Is this the video ad that will finish her?

ad

 

Is this AD devastating enough to finish her campaign for President?  See for yourself…

 

 It does not take a prophet to predict that Hillary will do irreparable harm.  That likely hood is well supported by a shipload of scandals, criminal acts and an endless trail of lies.    No sane person believes that she will automatically reverse course and be a decent competent president.

Hillary will destroy America with stunning finality.   For anyone pining to see the demise of America…Hillary is the ideal next step.  She is Obama 3.0…and something worse.

 

How she is worse is seen in a simple comparison.  Obama is a malice-driven ideologue.  His passion is to dismantle the United States.  His hate for America, Christianity and Israel informs every policy.

if she wins

Hillary is not an ideologue.  There are no code, any manifesto or core beliefs with this one.   She lusts for power.  She will say and do anything in order to hold on to power.  Even her marital martyrdom to a serial adulterer is all for show to keep her in the game.

If she is elected president there are 4 things that will happen.  There is no maybe in this—these 4 things are guaranteed to take place.

 Economic collapse: She will continue secular progressive bloodletting.  She will increase addiction to government handouts.   We are nearing $20 trillion in debt.  Under her influence we will reach economic critical mass:  a debt we can never pay off.  America’s standard of living will never recover.

images

Moral nuclear winter:   Islam and immorality will enjoy widespread appeal as despair overtakes the nation.    The rights of Churches, Christian hospitals and colleges will be wiped out.  Free speech will evaporate.  Believers will be unable to move up in corporations or will be fired for their faith.    She will also abandon Israel with the same heartless ease that she abandoned the Americans in Benghazi.

Violence and death will overtake our children:   Discard morals—throw God out—honor debauchery and you will turn entire urban areas into killing fields.  The disregard that Obama engendered toward police will become outright rejection of law and order under Hillary.  Crimes will not be reported.  Guns will be confiscated leaving the average citizen utterly helpless.

She will also import criminals and terrorists.  Obama opened the borders—she will open the floodgates.  The cops will be hog-tied and violent offenders will avoid prosecution.

We will lose our Constitution:  Hillary has already boasted that she will exceed Barack Obama’s use of executive orders.  She will add justices to the Supreme Court that favor her mission to sidestep the constitution of the United States when it interferes with her ambitions.    She has repeatedly said that she wants to rewrite parts of the Constitution.

If she wins—historians will not ask “how did Barack Obama get elected” or even “how on earth did they reelect him?”  They will ask: “Why did they guarantee the death of the nation by electing Hillary Clinton?”

NFL Ratings Continue to Plunge in Third Week of National Anthem Protests

sacked-copy

For the third consecutive week, ratings for the National Football League (NFL) have plummeted, as players continue anti-American protests during the playing of the national anthem.

 

NFL Ratings Continue to Plunge in Third Week of National Anthem Protests

By WARNER TODD HUSTON

 
For the third consecutive week, ratings for the National Football League (NFL) have plummeted, as players continue anti-American protests during the playing of the national anthem. This week’s drop-off also coincided with the Monday broadcast of the first presidential debate between Republican nominee Donald Trump and Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton.

Ratings for Sunday Night Football featuring the Chicago Bears and Dallas Cowboys scored a 12.9 Nielsen rating, down from the game’s 13.7 rating last week. Week two, in turn, was down from week one’s 13.9 rating, according to Sports Business Daily. Ratings also dropped more than they did during week three a year ago for the slate of midday regional games, falling by 18 percent.

NFL viewership continues its rocky start to ’16; “MNF” hit hard by the presidential debate.

Monday Night Football performed even worse. Monday’s game between the Atlanta Falcons and the New Orleans Saints received a low 5.7 rating, a 38 percent plunge from week three of last year.

Notably, the game was competing against the first presidential debate between Trump and Clinton, an event that earned the biggest debate audience in U.S. political history.According to CNN Money, the September 26 debate brought in more than 80 million viewers.

But the NFL has also been suffering under the anti-American protests during the playing of the national anthem, which San Francisco 49ers second string quarterback Colin Kaepernick started three weeks ago.

 Since Kaepernick decided to sit out the anthem instead of standing at attention as everyone else was doing, a host of other players across the NFL have joined him in his attack on the United States.

Some have decided to emulate Kaepernick’s action of staying seated during the anthem. Others took up his secondary protest of kneeling in the field during the song. Still others have taken to raising the militant black power fist in the air during the anthem.

Not content with his on-field protests, Kaepernick has continued his anti-American rants off the field. Recently, as a rejoinder to GOP nominee Donald Trump, he said the United States was never great.

“He always says, ‘Make America great again,’” Kaepernick said of Trump. “Well, America has never been great for people of color and that’s something that needs to be addressed. Let’s make America great for the first time.”

Since his first attempt to criticize the country, Kaepernick’s anti-American protest has spread to other sports, including high school and college athletics.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Twitter @warnerthuston or email the author at igcolonel@hotmail.com.

How soon we forget

how-soon-copy

How soon we forget

by John Komula

When Bill Clinton was president, he allowed Hillary to assume authority over a health care reform.  Even after threats and intimidation, she couldn’t even get a vote in a democratic controlled congress.  This fiasco cost the American taxpayers about $13 million in cost for studies, promotion, and other efforts.

Then President Clinton gave Hillary authority over selecting a female attorney general.  Her first two selections were Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood – both were forced to withdraw their names from consideration.

Next she chose Janet Reno – husband Bill described her selection as “my worst mistake.”  Some may not remember that Reno made the decision to gas David Koresh and the Branch Davidian religious sect in Waco, Texas resulting in dozens of deaths of women and children.

Husband Bill allowed Hillary to make recommendations for the head of the Civil Rights Commission.  Lani Guanier was her selection.  When a little probing led to the discovery of Ms. Guanier’s radical views, her name had to be withdrawn from consideration. Hillary-Allah

Apparently a slow learner, husband Bill allowed Hillary to make some more recommendations.  She chose former law partners Web Hubbel for the Justice Department, Vince Foster for the White House staff, and William Kennedy for the Treasury Department.  Her selections went well: Hubbel went to prison, Foster (presumably) committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign.

Many younger voters will have no knowledge of “Travelgate.”  Hillary wanted to award unfettered travel contracts to Clinton  friend Harry Thompson – and the White House Travel Office refused to comply.  She managed to have them reported to the FBI and fired.  This ruined their reputations, cost them their jobs, and caused a thirty-six month investigation. Only one employee, Billy Dale was charged with a crime, and that of the enormous crime of mixing personal and White House funds. A jury acquitted him of any crime in less than two hours.

Still not convinced of her ineptness, Hillary was allowed to recommend a close Clinton friend, Craig Livingstone, for the position of Director of White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of about 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, suddenly Hillary and the president denied even knowing Livingstone, and of course, denied knowledge of drug use in the White House.  Following this debacle, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office after more than thirty years of service to seven presidents.

ready

Next, when women started coming forward with allegations of sexual harassment and rape by Bill Clinton, Hillary was put in charge of the “bimbo eruption” and scandal defense.  Some of her more notable decisions in the debacle was:  She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit.  After the Starr investigation they settled with Ms. Jones.

She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor. After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr’s investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs.

hillary (3)

 Hillary’s devious game plan resulted in Bill losing his license to practice law for ‘lying under oath’ to a grand jury and then his subsequent impeachment by the House of Representatives.

Hillary avoided indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice during the Starr investigation by repeating, “I do not recall,” “I have no recollection,” and “I don’t know” a total of 56 times while under oath.

keys

After leaving the White House, Hillary was forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White House furniture, China, and artwork she had stolen.

What a swell party – ready for another four or eight year of this type low-life mess?

Now we are exposed to the destruction of possibly incriminating emails while Hillary was Secretary of State and the “pay to play” schemes of the Clinton Foundation – we have no idea what shoe will fall next.  But to her loyal fans – “what difference does it make?”

Electing Hillary Clinton president would be like granting Satan absolution and giving him the keys to heaven!

Post navigation

Andy Stanley attacks the Bible

andy

 

Evangelical Christianity has a big problem, says Andy Stanley, and that problem is a reliance on the Bible that is both unwarranted and unhelpful. In a recent message delivered at North Point Community Church and posted online, Stanley identifies the evangelical impulse to turn to the Bible in our defense and presentation of Christianity as a huge blunder that must be corrected.

For the Bible Tells Me So: Biblical Authority Denied … Again

By Albert Mohler

“Jesus loves me — this I know, for the Bible tells me so.” This is a childish error?

Evangelical Christianity has a big problem, says Andy Stanley, and that problem is a reliance on the Bible that is both unwarranted and unhelpful. In a recent message delivered at North Point Community Church and posted online, Stanley identifies the evangelical impulse to turn to the Bible in our defense and presentation of Christianity as a huge blunder that must be corrected.

Some years ago, in light of another message Stanley preached at North Point, I argued that his apologetic ambition was, as we saw with Protestant liberalism a century ago, a road that will lead to disaster. No doubt, many Christians might be surprised to see an apologetic ambition identified as an entry point for theological liberalism, but this has held constant since Friedrich Schleiermacher, the father of modern theological liberalism, issued his book, On Religion: Speeches to its Cultured Despisers in 1799.

In the wake of the Enlightenment, Schleiermacher understood that the intellectual elites in Germany were already turning a skeptical eye to Christianity, if not dismissing it altogether. The Enlightenment worldview was hostile to supernatural claims, suspicious of any claims to absolute truth beyond empirical science, and dismissive of any verbal form of divine revelation.

No problem, Schleiermacher responded — we can still salvage spiritual and moral value out of Christianity while jettisoning its troublesome doctrinal claims, supernatural structure, and dependence upon the Bible. He was certain that his strategy would “save” Christianity from irrelevance.

His ambition, in other words, was apologetic at its core — to defend Christianity against claims of its eclipse. The formula offered by theological liberals is the same now. Save what you can of Christianity by surrendering truth claims. Acknowledge the inevitable hostility that these doctrines face in the modern age and adjust the faith accordingly. No theological liberal declares himself the enemy of Christianity. To the contrary, he offers liberalism as the only means of avoiding Christianity’s demise in a secular age.

Of course, the “Christianity” that remains after this doctrinal surgery bears little resemblance to biblical Christianity and, as Scripture makes abundantly clear, it cannot save.

Let’s be clear — Andy Stanley does not mean to deny the central truth claims of Christianity. In his message, “Who Needs God? The Bible Told Me So,” he affirms the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. But he does so while undercutting our only means of knowing of Christ and his resurrection from the dead — the Bible.

And he does so directly and without risk of misunderstanding. In his message he stated: “So I need you to listen really carefully and the reason is this — perhaps you were taught, as I was taught, ‘Jesus love me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so.’ That is where our trouble began.”

That is where our trouble began? What trouble?

Stanley’s apologetic concern is clear from the beginning of this message. He identifies the crisis of “de-conversion” as adults leave the church because they have outgrown their child-like faith and no longer believe. He traces their de-conversion to the fact that their adult, “fact-based” questions were met with only childish, “faith-based” answers.

He goes on to say that the “the Bible told me so” is “one of the threads we hear in de-conversion stories all the time, and I have a feeling for many, many, many of you who are losing faith or have lost faith, especially in the Christian faith, this is a bit of the part of your story.”

Later, he follows by dismissing a “the Bible says it, that settles it” approach to Christianity. “The problem with that is this: if the Bible goes, so goes our faith.”

At this point, Stanley goes on to amplify his concern with a Bible-based Christianity. “If the Bible is the foundation of your faith, here’s the problem: it is all or nothing. Christianity becomes a fragile, house of cards religion.”

And, as he states boldly, “it is next to impossible to defend the entire Bible.”

In short order, Stanley argues that claiming infallibility for the entire Bible is a losing project. Furthermore, he argues that Christianity “made its greatest strides during the 282 years before the Bible even existed.”

There is more in that statement than can be unpacked in his message or in this essay, but the central problem with his argument is that he seems to believe that the church did not have the Bible until the early fourth century. This claim can only refer to the official listing of the canon of the New Testament, but it is clear that the early church recognized the Old Testament as Scripture and that the early church quickly had both the gospels and, even earlier, the letters of the Apostle Paul (see 1 Tim 5:18; 2 Pet 3:15-16).

Indeed, the early church provides abundant evidence of the “for the Bible tells me so” dependence upon Scripture, even if the earliest Christians did not yet have the collected New Testament. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul grounds both the crucifixion and the resurrection of Christ as “according to the Scriptures.”

Perhaps the oddest part of Andy Stanley’s approach to defending the resurrection is his insistence that we have some access to historically verifiable accounts of the resurrection outside of the New Testament. He rests his confidence in recent historiographical work by apologists who defend the historicity of the resurrection by affirming historical sources that are prior to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

But where do these historians claim to find those sources? In the four gospels.

Stanley seems to base the defense of the resurrection in historical traditions he claims are prior to the gospels, but the Holy Spirit gave the church the four gospels, and the entire New Testament, as verbally inspired, authoritative, and infallible revelation. All of Scripture — the Old Testament and the New Testament — was given to the church so that we would know the rule of faith and everything revealed therein. This is the evangelical Scripture principle, and it is precisely what the Reformers defended as sola Scriptura.

And what is our alternative? Are we to believe that those who are “de-converting” from Christianity can be weaned off of the Bible and on to some other sufficient authority?

In the strangest turn, noted in Stanley’s presentations before this message, he argues that if we can somehow believe in the fact of Christ’s resurrection on the authority of prior historical sources, and then we find that Jesus (presumably as revealed in the four gospels) respects the inspiration of the Old Testament, we should conclude that if one who rose from the dead affirmed the inspiration of the Old Testament, then we should as well.

But Jesus actually pointed to the Old Testament and demonstrated the very approach to the truthfulness and authority of the Bible that Stanley identifies as the problem. When Jesus pointed to the Old Testament and said “these are they that testify of me” (John 5:39), he was effectively saying, “for the Bible tells me so.”

Add to this the problem that Stanley effectively refutes his own argument, undercutting the authority and inerrancy of the very Scripture that he would have us to understand that Jesus would want us to trust.

This is an apologetic disaster and would leave Christians with no authoritative Scripture. Instead, we would be dependent upon historians (among others) to tell us what parts of both testaments we can still believe.

Those parts will inevitably grow fewer and fewer. This is what must happen when the total trustworthiness, sufficiency, and authority of the Bible is subverted.

We are back with Friedrich Schleiermacher, trying to convince the “de-converted” of his day that Christianity can be retained as an intellectually defensible morality and spirituality without its central truth claims and doctrines.

Andy Stanley is no Friedrich Schleiermacher, but the path he charts for the church is a road to abject disaster.

In the end, we simply have no place to go other than the Bible as God’s authoritative revelation. Christ, not the Bible, is the foundation of our faith — but our only authoritative and infallible source of knowledge about Christ is the Bible.

A true defense of the Christian faith has never been more needed than now, but an attempt to rescue Christianity from its dependence upon Scripture is doomed to disaster.

We are left in the same predicament as Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms. If Scripture cannot be trusted, then we are doomed.

“Jesus loves me — this I know, for the Bible tells me so.” A mature Christian faith will say more than that, not less than that. “For the Bible tells me so” does not mean that we do not have reasoned answers to difficult questions, but it does mean that we admit our dependence upon Scripture — and that we confess that God intended for us to be dependent on Scripture.

“For the Bible tells me so” is not “where our trouble began.” To the contrary, it is right where God wants us.

You better be praying because tonight’s debate is totally rigged

rigged

Mario wrote this before the debate. Everything he said happened the way he said it would.   If you haven’t read it read it now.  If you have read it—read it again…the most widely shared blog in our history.

You better be praying because tonight’s debate is totally rigged

There will be no fairness tonight.  There will be no balance.  You are about to witness a kangaroo court.  Hillary will get zero tough questions.  Trump will get only loaded questions.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that a plurality (46%) of Likely U.S. Voters believes most moderators will try to help Clinton in the upcoming debates. Only six percent (6%) think they will try to help Trump instead. Just 32% say most of the moderators will try to be unbiased, while 15% are undecided.

The entire night will be an infomercial for Hillary.  She will be declared the most experienced person ever to run for president. Trump will be portrayed a virtual Adolf Hitler.

Nothing will be said about Benghazi, Emails, Whitewater, The Clinton Foundation, and the 20 other scandals she has created.  You will only hear remarks about Trump that “prove” he is hateful to women, racist and lacks the temperament to be president.

The goal of tonight’s debate is to rescue Hillary and to repudiate Trump.

Here—by the numbers—is why I am right about tonight:

1. Lester Holt will go Candy Crowley.  Remember the 2012 debate? Candy Crowley repeatedly interrupted Mitt Romney and gave Obama much more time to speak.  When Romney raised a killer point about Obama, Crowley literally shut him down and went to a commercial.

Lester Holt has already signaled that he will do what Candy Crowley did.   CNN’s Brian Stelter says Lester Holt is signaling to his NBC colleagues that he may enter the fray in Monday night’s presidential debate as a participant rather than a moderator — thanks to intense left-wing backlash over Matt Lauer’s performance at the “Commander in Chief Forum” weeks ago.

lester-holt-candy-crowley-640x4802.  The left will destroy moderators who are fair to Trump.  Matt Lauer was eviscerated by the left for being fair to Trump in the Commander in Chief forum. All of the moderators are under intense pressure to see Hillary win the debate.  They know they it could be a career ender to let Trump win.

3. Obama. He ordered the FBI not to recommend an indictment against Hillary. He ordered the Justice Department to stone wall congress and refuse to release evidence that would incriminate her.  Obama has protected her every step of the way.  He has—without a doubt—exerted extreme pressure on the moderators to let her win.

4. Google, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, You Tube, Twitter, USA Today, The New York Times, NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN and PBS are all firmly in Hillary’s camp. They will take tonight’s debate and spin it into a fair fight that Hillary won fair and square. Any reporting to the contrary will censored.

5. Total desperation: All of the people and media outlets I have named are now totally desperate.  They realize that Hillary is a terrible candidate.  They will gladly risk the appearance of bias if it is only the only way to save her.  It is now a no-holds-barred smack down of Trump by a band of bloodthirsty leftists who will stop at nothing to get her elected.

For his part Trump only has to do three things to win tonight and to become president.

  1. He has to remind America that her treatment of women is a basket of deplorables.  She—rather than blame her husband—has worked to ruin women that her husband raped.  I do not know any way to treat women worse.
2. He has to show that she will not keep America safe.  She has promised to make the Supreme Court a leftist activist arm of government. She will increase the number of Muslim immigrants from Syria by 500%.  She has promised to continue the failure of Obama in dealing with ISIS. She has sided with rioters against the police.  She will not hear America’s cry for help any more than she heard the cries of the 4 Americans who died in Benghazi.
3. He must expose the lie of her experience. The very experience she touts as qualifying her for the White House is—in fact—the very reason to reject her. She has been in government for 30 years and cannot point to one accomplishment.  Her record is a blank slate.  Now she says she is going to do all of these things if she is elected.  Why would anyone believe that?
In my opinion these are killer points that will destroy her candidacy.   If Donald Trump calmly makes these points, it is over for her.  It’s just too bad that he will not be allowed to make them…unless of course, there’s a miracle.  Pray.

Walmart refused to make Blue Lives Matter cake calling it racist

proxy-copy
WGCL – Atlanta, GA

Ted Cruz: Why I am voting for Trump. Why You should too.

DES MOINES, IA - SEPTEMBER 19:  Republican presidential hopeful Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) speaks at the Iowa Faith & Freedom Coalition 15th Annual Family Banquet and Presidential Forum held at the Iowa State fairgrounds on September 19, 2015 in Des Moines, Iowa.  Eight of the Republican candidates including Donald Trump are expected to attend the event. (Photo by Steve Pope/Getty Images)

Ted Cruz: Why I am voting for Trump.  Why You should too.

 

This election is unlike any other in our nation’s history. Like many other voters, I have struggled to determine the right course of action in this general election.

In Cleveland, I urged voters, “please, don’t stay home in November. Stand, and speak, and vote your conscience, vote for candidates up and down the ticket whom you trust to defend our freedom and to be faithful to the Constitution.”

After many months of careful consideration, of prayer and searching my own conscience, I have decided that on Election Day, I will vote for the Republican nominee, Donald Trump.

I’ve made this decision for two reasons. First, last year, I promised to support the Republican nominee. And I intend to keep my word.

Second, even though I have had areas of significant disagreement with our nominee, by any measure Hillary Clinton is wholly unacceptable — that’s why I have always been #NeverHillary.

Six key policy differences inform my decision. First, and most important, the Supreme Court. For anyone concerned about the Bill of Rights — free speech, religious liberty, the Second Amendment — the Court hangs in the balance. I have spent my professional career fighting before the Court to defend the Constitution. We are only one justice away from losing our most basic rights, and the next president will appoint as many as four new justices. We know, without a doubt, that every Clinton appointee would be a left-wing ideologue. Trump, in contrast, has promised to appoint justices “in the mold of Scalia.”

For some time, I have been seeking greater specificity on this issue, and today the Trump campaign provided that, releasing a very strong list of potential Supreme Court nominees — including Sen. Mike Lee, who would make an extraordinary justice — and making an explicit commitment to nominate only from that list. This commitment matters, and it provides a serious reason for voters to choose to support Trump.

Second, Obamacare. The failed healthcare law is hurting millions of Americans. If Republicans hold Congress, leadership has committed to passing legislation repealing Obamacare. Clinton, we know beyond a shadow of doubt, would veto that legislation. Trump has said he would sign it.

Third, energy. Clinton would continue the Obama administration’s war on coal and relentless efforts to crush the oil and gas industry. Trump has said he will reduce regulations and allow the blossoming American energy renaissance to create millions of new high-paying jobs.

Fourth, immigration. Clinton would continue and even expand President Obama’s lawless executive amnesty. Trump has promised that he would revoke those illegal executive orders.

Fifth, national security. Clinton would continue the Obama administration’s willful blindness to radical Islamic terrorism. She would continue importing Middle Eastern refugees whom the FBI cannot vet to make sure they are not terrorists. Trump has promised to stop the deluge of unvetted refugees.

Sixth, Internet freedom. Clinton supports Obama’s plan to hand over control of the Internet to an international community of stakeholders, including Russia, China, and Iran. Just this week, Trump came out strongly against that plan, and in support of free speech online.

These are six vital issues where the candidates’ positions present a clear choice for the American people.

If Clinton wins, we know — with 100% certainty — that she would deliver on her left-wing promises, with devastating results for our country.

My conscience tells me I must do whatever I can to stop that.

We also have seen, over the past few weeks and months, a Trump campaign focusing more and more on freedom — including emphasizing school choice and the power of economic growth to lift African-Americans and Hispanics to prosperity.

Finally, after eight years of a lawless Obama administration, targeting and persecuting those disfavored by the administration, fidelity to the rule of law has never been more important.

The Supreme Court will be critical in preserving the rule of law. And, if the next administration fails to honor the Constitution and Bill of Rights, then I hope that Republicans and Democrats will stand united in protecting our fundamental liberties.

Our country is in crisis. Hillary Clinton is manifestly unfit to be president, and her policies would harm millions of Americans. And Donald Trump is the only thing standing in her way.

A year ago, I pledged to endorse the Republican nominee, and I am honoring that commitment. And if you don’t want to see a Hillary Clinton presidency, I encourage you to vote for him.