The 2016 Presidential Race Begins: Iowa caucuses are today

The first step of the 2016 election starts today.

Video:

The Story via Fox News:

As Iowans prepare to cast the first votes in the presidential nominating process Monday, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders hoped to defy the polls and pull off upset victories in Monday night’s caucuses.

After months of campaigning and more than $150 million spent on advertising, the race for supremacy in Iowa is close in both parties.

Among Republicans, the latest polls show real estate billionaire Donald Trump holding a slim edge over Cruz. Cruz, who became the first major candidate from either party to enter the presidential race 315 days ago, has pinned his hopes to a sophisticated get-out-the-vote operation. Cruz has also modeled his campaign after past Iowa winners, visiting all of the state’s 99 counties and courting influential evangelical and conservative leaders.

“If you had told me 10 months ago that the day before the Iowa caucuses we’d be in a statistcal tie for first place I would have been thrilled and exhilarated,” Cruz told Fox News late Sunday.

The Republican caucus is also the first test of whether Trump can turn the legion of fans drawn to his plainspoken populism into voters. The scope of the billionaire’s organization in Iowa is a mystery, though Trump himself has intensified his campaign schedule during the final sprint, including a pair of rallies Monday.

I predict that Trump will come in first, with Cruz second and Rubio third on the Republican side. On the Democrat side, I think that one could be a surprise. Sanders has a good deal of support, while Hillary has the name and the money. So, that one is a toss. It will be interesting to see to say the least.

Chuck Baldwin makes a very good point

Chuck Baldwin makes this good point:

So, let’s see: all over America this Sunday, millions of Christians will gather in their churches to celebrate the birth of the Prince of Peace. Adult choirs, children’s programs, teen choirs, orchestras, bands, Sunday School lessons, pageants, and sermons will all laud the birth of the Prince of Peace. They will hear messages about love and peace and brotherhood. They will raise their hands in “worship,” smile and laugh, shout “Amen,” and get warm and fuzzy feelings all over as they celebrate the day that the Prince of Peace was born.

No doubt, pastors all over America will quote Luke 2:13, 14. “And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.”

But as soon as the Christmas celebration passes, their vocalizations of peace and goodwill will be buried amidst a cacophony of hatred for their fellow man: specifically, for their fellowmen who call themselves Muslims. We might hear “Kill the infidels!” from the mouths of certain Islamic jihadists, but that same cry is heard by God from the hearts of, perhaps, millions of America’s Christians.

Chuck goes on:

Every day, my email inbox fills up with anti-Muslim hatred–and much of it from professing Christians. These are the same ones that will celebrate the birth of the Prince of Peace next week.

As justification for their bigotry and hatred, Christians love to quote passages from the Koran that speak of jihad against “infidels.” But, it never ceases to amaze me that these same Christians seem to have never read the Jewish Talmud–or even the writings of many Christian leaders from years gone by.

For example, here are some excerpts from the Talmud:

“Since God already gave the Torah to the Jewish people on Mt. Sinai we no longer pay attention to heavenly voices. God must submit to the decisions of a majority vote of the rabbis.” (BT Bava Metzia 59b)

“All gentile women without exception are: ‘Niddah, Shifchah, Goyyah and Zonah’ (menstrual filth, slaves, heathens and prostitutes).” (BT Sanhedrin 81b – 82a)

“The best of the gentiles: kill him; the best of snakes: smash its skull; the best of women: is filled with witchcraft.” (BT Kiddushin 66c)

“Regarding bloodshed the following distinction applies: If a non-Jew killed another non-Jew, or a non-Jew killed a Jew, the killer is liable for execution; if a Jew killed a non-Jew, he is exempt from punishment.” (BT Sanhedrin 57a)

“Jews may use lies (‘subterfuges’) to circumvent a gentile.” (BT Baba Kamma 113a)

“On Passover Eve they hanged Jesus of Nazareth. And the herald went out before him for 40 days and proclaimed, Jesus of Nazareth is going to be stoned because he practiced sorcery, incited and led Israel astray. Whoever knows of an argument that may be proposed in his favor should come and present that argument on his behalf. But the judges did not find an argument in his favor, so they hanged him on Passover Eve…Did Jesus of Nazareth deserve that a search be made for an argument in his favor? Surely he incited others to idol worship.” (BT Sanhedrin 43a)

Celebrated ancient religion historian Peter Schafer, who is now the director of the Jewish Museum of Berlin, wrote this commentary on the Babylonian Talmud (BT) Grittin 57a, “…Jesus shares his place in the Netherworld (hell) with Titus and Balaam, the notorious arch enemies of the Jewish people. Whereas Titus is punished for the destruction of the Temple by being burned to ashes, reassembled, and burned over and over again, and whereas Balaam is castigated by sitting in hot semen, Jesus’ fate consists of sitting forever in boiling excrement.” (Peter Schäfer, “Jesus in the Talmud,” Princeton University Press, p. 13)

Amazingly, I don’t hear Christians screaming the accusation that “there is no such thing as a peaceful Jew,” based on the writings of the Talmud and its apologists. Yet, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently promised that Talmudic law is the official law of Israel. [Link]

Make no mistake about it: the Talmud, NOT the Torah, is the Bible of the Zionists. The “Oral Law” of the Pharisees who crucified Christ formed the basis for the Talmud. This was exactly what Jesus was referring to when he scolded the Pharisees for placing their “traditions” ahead of the Law of Moses (the Torah). I propose that the Talmud is FAR WORSE than the Koran; and I believe I can prove it.

The Pharisees hated the Lord Jesus then, and their spiritual descendants, the Zionists, still hate Him today. Yet, there is not a peep from the Christian community at large about the threat posed to Christian America from Zionists.

Most people would dismiss this as hate speech. But, it is factual truth. What is a pity that most Christians won’t wake up to this fact.

Problem is Chuck Baldwin is wrong about the Roman Catholic Church. They’re just as evil as the left and the Zionist right.

In fact, the Roman Catholic Church are the biggest enablers of the Zionist movement today. In fact, they practically own it.

Whoa: Donald Trump goes off the rails and not in a good way either

I have to admit, that at one point, I would have actually voted for this guy. I am really not sure of that anymore. This, I have to say, is very much below the belt.

The videos: (via HotAir)

and…:

Transcript:

“It’s in the book that he’s got a pathological temper,” Trump told “Erin Burnett OutFront,” speaking about Carson’s autobiography. “That’s a big problem because you don’t cure that … as an example: child molesting. You don’t cure these people. You don’t cure a child molester. There’s no cure for it. Pathological, there’s no cure for that.”

In his 1990 autobiography, “Gifted Hands,” Carson attributes violent behavior in his youth to his “disease,” a “pathological temper” that the Republican presidential hopeful said caused him to strike one friend with a rock and attempt to stab another. In subsequent accounts of his violent youth, Carson said he once attempted to attack his mother with a hammer.

“I’m not bringing up anything that’s not in his book,” Trump told Erin Burnett. “You know, when he says he went after his mother and wanted to hit her in the head with a hammer, that bothers me. I mean, that’s pretty bad. When he says he’s pathological — and he says that in the book, I don’t say that — and again, I’m not saying anything, I’m not saying anything other than pathological is a very serious disease. And he said he’s pathological, somebody said he has pathological disease.”

A report on the second video:

At first, the audience was quick to laugh at Trump’s sharp insults and applaud his calls to better care for veterans, replace the Affordable Care Act and construct a wall along the Mexican border. But as the speech dragged on, the applause came less often and grew softer. As Trump attacked Carson using deeply personal language, the audience grew quiet, a few shaking their heads. A man sitting in the back of the auditorium loudly gasped. …

He scoffed at those who have accused him of not understanding foreign policy, saying he knows more about Islamic State terrorists “than the generals do.” He took credit for predicting the threat of Osama bin Laden and being right on the “anchor baby situation,” a position he says “these great geniuses from Harvard Law School” now back. He uttered the word “crap” at least three times, and promised to “bomb the s—” out of oil fields benefiting terrorists. He signed a book for a guy in the audience and then tossed it back at him with a flip: “Here you go, baby. I love you.”

Trump called Republican rival Carly Fiorina “Carly whatever-the-hell-her-name-is,” accused Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton of playing the “woman’s card” and said Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) is “weak like a baby.” He then devoted more than 10 minutes angrily attacking his chief rival, Ben Carson, saying the retired doctor has a “pathological disease” with no cure, similar to being a child molester.

“If I did the stuff he said he did, I wouldn’t be here right now. It would have been over. It would have been over. It would have been totally over,” Trump said. “And that’s who’s in second place. And I don’t get it.”

Wow, Just Wow. 😯 No wonder the Republican establishment is in an utter panic!

Ed Morrissey observes the following:

Two points. First, “pathological” does not mean “incurable,” and anyway Carson uses the term as a descriptor, not a medical diagnosis. Second, there is a vast difference between having a violent temper in one’s youth, and molesting children. This is mud-slinging of the most virulent and dishonest manner.

I am thinking that you are going to see a huge — oh, sorry, “Yuge” — drop in the polls for Trump. This is not politicking, this is slander and utter dishonesty and I really think that the America voters are going to make that clear come the first primary vote.

I have to like Carly Fiorina’s Response:

Donald, sorry, I've got to interrupt again. You would know something about pathological. How was that meeting with…

Posted by Carly Fiorina on Thursday, November 12, 2015

So funny. 😀

Others: (via Memeorandum)  NBC News, Power Line, Washington Monthly, Mother Jones, Fox News, Front Page Magazine, John Hawkins’ Right Wing News, VodkaPundit, Mock Paper Scissors, The Gateway Pundit, Associated Press, Politico, No More Mister Nice Blog, Hullabaloo,Shakesville, PoliticusUSA, Balloon Juice, Outside the Beltway, Lawyers, Guns & Money,Booman Tribune, Daily Wire, Vox Popoli, The Week, The American Conservative,FiveThirtyEight, Erick on the Radio and ABC News

A good analysis on the Kentucky clerk issue by Bob Barr

Bob Barr, who I voted for in 2008, gives a very good analysis of the situation with the Kentucky Clerk.

Basically, Bob says, “Be Careful what you wish for“:

Imagine waking up to the news that a Quaker county sheriff is denying concealed carry permits to citizens because of his religious objection to violence; or, a Muslim DMV supervisor in Dearborn, Michigan has ordered his staff to refuse to issue driver’s licenses to women out of a religious objection to women behind the wheel. These are among the realities that await should we make Kim Davis, the embattled County Clerk from Rowan County, Kentucky, an archetype for “religious freedom” in America.

In 1802, Thomas Jefferson replied to a letter from the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut in which he outlined a concept for the First Amendment’s application as it relates to religion. According to Jefferson, the Amendment creates a “wall of separation between Church & State,” to which “the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions.” While Jefferson’s concept of a wall separating the Church and State has been used in a modern context by the Left to justify its radical purge of any and all religious artifacts from the public sector — particularly those of Christianity – Jefferson rather was simply warning about the power of government, compelled by a dominant sect of religion, to corrupt and oppress religious liberty of allworshipers.

As an elected government official and public employee, Davis took an oath to uphold the law, and cannot properly use her power as an elected official to deny marriage licenses to couples found by the Supreme Court of the United States to be entitled to receive those licenses. This is not a question of whether or not we agree with that Supreme Court ruling; it most definitely is a question of whether we are – as Chief Justice John Marshall noted in his seminal, 1803 opinion in Marbury v. Madison – a “nation of laws, not of men.

[…]

The virulent reaction of the Left to this controversy, and laws such as Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, leaves little doubt about the Left’s “respect” for religious freedom, and highlight the need protect it from further erosion. Yet, as the Davis controversy also illustrates, protecting religious freedom is not as black and white as the media and the political rhetoric make it out to be. It requires a far more thoughtful approach to articulating its fundamental importance in our society than rushing to make every perceived injustice the focal point of such a debate.

Using the wrong examples to make our case for religious freedom only further ingrains the disrespect for religious freedom and the rule of law so desperately needed in the public and the private sectors; and encourages use of the “Wall-of-Separation” phrase as a bludgeon against religion, rather than a protector of it.

It is regrettable that Kim Davis was jailed, and as former San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom’s lawless “gay marriage” protest shows, clearly the Left does not hold itself to the same standards as it does with Davis. However, what is happening to Davis is not about the sincerity of her religious beliefs, or even the morality of gay marriage. Placing her on a pedestal will likely come back to haunt her supporters.

And perhaps those who find a government for which they work so morally repugnant as does Kim Davis, would better serve the public they have sworn to serve, from outside rather than inside.

He is absolutely correct about that; we are a constitutional Republic, not a Christian Theocracy. Kim Davis took an oath to uphold the law and if she cannot do that, as a result of her religious convictions, then she should resign. This is why I have avoided writing about this case, because she and her supporters are making a religious argument over a secular issue. What she is actually doing is violating the First Amendment and she should be charged for doing so.

The sick part is that, naturally, the Republican Party will sing in unison in support for this so-called “Christian Zealot” and screw our chances for a victory in 2016. :(

 

AllahPundit makes a very good point about Donald Trump

Hate to say it, but he is very much correct:

One more thing: In the unlikely event that Trump does sweep to the presidency, I think some historians will begin reconsidering what the Reagan revolution was really about. Was it a conservative revolt against the Great Society, Nixonian welfare-state management, and Carter-era exhaustion with liberalism, or was it more a response to the sense of national renewal that Reagan projected, above and beyond ideology? Reagan, unlike Trump, was a true conservative and wanted to limit government accordingly, but they both stood for American power in different ways. Maybe it was that sense of power, of overhauling a failed governing class, that drew Republicans and centrist Democrats to Reagan first and foremost, with Reagan’s conservatism more of an experiment voters were happy to go along with so long as the economy was booming and the Soviets were back on their heels. If you look at Reagan that way, with ideology a component of his appeal but not the catalytic component, you can sort of see a line between him and Trump

Source: Hugh Hewitt to Trump: Will you resist the authoritarian impulse as president? « Hot Air

He’s right about that; and too, Reagan was the great communicator. Reagan also was a very kind-hearted person and would win you over with his charm. He was a statesman, and of the greatest generation and era ever, one that has sadly passed into the annals of history.

Now, Donald Trump? He is a totally different horse of a total different color and breed. Basically, he’s a bare knuckles, tell it like it is, shoot from the hip, tough guy New Yorker, with a really, really, good education and business savvy. Because of this, he tends to be very, very very, blunt. This works in the business world, where such things are seen as powerful, groundbreaking and decisive; but in the political world, especially in the Conservative political world, he has those people running around with their hair on fire, losing their minds! Mainly because today, political correctness and a slight amount of couth are the standard these days. Donald Trump has none of this; and the grassroots love it to death! The GOP establishment? Not so much.

By the way, the establishment hated Reagan too; but they had to accept him. Especially after the “I’m paying for this microphone!” incident. Funny that “AllahPundit” seems to have forgotten that one and the fact that basically the Fundamentalist and Evangelical Christian world basically was what propelled Reagan into the White House. But, he’s an idiot atheist, so one should expect that.