Trump: No, it’s not my obligation to defend Obama
Pushing back against criticism for not confronting a questioner at a town hall.
We noted the other day that Donald Trump caught enormous media and political flak because he did not challenge someone in the audience at a town hall who called Obama a Muslim and not American, Hillary *shocked* people still believe Obama-Muslim claim she started
Trump finally has spoken about the issue, and he’s not backing down for being silent and not addressing the questioner’s comments.
First, he issued a series of tweets.
Then he spoke about it at the Iowa Faith & Freedom Forum, denying any obligation to defend Obama, and turning it around into an issue of Obama’s treatment of Christians:
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Oh the (feigned) outrage! Someone said something bad about The Boy King Barry!
Need I remind everyone that this is the “President” who said his supporters should “bring a gun to a knife fight”, encourages his supporters to troll their family at thanksgiving, calls conservatives “teabaggers” (which begs the question who is the “teabaggee?”), compares his political opponents to terrorists, etc etc etc.
Who compares terrorists to his political opponents, favorably so. People always skip over that part…
Anyway. It’s not that I’d focus any attention on him, but I saw what Megyn Kelly’s position is: that Obama isn’t running for office, therefore he is beyond reproach, like for that whole Rev. Wright thing. I can try and not buy into everything Trump says without viewing a sitting president as beyond virtually all criticism. Mainly because I still remember the last Bush presidency.
Megyn Kelly nightly on Fox these days has blood coming out of her eyes and wherever when it comes to Trump. Actually almost all of Fox news has become unwatchable except for Hannity and Lou Dobbs and Cavuto.
I lo e it that Trump tells Muslim Potus and the media to stuff it.
Agreed, except I can not watch Hannity any more.
I understand. I’m not a regular watcher of Hannity either. But he does give fair coverage to Trump. I was a fairly regular watcher of Kelly until she started bleeding out of her eyes and wherever over Trump.
Hannity is more than fair to Trump. He uncritically accepts whatever Trump says to explain his past actions and his changes of view, and he’s quick to defend Trump when radio callers express skepticism. But then, as Hannity says, Trump is a friend of his …
MSM needs to die. It is clumsy and unwatchable from any angle. In 20 minutes, I can read what takes them a few hours to plod through repetitively, one overdone infographic at a time.
I wouldn’t waste any breath defending Barack Obama either. Let the fool defend himself. Or better yet, let Jeb! defend him. Or maybe that fat Jersey toad.
Obama doesn’t need anyone to defend him. That’s the media’s job.
+10 “fat Jersey toad”
It’s exactly the job for a donut-scented Barry-hugging man-whore like Christie
Remember when Megyn Kelly and the Trumpophobe media battalion went around demanding to know why leading Democrats didn’t “correct the record” and condemn Hillary Clinton for this? (insert eye roll)
Hillary Clinton Compares Republicans to ‘Terrorist Groups’ On Women’s Issues
http://time.com/4013739/hillary-clinton-terrorist-groups-republicans/
August 15, 2015 — even the from liberal Time Magazine said it happened
I love watching Trump tell ’em to KMA
I don’t tire of watching and listening to Trump stick it to all things PC.
Me too. I love it.
No, he has no obligation to defend 0bama. But he should have shut the idiot down for asking “when do we get rid of” the Moslems. That is not acceptable in any political discourse.
Why would you say that? Numerous politicians have endorsed the ‘principle’ that only Black Lives Matter, NOT All Lives Matter. Since not all muslims are black, obviously they don’t matter. And this is rife in political discourse.
Oh, I see… unless it can be used to attack Trump.
“No, he has no obligation to defend 0bama. But he should have shut the idiot down for asking “when do we get rid of” the Moslems. That is not acceptable in any political discourse.”
Why is it unacceptable? Muslims believe they need to rule the world and that all others undesirable and need to be put to death. Will every Muslim admit to believing this, to your face? No, but Muslims are instructed to lie to unbelievers. Further the history of Islam indicates behavior consistent with this belief. Muslim immigrants should be going to Muslim majority countries. As the percentage of Muslims in an area or country is small, they demonstrate assimilation like behaviors. As the population grows they get more strident in their identity and accommodations they want. Witness the Somali Muslim taxi drivers who were going to refuse to drive people from the airport with duty free liquor. Or numerous other lawsuits to get some accommodation for a Muslim employee.
Here is link to a group of Muslim refugees who took issue with a person wearing a cross around their neck. Muslims beat 8-month pregnant woman and Christian husband in Germany.
It’s unacceptable because we’re not Nazi f—ing Germany. And because the USA was founded on the principle that it is equally the home of Christian, Jew, Mohammedan, Hindoo, and every kind of Infidel. And because the first amendment to the constitution guarantees that equality. We can no more consider getting rid of the Moslems than we can consider getting rid of the Christians.
Thank you.
And because the USA was founded on the principle that it is equally the home of Christian, Jew, Mohammedan, Hindoo, and every kind of Infidel.
You can cite this? Is this concept expressed in one of America’s founding documents?
The principle actually appearing in our canonical tests is the one eventually codified in the First Amendment, and that is not that America is anybody’s “home”, but that Congress shall not establish a State religion. This concept was not popular at the time, primarily due to the notion that it would forbid Federal action to protect the new—and still somewhat vulnerable—country from Catholic mobs or insurrections. The specter haunting citizens at that time was, obviously, memory of the agonies—up to and including civil war— caused by religious schism in England. There, these agonies didn’t vanish until after the death of Queen Anne, the last of the Stuart monarchs, and their replacement by a safely Protestant German prince. Even then, the last Jacobite (i.e., Catholic) rebellion didn’t end until 1719. This was within living memory for the American colonials.
As it turned out, the US was never seriously menaced by Catholics, although there was speculation about it during the 1960 election, when some thought that the blatantly Catholic John F. Kennedy might be far too chummy with the Pope, with annoying consequences for US government policies. There’s no direct parallel with Islam; there is of course still a Pope, but there hasn’t been a Caliph since 1924 … or at least there wasn’t until the Islamic State declared itself the Caliphate last year.
When slinging allusions to the NSDAP, it might be worth remembering that President John Adams convinced Congress to appropriate considerable sums to build a US Navy specifically to defend Americans from Muslims. These particular Muslims were the pirate states of one of the Berber Caliphates of North Africa, the (relatively) quiescent heirs to the succession of Caliphates which had caused Spain and France so much trouble from the eighth through the fifteenth centuries. There was in fact no war with the Muslims in Adams’s day, but there certainly was during Jefferson’s. America’s founding documents were never intended to be interpreted as suicide pacts (not even by Jefferson!); defense against enemies has never—at least not before the twentieth century— been considered un-American. And the freedom to discuss such issues was guaranteed by the First Amendment … again, at least before the twentieth century.
That John Adams fought the Muslims off the Barbary coast does not mean that the First Amendment is inoperative towards peaceful Muslims in the U.S.
The First Amendment does indeed guarantee the right of every American to believe what he wants to believe. The historical issue of Catholicism in the 1780s is ever-so-slightly irrelevant today. That the 1st has been flexible enough to protect Catholics then and all religions today demonstrates the robustness and majesty of that amendment.
I don’t want to live in a U.S. that doesn’t protect the rights of its citizens to think and pray as they wish.
P.S.: I’m Catholic. You got a problem with that?
As so often you’ve shown, tom, you are a blithering idiot when it comes to American history and law.
The states under the Articles were often openly centers of religious intolerance, and it was NOT limited to “Papists” or their haters.
There was a long history of violence against Quakers, Catholics, and various Protestant sects.
There was ALSO a long history in some of the states (since their days as colonies) of taxing their residents in direct support of a STATE religion.
ONE of the reasons for the new experiment in government that was the Constitution was to rationalize all that intolerance between the states (many of whom were EXPRESSLY organized as religious colonies) to allow “a more perfect union”, including the RIGHT of residents of a given state NOT to be taxed to support a preferred religion.
“Even then, the last Jacobite (i.e., Catholic) rebellion didn’t end until 1719. This was within living memory for the American colonials.”
You MAY want to look up a little dust-up in 1745, tom; Feller known as “Bonnie Prince Charlie”.
Our blatantly Muslim president is getting far to chummy with the Pope.
It’s unacceptable because we’re not Nazi f—ing Germany.
The problem with Nazi f—ing Germany was not the questions. The problem was the answers.
The problems the central European states had to deal with in the early 1930s were very real. And the questions the Fascist states tried to address were (and, in many cases, still are) perfectly good ones.
Demanding that the only proper way to handle them is to deny that they exist—to ignore them—is hardly a sure formula for success.
What was, and is, needed is good answers. And answers are things which all Americans should be free to discuss. Otherwise, the answers will be reached without discussion … and that often doesn’t work out too well.
Fortunately, we have a First Amendment, which means that the answers to be discussed aren’t legally limited to the ones approved by the White House. Though of course, the PC Police are subject to no such restraint.
The issue was islamo-fascist training camps. The edited version of the “question” might lead you to think it was about Muslims in general.
Interesting that you should bring up Nazism, which some early observers described as the “new Islam.” Hitler preferred Islam to Christianity, and he had some enthusiastic Muslim allies.
“Mein Kampf” is quite popular in the Islamic world today, and many Muslims say that the only problem with Hitler is that “he didn’t finish the job.” David Horowitz get an “American” Muslim activist to admit that she agreed with the idea that all Jews should move to Israel so they could more easily be exterminated in toto.
A psychotic hatred of Jews is central to Islam, just as it was to Nazism.
Islam is also doctrinally opposed to freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Islam officially prescribes the death penalty for “apostasy” and for “blasphemy.” Plenty of Muslims are only too happy to inflict the death penalty for “blasphemy” on non-Muslims.
Islam officially does not recognize the legitimacy of non-Islamic governments.
The central doctrine of Islam is that the whole world must be compelled to “submit” to Islam — which, along with sheer brutality, explains why there are 57 Islamic nations today and why much of Europe is already bowing to Islamic demands concerning what may not be said and what must be provided especially for Muslims.
Muslims themselves like to say (when it suits them) that Islam is not merely a religion but “a total way of life.” It is doubly totalitarian in its claims of a divine right to control every aspect of life in every part of the world, and also in its violent suppression of questioning or criticism.
Anyone who cannot see that a substantial Muslim population is poison to freedom and democracy and civilization is either not paying attention, or self-deluding.
It’s bad enough to have an Islam-partial president who says “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam” and who consistently favors Islamic radicals over their Christian and Yazidi and Jewish victims. A president who actually believes the doctrines of Islam would be lethal to the constitutional republic.
The U.S. Constitution is not supposed to be a suicide pact. Islam was never supposed to be merely a religion among others.
The USA was founded in the principle of freedom of worship. There were two faiths involved: Judaism and Christianity, as for Muslims, see what Jefferson had to say about them. We grant Muslims the same rights to free worship as we have; we don’t have to. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. The Muslim Koran does not permit freedom of worship; it says death to those who convert from Islam and death for those who will not convert to Islam. If our political folks start taking what Muslims teach, preach, do and say seriously, we would deport every last one of them—even those Amerrican converts who have history in this country.
Incorrect.
Whether you want to believe it or accept it or not, this nation was founded on Judaeo-Christian principles – not the Koran.
” But he should have shut the idiot down…..”
Clearly many people have the misguided opinion that a speaker must respond to (pounce on)any and all comments which fall outside the main question being posed during a public forum. This is not true and to do so, particularly in a spirit of haughty, pseudo sanctimony, is poor form.
One should not correct, chastise or demean anyone who poses an honest question, even when, as in this instance, the questioner prefaces their question with a personally held belief; which may be only peripherally related to their actual question. This rule is especially true in a public forum. The proper response should be purposeful and focused exclusively on providing the information requested. The response should be succinct, sincere, accurate and delivered with respect. Period. Move on.
I have yet to hear any one of the many opinionated voices express this fundamental truth, even those who have placed the exchange between Mr. Trump and the supporter/ questioner into proper context; even those who have correctly asserted that Mr. Trump is under no obligation to defend Barak Obama’s honor (such as it is).
And yet, Mr.Trump’s courteous and nimble reply to the question in a gathering of his supporters actually demonstrated professionalism and proficiency in interpersonal communication skills. Did no one else appreciate this?
I have devoted a career to speaking before groups, large and small. I take all kinds of subject related questions, from the exquisitely insightful to the inane and I consider it a privilege to be able to stimulate and encourage inquisitiveness in my listeners. I would be loathe to create an atmosphere that might suppress or intimidate my students in any way. This demeanor is fitting beyond the classroom, too.
Mr. Trumps critics in the media and his political opponents who have boldly suggested how THEY would have seized the opportunity to differentiate themselves as members of the fraternity of a political elite from everyday America, are evidently lacking in introspection. Do they truly believe the pseudo sanctimonious defense of Barak Obama by one senator from AZ during the 2008 election cycle was anything other than boorish, inappropriate and rude? Of course, propriety is NOT their focus. Politics may be a blood sport for the contenders and a blood lusting media, but the spectators (voters) need to be wary of allowing themselves to be drawn into the ring.
Excellent response.
One should not correct, chastise or demean anyone who poses an honest question
Nice enough sentiment, but not really relevant. Most questions at a political event are not going to be honest.
I would respectfully disagree.
During any exchange, in any public venue, the person at the podium not only sets the tone of discourse, but they are also responsible for maintaining decorum and trajectory of the discussion, staying on topic and meeting the underlying objective of their presentation. The manner in which one responds, especially to a baited question, will determine WHO is in control and ultimately the success or failure of achieving that objective. Using a scalpel or laser instead of a chainsaw on the truly impertinent requires greater skill but is far more effective.
There is an old joke which might illustrate my point.
A female professor is concluding a final exam review session with these remarks:
“Be sure to arrive on time. The doors to the examination hall will close at 0800 hours and no admittance will be allowed afterwards. Bring your own writing implements. Do NOT bring note cards, cell phones, lap tops or programmable calculators….”
At this point, a male student shouts out from the rear of the class:
” What if the student is so totally exhausted and incapacitated from having engaged in a marathon of raucous sex the night before that he is unable to write?”
To which the professor responds:
“Well, Mr. (student’s surname), I would recommend that you use your other hand to write the exam.”
The response was selectively focused on the student’s core question/ problem and was delivered with respect. The attempted power grab by an impudent student was unsuccessful and the teacher moved on to another student question (after a brief bout of hilarity from the class).
To Progressives, the questioner represents all whites, all conservatives, and all Republicans, basically all the bad people, and Trump was responsible for the words coming out of that man’s mouth.
Except the guy never said that. He asked about getting rid of the muslim terrorist training camps which is a real question about things that really exist.
Trump didn’t challenge the man, so the lame stream media made a big hairy deal about it. But if Trump had challenged the man, the lame stream media would have made a big hairy deal about that.
I actually agree with him in this instance: it’s pretty much a no-win situation. And it could happen to any candidate, especially anyone who’s in the top three. Just ignore it and move on. If the press are determined to publish a beat-up on someone, they’ll find a way to justify it regardless.
“Oh joy Oh rapture Unforeseen
The clouded sky is now serene…
Maybe it’s because Trump is not clear ( like me ) on whether Obama is or is not Muslim.
His policies certainly seem to favor Muslims.
Mark Steyn’s latest piece poses a great question on this topic. To paraphrase…
According the the laws of Islam, Obama was born a Muslim since his father was a Muslim. So, in order for him to NOT be a Muslim today, he must have denounced his Muslim faith. So, yes or no question, has Obama denounced Islam?
Swell let’s see:
He likes to eat spicy pork ribs – seen doing so at least three times.
He drinks Bourbon (probably lots of it alone in his room at night).
His wife and daughters don’t cover their heads, and sometimes dress showing more skin than TV female weather girls.
Doesn’t get on his knees and pray six times a day.
Hasn’t been observed celebrating Islam Holy Days.
Smoked pot as a teenager and college student.
So I’d say he’s less Muslim in fact then Ted Cruz is Canadian in by birth
Why am I not surprised that your reading comprehension is such that you cannot answer a simple yes or no question?
Sorry to take so long answering your yes or no question – I’ve been busy installing OS-9 on my iPad, and Windows-10 on by desktop this morning (advice to the wary: wait on OS-9)
As far as I know he hasn’t formally professed to be, or renounced being Muslim. So that’s “no’ to both possibilities.
My yes or no question to you: have you now, or have you ever had, an IQ higher then your belt size?
Paul, it isn’t that he can’t read…although at a remarkably retarded level…
it IS that he has no integrity. He won’t answer hard questions. They pin him, and reduce his ability to simply lie.
From what we have as FACTS WRT the 9/11 terrorists, they were BIG spenders at “titty bars” and regular bars.
So. There goes THAT piece of bullshit.
CapotePierre: I don’t like Obama in general, never have. And if he announced he was secretly a Mormon, or a Christian Scientist, or a Scientologist, it wouldn’t change my opinion of him; but if it turned out you liked to hang at titty-bars and swig whisky would it be fair to conclude you were doing it for show as the 9-11 terrorists did, to keep people from discerning your true inner identity?
The 9/11 terrorists didn’t go to titty bars as cover; they went because they enjoyed them. They earned absolution for their sins by killing the evil Americans who corrupted them with tithes and alcohol.
Denouncing his faith would make him apostate which carries a death sentence under Islam. I haven’t heard any Iranian hardliners calling for his head. You really have to wonder why any devout Muslim would be willing to negotiate with Obama.
1. There is no such thing as being born Moslem.
2. At the time of his birth his father was an atheist.
3. His father had no role in raising him.
4. If nothing else joining an ostensibly Christian church is inherently a renunciation of Islam. (That the church he joined isn’t very Christian isn’t relevant.)
You are talking like an American. A lot of Muslims, especially outside the US, believe that the father’s faith determines the child’s faith, and this is not voluntary. The notion, that Obama is a Muslim, is widespread outside the US. So is the notion of lying to non-muslims (taqiyya).
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/05/jeremiah-wright-i-made-it-comfortable-for-obama-to-accept-christianity-without-having-to-renounce-islam/
Obama grew up outside the US.
He was given a middle name, “Hussein,” that a born-Muslim gives only to a Muslim. He was adopted by a Muslim father and was registered as a Muslim (and as an Indonesian national) in two different Indonesian schools.
He went to Koran class, which was attended only by Muslim pupils.
Any claim that he has always been a Christian is a lie. And Jeremiah Wright explained how he persuaded Obama to join his “church” by saying he didn’t have to give up his Islamic heritage.
When Obama speaks to Muslim audiences, he uses key words and phrases that someone familiar with Islam uses only as a Muslim among other Muslims (as Daniel Pipes has explained).
He peddles a fanciful and highly sanitized view of Islamic history, and his sympathies are obviously with Islam whenever it’s in conflict with Christianity or Judaism.
I doubt that he believes Islamic doctrine, but it’s obvious that he identifies deeply with Islam at an emotional level.
Obama wore a Muslim ring on his “wedding” finger before he met Michelle, and he is still wearing it. He doesn’t wear a wedding band. I think that shows loyalty to Islam.
I have been in this debate before. Islam is incompatible with America because it doesn’t allow friendship between a Muslim and anyone else. In the first 12 pages of the Koran, it instructs the Muslim to treat everyone else as the enemy 22 times. The first 12 pages was enough for me to win the bet; I’m sure it continues in the same vein. Do you want someone like that in your neighborhood?
The best way to respond to the guy in the crowd is, “Amen, brother!”
Did the media badger Obama to explain himself when he explicitly compared republicans to the hardliners in Iran? This was worse then calling them Muslims — he suggested they were sympathizers with Islamic radicals.
This is the old media effort to bind up republicans in an impossible standard which even implicates their non-speech. Pound sand is the proper response.
I noticed who rushed to defend Obama’s purity of Americanism and Christianity — El Gobernador Heb.
And why does Obama always single out Ramadan with special proclamations but never says a word about Easter?
And why does Obama always single out Ramadan with special proclamations but never says a word about Easter?
That is an outright falsehood.
And why does the White House go out of its way not to insult Islam, but when the Pope arrives, the White House invites a pro-abortion nun, a transgendered person and a gay Episcopalian prelate?
Trump is right, Obama would never defend him.
All anyone knows is that Obama has claimed to be a Christian, is married to a Christian, and went with his wife for some years to Rev. WWright’s church.
Not that the man ever has been known to lie…
His father was a Muslim. Under Muslim law, that makes him either Muslim or an apostate.
His stepfather also was a Muslim, and he spent his early formative years in a Muslim country going to Muslim schools.
He has gone overboard catering to Islam in a phenomenal and documented way. Bowing to the S.A. king. The Iran deal. That those braying calls to prayer are “the most beautiful sound in the world”. That Islam is a foundation of America. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc.
He’s shunned Netanyahu, placed Israel into extreme danger, and now prepares to insult the Pope on his visit.
If this were a court of law, this all would be circumstantial evidence.
Author Reza Aslan (“No God But God”) is married to a Christian woman, and, according to his own words in his own book, himself once declared himself to be Christian. Anyone can claim to be anything.
No one other than Obama knows what he “is” or what he believes in (if anything other than Obama).
But Wait: Christy said it was “self-evident” that obama is a Christian.
Well, to be fair, all Christians go on t.v. and refer to “my Muslim faith” (before being “corrected” by the interviewer and told they really meant their Christian faith).
And all Christians give speeches in which they say things like “the future must not belong to those who slander The Prophet of Islam.”
And all Christians write books in which they promise that, in the event of a culture clash, they will “side with the Muslims.”
So Christie is right: It is self-evident that Obama is a Muslim . . . er, I mean a Christian. (Just so darn easy to confuse the two!)
According to Jewish law if your mother was Jewish you are automatically Jewish too at birth.
So does that mean if a mother hid her Jewishness and had a son with a Christian man, but never told the son about his heritage, he’s Jewish in the eyes of the world?
If half his DNA comes from a Jewish parent, does that mean he’s automatically an adherent of the Jewish Religion unless he renounce it?
Jewish in the eyes of the Rabbis, Jewish according to immigration and family laws in Israel, and to repeat something my own Jewish mother told me when I was an argumentative 6th grader who did not want to do something or other and declared myself solely Christian: “If Hitler comes again, remember you will be Jewish”.
(Remember the misery that Ethiopian Christian woman went through last year because her estranged father was Muslim?)
Anyway, back to Obama — nothing “hidden” here: dreams of his father, Muslim in the majority of his extended family, and save for one pandering trip to Ireland, seems to me that he’s primarily embraced his father’s side of his heritage.
Not to mention I don’t know any Christian who would say this about Christians (while refusing to ascribe similar sentiments about religion to Islamic terrorists:
Of course, nowadays anyone can be anything one wants to be. For all I know, in his heart Obama is gender-female.
The “eyes of the world” are irrelevant. Such a child is a Jew. Because being a Jew has nothing to do with what one believes. Jews are not a religion, they are a nation that has a religion. One is a Jew whether one subscribes to that religion or not, just as one is an American whether or not one believes in liberty and democracy, and whether or not one obeys the law.
I don’t know why you got those thumbs-down clicks (I gave you a thumbs-up for accurate statement of fact) but I was using “in the eyes of the world” to reference those who claim Obama is Muslim because his father was allegedly Muslim.
So strange as it seems, we are in agreement … Sort of.
And Jews don’t slaughter people for “apostasy” or “blasphemy.” That’s just one big difference.
Shma yisrael, adonai elohenu, adonai echad. Whavta lyhwh wkol lvavka, wkol nafsheka, wkol m’odeka.
Don’t choke on the tripe you’re talking, m’dear..
At the time of his birth his father was an atheist.
No, it doesn’t.
No, he didn’t. He went first to a Catholic school and then to a secular one.
Obama Sr. may have been an atheist (we actually don’t know what he did or did not believe) but he was nevertheless Muslim as far as formal affiliation and “culture”. Atheism is not a religion.
Barack was registered in those “non-Muslim” Indonesian schools as Barry Soetoro, an Indonesian Muslim (it remains unclear whether he was adopted by Soetoro, and I’ve never seen this question cleared up). In those schools he attended Koranic classes — only the Muslim students went to those. He wasn’t registered as a Christian, which apparently was an option. See more at “Obama’s Muslim Childhood”.
I personally think he’s just a bullshit artist who will “be” whatever is expedient from time to time, and that he probably holds no sincere religious beliefs, but that if he has a “cultural heritage” affinity for anything, based on actions speaking louder than words, his warmest feelings are for Islam.
Quick Breaking
Super-powerful video from a Fiorina PAC PROVES she did NOT lie about Planned Parenthood videos. Blessings be on Fiorina for speaking out on this! Apologies for break-in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=65&v=Yhn0DdH8M-0
—***—*** END ***—***—
Bravo.
Come on Mouse, tell us how it’s a lie.
Didn’t I already explain to you why it’s lie upon lie?
Talking to you is like talking to a bag of fertilizer.
FIRST: The Media Truth Checks:
FactCheck Org – Carly Fiorina said that the Planned Parenthood videos released by an anti-abortion group showed “a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking while someone says we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.” But that scene isn’t in any of the videos.
Breitbard.com – Fiorina might have trouble finding this video to show to Clinton… No video has surfaced showing the scene Fiorina describes taking place inside a Planned Parenthood facility.
Washington Post – No Video Has Surfaced Showing The Scene Fiorina Describes At Planned Parenthood.
Here are Fiorina’s words at the debate: “As regards Planned Parenthood, anyone who has watched this videotape, I dare Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama to watch these tapes. Watch a fully formed fetus on the table, it’s heart beating, it’s legs kicking while someone says we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.”
A- No proof it’s heart is beating.
B- No proof it’s alive – fetus limbs sometime twitch after they have been legally determined to be dead.
C-No proof the fetus is at a Planned Parenthood clinic.
D-Nobody in the room with the fetus is saying ‘we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.’ That’s a Holly O’Donnell voice-over claiming she saw a fetus with it’s heart beating when she was employed by StemExpress,intercut with the inserted stock clips of the fetus.
E-NO EVIDENCE that fetus is about to be harvested.
F-NO EVIDENCE to indicate that fetus wasn’t stillborn.
In fact, the Center for Medical Progress admits one of the two fetuses shown in the video WAS a stillborn birth, not an abortion. The other, they claim, was of an intact delivery abortion — so far it’s not clear who provided the stock fetus images, or which is which.
Video No. 7. The link is in the article.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/09/17/watch-the-video-planned-parenthood-and-its-media-allies-deny-exists/
JJ(sad)Trombone will lie like a dog to defend Planned Abortionhood, as he’s done here.
Remember, people, he’s a Moby Troll. He’ll play you if you let him!
I LOVE Planned Parenthood.
They provide FABULOUS reproductive health services to women (and men).
And if women want a PLANNED abortion at one of their clinics, as allowed by law, who the hell are you to hassle/threaten/physically intimidate them and the health care providers who lawfully assist them!
And answer this, you deceitful ignoramus, how much Federal tax money does PP receive for ABORTION related procedures? Go on, you deceitful dunce, tell me HOW MUCH?
Well, you lying SOS, they get roughly a half-billion in Federal dollars, TAKEN from Americans who would in no way approve of their practices.
And, as you KNOW, but will LIE about, money is fungible. Meaning, when you are given MONEY, it can flow anywhere within an organization, and it STILL is a pure subsidy of ALL the organization DOES, and cannot be distinguished as to its use.
You lying SOS.
“And if women want a PLANNED abortion at one of their clinics, as allowed by law, who the hell are you to hassle/threaten/physically intimidate them and the health care providers who lawfully assist them!”
This is called a “red herring”. It is particularly corrupt in that it implies “hassle/threaten/physically intimidate them”, which is an implicit LIE. Withdrawing Federal funding involves NONE of that, and, of course, the lying SOS knows this.
What’s also interesting is the VERY open question of whether many women DO “want” a “planned abortion” at all, or whether they are cadged into an abortion by Planned Abortionhood’s activist staff.
“Well, you lying SOS, they get roughly a half-billion in Federal dollars, TAKEN from Americans who would in no way approve of their practices.”
You ever hear of the Hyde Amendment, you ignoramus? Look it up, nitwit. By law the only federal tax money that can be used for abortion is when the mother’s life is at risk, or she’s a victim of rape or incest– an insignificant percentage of abortions.
There were over 4 million patient visits to Planned Parenthood clinics last year, and over 90 percent of them was for basic women’s health care, and not abortions. The overwhelming majority of Planned Parenthood’s services involve screening for and treating sexually transmitted diseases and infections, as well as providing birth control contraception – so there will be LESS abortions in the future, stupid.
Guess what will happen if they’re defunded, Mr. Small Government dweeb: more pregnancies among the 79% of PPs patients who are lower-income federal poverty level women, meaning additional federal spending for Medicaid to pay for those pregnancies and for the children born as a result of decreased birth control access. BIGGER government, get it?
“And, as you KNOW… money is fungible. Meaning, when you are given MONEY, it can flow anywhere within an organization, and it STILL is a pure subsidy of ALL the organization DOES, and cannot be distinguished as to its use.”
Talk is cheap. Planned Parenthood’s books have been scrutinized for decades by anti-PP vultures in congress, and they are audited regularly by KPMG (as an alleged bankruptcy lawyer you should know who they are off the top of you bald head) and nothing EVER has indicated they are using government money inappropriately.
“You lying SOS.”
Look in the mirror; the lying SOS is looking back at you.
“Well, you lying SOS, they get roughly a half-billion in Federal dollars, TAKEN from Americans who would in no way approve of their practices.”
You ever hear of the Hyde Amendment, you ignoramus? Look it up, nitwit. By law the only federal tax money that can be used for abortion is when the mother’s life is at risk, or she’s a victim of rape or incest– an insignificant percentage of abortions.
————————————–
Why, YES. And Planned Abortionhood has been in flagrant violation of the Hyde Amendment for decades, as you know, you lying SOS.
“There were over 4 million patient visits to Planned Parenthood clinics last year, and over 90 percent of them was for basic women’s health care, and not abortions.”
Links, please.
“The overwhelming majority of Planned Parenthood’s services involve screening for and treating sexually transmitted diseases and infections, as well as providing birth control contraception – so there will be LESS abortions in the future, stupid.”
Links, please, you moron.
“Guess what will happen if they’re defunded, Mr. Small Government dweeb: more pregnancies among the 79% of PPs patients who are lower-income federal poverty level women, meaning additional federal spending for Medicaid to pay for those pregnancies and for the children born as a result of decreased birth control access. BIGGER government, get it?”
Really? Women at the “poverty level” are magically going to get pregnant if PP is not funded with Federal dollars. AMAZING!!!
AND they ONLY have “access to birth control” if PP gets it’s half-billion from Uncle Sugar???
Huh. So PP could NOT prioritize what it does if it lost some Federal subsidies for killing babies? Like BIG GOVERNMENT when faced with tax cuts, it WOULD (naturally) move to hurt its most vulnerable constituencies. Right?
But, wait! You just said that Federal funds are NOT used for abortions, and you ALSO told the lie that “accounting” sequesters those funds. Ergo, if those funds where withdrawn, ALLLLLLL we’d see is that abortions continued unabated. All the other “goods” would be the sole “victims”.
See, moron, logic is NOT your friend, nor is the truth.
You lying SOS.
So, why would you NOT support this proposal?…
1. defund Planned Abortionhood
2. make any future Federal funding of ANY entity that provides abortions illegal
3. make ANY contribution from any entity that receives Federal dollars to any entity providing abortions a felony
Of course, you won’t support that. Because you are an advocate of killing “womb vampires” with Federal dollars, taken from people who violently oppose your disgusting post-modern ghoulishness.
You’re such a pathetic liar, and a bad one too. You just poo out the crap that Media Matters and your progressive masters pay you to post. You posted the same old crap you did the other day… it was false then and it’s been proven false now. Watch the new Carly ad… it SHOWS YOU the clips from the video that she was citing in the debate, with her statement from the voice dubbed over it so even a colossal moron like you can understand it.
THIS is how the Collective works. It’s grimly amusing. In a totally 1984 sorta way…
http://twitchy.com/2015/09/19/liberal-websites-now-citing-other-liberal-websites-as-proof-carly-fiorina-made-up-graphic-abortion-video/
Grim indeed. The amusing part (to me) is how masterfully Fiorina has trolled the progressives on this topic. She played them like fiddles, knowing they would go apoplectic over her statement, and then hammering them with the video to back it up. Now I imagine millions of people who would have never bothered to watch that video are familiar with the atrocities described in it. The more the progs squeal about it the more people get exposed to their lies.
You can tell she hit a nerve by the fact that little JJ rolled out off the couch in his Mom’s basement and put the bong down before noon to re-post the lies they provided him.
Note this…
“Breitbard.com – Fiorina might have trouble finding this video to show to Clinton… No video has surfaced showing the scene Fiorina describes taking place inside a Planned Parenthood facility.”
This was a LIE. It was taken out of context from a BREITBART quotation of a Collectivist media publication as part of fisking the LIES of people like JJ(sad)Trombone.
See? He will lie about anything, and pretend all sorts of positions to punk people. The very essence of a Moby Troll.
You’re right, that quote was out of context. Breitbart was quoting another source. I pulled it too quickly, should have been more careful. So here’s another quote from a reliable new source to replace it:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/09/17/at-debate-carly-fiorina-described-scenes-not-in-abortion-videos/
But to suggest I intentionally misrepresented the Breitbart source speaks to your tarnished character more then my sloppiness. When I make a mistake I’m ready to admit it. When you make a mistake, however – as you did grossly over inflating how much Planned Parenthood charged for first term abortions on a previous comment, your narcissistic refusal to admit or correct it after it was pointed out to you speaks volumes of your character, or lack of it.
Three funny things…
1. you admit you published a lie (because you can’t read, you get so excited when you find something to troll here with!)
2. you RE-publish the lie from ANOTHER source, so you can REPEAT the lie
3. you apparently published ANOTHER lie on a thread I’d left some time before! If I’d known, I could have PUNKED you some MORE, but I don’t stay with you past a certain point, because I find you stupid and boring.
Anyone can go to the main web-pages of Planned Abortionhood, and they’ll see that they charge what I said they charge for a first term abortion.
You lying SOS troll.
Why hasn’t Donald Trump been “granted” the right to NOT be offended? That’s the real question, here.
Because he is not a student or faculty member in the University of California system.
One of the tools used by a skilled leftist is to wait until the discussion shifts in any way from the narrative. They then exploit it so the narrative stands. The topic was the MSM attack on Trump for something somebody else said (doesn’t that just make sense?) and now we are discussing the whether what was said is true or not. Obama hides facts so maybe he eats pork to fool people. The ends justify the means.
I think the shift to a fact that cannot be established allows the MSM attack on Trump to stand as valid.
The left lives on process (rhetoric & logical fallacies) and we live on facts and truth. That is why PC codes are so important for controlling discussion. Watch for the leftists to jump in here whenever anybody drifts even slightly away from the article core. It is a signal the article was dead on target.
This is one time where I hope Mr. Trump’s Republican rivals take note of the original incident, its context, and Trump’s defense of his actions.
If you want to know why people have been calling him “Teflon,” this is a nice, tight example.
Politicians regularly encounter people who want to tell them something. The usual procedure is to give the person some time, give a short reply on the order of “we will handle this,” and move on. I have read that there were several such incidents earlier in the day, and Trump handled them all the same. This is credible to me, because I have seen it in in other politicians on other days.
The real question is whether a hostile, dishonest media should be allowed to get away with their hypocritical enforcement of some sort of script on candidates they disfavor, as against giving other candidates the freedom to react on their own.
Trump called them on it beautifully. He wins this round.
Trump should defend Obama, as much as Obama defended Bush….
I always found it interesting that Obama’s sycophants find it necessary, perhaps even vital, to deny the possibility that Obama is an adherent of Islam, and do so in nearly hysterical terms.
This seems odd. Why the immediate and intense reaction to speculation that Obama is one of The Faithful? The President—any President—is entitled to have a religion. And any variety of Islam would qualify. There is no Constitutional provision that the President’s personal inclinations of faith be confined to a religion on some “approved” list.
But the Dem’s frantic denials imply that they think there’s something sinister lurking there.
Nobody knows if Obama is a Christian or a Muslim. Obama will say whatever benefits him in the moment. Obama is a snake in the grass.
History and policy has Obama trending pro-Islam and anti-Christian and even though he attended a so-called “Christian” church, Jeremiah Wright’s Babylon.
What we do know is that Obama is a parasite-he feeds off of whatever makes him a more popular mack-daddy.
Now, I do not think Trump needed to correct this man. This is America and free speech speaks for itself.
The man in the audience can retract or keep his statement. It is not up to Trump to establish the statement’s credibility or to provide a relative moral push back. Trump obviously didn’t want the question in the first place. He didn’t want to go there.
Go question the man who said these things and demand that he retract if that is what you require.
Trump has nothing to do with Obama’s lack of commitment to a religion or with the man’s dislike for the onslaught of America by radcialized Muslims.
As others have noted, it took less than 24 hours for Joe the Plumber to have his entire life anal probed for asking Obama a question back in 2008.
I’ve yet to see a single effort to determine just who this guy at Trumps rally really is and to ask him to clarify his remarks.
Urbandale, Iowa (CNN)Donald Trump on Saturday responded to a question from CNN about whether Muslims pose a danger to the country, saying: “I love the Muslims. I think they’re great people.”
The Republican presidential front-runner made the comment after addressing high school students here at their homecoming Saturday night.
During a question-and-answer session with students, Trump was unable to avoid being asked about the latest political controversy dogging his campaign: his decision not to correct a supporter this week who called President Barack Obama a Muslim.
One student told Trump that she considered Muslim-Americans to be an important segment of the country. They asked whether the billionaire businessman would consider putting a Muslim in his Cabinet or on his ticket.
“Oh, absolutely,” Trump responded. “No problem with that.”
…of course, that’s just his position TODAY. There’s always tomorrow.
Heh!
Considering someone for a position doesn’t mean you’d hire him. Where’ the problem?
And the question was about training camps in the US run by islamo-fascists. Nothing wrong with going after them.
Trump has clearly not given any serious thought to the problem of Islam, just as he hasn’t given much serious thought to other aspects of presidential responsibility that he say’s he’ll study after he gets the nomination.
What Trump is most serious about is Donald Trump.
Ever notice?
The ones who like to lecture us without fail
And say a muslim has legitimate religion
Will scream like a cat when you step on its tail
If you dare to say that Obama might be one
People are contrasting this with McCain’s response to the woman who claimed Obama was an Arab, and showing how well McCain handled it in comparison, but I seem to recall Progressives like Affleck twisting McCain’s words to make him seem racist back in ’08. What could McCain possibly have said that WOULDN’T have been made racist then except “vote for Obama”? Anyway, Trump isn’t responsible for what other people say. He gets enough flak, rightly or wrongly, for the things he himself says.
Trump was polite and answered the question correctly. It’s obvious that all those attacking him are doing so for their own interests.
Trump showed remarkable restraint in not using the guy as a springboard to give Obama a rhetorical work-over. Why the media feels obligated to provide affirmative action to the most powerful man in the world is bewildering and is most definitely a perversion of their reason for existence.