This is another bit of info on The Donald’s Presidential campaign. Make certain you keep yourself aware of all the latest news!:
Whatever else comes out of Monday’s debate between Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton, one thing should be clear:
When Trump tells the truth about a liberal fallacy, Hillary’s Democrats and their media allies will stoop to any lengths to lie about it and trash the Republican nominee.
Even if it means real people might die because of it.
Debate moderator Lester Holt of NBC News launched an attack disguised as a question on Monday when he asked Trump about his support for the “stop-and-frisk” policy, which was credited by many criminologists with helping bring the Big Apple’s violent crime rate to its lowest point in decades. Liberal commentators and Democrat talking heads have spewed an endless stream of verbal venom at Trump’s response — in which he maintained that the policy worked and, contrary to what Holt insisted, was not found to be unconstitutional.
Trump called the court case a rigged decision by an “anti-police” judge who’d made a ruling that was almost sure to be overturned on appeal. He was right on all counts, but the Democrats still went bananas.
One liberal at Slate called Trump’s argument an “unconstitutional” dog whistle for Trump supporters, whom he clearly demeaned and denigrated with the sort of blanket condemnation liberals decry.
With his rhetoric of law and order at the debate and at the town hall, Trump underlined the core conceit of his candidacy: that people of color—either citizens or otherwise—are the principal threat to the United States.
A writer at Salon called the Trump argument “unconstitutional, racist and ineffective.”
But even a cursory familiarity with the case shows that the crime-fighting tactic wasn’t ruled “unconstitutional” in any meaningful sense of the word. Shira Sheindlin, a federal judge in New York with a long history of anti-police rulings, rigged the case selection process so that she would be the judge to sit on an anti-stop-and frisk-lawsuit.
Not surprisingly, she ruled against the city, declaring, among other things, that the idea that blacks have a higher crime rate than other groups is a “stereotype.” That’s pure liberal logic, calling a statement of reality a “stereotype” simply because it disturbs liberal fantasies..
But the judge’s behavior in literally inviting herself into the lawsuit and her conduct in the proceedings — including inflammatory media interviews — actually got Judge Sheindlin removed from the case. Her ruling was ripe to be overturned, but New York Mayor Bill de Blasio had just won his election in a campaign against police “brutality” and dropped the Bloomberg administration’s plans to appeal.
All of that seems like ancient history now in the context of Monday’s debate, but it’s not. And it’s certainly not to be dismissed as quickly as liberals dismiss the truth.
For one thing, liberals only claim one judge’s ruling is the final word when they’re on the winning side. Otherwise they fight it all the way to the Supreme Court, where agenda-driven justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg are waiting to remake American society from the bench. With a liberal judiciary, what’s “constitutional” in America depends more on the judge than the Constitution.
More importantly, Trump accurately summed up the case, including the role of the judge in the travesty. He then had to deal with not only Holt’s bickering about the facts, but also Hillary Clinton’s dishonest — as usual — response.
The point is, what American voters really saw Monday night was a a rigged judicial decision that became part of a prejudiced presidential debate, with a rigged question directed against the Republican candidate. In the rigged aftermath, only Trump’s response is being questioned, not the process that led up to it.
As former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani pointed out in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal:
But according to candidate Hillary Clinton and moderator Lester Holt during Monday night’s presidential debate, stop and frisk is “unconstitutional.” In Mrs. Clinton’s case, it’s the usual misrepresenting she does when she does not know what she is talking about. As for Mr. Holt, if a moderator is going to interfere, he should do some homework and not pretend to know the law when he does not.
But the stop-and-frisk fight is only one battle in the liberal war against police – and on “law and order” in general. And that means all Americans are more vulnerable to crime, particularly the black Americans Democrats claim to care so much about.
As the New York Post put it in an editorial that noted violent crime rose 4 percent in American cities in 2015, and the homicide rate rose 11 percent:
The left is eager to deny the trend, noting that crime is still far below 1980s levels. Are we not supposed to complain until it’s gotten that bad again?
Then again, liberals can’t bear any criticism of the Black Lives Matter movement — no matter that its impact seems to mean the end of more black lives. Hillary Clinton even made the “Mothers of the Movement” a major presence at the Democratic convention.
That means real people are dying real deaths, and the Democrats and the media are using real deception for political gain.
Trump supporters have already realized what’s at stake, but conservatives who are still on the fence should be thinking very carefully about the edifice of lies Democrats have built over the Barack Obama years, culminating with the “hands up, don’t shoot” Black Lives Matter myth since the Ferguson riots.
Trump is telling the country the truth on some major — literally life-and-death — issues, and the Democrats and their media allies will stoop to any lengths to lie about it.
Just keep in mind, do not believe the mainstream media’s line and do not let them stop you. Make America Great Again!