were able to censor a writer and getting his book banned because they didn’t agree with his findings.”
You don’t seem to know what either “censored” or “banned” means. Neither word describes what happened to Barton.
What happened was that the publisher decided to withdraw the book due to concerns about accuracy. That is neither censorship nor banning. No one has a constitutional right to force a publishing company to publish their book, nor does anyone have a constitutional right to force a publishing company to keep their book in circulation if the company doesn’t want to.
A private company making a business decision of their own free will not to continue publishing a book is not censorship or book-banning. It’s the free market at work.
The idea that Barton has been “censored” or had his book “banned” is a product of exactly the type of false persecution complex that Barton peddles in the work I have seen from him, so it isn’t surprising to see you push that same narrative, since you are a fan of his work.
I will try to read the rest later, but your misunderstanding of the legal concepts of censorship doesn’t fill me with much confidence.
Off topic, but important.
California Student Information Released to Nonprofit:
“Data on millions of California students will soon be released to the Concerned Parents Association. NBC 7’s Consumer Bob explains why privacy rights advocates are concerned.”
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/on-air/as-seen-on/STUDENTINFOREVEALED4PRPKG021116_San-Diego-368561461.html#ixzz40MHYQaiV
Could this be a part of Common Core’s data collection to share with community organizers? Sounds like it.
I don’t think Mark Levin is going to vote for Trump.
Mark Levin goes NUCLEAR over Donald Trump’s debate comments! — [AUDIO]
http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin-goes-nuclear-over-donald-trumps-debate-comments-audio/#ixzz40OfyIXJs
I agree with Levin. Trump is appalling.
Peggy according to California Concerned Parents this action is the result of a lawsuit:
Sorry Tina, I’m not buy any part of this.
If a child is disabled they are given an Individual Education Plan/IEP. They are assigned a social worker and a counselor if appropriate. Along with the parents, the teacher, administrator and under Ed Code these children’s needs are met and categorical funding (separate from the general and other fund accounts) is provided to the school by the state and feds.
I see no reason an outside “nonprofit” organization has any need to come between a parent/guardian/ward of the state and the educators to meet the student’s learning needs. Something just does not appear to be on the up and up here.
Peggy I was just relating information I discovered when I looked to see who Concerned Parents Association were. I don’t know whether the CDE was actually not cooperating with parents or what. I just thought you’d be interested in the courts position.
Understand, Tina. I was just relating what I know from my own personal and professional experience since the data collection appears to be for disabled students.
If the current process to assist disabled students is the same as when my son and step grandson were students I see no reason to provide protected private information to a private non-governmental organization, which is my understanding of this group.
That’s how it’s supposed to work, Peggy, but parents have organized (another of Arnold’s nefarious “special interests”) and filed the lawsuit because they don’t believe that it is working.
The CDE’s heel dragging would seem to indicate they have a case.
Arnold’s “nefarious” special interest? How do you figure this is Arnold’s responsibility?
Trump is a buffoon, that said Trump called Ted Cruz out and he was correct. Ted Cruz does lie, it is proven and fact. Marco Rubio has also called Ted out for lying.
Ted’s camp even told voters Carson quit before IA caucus.
Ted Cruz has a rotten reputation here in Washington from Republicans. He is not trustworthy.
That is just the plain truth.
U.S. Rep. Trey Gowdy – blasted Cruz in no uncertain terms for allegedly mounting a “systematic effort” to spread “false information and outright lies” about his rivals.
Bottom Lie You can go back in time and ted’s lies were debunked. The man is just a liar. Sorry but it is constant lying.
You can want to vote for Ted but pretending everyone is lying and Ted is some angel is a fantasy.
http://crooksandliars.com/2015/07/ted-cruz-lies-about-iran-campaign-trail
Why would anyone take the word of a Bernie supporter?
Bernie Sanders entire platform is a grand deception. (LIE) Bernie claims his healthcare scam will save America six trillion over a decade when in fact it would likely cost tax paying Americans $44 trillion in new federal spending over a decade. Bernie lies as all socialists lie, he’s just more blunt about it.
Mathew Vadum of Frontpage magazine quotes former communist David Horowitz and then comments:
I don’t think Sanders is lying. I think he believes everything he says.
Horowitz calling single-payer healthcare “communism” is just stupid. By that logic, Britain has been a communist country since before Britain started fighting communism. It’s a view of the world that is completely without nuance, but then that’s the world Horowitz inhabits.