Advanced Search
Recent Posts
Site Statistics
Who's Online
Forum Rules
Bible Resources
• Bible Study Aids
• Bible Devotionals
• Audio Sermons
• ChristiansUnite Blogs
• Christian Forums
• Facebook Apps
Web Search
• Christian Family Sites
• Top Christian Sites
• Christian RSS Feeds
Family Life
• Christian Finance
• ChristiansUnite KIDS
• Christian Magazines
• Christian Book Store
• Christian News
• Christian Columns
• Christian Song Lyrics
• Christian Mailing Lists
• Christian Singles
• Christian Classifieds
• Free Christian Clipart
• Christian Wallpaper
Fun Stuff
• Clean Christian Jokes
• Bible Trivia Quiz
• Online Video Games
• Bible Crosswords
• Christian Guestbooks
• Banner Exchange
• Dynamic Content

Subscribe to our Free Newsletter.
Enter your email address:

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 23, 2021, 01:45:43 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Our Lord Jesus Christ loves you.
283205 Posts in 27512 Topics by 3790 Members
Latest Member: Goodwin
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  ChristiansUnite Forums
|-+  ChristiansUnite and Announcements
| |-+  ChristiansUnite and Announcements (Moderator: admin)
| | |-+  The Patriot Post Digest 9-27-2016
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: The Patriot Post Digest 9-27-2016  (Read 183 times)
Global Moderator
Gold Member
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 64256

May God Lead And Guide Us All

View Profile
« on: September 29, 2016, 05:02:34 PM »

The Patriot Post Digest 9-27-2016
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription

Mid-Day Digest

Sep. 27, 2016


“Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason and the mind becomes a wreck.” —Thomas Jefferson (1822)

Grading the First Debate1

As we have said before2, voters are tasked this year with electing a candidate who is less unfit than the other. That was abundantly clear in last night’s first, generally awful presidential debate between Hillary Clinton3 and Donald Trump4, the two most unpopular candidates in American history.

Trump began well enough, with measured temperament, hitting a number of the themes that won him the nomination. He landed good punches on several things — Clinton has experience but it’s bad experience, her opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal came only after his, and especially how she and Barack Obama created the vacuum5 that allowed for the rise of the Islamic State.

Unfortunately, Trump was also his usual pinball self, giving wandering, sometimes downright incoherent answers. That meant he failed to land a couple of key blows against Clinton. For example, even though he slammed her email6 as “not a mistake,” he didn’t get to the core issue of her illegal and obfuscating behavior, or the systemic corruption that allowed her to get away with it. And though it was a brilliant stroke to demand Clinton release her 33,000 deleted emails in exchange for his tax returns, he also babbled on and on about being “extremely underleveraged” and so forth, sounding like an out-of-touch rich guy. Why not attack the Clinton Foundation instead? Worse, when Clinton accused him of not paying federal income taxes, he said, “That makes me smart.” He practically confirmed Clinton’s charge — she couldn’t have asked for more.

In general, Trump took way too much of the bait Clinton (and moderator Lester Holt) threw his way. In too many answers, instead of digging into the issues that resonate with Americans — the disastrous Obama-Clinton record of a lackluster economy and foreign policy disasters around the world — he ended up trying to explain the “small loan” ($14 million!) from his father, or why his insults of Rosie O'Donnell were exactly what she deserved. That only served to make him look like the rich snob and misogynist bully Clinton said he is.

All that said, the “vibe” he communicated was quintessential Trump, and it has served him well. The overall takeaway is that America is headed in the wrong direction and Clinton will only continue that path. Trump, on the other hand, can fix it.

As for Clinton, she clearly prepared well. She was so proud of her own preparation, in fact, that she openly boasted about it. Hillary rattled off a State of the Union-worthy list of federal programs and leftist grab-bag items she’d implement or grow. She harped on inequality and how Trump wasn’t for the middle class. She sounded like she knew what she was talking about. But for those of us who actually remember the details of her career, it was nothing but lies, sprinkled with divisive race-, class- and sex-bait. Trump “has a long record of engaging in racist behavior,” she charged. She might as well have called him deplorable7.

Arguably, Clinton prepared too well, because her vibe was one of robotic rehearsal. You could almost see her thinking, “This is the part where I smile and wait.” She awkwardly delivered insults (“Trumped-up trickle-down economics”) and was oddly impersonal in recounting her personal story of her father’s small business record. Hillary is a lying phony, and that came through loud and clear.

Finally, Lester Holt was both obviously and discreetly on Clinton’s side throughout the night. (What else would we expect from Leftmedia moderators8?) He ran interference for Clinton several times — twice with overt “fact checks” on Donald Trump, and once by admonishing the audience after many cheered for Trump’s attack on Clinton’s email. Holt did not similarly admonish the audience for cheering for Hillary. In one confrontation on “stop and frisk” policing, Holt was visibly angry with Trump as he challenged the candidate — and Holt misrepresented the facts, to boot.

Holt’s influence was also blatantly obvious in the topics he chose (and didn’t choose). He asked Trump about Obama’s birth certificate, Trump’s questionable position on the Iraq war (but not Hillary’s), and his tax returns. Holt did not ask either candidate about ObamaCare, immigration, the Clinton Foundation, Benghazi, Clinton’s email (except to invite her to respond to Trump) or her “basket of deplorables” slander of a quarter of the American population. Holt steered clear of anything that would be inconvenient for Clinton. More than that, one of his questions essentially boiled down to this: “Secretary Clinton is historically awesome. Why don’t you think so?”

Holt clearly got the Clinton memo appealing for such help, and he heard loud and clear the message behind the Left’s eviscerating of Matt Lauer after the NBC forum9.

All told, the debate was a complete disservice to the American people. A blatantly biased moderator faced off against one of two unfit candidates, neither of whom successfully made the case that they should be trusted as the leader of the free world. And we’re asked to sort it out. Welcome to 2016.
Don’t Miss Patriot Humor

Check out Real Riot Control10.

If you’d like to receive Patriot Humor by email, update your subscription here11.


    Stephen Moore: Bernie Clinton12
    Thomas Sowell: ‘Favors’ to Blacks13
    Todd Starnes: Walmart Workers Refuse to Make Cop’s Retirement Cake14

For more, visit Right Opinion15.


    Federal Judge Tosses Union Wisconsin Right to Work Challenge16
    Blue Cross Pulls Out of Tenn. ObamaCare Markets17
    Clemson University Bans ‘Any Reference to Harambe’18

For more, visit Patriot Headline Report19.

The Reason Clinton Was Never Indicted20

By Paul Albaugh

Move along, nothing to see here. That is what Hillary Clinton hoped would happen regarding her gross mishandling of classified information and her illegal use of a private email server. In July, FBI Director James Comey declared the FBI investigation complete21 and announced that there would be no charges. Let’s just move along with the election process, shall we?

As baffling as this fiasco is to most Americans, there didn’t appear to be any logical reason why the FBI didn’t recommend charges against Clinton. But on Friday, following 189 additional pages of reports from the FBI’s yearlong incursion into the scandal, the reason has been uncovered. And it should not bode well for the sitting U.S. president or for Clinton.

Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy reports22 that Clinton’s closest aide and confidante Huma Abedin was shown an email exchange between then-Secretary Clinton and a second person whose name she did not recognize. Abedin exclaimed, “How is this not marked classified?” Then the FBI agents did something that they should not do during an interview with an individual who is part of an investigation: They revealed the name of the pseudonymous person — the president of the United States, Barack Obama.

McCarthy reasons that this “obviously suggests that his recklessness may have been more widespread.” Further, he notes, “Still, the difference in scale is not a difference in kind. In terms of the federal laws that criminalize mishandling of classified information, Obama not only engaged in the same type of misconduct Clinton did; he engaged in it with Clinton. It would not have been possible for the Justice Department to prosecute Clinton for her offense without its becoming painfully apparent that 1) Obama, too, had done everything necessary to commit a violation of federal law, and 2) the communications between Obama and Clinton were highly relevant evidence.”

But because the president of the United States was involved, there had to be a massive cover-up. Some might even call it the “Hillary Coverup Operation23.” If Clinton were to have been charged for mishandling classified information then her defense lawyers surely would have pointed out that the president must be charged likewise. All they would have needed to look to was the case Nixon vs. the United States and they would have won the argument.

McCarthy notes that the FBI violated protocols by disclosing to Abedin the name of the person using the pseudonym. “The point of an FBI interview is for the interviewee to provide information to the investigators, not the other way around. If agents give information to potential witnesses, the government gets accused of trumping up the case.”

But, as McCarthy point out, this only becomes a problem if there is going to be a case. We now know why there never going to be a case. Because if there was, then there would have been public embarrassment and discredit brought upon Obama himself, as well as the Justice Department and the FBI. It might be a little late to be worried about that.

Global Moderator
Gold Member
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 64256

May God Lead And Guide Us All

View Profile
« Reply #1 on: September 29, 2016, 05:03:50 PM »

The Patriot Post Digest 9-27-2016
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription

We now have a better understanding as to why back in April, Obama sought to influence24 the FBI “investigation” and the potential security threat that Clinton posed, all while insisting that’s not what he was doing: “I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department or the FBI — not just in this case, but in any case.” He then had the audacity to lecture, “Nobody is above the law, how many times do I have say it?”

And yet, he declared, “I continue to believe that she has not jeopardized America’s national security. Now what I’ve also said is that — and she has acknowledged — that there’s a carelessness, in terms of managing emails, that she has owned, and she recognizes.”

There you have it. Her carelessness was not a threat to national security, so it’s no big deal. Except that Obama was involved in the same “carelessness.”

So with the latest revelations, we can conclude that we have a sitting president who not only broke the law, but also has once again jeopardized our national security. And we have a presidential candidate who also broke the law and jeopardized national security. If this information is not enough to derail her bid to succeed Obama then nothing else will be.


The FBI’s Crime Stats and the Ferguson Effect25

After years of a steady decline in crime, FBI data released Monday showed violent crime in the U.S. spiked in 2015. The report stated that violent crime across the nation rose by almost 4% and murders rose by a staggering 10.8%. The percentage of increase was the sharpest in almost half a century. Much of the increase in crime was located in some of America’s largest cities, with Chicago leading the way. The question is, why this sudden increase in violent crime?

The Left likes to blame it on the supposed lack of so-called “common sense” gun laws, as Hillary Clinton did when questioned about the rise in crime in last night’s debate. But this has little to do with the problem, as many of America’s cities like Chicago have some of the nation’s most restrictive gun laws. Could the answer lie more in what some have referred to as the “Ferguson effect”? The police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson ignited protests and riots that in turn birthed the Black Lives Matter movement with its racist, anti-police message. That has spread to many of the nation’s larger cities. The Leftmedia and several leftist politicians, having celebrated rather than condemned BLM, have successfully advanced a narrative which has produced a chilling effect on law enforcement. This “Ferguson effect,” although denied by some within the law enforcement community, does appear to be the most plausible explanation for this sudden rise in violent crime. As racial tensions have only increased and law enforcement across the country find themselves as the target of racist rhetoric and even violence, it’s not a stretch to reason that law enforcement has become cautious and reactionary rather than proactive in its policing. That has allowed crime to worsen, and it illustrates exactly why the BLM movement is so dangerous.

Homegrown Terror Threats Rising26

Recently released transcripts from Orlando nightclub terrorist Omar Mateen further testify to the fact that he was indeed motivated by the Islamic State. The transcripts are of Mateen’s cellphone conversation with the police negotiator during the attack while he was holding hostages. Mateen revealed his primary motive for the attack when he said that he had to respond to the U.S.’s airstrikes against ISIL that killed Abu Waheeb. Waheeb was one of the lesser-known leaders in ISIL. These transcripts discredit the statements made by Barack Obama and Attorney General Loretta Lynch a few days after the attack. Lynch said, “I cannot tell you definitively that we will ever narrow it down to one motivation. People often act out of more than one motivation.” Remember at the time, Obama and the Leftmedia blamed Republicans for not moving to further restrict guns27 as they tried to spin the focus away from an ISIL-inspired terror attack. The bigger problem according to Obama was the availability of guns, once again deflecting any responsibility away from himself and his handling of ISIL.

Interestingly, but not surprisingly, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson stated that as ISIL has been losing territory in Syria and Iraq it has “increased its plotting on targets outside of Iraq and Syria and continues to encourage attacks in the United States.” This is a message that many conservatives have been saying for quite some time, but the key issue at hand is directly dealing with the destructive ideology of radical Islam. It’s well and good to recognize the threat in general, but if peripheral side issues which have little bearing upon the problem at hand are allowed to be used to explain away the primary motivation for these terror attacks, then we can only expect to see the threat increase.


    Elections are Too Important for Voting System Insecurities28 — While Democrats fight voter ID laws, fraud is widespread.
    Clinton’s ‘Hard Decisions’ End With Failed Ceasefire29 — Nearly 100 people were killed in weekend bombings.
    Suing Saudi Arabia30 — Bipartisan support to override Obama’s veto is more political play than right decision.


Stephen Moore: “Who in her right mind thinks that it’s appropriate in America for the government to take two-thirds of someone’s lifetime earnings? A billionaire has already paid millions and millions of dollars in taxes over the course of his life. Why is the government the rightful owner of one’s legacy — the sweat and equity and 60-hour workweeks spent building a business — and not that person’s family members? The origins of the death tax come from the Communist Manifesto. This tax was touted by Karl Marx as one of the strategies to secure government ownership of assets. Think about it: With a 50 percent death tax, over time the government will own 50 percent of the nation’s assets. With a 100 percent estate tax — and Clinton’s proposal isn’t far from that — the government eventually owns… everything. This is a big issue, because over the next 25 years or so, tens of trillions of dollars in assets will be transferred from aging baby boomers to their kids and grandkids. The left wants to get its greedy hands on that treasure chest of money. Every American should resist this power grab by the avaricious political class. They are the real robber barons, worshiping money above all else.”


Insight: “Not to be, but to seem, virtuous — it is a formula whose utility we all discovered in the nursery.” —C. S. Lewis (1898-1963)

Demo-gogues: “This country, this great country, belongs to all of us. We cannot allow it to be controlled by a handful on top who want it all.” —Bernie Sanders (“Is this tweet meant to support or condemn Hillary?” —Frank Fleming)

Friendly fire: “Look, I’m not a big fan of red lines. I am not a proponent of laying down markers unless you’ve thought through the second, third and fourth step that you’re going to have to take, and almost assuredly will have to take, in order to accomplish your initial goal.” —Joe Biden, implicitly attacking his boss’s Syrian red line

Finally, sanity: “I would obviously never protest the National Anthem. I think the flag and the National Anthem are sacred. … I don’t support [protesters] doing it, and I think most of them will realize in the fullness of time that this was a misguided decision and they’ll — quite frankly, they will regret that they did it.” —Democrat Rep. John Delaney

Non Compos Mentis: “Trickle-down did not work. It got us into the mess we were in, in 2008 and 2009. Slashing taxes on the wealthy hasn’t worked. And a lot of really smart, wealthy people know that. And they are saying, hey, we need to do more to make the contributions we should be making to rebuild the middle class.” —Hillary Clinton (First of all, Hillary’s husband was the primary instigator of the 2008 financial crisis. Secondly, if the Clintons are so keen on higher tax rates, then why do they use their foundation as a tax shelter?)

And last… “How can you tell Hillary is worried about her base? Because she came out trying to paint Trump with standard generic Democratic attacks on generic Republicans (‘trickle down economics,’ ‘tax cuts for the rich,’ blaming Bush, etc.) instead of trying to point out how different Trump is from ordinary Republicans, as she and President Obama did at the Convention.” —Dan McLaughlin

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis!
Managing Editor Nate Jackson

Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform — Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen — standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families.

Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

More From ChristiansUnite...    About Us | Privacy Policy | | ChristiansUnite.com Site Map | Statement of Beliefs

Copyright © 1999-2019 ChristiansUnite.com. All rights reserved.
Please send your questions, comments, or bug reports to the

Powered by SMF 1.1 RC2 | SMF © 2001-2005, Lewis Media