TRUMP’S BIGOTRY CONTINUES…AGAINST THE PRESIDENT AND MUSLIMS

Trump continues find ways to blame everyone else for his poor judgment but himself. Anyone that is not white, a male, wealthy or his family member are labeled by Trump as a criminal, drug dealer, terrorist, rapist, ugly or subhuman.  It’s time for the Republican party to repudiate Trump’s negative actions and statements, if not, he will continue to racial divide our country.

 

Don Lemon: So what if Obama was a Muslim, does It matter?

 whatCNN’s Don Lemon took down a Trump supporter’s comments that President Barack Obama is a Muslim with four words: “What does it matter?”
“What if the president was a Muslim?” Lemon asked during a panel on his show Thursday night. “I mean, what does it matter? Aren’t Muslims Americans as well? Don’t we have the right to religion in this country?”
Good point, Don. 
Lemon was discussing comments that a New Hampshire man made to Donald Trump at a rally on Thursday.
“We have a problem in this country. It’s called Muslims. We know our current president is one,” the man said. Trump, who has repeatedly claimed that Obama is a Muslim, responded in agreement.
However, his campaign denies he was referring to Obama.
“Mr. Trump was referring to the need to protect Christians’ religious liberties as his previous statement says and nothing more,” a rep for Trump told NBC. 
Watch the full CNN segment above and see more of Trump’s remarks below. 

SOURCE

JUSTICE PREVAILS: Kim Davis DIDN’T HAVE TO issue same-sex marriage licenses herself

11951141_774149659361084_5134733034851855627_n

Kentucky clerk won’t let deputies issue same-sex wedding licenses, stays in jail
(CNN)Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk Kim Davis was given a second chance: She didn’t have to issue same-sex marriage licenses herself; she merely had to agree not to interfere with five deputy clerks who had told the federal judge they’d issue them in her stead.
But Davis’ lawyer told U.S. District Judge David Bunning that his client would not allow her deputies to issue the licenses. Davis was not in the courtroom for the second session. She was in a hallway outside.
“We cannot represent to the court that she would allow licenses to be issued,” attorney Mat Staver said.
Staver later told CNN’s “The Lead with Jake Tapper” that Davis would issue licenses if her name and title were not on them.
“Because that in her understanding and mind is authorizing something that is contrary to her Christian values and convictions,” he said. “That’s where the conscience rub is.”
Earlier Thursday, Bunning remanded Davis into the custody of U.S. marshals for refusing to heed a U.S. Supreme Court order legalizing same-sex marriage, saying she would remain in jail until she complies with the ruling.
Bunning then asked Davis’ six deputy clerks whether they would issue the licenses, and despite some of them holding the same religious beliefs as Davis, five told Bunning they would issue the licenses.
During Davis’ hearing, April Miller told the court that the clerk had denied her a marriage license three times, and when Davis took the stand to deliver her at-times emotional testimony, she explained that she could not issue the licenses because of her religious beliefs.
“You can’t be separated from something that’s in your heart and in your soul,” she told the judge, according to CNN affiliate WYMT-TV.
American Civil liberties Union attorneys argued in a motion filed Monday that Davis “continues to collect compensation from the Commonwealth for duties she fails to perform.”
They said they didn’t want her to be jailed as punishment, but rather, the attorneys asked the court to “impose financial penalties sufficiently serious and increasingly onerous” to make her comply with the court order.
Bunning, however, apparently felt she deserved jail time, but he also told Davis she could end her incarceration by complying with the Supreme Court order and telling her deputy clerks to do the same.
He said he didn’t believe fining Davis would convince her to comply with the high court ruling, especially considering that Davis had testified earlier that her supporters are raising funds for her and calling her office to offer financial support, WYMT reported.
‘Her conscience remains unshackled’
Bunning said he, too, was religious, but he explained that when he took his oath to become a judge, that oath trumped his personal beliefs, the station reported.
“Her good faith belief is simply not a viable defense,” Bunning said.
Davis thanked the judge for his ruling, according to WYMT. She was not placed in handcuffs, but a U.S. marshal led her out of the courtroom.
Celebrations and protests erupted outside the courthouse in Ashland, Kentucky, when those who attended the hearing exited the courtroom with news of the decision. Chants of “Love won! Love won!” filled the air.
Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, which represented Davis, said he was “stunned” by the judge’s ruling.
“Knowing Kim Davis and her strong Christian resolve and convictions, she may be jailed behind bars, but her conscience remains free,” he told CNN.
He said his client had became a different person 4 1/2 years ago after attending a church service that affected her beliefs.
“That is the reason why her conscience is so strong,” he said. “She loves her Lord, she loves God, and she can’t disobey her conscience or be disobedient.”
Davis, an Apostolic Christian who says she has a sincere religious objection to same-sex marriage, has refused to issue any marriage licenses since the Supreme Court decision in June legalizing same-sex marriage.
In court documents filed Wednesday, her attorneys argue that she shouldn’t be held in contempt. Instead, they argued, there are alternatives that would allow couples to get marriage licenses in Rowan County without going against Davis’ religious beliefs.
Among the options they offered were allowing other officials to issue marriage licenses in the county, distributing marriage licenses at the state level or changing marriage license forms to remove Davis’ name.
A seat inside the courtroom was a hot ticket. Before the session began, more than 100 people were turned away from Bunning’s courtroom, which holds 300 people. A federal law enforcement source told CNN that because of the controversy surrounding the case, Bunning was provided with a security escort on his way into work.
‘Respect the law; do your job!’
A large crowd, leaning mostly in support of Davis, gathered outside the courthouse before the hearing, many carrying signs. “Jesus Saves” read one, “Homo sex is sin,” read another, while one sign pointed passers-by to the Bible’s Acts 5:29, which quotes Peter and other apostles saying, “We must obey God rather than human beings!”
Lana Bailey of Worthington, about a 20-minute drive northwest of Ashland, brought signs as well, both of which seemed to address Davis: “My gay friends pay taxes which helps pay you… right??” and “Respect the law; do your job!”
“I’m here to support equal rights for all,” she said. “It’s just called respect. I don’t understand why we’re having this. Why are we spending money on this? … If you can’t do your job then you need to step down. You need to resign.”
Jason Porter, a pastor at Ashland’s Gospel Light Baptist Church, spoke for the other side and said he wasn’t at the courthouse “to bash people’s decisions and lifestyles,” but he worried that if people were allowed to continue doing whatever they want to do, “the floodgates will open to other areas of polygamy.”
He did not elaborate on how same-sex marriage was akin to polygamy, which is the act of having multiple spouses. Polygamy is illegal in every state.
Echoing those who cited Acts 5:29, he said he felt Davis had a right to refuse to issue the marriage license and, waving his Bible, he told CNN he bore no hatred toward gay couples and is merely standing “for the truths of my God’s word.”
“I just know the destruction that this brings. As a pastor, I see the background. I see the broken families. I see the AIDS. I see the folks dying of diseases and the brokenness of relationships,” he said.
Lawyers: Issuing licenses ‘violates her conscience’
Two other county clerks in Kentucky are also refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses, according to a statement on Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear’s website.
Bunning ordered Davis to resume the issuing of marriage licenses on August 12. Monday night, the Supreme Court denied an emergency application from Davis, who asked that Bunning’s order be put on hold pending appeal.
In a statement released Tuesday, Davis, a Democrat, said she has received death threats but intends to continue to serve as the county clerk — a position she was elected to fill in November.
In court papers, attorneys for Davis argued that she is unable to comply with the court orders because issuing same-sex marriage licenses “irreparably and irreversibly violates her conscience.”
Finding her in contempt of court, they argued in the motion filed Wednesday, also would “substantially burden Davis’ religious exercise.”
Related: Court clerk who won’t issue marriage licenses has been divorced three times
But some scoff at the clerk, suggesting she’s a hypocrite because she’s been divorced three times.
Davis said she’s a different person now since becoming a Christian four years ago.
“I am not perfect,” she said in a statement. “No one is. But I am forgiven.”
The ACLU attorneys, who represent two same-sex couples and two opposite-sex couples who want to get married in Rowan County, argued that Davis has no legal basis to avoid performing her duties as a government clerk.
And a federal prosecutor said it’s time for Davis and her county to comply.
“Government officials are free to disagree with the law, but not disobey it,” U.S. Attorney Kerry B. Harvey said in a statement. “The County Clerk has presented her position through the federal court system, all of the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. It is time for the Clerk and the County to follow the law.”
CNN’s Sonia Moghe, Alexandra Field, Ariane de Vogue and Jeremy Diamond contributed to this report.
SOURCE

NH BIGOTS SPEWING FALSEHOODS OF PRESIDENT OBAMA

New Hampshire bigots spewing falsehoods of President Obama during downhill meeting. Donald Trump came under fire Thursday night for his handling of a question at a town hall about when the U.S. can “get rid” of Muslims, declining to take issue with that premise and an assertion that President Barack Obama is Muslim.
“We have a problem in this country. It’s called Muslims,” an unidentified man who spoke at a question-and-answer town hall event in Rochester, New Hampshire asked the mogul. “You know our current president is one. You know he’s not even an American.”
A seemingly bewildered Trump interrupted the man, chuckling, “We need this question. This is the first question.” 
“Anyway, we have training camps growing where they want to kill us,” the man, wearing a “Trump” T-shirt, continued. “That’s my question: When can we get rid of them?”
“We’re going to be looking at a lot of different things,” Trump replied. “You know, a lot of people are saying that and a lot of people are saying that bad things are happening. We’re going to be looking at that and many other things.”
The real estate mogul did not correct the questioner about his claims about Obama before moving on to another audience member.
His comments were quickly denounced by Democrats. Hillary Clinton, the party’s front-runner for president, personally tweeted late Thursday that Trump’s remarks were “just plain wrong.”
“Donald Trump not denouncing false statements about POTUS & hateful rhetoric about Muslims is disturbing, & just plain wrong. Cut it out. -H”
Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz flatly called Trump a racist in a statement.
“GOP front-runner Donald Trump’s racism knows no bounds. This is certainly horrendous, but unfortunately unsurprising given what we have seen already. The vile rhetoric coming from the GOP candidates is appalling,” Schultz said. “(Republicans) should be ashamed, and all Republican presidential candidates must denounce Trump’s comments immediately or will be tacitly agreeing with him.”
After the event, several reporters asked Trump why he didn’t challenge the questioner’s assertions. Trump did not answer.
But Corey Lewandowski, Trump’s campaign manager, later told CNN that the candidate did not hear the question about Obama being a Muslim.
“All he heard was a question about training camps, which he said we have to look into,” Lewandowski said. “The media want to make this an issue about Obama, but it’s about him waging a war on Christianity.”
Falsehoods persist about Obama’s background
Obama, who has spoken openly about his Christian faith, was born to an American mother and Kenyan father in Hawaii. But Trump has been one of the leading skeptics of Obama’s birthplace, saying he did not know where Obama was born as recently as July.
A recent CNN/ORC poll found 29% of Americans believe Obama is a Muslim, including 43% of Republicans.
Trump is not the first Republican candidate to raise eyebrows over comments involving Obama and his ethnic and religious background. In February, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker became embroiled in a brief controversy when he told The Washington Post that he didn’t know if Obama was a Christian.
“I’ve never asked him that,” Walker said. A spokeswoman later clarified that he did believe Obama was Christian, but disagreed with the media’s obsession with “gotcha” questions.
And in 2008, Republican presidential nominee John McCain was booed after he famously told an audience member at a campaign event that Obama was a “good family man.”
“He’s a decent family man … (a) citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues,” McCain said then. “That’s what this campaign is all about.”

SOURCE

Jimmy Fallon’s interview with Hillary Clinton as Donald Trump is better than the whole GOP debate


wowAdmit it! This was better than the gop debate! 
Jimmy Fallon may make a better Donald Trump than Donald Trump. In a skit from last night’s The Tonight Show, Fallon emulated The Donald in order to give Hillary Clinton some not-so-sound campaign advice. Watch the full clip in all its hilarious glory below:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HILLARY UNIMPRESSED: GOP debaters ‘really don’t have much else to say’

hillaryHillary Clinton said Thursday that the Republican presidential debate was devoid of substance.
Speaking in an exclusive interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on “The Situation Room,” Clinton chalked up the debate to “the usual back-and-forth — political attacks, the kinds of things you say when you’re on a debate stage and you really don’t have much else to say.”
She blasted the GOP candidates in the 2016 presidential race for failing to address student debt, equal pay for women and income inequality.
“I don’t really pay a lot of attention to this kind of rhetoric that heats up the debate stage. They’re all trying to vie for more attention from, obviously, the Republican Party,” Clinton said.
Clinton was a prime target at the debate hosted by CNN at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. GOP 2016 hopefuls, including Carly Fiorina, Chris Christie and front-runner Donald Trump, attacked her record as secretary of state as well as her trustworthiness.
On Thursday, Clinton’s team seized on the candidates’ comments, particularly their virulent opposition to Planned Parenthood, the controversial women’s health organization that provides cancer screenings, health services and abortions.
In a written statement to reporters, Clinton said the Republican debate continued the party’s “race to the bottom on women’s health and women’s rights” because “every single candidate on stage has pledged to defund Planned Parenthood if they become president.”
She added, “Repeating false statements doesn’t make them true, no matter how many times you do it.”
But Clinton took it a step further Thursday, calling on House Speaker John Boehner to not shut down the government over Planned Parenthood.
Some Republicans in Congress have pushed for Congress to tie defunding Planned Parenthood to funding the government, thou some House GOP leaders are actively exploring a plan that would target the organization through a stand-alone measure, not tying it to the budget.
“Speaker Boehner and his colleagues have a job to do, and they should do it,” Clinton said. “Here’s my message to them: don’t attack women’s health care. And don’t shut down the government.”
Thursday’s live interview comes as the Clinton campaign has said it is going to try to showcase the former secretary of state’s more spontaneous and charming side, as her early lead in most polls has slid. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has even taken the lead in some surveys in the key primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire.
Wednesday night, Clinton appeared on “The Tonight Show,” where she let Jimmy Fallon tug on her hair to prove it was real and participated in a sketch where she was interviewed by “Donald Trump” — as played by Fallon.
And last week, Clinton sat down for a series of interviews in which she apologized for the decision to use a private email server while at the State Department — an effort by her campaign to try to put the lingering, damaging issue behind it.
The former secretary of state is traveling in New Hampshire on Thursday, where she received the endorsement of the state’s governor, Maggie Hassan.

SOURCE

Is Bilingualism Really an Advantage?: “This Is A Country Where We Speak English, Not Spanish,” Donald Trump


This Is A Country Where We Speak English, Not Spanish.

– Donald Trump to Jeb Bush during the GOP debate


 

spanishlanguageIn 1922, in “Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus,” the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote, “The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.” The words that we have at our disposal affect what we see—and the more words there are, the better our perception. When we learn to speak a different language, we learn to see a bigger world.
Many modern language researchers agree with that premise. Not only does speaking multiple languages help us to communicate but bilingualism (or multilingualism) may actually confer distinct advantages to the developing brain. Because a bilingual child switches between languages, the theory goes, she develops enhanced executive control, or the ability to effectively manage what are called higher cognitive processes, such as problem-solving, memory, and thought. She becomes better able to inhibit some responses, promote others, and generally emerges with a more flexible and agile mind. It’s a phenomenon that researchers call the bilingual advantage.
For the first half of the twentieth century, researchers actually thought that bilingualism put a child at a disadvantage, something that hurt her I.Q. and verbal development. But, in recent years, the notion of a bilingual advantage has emerged from research to the contrary, research that has seemed both far-reaching and compelling, much of it coming from the careful work of the psychologist Ellen Bialystok. For many tasks, including ones that involve working memory, bilingual speakers seem to have an edge. In a 2012 review of the evidence, Bialystok showed that bilinguals did indeed show enhanced executive control, a quality that has been linked, among other things, to better academic performance. And when it comes to qualities like sustained attention and switching between tasks effectively, bilinguals often come out ahead. It seems fairly evident then that, given a choice, you should raise your child to speak more than one language. Indeed, papers touting “Creativity and Bilingualism,” “Cognitive Advantages of Bilingual Five-Year-Olds,” “A Bilingual Advantage in Task-Switching,” “Bilingualism Reduces Native-Language Interference During Novel-Word Learning,” and “Good Language-Switchers Are Good Task-Switchers”—and the resulting books with provocative titles such as “The Bilingual Edge” and “Bilingual Is Better”—suggest that raising a bilingual child is, in large part, a recipe for raising a successful child.
From the age of eleven, Angela de Bruin spoke two languages. Born in the nineteen-eighties in Nijmegen, a small town in the Netherlands, de Bruin spoke Dutch at home, and, in school, immersed herself in English. She became fascinated by bilinguals, and read avidly about the cognitive advantages that being fluent in more than one language was supposed to provide. In college, she took up linguistics and neuroscience. And, in 2012, de Bruin enrolled in the psychology graduate program at the University of Edinburgh to further pursue the link between bilingualism and cognition.
She came to the program fully expecting to study the extent to which her bilingual brain was adapted to succeed. “I had the impression that there’s a really strong effect of bilingualism on executive function,” de Bruin told me recently. Then, she carried out her first study. Normally, to test for an edge in executive function, you give a version of a task where people have to ignore certain stimuli while selectively focussing on others. For instance, in the commonly used Simon task, you are shown pictures (often arrows) on either the left or right side of a screen. If you see a right-pointing arrow, you press the right key. It doesn’t matter on which side of the screen the arrow appears; the only thing that matters is the direction in which it points. Typically, people have faster reaction times on congruent trials—when the right-pointing arrow actually appears on the right, and vice-versa. Bilinguals are supposed to have an advantage in the incongruent trials: when the left arrow appears on the right, and the right arrow appears on the left.
When de Bruin looked at the data, though, in three of the four tasks testing inhibitory control, including the Simon task, the advantage wasn’t there. Monolinguals and bilinguals had performed identically. “We thought, Maybe the existing literature is not a full, reliable picture of this field,” she said. So, she decided to test it further.
Systematically, de Bruin combed through conference abstracts from a hundred and sixty-nine conferences, between 1999 and 2012, that had to do with bilingualism and executive control. The rationale was straightforward: conferences are places where people present in-progress research. They report on studies that they are running, initial results, initial thoughts. If there were a systematic bias in the field against reporting negative results—that is, results that show no effects of bilingualism—then there should be many more findings of that sort presented at conferences than actually become published.
That’s precisely what de Bruin found. At conferences, about half the presented results provided either complete or partial support for the bilingual advantage on certain tasks, while half provided partial or complete refutation. When it came to the publications that appeared after the preliminary presentation, though, the split was decidedly different. Sixty-eight per cent of the studies that demonstrated a bilingual advantage found a home in a scientific journal, compared to just twenty-nine per cent of those that found either no difference or a monolingual edge. “Our overview,” de Bruin concluded, “shows that there is a distorted image of the actual study outcomes on bilingualism, with researchers (and media) believing that the positive effect of bilingualism on nonlinguistic cognitive processes is strong and unchallenged.”
De Bruin isn’t refuting the notion that there are advantages to being bilingual: some studies that she reviewed really did show an edge. But the advantage is neither global nor pervasive, as often reported. After her meta-analysis was complete, de Bruin and her adviser ran an additional series of studies, which they have just submitted for publication, hoping to find where the limits of bilingual advantage lie, and what the real advantage may actually look like. To test for a possible boost, they examined three different groups (English monolinguals, active English-Gaelic bilinguals who spoke Gaelic at home, and passive English-Gaelic bilinguals who no longer used Gaelic regularly). They had each group take part in four tasks—the Simon task, a task of everyday attention (you hear different tones and must count the number of low ones while filtering out the high ones), the Tower of London (you solve a problem by moving discs around on a series of sticks to match a picture of what the final tower looks like), and a simple task-switching paradigm (you see circles and squares that are either red or blue, and must pay attention to either one color or one shape, depending on the part of the trial).
In the first three tasks, they found no difference between the groups. On the last, they thought they’d finally detected an advantage: on the switch trials—the trials immediately after a change from shape to color or color to shape—the bilinguals, both active and passive, seemed to be quicker. But when the researchers dug deeper, they found that it wasn’t so much a case of switching faster as it was being slower at the non-switch trials, where shape followed shape and color followed color.
So does that mean that there’s no such thing as a bilingual advantage? No. It’s just one study. But it adds further evidence to the argument that the bilingual advantage is sometimes overstated. “I’m definitely not saying there’s no bilingual advantage,” de Bruin says. But the advantage may be different from the way many researchers have described it: as a phenomenon that helps children to develop their ability to switch between tasks and, more broadly, enhances their executive-control functions. The true edge, de Bruin believes, may come far later, and in a form that has little to do with task-switching and executive control; it may, she says, be the result of simple learning.
One of the areas where the bilingual advantage appears to be most persistent isn’t related to a particular skill or task: it’s a general benefit that seems to help the aging brain. Adults who speak multiple languages seem to resist the effects of dementia far better than monolinguals do. When Bialystok examined the records for a group of older adults who had been referred to a clinic in Toronto with memory or other cognitive complaints, she found that, of those who eventually developed dementia, the lifelong bilinguals showed symptoms more than four years later than the monolinguals. In a follow-up study, this time with a different set of patients who had developed Alzheimer’s, she and her colleagues found that, regardless of cognitive level, prior occupation, or education, bilinguals had been diagnosed 4.3 years later than monolinguals had. Bilingualism, in other words, seems to have a protective effect on cognitive decline. That would be consistent with a story of learning: we know that keeping cognitively nimble into old age is one of the best ways to protect yourself against dementia. (Hence the rise of the crossword puzzle.) When the brain keeps learning, as it seems to do for people who retain more than one language, it has more capacity to keep functioning at a higher level.
That, in and of itself, is reason enough to learn a second, third, fourth, or fifth language—and to keep learning them as long as you’re able. The bilingual advantage may not appear in the exact guise researchers think of it today. But, on a fundamental level, bilingualism’s real benefits could be far more important.

SOURCE

VIDEO: Joe Biden: Donald Trump’s ‘sick’ message is xenophobic

Joe Biden Slams Donald Trump For Selling ‘Sick Message’ On Immigration
“There’s one guy absolutely denigrating an entire group of people, appealing to the baser side of human nature, working on this notion of xenophobia in a way that hasn’t occurred in a long time.”
WASHINGTON, Sept 15 (Reuters) – U.S. Vice President Joe Biden on Tuesday said Republican presidential contender Donald Trump was selling a “sick message” about immigrants in America based on xenophobia.
Biden, considering a run for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, told a small group of Latinos gathered at his home that they should not lose heart watching Trump climb in the polls while taking a hard line on immigration.
Trump, leading the pack of Republicans seeking their party’s 2016 nomination, has accused Mexico of sending criminals and rapists to the United States. He has promised to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border to keep out illegal immigrants and deport the 11 million illegal immigrants already in the United States.
bidenBiden told his guests that he had seen Trump talking on television just before speaking to the poolside cocktail party, and decided to cast aside remarks his staff had prepared recognizing Hispanic Heritage Month.
“There’s one guy absolutely denigrating an entire group of people, appealing to the baser side of human nature, working on this notion of xenophobia in a way that hasn’t occurred in a long time,” Biden told the group of about 75 people.
“This isn’t about Democrat – Republican. It’s about a sick message. This message has been tried on America many times before. We always, always, always, always overcome,” he said.
Biden, who is Catholic, urged the group not to feel “down” about Trump’s popularity, noting that Pope Francis was about to visit the United States and likely would have a very different message about welcoming immigrants.”The American people are with us. I know it doesn’t feel that way. But I’m telling you, the American people agree with us,” Biden said.Biden, whose son Beau died recently, has said he is not sure he has the emotional capacity to make what would be his third run for president.His poll numbers have climbed as he explores the possibility and as the Democratic frontrunner, Hillary Clinton, grapples with a controversy over her use of a private email server while secretary of state.At the end of his remarks, a few people in the crowd shouted, “Run Joe, run!”Biden, making the sign of the cross as he hurried away from the podium, said “Oh no, no, no, no, no” as if to stave off the topic.SOURCE