The real reason for the witch hunt

What I need to be telling you is about the street people being saved in Reno…about the 3 Mary Magdalenes who walked in—saw the miracles and collapsed at the altar to be totally transformed—or about the man whose life was ruined by a car accident—whom God healed and started jumping up and down on new legs.
Instead, I cannot help but speak to you about the madness being directed at Judge Brett Kavanaugh.  What we have here is beyond wrong—beyond a lie, and beyond partisan politics.  You are watching the most heinous smear campaign we have ever seen.  You should be infuriated—especially, when you see why they are doing this.  First, let’s get the facts.
That’s just it…this has nothing to do with facts.  Christine Blasey Ford made a list of people that will confirm the attack on her by Kavanagh.  None of them can confirm it.
That has not stopped the usual suspects from reporting it as a fact ala fake news CNN and MSNBC.
Even Democratic Senators have abandoned all reason to declare Brett Kavanaugh guilty.
Then there’s that pantheon of integrity—sleaze attorney Michael Avenatti—who claims he has another woman who was attacked by Kavanaugh…only now, she has decided not to testify, and he has frozen his twitter account.
And the attorney representing Professor Ford, Debra Katz, has views on sexual assault that have been extraordinarily political and inconsistent.  For example, she said this about Paula Jones—the woman Bill Clinton raped: “Now, Paula Jones’ suit is very, very weak and she alleged one incident that took place at a hotel room, that by her own testimony lasted 10 to 12 minutes.  She suffered no repercussions in the workplace.”
If you are a liberal—and the only way to get your movement gets it way is to abandon the rule of law and due process to destroy a good man’s life—you should be horrified.
The Republicans must forge ahead and confirm Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court forthwith.  If they do not, they will lose in the midterm elections.  And now that the Democratic Party’s true colors are exposed…how on earth can any Christian vote for them?
And why is this all happening?  In a word: Abortion.  This war on truth is being waged by abortion worshippers.  They will kill for abortion—I know, that’s redundant.  For the sake of abortion, they will absolve bad men—who have actually attacked women—because those men support abortion.
Every woman should be believed and taken seriously? Not if she was beaten by Keith Ellison…groped by Cory Booker…raped by Bill Clinton…or drowned and murdered by Ted Kennedy.
If there is one reason God would destroy America it would be because of abortion.

Trump supporters are deplorable racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic and not American

Trump supporters are deplorable racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, unredeemable, and not American

 

From Jonah Bennett/ The Daily Caller

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton said Friday that 50 percent of Donald Trump supporters are nothing more than a “basket of deplorables,” which means she considers about 25 percent of America to be “irredeemable.”

“To just be grossly generalistic, you can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables,” Clinton said, according to CNN. “Right? Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, you name it.”

Numerous polls have put Trump’s support numbers at around 45 percent. Half that is 22.5 percent–the exact slice of America with which Clinton seems to have a serious problem.

“And unfortunately, there are people like that and he has lifted them up,” Clinton added. “He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people, now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets offensive, hateful, mean-spirited rhetoric.”

In this particular statement, Clinton was referring to Trump’s tacit encouragement of the alt-right. She complained in August that Trump is “taking hate groups mainstream.”

For Clinton, who delivered the remarks at an LGBT fundraiser, the other half of Trump supporters aren’t so bad and happen to escape from falling in the “basket of deplorables.” Instead, these other Trump supporters just feel the government has let them down and also that nobody cares about them.

Clinton’s speech somewhat resembles comments made by GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney during the 2012 election, in which he told a private audience of donors that 47 percent of voters will inevitably opt for President Barack Obama, as they are rely on government handouts.

“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what,” Romney said. “All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/10/hillary-a-quarter-of-america-is-irredeemable-not-america/#ixzz4JsCvbpsZ

Palin Endorses Trump

palin20n-1-web

Sarah Palin officially endorses Donald Trump’s 2016 bid

BY ADAM EDELMAN NEW YORK DAILY NEWS Updated: Tuesday, January 19, 2016, 5:59 PM A A A
facebook4845
email

Sarah Palin can see Russia from her Alaskan home and President Donald Trump sitting in the Oval Office.

The outspoken former Alaska governor and Tea Party darling formally endorsed the 2016 GOP front-runner Tuesday night, providing the bombastic billionaire with a “yuge” surge of momentum just 13 days before the Iowa caucuses.

“I’m proud to endorse Donald J. Trump for president,” Palin said in a statement provided by the billionaire’s campaign, ahead of a campaign event in Iowa Tuesday night, where the pair was slated to appear together.

“I am greatly honored to receive Sarah’s endorsement,” Trump said in the same statement. “She is a friend, and a high-quality person whom I have great respect for. I am proud to have her support.”

With Trump running neck-and-neck with Texas Sen. Ted Cruz in Iowa less than two weeks before the critical early-voting state’s caucuses, Palin’s endorsement could go a long way in pushing rural, Evangelical voters, with whom she remains popular, toward the billionaire candidate.

Sarah Palin is endorsing Donald Trump. They are expected to appear together at a campaign rally in Iowa on Tuesday.

Sarah Palin is endorsing Donald Trump. They are expected to appear together at a campaign rally in Iowa on Tuesday.
It could also open the floodgates for a slew of other endorsements that could help put the Hawkeye State squarely in the Trump column.

Speculation over a potential endorsement had increased in recent days after Trump on Sunday took to Facebook to tout that he would have a “major announcement and a very special guest in attendance” at the Ames event.

Rumors over a Palin endorsement further percolated after multiple news outlets reported that a charter flight from Anchorage had landed in Des Moines on Monday night.

Even Cruz went on the defensive over the rumors of support from Palin, with surrogates for the Texas senator dissing the potential coup for Trump as being bad for Palin.

Sarah Palin’s endorsement could go a long way in pushing rural, Evangelical voters, with whom she remains popular, toward the billionaire candidate.
“I think it’d be a blow to Sarah Palin, because Sarah Palin has been a champion for the conservative cause, and if she was going to endorse Donald Trump, sadly, she would be endorsing someone who’s held progressive views all their life on the sanctity of life, on marriage, on partial-birth abortion,” Cruz spokesman Rick Tyler said on CNN Tuesday morning.

Those comments prompted Palin’s daughter Bristol to pen a bitter blog post in which she criticized Cruz for his “arrogance” in stating that her mother’s endorsement might somehow harm her conservative credentials.

“After hearing what Cruz is now saying about my mom, in a negative knee-jerk reaction, makes me hope my mom does endorse Trump,” Bristol Palin wrote in the post, which Sarah Palin shared on Facebook and Twitter.

That, in turn, prompted Cruz himself to backtrack.

Donald Trump will appear with Palin at a rally Tuesday night in Ames, Iowa.

“I love @SarahPalinUSA Without her support, I wouldn’t be in the Senate. Regardless of what she does in 2016, I will always be a big fan,” the Texas senator tweeted later Tuesday.

Trump and Palin have long acted amiably toward each other. Last summer, shortly after he announced his campaign, Trump suggested he “would love” to have the 2008 vice presidential candidate in his administration if he won the election.

Earlier in the year, Trump called Palin “beautiful” and said he was “honored” by a skit she took part in during the “Saturday Night Live” 40th anniversary special in which the Alaskan joked that the pair could run on a ticket together in 2016.

When Palin turned 50 in 2014, Trump wrote her a letter praising her as a “spectacular woman.”

And in 2011, when Palin was considering a presidential bid, Palin shared a pizza in New York City with Trump and his wife Melania.

Yet another Palin made headlines later Tuesday, however, after news emerged that the former lawmaker’s son Track had been charged just a day earlier with assault.

According to online court records, Track Palin, 26, was charged Monday with three misdemeanors: Assault, interfering with a report of domestic violence and possession of a weapon while intoxicated.

Rape Allegations: Media Hunts Bill Cosby, Celebrates Bill Clinton

Rape Allegations: Media Hunts Bill Cosby, Celebrates Bill Clinton

EDITOR’S NOTE: In light of the sexual assault charges filed against Bill Cosby this week and how Donald Trump is exposing the DC Media’s glaring double standard when it comes to the allegations against Cosby and Bill Clinton, this piece from 2014 (with minor edits) seems more relevant than ever.   

Regardless of the circumstance, time, place, identity of the victim or the accused, allegations of sexual assault are serious and should be taken seriously. Bill Cosby, along with George Carlin and Richard Pryor, is a permanent fixture in my lifelong holy trinity of stand-up comedians. I love the guy. I am in awe of his talent.

Nonetheless, a woman has come forward with the claim that Cosby assaulted her 30 years ago. The allegations are horrifying and media outlets from NPR to the Washington Post toCNN are treating the woman’s story with the seriousness it deserves.

The scandal is a classic case of Power vs. The Powerless. There is substance to the charges,including a lawsuit Cosby settled with the woman in 2006, and similar allegations from other women.  As loved and lovable and talented as Bill Cosby is, as much as I am personally fond of him for all the pleasure he has brought into my life, looking into this kind of story is what the media is supposed to be about.

Unfortunately, our media is not guided by the lofty principle of what it is supposed to be about; because history shows that when it comes to these kinds of allegations, some powerful men like Bill Cosby are taunted and hunted, while other powerful men with the first name Bill, who have faced similar allegations, are protected.

I am of course talking about former-President Bill Clinton, who like Bill Cosby, has been accused of rape and has been forced to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit. There is also another woman who has accused Clinton of groping her in the White House. All of this is above and beyond the countless extra-marital affairs that swirl around Clinton, including an admitted one with a 21 year-old  White House intern named Monica Lewinsky. Clinton’s deceit during the fallout of his affair with Lewinsky resulted in impeachment andthe loss of his license to practice law.

Juanita Broaddrick’s charges of rape against Clinton appear every bit as credible as those against Cosby. Moreover, unlike Cosby’s accuser, Broaddrick was a reluctant witness who never filed a financial lawsuit. Regardless, the media went out of its way to discredit and dismiss Broaddrick as a liar, a tool of the Right, and my personal favorite, “old news.”

Paula Jones would eventually settle a sexual harassment lawsuit against Clinton for $850,000, but not before Clinton surrogates smeared her as trailer trash as television news anchors chuckled along.

Kathleen Willey, a Democrat and White House volunteer who worked on Clinton’s 1992 campaign, accused Clinton of sexually groping her in the White House in 1993. The Clinton machine worked overtime to destroy and discredit her in 1998, and the media is still  too happy to play along.

Many of these women accuse Hillary Clinton of being behind campaigns of personal destruction designed to silence them and protect their abuser.

Let us also never forget that the elite media not only attempted to cover up the Lewinsky affair, but before Lewinsky came up with Clinton’s DNA on the infamous blue dress, his White House was pouring every ounce of energy into portraying this young woman as a crazed liar and stalker. And again, the DC Media was all-too eager to play along.

While I’m at it, let’s throw in the media’s never-ending Frankenstein villaging of Clarence Thomas, a black Supreme Court Justice who was dragged through the mud based on the allegations of only one woman. Unlike the allegations against Bill and Hillary Clinton, there was no established pattern with other woman. Just the one.

Herman Cain, a black Republican presidential candidate, was destroyed by the media just as he assumed the role of frontrunner. The sexual harassment allegations against Cain were nowhere near as serious as the charges of outright assault against Clinton, and no more credible. The only difference was a media determined to destroy Cain.

If political correctness was really about political correctness and not partisan politics, the media’s offense here would be condemned by the left as racist. There is no question that what we have is a media that takes allegations of sexual misconduct against black men with the utmost seriousness, while a white southerner is protected at all costs.

Race is certainly part of it. The elite media is left-leaning and the political left is desperate to keep blacks “in their place,” which of course means voting for Democrats.  Cosby, Cain, and Thomas challenge and question that destructive cultural mindset. Therefore, all three are threats to Power. Therefore, all three must be marginalized and destroyed at all costs — not just personally but also as a warning to others.

Again, the media is doing the right thing in chasing down the truth about Cosby, but not for the right reasons.

The media’s motives are racial and political, not noble.

If the media was really about protecting women from powerful predators, the idea of Bill Clinton as America’s first First Gentleman would horrify, not thrill.

 

Hillary is going to be indicted

 she

Hillary is going to be indicted

By Cathy Burke   |   Friday, 08 Jan 2016 04:39 PM

The FBI and intelligence community “would go ballistic” if there’s no indictment in the case of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s
A former U.S. Attorney predicts a Watergate-style showdown in the Department of Justice if Attorney General Loretta Lynch overrules a potential FBI recommendation to indict Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

“The [FBI] has so much information about criminal conduct by her and her staff that there is no way that they walk away from this,” Joseph diGenova, formerly the District of Columbia’s U.S. Attorney, told Laura Ingraham in a Tuesday radio interview. “They are going to make a recommendation that people be charged and then Loretta Lynch is going to have the decision of a lifetime.

“I believe that the evidence that the FBI is compiling will be so compelling that, unless [Lynch] agrees to the charges, there will be a massive revolt inside the FBI, which she will not be able to survive as an attorney general. It will be like Watergate. It will be unbelievable.”

DiGenova is referring to the Watergate scandal’s “Saturday Night Massacre” Oct. 20, 1973, when President Richard Nixon sacked Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox and Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus resigned in protest.

DiGenova is well-sourced throughout the law enforcement community and his assessment has to be taken seriously. But interviews with other knowledgeable Washington insiders present a somewhat less concrete scenario developing around the former secretary of state.

At the center of Clinton’s difficulties is her use of a private email account and a home-brew server located in her New York home to conduct official business while serving as America’s chief diplomat between 2009 and 2013. Several of her closest aides also used the private server.

Clinton clearly didn’t abide by federal regulations requiring officials like her to use government computers and email accounts to conduct official business and take all of the necessary steps to preserve all such correspondence concerning official business.

watergate_montage_2

As first reported by The Daily Caller News Foundation, Clinton emailed Center for American Progress President Neera Tanden Sept. 7, 2010, asking for advice on what she, President Barack Obama and Democratic campaign officials should do to prevent a Republican victory in the upcoming congressional elections.
“Do you and CAP have any ideas as to how to change the dynamic before it’s too late? Losing the House would be a disaster in every way,” Clinton told Tanden. The CAP chief responded at length with clearly partisan recommendations, noted her supposedly non-partisan think tank’s polling efforts to identify winning themes for Democrats and described her conversations relaying her advice to Obama and other senior White House officials.

On its face, the Sept. 7 Clinton email appears to be a violation of the Hatch Act, which bars partisan political activities by officials using government property while on official duty. But Clinton found a clever way to get around the law, according to a senior non-profit official with extensive experience investigating such activities. The official spoke on condition of anonymity.

First, that official said, by not preserving her email records until after she resigned as secretary of state, Clinton avoided an investigation by the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), which handles Hatch Act violations. The reason is simple — OSC has no authority over former federal employees in Hatch Act matters.

Second, by refusing to comply “with Federal Records Act requirements to use an approved system for preserving records, [Clinton] arguably did not engage in political activities while on official duty or while using federal resources because she communicated with a personal computer,” the official said.

In other words, “had Secretary Clinton used a State Department e-mail address and a government computer and had Secretary Clinton complied with federal record-keeping and open government laws, [her] violations would have been discoverable under the Freedom of Information Act and could have been remedied while Secretary Clinton was still in office.”

Thus, don’t expect a Clinton indictment for a Hatch Act violation.

But Clinton is far from out of the woods, according to a congressional source who is deeply involved in the multiple investigations of Clinton.  This source, who also spoke only on condition of anonymity, pointed to the hundreds of Clinton emails that contained classified information.

“Her problem is the sheer volume of emails that were deemed classified,” said this source. “Her first defense was that she didn’t send any classified information in her emails. But that claim has been clearly rendered false because so many of the emails were later marked classified.” obama_hillary_cash-thumb

As the Department of State has released the Clinton emails she provided after leaving office, more than a thousand were marked classified after being reviewed prior to their public release. So what about Clinton’s subsequent distinction that she sent no information in her emails that was “marked classified” when it was sent?

“The volume matters because a reasonable person knows somebody like the Secretary of State, who is allowed herself to classify materials, who has handled it for 25 years or more, at some point the law says you are responsible for recognizing classified material when you see it. That gets to the negligence issue,” the issue said.

Negligence is critical because Clinton signed a Non-Disclosure Agreement in 2009 regarding classified information that stated, among much else, that “Sensitive Compartmented Information involves or derives from intelligence sources or methods that is classified or is involved in a classification determination …”

Clinton and several of her closest aides must have read information “derived from intelligence sources or methods” on a daily or near-daily basis.Benghazi Massacre Blog copy

There is an ominous sentence buried in that agreement Clinton signed: “Nothing in this agreement constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right to prosecute me for any statutory violations.”

What if Clinton is indicted for negligence in handling classified information? DiGenova predicts a showdown within a couple of months that will put Lynch in the same hot seat that prompted Nixon to fire Cox for getting too close to the truth about Watergate.

A Republican with direct knowledge of the investigation predicted political chaos if Lynch doesn’t decide to prosecute Clinton, a chaos that “would be the gift that keeps on giving right through the election.”

With or without resignations of FBI officials to protest such a decision, there would be a blizzard of news releases from congressional GOPers condemning Lynch, followed by hearings in which both the attorney general and FBI Director James Comey would be put under oath and asked about their actions.

hillary vicious

 

RAPE ALLEGATIONS: MEDIA HUNTS BILL COSBY, CELEBRATES BILL CLINTON

RAPE ALLEGATIONS: MEDIA HUNTS BILL COSBY, CELEBRATES BILL CLINTON

Regardless of the circumstance, time, place, identity of the victim or the accused, allegations of sexual assault are serious and should be taken seriously. Bill Cosby, along with George Carlin and Richard Pryor, is a permanent fixture in my lifelong holy trinity of stand-up comedians. I love the guy. I am in awe of his talent.

Nonetheless, a woman has come forward with the claim that Cosby assaulted her 30 years ago. The allegations are horrifying and media outlets from NPR to the Washington Post toCNN are treating the woman’s story with the seriousness it deserves.

The scandal is a classic case of Power vs. The Powerless. There is substance to the charges,including a lawsuit Cosby settled with the woman in 2006, and similar allegations from other women.  As loved and lovable and talented as Bill Cosby is, as much as I am personally fond of him for all the pleasure he has brought into my life, looking into this kind of story is what the media is supposed to be about.

Unfortunately, our media is not guided by the lofty principle of what it is supposed to be about; because history shows that when it comes to these kinds of allegations some powerful men like Bill Cosby are taunted and hunted, while other powerful men with the first name Bill, who have faced similar allegations, are protected.

I am of course talking about former-President Bill Clinton, who like Bill Cosby has been accused of rape and has settled a sexual harassment lawsuit. There is also another woman who has accused Clinton of groping her in the White House. All of this is above and beyond the countless extra-marital affairs that swirl around Clinton, including an admitted one with a 21 year-old  White House intern named Monica Lewinsky. Clinton’s deceit during the fallout of his affair with Lewinsky resulted in impeachment and the loss of his license to practice law.

Juanita Broderick’s charges of rape against Clinton appear every bit as credible as those against Cosby. Moreover, unlike Cosby’s accuser, Broderick was a reluctant witness who never filed a financial lawsuit. Regardless, the media went out of its way to discredit and dismiss Broderick as a liar, a tool of the Right, or my personal favorite, old news.

Paula Jones would eventually settle a sexual harassment lawsuit against Clinton for $850,000, but not before Clinton surrogates smeared her as trailer trash as television news anchors chuckled along.

Kathleen Willey, a Democrat and White House volunteer who worked on Clinton’s 1992 campaign, accused Clinton of sexually groping her in the White House in 1993. The Clinton machine worked overtime to destroy and discredit her in 1998, and the media is still  too happy to play along.

Let us also never forget that the elite media not only attempted to cover up the Lewinsky affair, but before Lewinsky came up with Clinton’s DNA on the infamous blue dress, his White House was pouring every ounce of energy into portraying this young woman as a crazed liar and stalker. And again, the media was all-too eager to play along.

While I’m at it, let’s throw in the media’s never-ending Frankenstein villaging of Clarence Thomas, a black Supreme Court Justice who was dragged through the mud based on the allegations of only one woman. Unlike the allegations against Clinton, there was no established pattern with other woman. Just the one.

Herman Cain, a black Republican presidential candidate, was destroyed by the media just as he assumed the role of front runner. The sexual harassment allegations against Cain were nowhere near as serious as the charges of outright assault against Clinton, and no more credible. The only difference was a media determined to destroy Cain.

If political correctness was really about political correctness and not partisan politics, the media’s offense here would be condemned by the left as racist. There is no question that what we have is a media that takes allegations of sexual misconduct against black men with the utmost seriousness, while a white southerner is protected at all costs.

Race is certainly part of it. The elite media is left-leaning and the political left is desperate to keep blacks “in their place,” which of course means voting for Democrats.  Cosby, Cain, and Thomas challenge and question that destructive cultural mindset. Therefore, all three are threats to Power. Therefore, all three must be marginalized and destroyed at all costs — not just personally but also as a warning to others.

Again, the media is doing the right thing in chasing down the truth about Cosby, but not for the right reasons.

The media’s motives are racial, not noble.

If the media was really about protecting women from powerful predators, the idea of Bill Clinton as America’s first First Gentleman would horrify, not thrill.