The media’s war on “fake news” will destroy them. Here’s why

fake-news

When Journalists took sides in the election and let Hillary Clinton dictate their campaign coverage they began to self-destruct.  Here’s why their war on fake news will finish them off.

In a piece for Market Watch by Darrell Delamaide, just days before the election predicted their implosion:  “Newspapers have long since been doomed by the digital revolution and the collapse of their economic model. New waves of buyouts and layoffs recently announced by the New York Times, USA Today and the Wall Street Journal mark another step by print media toward extinction.

Broadcast networks, too, face severe difficulties as new technologies and changes in viewing habits transform the television industry and bring new challenges to news operations.

But it is the bias of the establishment media so blatantly in favor of the establishment candidate, Hillary Clinton, that may strip these news organizations of their last claim to value — as an objective and authoritative source of information — and hasten their demise.”

You would think when the media was outed as biased and dishonest they would changed their ways.  As Frank Luntz said, “After Election Day, the media promised to improve substantive reporting and focus on real issues. They have learned nothing.”

benghazi-massacre-blog-copy1 (1)

Their mental disconnect is stunning.  Derek Hunter said, “You hear it all the time – MSNBC and CNN hosts and pundits can’t fathom the concept of their policies being unwanted any more than they can accept that they don’t work. Their losses have to be caused by other factors.

Since the election, Democrats have blamed everything but a comet, a plague and the death of Prince for the GOP winning the White House and holding Congress. A couple more appearances by Howard Dean on TV, and you probably will start to hear about comets and plagues.”

If being in the tank for Hillary began their doom…here is what will seal it: THEIR WAR AGAINST “FAKE NEWS.”  Back in October, Obama—flush with overconfidence that Hillary would win—said “there is no way to rig the election.”  Now he believes the election has been rigged.  The media agrees and they are pushing the fake news narrative.

What they are purporting boggles the mind:  Wikileaks was more powerful than all the liberal media!

Think about it…the left just levelled the greatest insult ever to NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and all the other legacy news media.  How weak are you when your combined influence is less than one lonely website? But it gets even more mind-numbing.

The Gallup poll says 68% of all Americans say the liberal media fakes the news, yet they have started a crusade against fake news.  Hypocrisy does not begin to cover this. This is irrational.

charade

Irrational people will not listen to reason. They don’t care about rational explanations. They want to fulfill a need right away.  The media will behave irrationally until that need is fulfilled.  The media needs to be right but America says they are wrong.  America is telling them that if you do not want to tell the truth we will not buy your product.

A sane person or company would heed that warning.  The fact that the media is pushing the fake news narrative—which is astoundingly embarrassing and without merit—proves they would rather die than admit they are wrong.  Sadly, they will get their wish.

However, this opens a gigantic door for the Gospel in America.  This is because the message of Jesus was a prime target of the media.  Being the mouthpiece of secular progressives and Hillary meant they had to discredit and lie about Christianity.

The media called the Gospel sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, anti-science, anti-immigrant and on and on.   Christian values became the all-purpose thing to be offended by.  It was the last legal prejudice.  But something has changed!

I tested this fact by saying deliberately saying Merry Christmas to someone I knew didn’t like it.  At first, they gave me a scowl.  Then they caught themselves.  I could see it in their eyes.  That moment of recognition.  Thinking this wonderful gesture is a symbol of oppression is a silly thing of the past.

But it goes much deeper than that.  People tried to protest churches for supporting Trump.  That is gone.  The insults have gone.  The late-night comedians feel the fatigue of a public that is sick of leftist rants.  It is not funny anymore.  Teachers don’t get away with class rants against God and America anymore.

College students—millennial snowflakes who whimper, cry foul at anything Christian and run to safe spaces look real pathetic to the public.  Something has changed.  The shift is unmistakable.

4

A door to share the love and power of Jesus has opened.  But it will not stay open long.  We have this golden moment of opportunity for a handful of years.

The left will come back like a rash.  They will regroup and once again try to control the nation.  They cannot help themselves.  In the meantime, we must preach the Good News without apology or hesitation.  Revival–heaven sent true revival–will build a new nation under God that will stand the test of time.

 

My open letter to Donald Trump and American Christians

open-letter

Since I met Christ 51 years ago, I have wondered if the day would come when I would be called upon to sacrifice everything—including my life—for my faith.  I believe that day is here.  I am risking everything in this letter.

My open letter to Donald Trump and American Christians

By Mario Murillo

Since I met Christ 51 years ago, I have wondered if the day would come when I would be called upon to sacrifice everything—including my life—for my faith.  I believe that day is here.  I am risking everything in this letter.

This letter is not to believers who sat this election out or set aside their Bible and voted for open borders, a left-wing Supreme Court and late term abortion.  I am writing to Christians who are voting for Donald Trump and I am writing to Mr. Trump himself.

There is no version of Hillary Clinton that does not spell doom for America.  Most Americans agree.  They loathe the idea of a president Hillary Clinton.

This is one reason for the massive, excited crowds at your rallies, Mr. Trump.

We should be preparing for a Trump landslide.  However, the system is rigged.  How can you doubt that after the tsunami of corruption and collusion you have witnessed in this election?  The decision by the FBI not to indict Clinton is a death knell to freedom.  It sets the stage for tyranny.

I have a flicker of faith in the system.  My hope, my expectation, is that tomorrow we will finally be able to drain the swamp.

donald-trump

But what if she wins?  What do we do then?  We do not wait till then…we must do something today.  We need to learn a powerful truth from a story in the Bible.

I am certain you are familiar with the story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego and the fiery furnace.   The Bible says, “Now if you are ready at the time you hear the sound of the horn, flute, harp, lyre, and psaltery, in symphony with all kinds of music, and you fall down and worship the image which I have made, good!  But if you do not worship, you shall be cast immediately into the midst of a burning fiery furnace. And who is the god who will deliver you from my hands?”

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego answered and said to the king, “O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter.  If that is the case, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and He will deliver us from your hand, O king.  But if not, let it be known to you, O king, that we do not serve your gods, nor will we worship the gold image which you have set up.” – Daniel 3:15-17.

Here are the most explosive words in this story: Our God can save us but if He does not—no matter what—we will still not worship the idol.

NO MATTER WHAT!  Those words must dominate our heart today.  They did not say, “If God saves us we will serve Him.”  They said “no matter what.”

That confession is in my soul today.  I know that under Clinton there will be open persecution of preachers who opposed her.  I am ready, she knows where to find me.  Come and get me but I will not back down…no matter what!

I want you to be ready!  I want you to say NO MATTER WHAT!

-No matter what—the battle against abortion continues.

-No matter what—we will preach the Gospel.

-No matter what—we will press the case against corruption directly to the American people.

-No matter what—we will vote!

-We will keep going!  We will haunt Congress.  We will press the FBI and the Department of Justice.  We will expose the corrupt media.  We will continue to fan the flames of freedom in America.

We refuse to feel a let-down.  God will find a way to use us, no matter what!

Mr. Trump, God touched your heart to make America Great Again.  You didn’t need this misery.  At some point, the Spirit of God made the fleeting pleasures of this world unimportant to you.  People began to matter to you like they have never mattered before.  You received faith to run for president.

Now I am imploring you to embrace a fiery-furnace loyalty.  No matter what, this movement will go on.  Even if the corrupt system delays victory—keep going.  You have built a support base of tens of millions of people.

What would the movement look like if you lose the election?  That is a question only God and you can answer.  However, you have always been an innovator.  Between you and the creative power of God, I have no doubt something amazing will emerge.

To everyone I say this: Evil must feel your fiery-furnace loyalty to God.  It is not that God will not give us victory tomorrow…after all, He did save the three boys.  It is just that our hearts need a miracle today on the eve of this election.

We need to refuse depression, anxiety and fear.  We need to look at tomorrow with fire in our eyes—a fire that roars, “We will keep fighting…NO MATTER WHAT!”

 

We debunk the claims of the women who claim Trump groped them

debunk

HERE IT IS=> List of Debunked Groper Allegations by Corrupt Media Against Donald Trump

The Democrat-media complex carpet bombed Donald Trump with several alleged groping stories this week from several women.

The media clearly did not fact check these stories. They ran the stories no matter how farfetched they were. It is clear from the number of stories dropped in the last week that this was a coordinated effort, probably from inside the Hillary Clinton campaign. The goal was not to present facts to the public. Their goal was to destroy Donald Trump.

In 2008 the Democrat media hit Republican John McCain with similar allegations. Vicki Iseman, the woman named in the hit piece, settled with The New York Times after the election.

So, it is clear that this is a commonly used tactic by Democrats – use the media to slander and destroy their opposition before the election.

Thankfully, today the conservative media is much stronger than it was eight years ago.

Here are a few of the alleged “groping” incidents against Donald Trump that have now been debunked.

1.) Jessica Leeds

nyt-accuserJessica Leeds accused a young Donald Trump of groping her in first class on a flight from Dallas to New York City on Braniff Air in 1979.

Leeds said young multimillionaire Trump lifted the armrest to grope her during the flight.

braniff-air-armrest
The armrests on Braniff 727s appear to be stationary, they can’t be raised.

She also used lyrics from the Velvet Underground song to describe the alleged “groping.”

Leeds also said if Trump had kept his hands above the waist she might have been ok with it
…Huh?

Tonight a British passenger on the same plane as Trump and Leeds refuted her claims.
Anthony Gilberthorpe said Jessica Leeds was flirting with Trump and Trump never touched her.
anthony-gilberthorpe
Anthony Gilberthorpe

The New York Post reported:

Donald Trump’s campaign says a British man is countering claims that the GOP presidential nominee groped a woman on a cross-country flight more than three decades ago.

The man says he was sitting across from the accuser and contacted the Trump campaign because he was incensed by her account — which is at odds with what he witnessed.

“I have only met this accuser once and frankly cannot imagine why she is seeking to make out that Trump made sexual advances on her. Not only did he not do so (and I was present at all times) but it was she that was the one being flirtatious,” Anthony Gilberthorpe said in a note provided to The Post by the Trump campaign.

In an exclusive interview arranged by the campaign, Gilberthorpe said he was on the flight — in either 1980 or 1981— where Jessica Leeds claimed Trump groped her.

Gilberthorpe, 54, said he was sitting across the first class aisle from the couple and saw nothing inappropriate. Leeds was wearing a white pantsuit, he said, while Trump was wearing a suit and cuff-links, which he gave to his British flight companion.

Indeed, Gilberthorpe claimed, Leeds was “trying too hard” in her attempt to win Trump over.

“She wanted to marry him,” Gilberthorpe said of Leeds, who apparently made the confession when Trump excused himself and went to the bathroom.

There was no kissing, but the “shrill” Leeds was “very much in your face” with the real estate developer.

2.) Natasha Stoynoff

donald-trump-butler
Anthony P. “Tony” Senecal

Donald Trump’s former butler stepped forward to debunk another accuser’s story.

Anthony Senecal said the so-called incident with the People magazine hack “never happened.”
The Palm Beach Post reported:

Donald Trump’s former Mar-a-Lago Butler backed up the Republican nominee for president in denying the billionaire groped a reporter from People magazine.

“No, that never happened. Come on, that’s just bull crap,” said Anthony “Tony” Senecal.

People magazine writer Natasha Stoynoff wrote an essay this week about how she was groped by Trump at Mar-a-Lago during an interview in the early 2000s. She is one of four women to make accusations against Trump of unwanted sexual advances.

The issue has become central to the presidential race since a 2005 hot-mic video surfaced of Trump bragging about using his celebrity to grope women. He has downplayed the incident as “locker-room talk.”

Trump, at his rally in West Palm Beach on Thursday, said he was always in a public place with Stoynoff and denied he ever acted inappropriately.

So Donald Trump has one witness who said the alleged groping never happened. The People magazine writer has NO witnesses.

And then there’s this…
Melania Trump, wife of Donald Trump, sent a cease and desist letter to People Magazine on Thursday for its fraudulent article on Mrs. Donald Trump.

Here is the letter:
melania-people

mealania-people-2Melania wrote:

The following statements in the Story, among others, are false and completely fictionalized. We therefore demand that you immediately and permanently remove each of these statements from the Story, and print a prominent retraction and apology:

1. “That winter, I actually bumped into Melania on Fifth Avenue, in front of Trump Tower as she walked into the building, carrying baby Barron.”
2. “‘Natasha, why don’t we see you anymore?’ she asked, giving me a hug.”
3. “I was quiet and smiled, telling her I’d missed her, and I squeezed little Barron’s foot.”

The true facts are these: Mrs. Trump did not encounter Ms. Stoynoff on the street, nor have any conversation with her. The two are not friends and were never friends or even friendly.

The Clinton media is just throwing crap out there hoping something will stick.

3.) Summer Zervos (and her representative Gloria Allred – a Hillary Clinton delegate at the Democratic convention)

WELL ISN’T THIS INTERESTING….
apprentice-summer-liar-trump

Another day, another sexual harassment smear on GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump by the mainstream media.
Except this one just fell apart.

The latest woman, Summer Zervos who was a contestant on ‘The Apprentice,’ claimed today that Trump sexually harassed her.

But, as it turns out, it was Zervos who continued to stay in contact with Trump.
Via the Donald Trump Facebook page:
trump-apprentice-accuser

If Trump did sexually harass Zervos, why would she be reaching out for help with her business by contacting him? Wouldn’t she be afraid and disgusted by him?

4.) Mindy McGillivray

mcgillivray-davidoff
Photographer Ken Davidoff and his friend, Mindy McGillivray, at Mar-a-Lago on Jan. 24, 2003. News | WFXT

Mindy McGillivray says Donald Trump nudged her at a concert at Mar-a-Lago at a concert on January 24, 2003. She went public with her story this week.

There was no such concert at Mar-a-Lago on January 24, 2003.
GOT News reported:

Mindy McGillivray is falsely claiming that Donald Trump “nudged” her at a Mar-a-Lago concert that never happened. “Sexual assault”? Give us a break.

The hoaxing media has thrown a slew of “sexual assault” allegations at Donald Trump, hoping one sticks and to create a haze of controversy around the GOP nominee.

Melinda Rose “Mindy” McGillivray, told the Palm Beach Post after the second presidential debate that someone bumped her backstage at a Ray Charles concert held at Mar-A-Lago on January 24, 2003:

After the show, [Ken] Davidoff and McGillivray were standing in a pavilion behind the main house in the middle of a group of people. To their left was Regis Philbin and his wife, Joy, according to Davidoff. To McGillivray’s immediate right was Trump and his fiancée, Melania.

“Ray already performed. He’s ready to leave. He’s saying his goodbyes to everyone,’’ McGillivray recalled.

“All of a sudden I felt a grab, a little nudge. I think it’s Ken’s camera bag, that was my first instinct. I turn around and there’s Donald. He sort of looked away quickly. I quickly turned back, facing Ray Charles, and I’m stunned.’’

McGillivray said she remembers saying to herself, ‘’‘OK, am I going to say something now and make a scene or be quiet?’ I chose to stay quiet.’’

Davidoff said he did not witness the alleged groping but he said he has never had any reason to doubt McGillivray.

Asked about the possibility that what she felt was Trump or someone accidentally bumping into her, McGillivray said no. “This was a pretty good nudge. More of a grab,’’ she said. “It was pretty close to the center of my butt. I was startled. I jumped.’’

…Critical details of McGillivray’s story don’t add up.

McGillivray claims that when she was nudged in 2003, Trump and his wife Melania were engaged. But a quick Google search proves this is false: Trump proposed to Melania in April 2004. Why didn’t the Palm Beach Post or McGillivray check this obvious detail?

Perhaps because they never bothered to verify a Ray Charles concert at Mar-A-Lago even happened on January 24, 2003. A Getty Images search shows Trump and Melania posing with Ray Charles at Mar-A-Lago … in a photo by Davidoff Photos Studio, created on January 1, 2003, more than three weeks before McGillivray claimed she was “grabbed” at a Ray Charles concert. A Ray Charles concert chronology shows that on January 23, a Ray Charles concert in Seattle was canceled, but nothing was scheduled for January 24.

5.) Kristin Anderson

Kristin Anderson claims a young Donald Trump groped her while he was sitting alone at a nightclub in New York City in the 1990s. She gave her story to the Washington Post, one of many careless anti-Trump rags.

She claims Trump touched her vagina at a club, while sitting alone, in the 1990s.
She never came forward until now – three weeks outside of a national election.

Here’s Trump’s response:
“It’s nonsense. It’s false… They are coming after me to try to destroy the greatest political movement in our country. The political establishment is trying to stop us because they no we are a threat… Hillary is the most corrupt person to ever seek the presidency of the United States… These allegations are 100% false. They’re made up. They’ve never happened.

Mainstream Media: Defeat Trump by Attacking His Supporters

Defeat

Mainstream Media: Defeat Trump by Attacking His Supporters

First they come after you, then they target your family and business relationships

Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump enters the stage as he takes part in a town hall event moderated by Anderson Cooper March 29, 2016 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump enters the stage as he takes part in a town hall event moderated by Anderson Cooper March 29, 2016 in Milwaukee, Wisc. (Photo: Darren Hauck/Getty Images)

It is no secret that the mainstream media has decided that the threat presented by a possible Donald Trump presidency is so grave that it has suspended even the illusion of objectivity. Writing in The New York Times, media columnist Jim Rutenberg granted permission to his fellow journalists “to throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of the past half-century, if not longer, and approach it in a way you’ve never approached anything in your career.”

The Observer and others have detailed the ways in which traditional media companies and even tech companies have colluded to maximize negative coverage of Trump and minimize negative coverage of his opponent, Hillary Clinton. But it doesn’t end there. As Rutenberg described, many journalists feel the need to “move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional.”

That opposition has extended into new and uncharted territory. In the coordinated effort to stop a dangerous candidate from obtaining, to use Rutenberg’s breathless description of the stakes, “control of the United States nuclear codes,” the mainstream media has taken not just to bashing Trump but to extracting a price even from those who support him.

There are a hundred examples, but here are just a few headlines that tell the story:

  • Daily Beast: “Trump’s Doctor ‘Overmedicated’ Patients Who Died in His Care”
  • Washington Post: “The contractor that designs Ivanka Trump’s clothes does not offer a single day of paid maternity leave”
  • New York Times: “Peter Thiel’s Embrace of Trump Has Silicon Valley Squirming”

Let’s look at each of these. While I don’t doubt that self-identified right-wing sites would look into the record of Hillary Clinton’s doctors, it’s much harder to imagine a site like Daily Beast, which fancies itself a centrist outlet (and is even edited by my old Rudy Giuliani speechwriting buddy, John Avlon), expending that kind of investigative energy on Hillary’s non-political professionals. The message is clear: If you associate with Trump, we will rummage through your past.

The attacks on Trump supporters extend even beyond Trump relatives to include, bizarrely, the relatives of supporters.

As for The Washington Post story, the message was equally clear. While children of presidential candidates have long been considered off limits by the mainstream media, the Post clearly smelled danger in the crossover appeal of a successful, presentable working mother. Ivanka Trump (who, for the thousandth time, is married to the Observer’s publisher) runs a company that is not only among the 10 percent to provide paid maternity leave, but also offers unlimited vacation and sick days and flexible work schedules. So the Post attacked a company that Ivanka’s company does business with, only they implied that Ivanka was responsible for that company’s business practices. The Post later attached an editor’s note and clarified the story to “indicate that Ivanka Trump has no direct managerial role in G-III Apparel Group,” but the damage had been done and the misleading headline remains to this day. Plus, there’s the original URL of the story—which is important in search engine optimization. It has not been corrected and still gives the false implication that Ivanka herself is not providing paid maternity leave.

Then there’s the Peter Thiel story. His actions in supporting Trump supposedly have his industry peers “squirming,” according to The New York Times. Yet Clinton supporters who represent industries in which she is unpopular are portrayed as principled and loyal Democrats. Consider that Politico reported “Clinton haunted by coal country comment.” Clinton said, “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.” Local officials sent a letter to Sen. Joe Manchin saying ““Bill and Hillary Clinton are simply not welcome in our town.” So how come not a single supporter of hers, including Sen. Manchin and Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin, is said to be making West Virginia “squirm”?

Where are the mainstream investigations of Hillary’s doctors? Or the business practices of Chelsea Clinton? How is it that none of Hillary’s supporters has any industry “squirming”?

The attacks on Trump supporters extend even beyond Trump relatives to include, bizarrely, the relatives of supporters. Buzzfeed did a whole story on whether Josh Kushner’s business would be hurt by the fact that — can you follow this? — his brother’s wife’s father is the presidential candidate. Is that the standard? Has there been a single article anywhere about the business prospects of Marc Mezvinsky’s siblings? The writer of the Buzzfeed story – the talented reporter Nitasha Tiku, who worked at the Observer and was happy to cash checks signed by Jared Kushner when she did—contacted several colleagues of Josh Kushner to determine whether they’d still be comfortable doing business with Josh’s investment firm, Thrive Capital. The Trump-opposing tech investor Chris Sacca is characterized by Tiku as saying, “The Trump connection might have affected Thrive directly.” The message from the MSM is clear: Support Donald Trump, and you—and maybe even your family—will be ridiculed, investigated and ignored.

The Observer itself provides another good example. Our traffic and users have grown more than 5x since January 2013, from 1.3 million unique users reading 3 million pages a month to 6 million unique users reading 17 million pages a month. This information is easily available. And yet, from the time this contentious, ornery campaign took shape, our documented-to-death Trump connection has been revealed in the way the Observer itself has been covered.

Politico wrote about us, “The paper’s editorials, which had largely ceased having influence…” I showed the reporter data proving that many more people read our editorials today than read them five years ago and I asked him to explain how he reached the conclusion that they had “largely ceased having influence.” He told me, “My editor wrote that line.” He said he’d get back to me if he got an answer. He never did.

Esquire’s hit piece on Jared Kushner called the Observer “a once venerable newspaper” without even pretending to offer an explanation of what made it venerable in the past or why it’s no longer so, despite the increased revenue, readership, staff, investment in journalism or other facts I would have been happy to provide had anyone asked.

The Daily Beast wrote that, “Kushner and the paper’s editor in chief, Ken Kurson, were the object of controversy and staff protests and resignations.” Got that? Staff resignations with an s, as in plural. Actually it’s been one staff resignation, a writer who was not the “top reporter” (he was No. 2 on a three-person team) that CNN crowed about in its headline. Given the constant turnover throughout the Observer’s history, long before Trump ran for president, it’s striking that CNN would devote a headline to this boring-as-hell non-event.

There’s another tactic employed by the mainstream media that’s inversely related to punishing Trump supporters—rewarding Hillary supporters.

Then there’s just the general anti-Observer snark. It’s been a fact of life, especially since our beloved longtime editor Peter Kaplan left the paper in 2009, but has been dialed to 11 since Trump began his unlikely ascent in American politics. A telling example involves a trifling story we ran, in which New York Times Editor-in-Chief Dean Baquet said ‘F— You’ to a reporter he thought had used racist language. To me, it was the exact kind of funny and revealing little insider story that Kaplan would have loved (and I don’t claim to speak for him, despite the generous way he fed me advice even though I didn’t start here till four years after he left). Nonetheless, some media types, eager for any opportunity to celebrate the Observer’s demise, pounced. The Times’ own Willy Staley, for example, tweeted out the story and insightfully commented, “The Observer has become so f—ing weird!” Staley did not know at the time that Baquet himself praised the story, calling it “Perfectly fair.” It has been fun to watch the media simultaneously declare the Observer totally irrelevant but also responsible for electing the president of the United States.

At least Gawker, z’l, was less circumspect in its disapproval of what takes place here. In lambasting our paper’s endorsement of Trump in the Republican primary (we also endorsed Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary, which understandably generated far less coverage), Hamilton Nolan wrote “The New York Observer, which was once a good newspaper, is endorsing the owner’s wife’s dad for president.” That’s at least funny, and it acknowledges by stating as a fact that the Observer was once good that the idea that Observer is no longer a “good newspaper” is Nolan’s opinion, rather than trying to hide behind factish sounding writing like “once venerable” or “largely ceased having influence.”

There’s another tactic employed by the mainstream media that’s inversely related to punishing Trump supporters—rewarding Hillary supporters. Not just any Hillary supporters, but those brave Republicans who are putting country ahead of party by supporting Clinton.

Search for “Republicans back Hillary” in Google and you get “There are now dozens of big-name Republicans supporting Hillary” (Washington Post), The Republicans Who Support Hillary Clinton Over Donald Trump” (The Atlantic), “Which Republicans Are Against Donald Trump? A Cheat Sheet (also The Atlantic), “At Least 110 Republican Leaders Won’t Vote for Donald Trump. Here’s When They Reached Their Breaking Point.” (New York Times), “Here are the Republicans Voting for Hillary Clinton Over Donald” (Time), and The Biggest GOP Names Backing Hillary Clinton—So Far (The Daily Beast).

Enter “Democrats back Trump” and you get a story from The Hill from January and a Toledo Blade story.

The simple explanation would be that tons of Republicans back Hillary while few Democrats back Trump. But that narrative defies the reality of a Republican primary that drew record numbers of new GOP registrants and set a new record for votes cast, unlike the Democratic contest. And with the candidates roughly tied in the polls (the LA Times, for example, has Trump up by 3 points), there’s no way a “wave” of Republican Trump rejecters cannot be equaled by roughly the same number of Democrat Hillary rejecters. Unless the polling is drastically undercounting Hillary supporters (most think it’s more likely to be undercounting Trump voters, who have been shamed out of telling a pollster they support such a “dangerous” candidate), there have to be at least as many Trump Democrats as there are Hillary Republicans. But the media isn’t interested in finding them.

What’s even more surprising than the media suddenly cheering someone like former Bush aide Paul Wolfowitz, who was universally loathed by the MSM up until the moment he announced his support for Hillary has been the way the press issues valentines to Republicans no one has never heard of. How did Maria Comella, a press aide to Chris Christie, merit 1200 words and a “First on CNN” feature on air simply by declaring her support for Hillary?

Republican candidates have long complained about the bias in American media. Most of the time it’s nonsense. John McCain courted the favorable opinion of the New York Times so aggressively and for so long that it was almost fun to see him crying about how tough it was to run against a media darling like Barack Obama in 2008. Mitt Romney, who really did suffer from poor coverage, mostly had himself to blame –secret tapes about 47% freeloaders may have been reported by Mother Jones, but they weren’t manufactured by Mother Jones. And the alleged bias can sometimes work to a Republican’s advantage. When George W. Bush called New York Times reporter Adam Clymer a “major league A—-,” probably as many people admired the future president’s authenticity as chastised him for his uncouth remarks.

What’s different here is the dropping of even the pretense of objectivity. In unilaterally determining that Donald Trump is unfit even to be covered objectively—to the point that he must be disqualified by any means necessary—the mainstream media has set a dangerous precedent.

The Real Choice: A lesser or true evil

lesser

 

 

The Real Choice: A lesser or true evil

By Mario Murillo

I realize that more than any other blog…this one is going to cost me friends and close doors to some churches but I must speak the truth

“I refuse to choose the lesser of two evils.”  How often have you heard that from Christians?  But, this election is not about the lesser of two evils…your choice is between a lesser or true evil.

Take a look at Donald Trump the lesser.  Yes, he was not my first choice.  Yes, his campaign has been occasionally open mouth insert foot.  It’s true he has not lived like a monk.  He is not the warm and fuzzy father figure Ronald Reagan was.  He does not command the towering oratory of a Teddy Roosevelt.

What is he then?  He is a straight talking man. Love him or hate him—you know he is not lying to you.  He is a billionaire who doesn’t need to take all of this abuse—and yet, he does because he loves America.  He demonstrated humility when he said, “I have the support of the evangelicals, even though I know that I don’t deserve it.”

NEW YORK - MAY 10: Donald Trump attends "The Celebrity Apprentice" season finale at the at American Museum of Natural History on May 10, 2009 in New York City. (Photo by Brad Barket/Getty Images)

When I saw this humble attitude—against the religious spirit of another Republican who felt entitled to the Christ vote—my mind raced to Luke 18:11-14 “The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other men—extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector.  I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.’ And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Leftists love to call him a racist and can never produce a shred of evidence to support this charge.  They try to make him out to be anti-woman and again the charge is utterly without merit.

The Democratic and Republican elite are infuriated. Trump unmasked their costume ball. The media hate him for one simple reason: He refused to die.

As I said, I will lose friends.  I will have churches closed to me.  Nevertheless, I am going to call Hillary Clinton evil.  She is not corrupt—she is evil.

I will present two examples and then the clincher:

Hillary has worked to destroy women that her husband raped.  That is not corrupt—that is evil.  The allegation the Clintons have never truly grappled with is Juanita Broaddrick’s charge of rape. Her story has been consistent over the years; she told people about the alleged assault at the time; and her account includes details that accord with what other woman have said about encounters with Bill.

 -She refused to save the 4 Americans trapped in the Embassy in Benghazi. Then she lied about the cause of the attack by blaming it on a video.  That is not corrupt—it is evil.  It turns out that she did it as a favor to Obama’s reelection campaign.

These are examples of her evil but now I want to give you the undeniable evil that should haunt you if you even think about sitting out this election or–God Forbid–you’re actually thinking about voting for her.  Here is the epitome of evil.

-A donor gave her foundation millions.  She turned around and sold uranium to the Russians through that donor.  The Russians in turn sold that Uranium to Iran.  That is not corrupt it is evil.

Let’s break down the facts:

–Bill and Hillary Clinton had helped a Canadian financier named Frank Giustra and a small Canadian company obtain a lucrative uranium mining concession from the dictator in Kazakhstan;

–The same Canadian company, renamed Uranium One, bought uranium concessions in the United States;

–The Russian government came calling and sought to buy that Canadian company for a price that would mean big profits for the Canadian investors;

–For the Russians to buy that Canadian company, it would require the approval of the Obama administration, including Hillary’s State Department, because uranium is a strategically important commodity;

–Nine shareholders in Uranium One just happened to provide more than $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation in the run-up to State Department approval;

–Some of the donations, including those from the Chairman of Uranium One, Ian Teler, were kept secret, even though the Clintons promised to disclose all donations;

Oval-Office-Hillary

–Hillary’s State Department approved the deal;

–The Russian government now owns 20 percent of U.S. uranium assets.

-The Russians sell uranium to Iran who will make atomic bombs and threaten America and Israel.

Hillary sold out America and Israel to terrorists for money.  She is evil.  And that is your choice in this election: a lesser or true evil.

Yes, he is Donald the lesser.  But maybe, just maybe, he is the strong medicine our country needs.  He is a rough and tumble businessman that will create jobs, reduce debt, put America first, sympathize with Christians and work to protect Israel:  Lesser yes, evil no.

WHY?

Police officers and rescued workers stand near a van that ploughed into a crowd leaving a fireworks display in the French Riviera town of Nice on July 14, 2016. The mayor of the French city of Nice said dozens of people were likely killed after a van rammed into a crowd marking Bastille Day in the French Riviera resort today and urged residents to stay indoors. / AFP PHOTO / VALERY HACHEVALERY HACHE/AFP/Getty Images

WHY?

By Mario Murillo

Today we woke up to horror.  We hold our children closer.  Our minds and hearts race. So many things that seemed important yesterday are far from our mind now.  We want to know why.  We want to know why people do these things…things that escape our ability to describe.

Why?  Because the order for these massacres was given for the last two years ago.

ISIS militants have been urging supporters to run westerners over with vehicles since 2014, when Abu Mohammed al Adnani, a spokesman for the Islamic State, urged the group’s supporters to kill “disbelieving American or European – especially the spiteful and filthy French – or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war, including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against the Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way, however it may be,” he said in 2014. “Smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car, or throw him down from a high place, or choke him, or poison him.”

Why? Because Western leaders behave like children pulling the covers over their head for fear of the monster in the closet.  They do not want to be seen as “Islamophobic or racist.”  They don’t want to admit that global radical Islam has put a Trojan horse in every nation that has accepted unvetted refugees.

Why? Because an American President’s empathy toward Islam trumps the welfare of the American people.

Why?  Because the civilized world has yet to admit that World War Three is at the door if we do not unify. 

CnaMB1aWAAAvZuw

One of the most moving scenes in the film MRS. MINIVER is its finale– the speech made by the vicar (Henry Wilcoxon) to the local community assembled in their war -ravaged church, the walls held up by braces and the summer sky clearly visible through the rafters overhead. This scene had such an impact on American president Franklin D. Roosevelt, that at his request the text was broadcast over the Voice of America in Europe and was printed on millions of leaflets dropped over German-occupied territory. The Wilcoxon speech is frequently cited in books about Hollywood’s World War II films as exemplary of the kind of filmmaking that helped mobilize the United States to war in defense of its English allies.

Here is the text of that speech:

“We, in this quiet corner of England, have suffered the loss of friends very dear to us– some close to this church: George West, choir boy; James Bellard, station master and bell ringer and a proud winner, only one hour before his death, of the Belding Cup for his beautiful Miniver rose; and our hearts go out in sympathy to the two families who share the cruel loss of a young girl who was married at this altar only two weeks ago.

The homes of many of us have been destroyed, and the lives of young and old have been taken. There is scarcely a household that hasn’t been struck to the heart.

And why? Surely you must have asked yourself this question. Why in all conscience should these be the ones to suffer? Children, old people, a young girl at the height of her loveliness. Why these? Are these our soldiers? Are these our fighters? Why should they be sacrificed?

I shall tell you why.

Because this is not only a war of soldiers in uniform. It is a war of the people, of all the people, and it must be fought not only on the battlefield, but in the cities and in the villages, in the factories and on the farms, in the home, and in the heart of every man, woman, and child who loves freedom!

Well, we have buried our dead, but we shall not forget them. Instead they will inspire us with an unbreakable determination to free ourselves and those who come after us from the tyranny and terror that threaten to strike us down.  This is the people’s war! It is our war! We are the fighters! Fight it then! Fight it with all that is in us, and may God defend the right.”   AMEN.

YOU CAN SEE THE ACTUAL SCENE IN THE VIDEO BELOW

OBAMA IMPORTS I MILLION MUSLIMS DURING PRESIDENCY

Chart: OBAMA IMPORTS I MILLION MUSLIMS DURING PRESIDENCY

IMPORTS

The Obama Administration is on pace to issue more than a million green cards to migrants from majority-Muslim countries, according to an analysis of Department of Homeland Security data.

A chart released by the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest Friday details the surge in immigration to the U.S. from majority-Muslim countries since President Barack Obama took office in 2009.

Specifically, in the first six fiscal years of Obama’s presidency (FY2009 – FY2014), his administration issued 832,014 green cards to migrants majority-Muslim countries, the most of which were issued to migrants from Pakistan (102,000), Iraq (102,000), Bangladesh (90,000), Iran (85,000), Egypt (56,000), and Somalia (37,000).

GettyImages-519072890-640x480

The total 832,014 new permanent residents do not include migrants on temporary, nonimmigrant visas — which allow foreign nationals to come to the U.S. temporarily for work, study, tourism and the like. As the subcommittee notes, the number also does not include those migrants who overstayed the terms of their visas.

Obama Admin On Track To Issue 1M GCs (1)

Regardless, as the subcommittee explained in its analysis, the U.S. is playing host to immigrants from majority Muslim countries at an increasing pace.

Between FY 2013 and FY 2014, the number of green cards issued to migrants from Muslim-majority countries increased dramatically – from 117,423 in FY 2013, to 148,810 in FY 2014, a nearly 27 percent increase. Throughout the Obama Administration’s tenure, the United States has issued green cards to an average of 138,669 migrants from Muslim-majority countries per year, meaning that it is nearly certain the United States will have issued green cards to at least 1.1 million migrants from Muslim-majority countries on the President’s watch. It has also been reported that migration from Muslim-majority countries represents the fastest growing class of migrants.

Green cards, or Lawful Permanent Residency, puts immigrants on the path to citizenship and allows for lifetime residency, federal benefits, and work authorization. Included in the totals are refugees, who are required to apply for a green card after one year of residency in the U.S. Unlike other types of immigrants, refugees are immediately eligible for welfare benefits including Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), food stamps, and Medicaid.

A report from the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) indicated that in FY 2013, 91.4 percent of Middle Eastern refugees (accepted to the U.S. between 2008-2013) received food stamps, 73.1 percent were on Medicaid or Refugee Medical Assistance and 68.3 percent were on cash welfare.

Green Card Totals, FY09-FY14:

Pakistan (102K), Iraq (102K), Bangladesh (90K), Iran (85K), Egypt (56K), Somalia (37K), Uzbekistan (30K), Turkey (26K), Morocco (25K), Jordan (25K), Albania (24K), Afghanistan (21K), Lebanon (20K), Yemen (20K), Syria (18K), Indonesia (17K), Sudan (15K), Sierra Leone (12K), Guinea (9K), Senegal (8K), Saudi Arabia (9K), Algeria (8K), Kazakhstan (8K), Kuwait (6K), Gambia (6K), United Arab Emirates (5K), Azerbaijan (4K), Mali (4K), Burkina Faso (3K), Kyrgyzstan (3K), Kosovo (3K), Mauritania (3K), Tunisia (2K), Tajikistan (2K), Libya (2K), Turkmenistan (1K), Qatar (1K), Chad (1K)