Trump will win by a landslide in 2020. Liberals are the ones saying this, and that explains everything. 

The bombshell admission came last week on MSNBC.  New York uber-liberal Donny Deutsch said, “Trump will be re-elected in 2020 by a landslide.”  That—while amazing—is not the bomb.  It’s what he said next: “That’s why Trump must be removed from office now.” 

As Wayne Allyn Root put it: “Donny revealed what liberals are all thinking, deep down. Trump is a lock for re-election by a wide margin. As Deutsch admitted, that’s why he must be stopped now.

Crazed liberals scream for his removal … impeachment … even assassination. Because they know Trump is succeeding. He is effective, he is erasing Barack Obama and he is fundamentally changing America back to a conservative, capitalist nation. They know they can’t stop him at the ballot box, so they have decided they have to stop him any other way they can — even resorting to violence, conspiracy and sedition.”

Did you see the words, violence, conspiracy, sedition…even assassination?

This explains everything.  It explains why CNN sent reporters to Thailand to interview prostitutes who “may have dirt on Trump.”  It explains why Hillary is not being investigated for Russian collusion.  It shows why the left will stop at nothing to get him out now.

Last December my spirit was deeply disturbed.  I sought relief in intercession.  My thoughts turned toward the President.  I wrote this to our partners in late December: “A massive disruption, is planned within the next 90 days.  There will be a major move against the president by both Democrats and Republicans.  In short, you will see the most vicious assaults—on our freedoms, our faith, and our children—you have ever seen.”  Those 90 days are up March 24th—the day of a massive march for gun control.

What I didn’t know is why the left lost its mind.  Now I do.  It is the certain reelection of Donald Trump.  It is hideous to think what they might do.  It is disgusting that they don’t care if Trump makes life better for Americans—that’s how deranged they truly are.  But there is a positive to this.

Gideon asked God for one last sign he would defeat the Midianites. It came from the last source he expected: The enemy.  God told Gideon to sneak into the camp of the Midianites—an army as many as the sand of the seashore in number.  He arrived at the right tent in time to hear this: Judges 7: 13 “Gideon crept up to one of the tents just as a man inside had wakened from a nightmare and was telling his tent-mate about it.

“I had this strange dream,” he was saying, “and there was this huge loaf of barley bread that came tumbling down into our camp. It hit our tent and knocked it flat!” 14 The other soldier replied, “Your dream can mean only one thing! Gideon, the son of Joash, the Israeli, is going to come and massacre all the allied forces of Midian!” 15 When Gideon heard the dream and the interpretation, all he could do was just stand there worshiping God! Then he returned to his men and shouted, ‘Get up! For the Lord is going to use you to conquer all the vast armies of Midian!’”

Beloved, the enemy is admitting reelection.  We should rejoice but we should also be interceding for our president to be protected form whatever is coming.  Now you know what is going on and how to pray.

The leftist media is now irrelevant to America.  Let me prove it to you.

The leftist media is irrelevant to America.  Let me prove it to you.  More than that, let me show you why it matters to you.  The proof is glaring, and the left can no longer run from it.  Here’s the proof:
CBS, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times, along with the not so subtle help of Youtube, Google, Facebook, Yahoo, every late night talk show host, backed Obama.   They were praising, pumping, and drooling.  They called anyone racist who didn’t support him. Yet, at this point in his presidency—he had a 43% approval rating among likely voters.  With all that firepower they simply could move the needle above 43%.
Now the wrath of that entire media cabal is being poured out 24 hours a day on Trump and his supporters. Yet, Trump’s approval is at least 5 to 6 points higher than Obama at the same point.  What does that mean?  It means they are irrelevant—and they have been for years.   They have a hardcore following but things are getting worse.
Reality came on election night.  Crestfallen and dismayed they wailed, cried, and sank horrified.  Not just because Trump won but because they were repudiated. They petulantly signed off telling us it was the end of the world.  That didn’t happen either.

On the other hand, Fox News continued to dominate ratings—commanding an audience that is larger than many leftist medias combined.  Most damaging to the left is the fact that conservative outlets tend to change minds. There’s a reason.
The left rants and spouts slogans but rarely makes a common sense case.  Conservatives ask disturbing questions. Here’s an admittedly oversimplified example: Left leaning broadcast: “You are racist!”  Conservative site: “Chicago has the strictest gun laws in America and a high murder rate. Why?”
But nothing is costing the left more than the Mueller investigation i.e. witch hunt.  The left’s towering hypocrisy is front and center for all to see.  They decry foreign influence on our election while they are fighting to let illegals vote.
Here are other signs that the left leaning media is running out of gas:
-Tonight Jimmy Kimmel said he will tone down the Trump bashing as he hosts the Academy Awards.
-The NFL, The Olympics and every other sport hijacked for the left is suffering ratings collapse.
-Even the L.A. Times, printed an article yesterday saying California should not be obstructing federal law when it comes to illegal immigration.
-Abortion is becoming abhorrent to many young people.  Planned Parenthood is panicking and dropping tens of millions of dollars to elect democrats.
What does this mean?  It means there is a growing audience for moral absolutes and a message of personal responsibility.
What does that mean to you?  It means that the church has preached a muted Gospel for no good reason.  It means, the idea that the public didn’t want a message of love and repentance was a myth.
It means that throughout history, the church has never looked worse than when she tried to reflect cultural thought.  And, she never looked better than when she shined the unfiltered light of the Gospel.  We just laid to rest living proof of this fact: Billy Graham.

It means most of all that there is great opening for us. We don’t know how long it will last so we better jump on it.  My final statement can make the devil pull a muscle in his head:
God is looking for people—maybe you.  He is not looking for better technology or methods.  He doesn’t pour out His Spirit on technology or methods…but on people.  People who will pray for fire, wisdom, courage and opportunity.  If God has heard of you, who cares if anyone else has?
Today, a voice filled with love, truth and the Holy Spirit will cut through this culture like a hot knife through butter.  The Gospel is not just relevant—it is timeless.  It can answer the evil of today and also what is to come. Amen.

Rachel Maddow Turned a Scoop on Donald Trump’s Taxes Into a Cynical, Self-Defeating Spectacle

At 7:36 p.m. Tuesday, Rachel Maddow tweeted, “BREAKING: We’ve got Trump tax returns. Tonight, 9pm ET. MSNBC. (Seriously),” sending the internet into a frenzy of theorizing. Did Maddow have Donald Trump’s tax returns or just one of the Trumps’ tax returns? Could this be it, the tax return that would bring down the Donald? If this was it, why wasn’t MSNBC cutting into its programming, instead of running a countdown clock to Maddow’s show? By 8:24, Maddow was tweeting that the tax return in question was Donald Trump’s 1040 from 2005. By 8:30, still half an hour before Maddow started airing, the White House had responded to the MSNBC report, saying that Trump had paid $38 million on income of $150 million that year. An hour later, about 20 minutes after The Rachel Maddow Show started, Maddow would confirm these numbers, turning her big scoop about Donald Trump’s long-missing tax returns into a cautionary tale about overhype. Rachel Maddow, you played yourself—and us too.

 

Rachel Maddow Turned a Scoop on Donald Trump’s Taxes Into a Cynical, Self-Defeating Spectacle

Willa PaskinWILLA PASKIN

Willa Paskin is Slate’s television critic.

“It’s been a little bit of a hullabaloo around here this evening, I apologize for being flustered,” Maddow said at the top of the hour, before confirming that her show had copies of Donald Trump’s federal tax returns, obtained by the reporter David Cay Johnston, to share with her audience. “In just a second we’re going to show you exactly what it is we’ve got,” she said, before launching, instead, into a 20-minute monologue. Maddow seemed uncharacteristically nervous as she wended her way though what could kindly be described as context and which I am unkindly describing as word salad, a long meander that was difficult to follow even without the distracting promise of a revelatory tax return at its end.

The monologue started contextually enough, with a long-winded skewering of Trump’s refusal to share his tax returns that touched on Richard Nixon, the Clintons, and his unaudited tax forms, before veering off conspiratorially. “Whether or not you are a supporter of Donald Trump,” Maddow said, “It ought to give you pause that his explanations [for not releasing his tax returns] have never made any factual sense. … When you get an excuse from them that doesn’t make sense, you have to look for another reason. What’s the real explanation? Well, choose your own adventure.” She then launched into a long hypothetical about a particular Russian oligarch’s possible relationship to Trump that touched on Florida real estate, Deutsche Bank, and Preet Bharara that Trump’s tax returns—though not, as it would turn out, the ones she actually had—could conceivably clear up.

The longer Maddow went on, ever deeper into a conspiratorial thicket, the clearer it became that whatever tax returns Maddow had, they weren’t as juicy as the ones she was talking about. If she had anything that damning, she would have shared them from the start. TV is a ratings game, but an entire episode about highly damaging tax returns is just as likely to get you great ratings as milking the possibility that you have highly damaging tax returns and less likely to get you compared to Geraldo. Maddow even went so far as to hold the tax returns back until after the first commercial break, as if we were watching an episode of The Bachelor and not a matter of national importance—because we weren’t, in fact, watching a matter of national importance, just a cable news show trying to set a ratings record.

After the first break—at which point the tax returns were already available on the internet and glossed by the Daily Beast—Maddow was joined by Johnston, and she began by asking him how he knew Trump hadn’t sent the returns himself. Johnston said that he could have. A few hours after Maddow finished airing, this has become a popular conspiracy theory, simply because, if Donald Trump were to share any of his tax returns, the 2005 1040 seems like a good candidate. Trump paid taxes at a rate of around 4 percent, but because of the alternate minimum tax, he also paid an additional $31 million. The form revealed that, rather than not paying taxes and making no money, Trump paid $38 million on $150 million in income. Maddow promised to pull a sordid revelation out of a hat and instead plucked out … Trump’s credibility? Maddow was soon parsing, asking Johnston to explain that Trump is currently trying to do away with the AMT, which, unfair as it may be, still wouldn’t change the amount he paid in 2005.

As the show went on, it became clear that Maddow knew she didn’t quite have the scoop that had been promised. “What would we have to see, what would we hope to get in mail,” she asked Johnston, “if we were going to get to the real meat of Donald Trump’s foreign ties?”—i.e., what would be more meaningful than the tax form that we have? Speaking to Chris Hayes and Johnston, she said, “The story here to me is, a) we have obtained this [tax form], b) that this stuff is obtainable.” “BREAKING: Trump’s tax returns theoretically obtainable. Tonight, 9 p.m. ET. MSNBC. (Seriously)” does make for a less rousing tweet.

Trump’s tax returns, whatever information they happen to contain, constitute a major scoop. Maddow’s social media team ensured the highest possible ratings for that scoop. But if ever a story should have been delivered in a stentorian, fuddy-duddy, nonpartisan manner, this was it. In positioning it as a grand revelation, a vital step in comprehending Trump’s corruption, MSNBC created an exceedingly cynical spectacle. By playing into the network’s loyal liberal audience’s fantasy that there exists a Trump silver bullet, it instead delivered Trump a positive news cycle—the guy pays taxes! Who knew!—amidst the debacle of the American Health Care Aact, along with more evidence that the media is aligned against him. The lesson? Don’t tell us you have news, just tell us the news.

Should Christians Vote for Trump?

Should Christians Vote for Trump?

By Eric Metaxas

Over this past year many of Donald Trump’s comments have made me almost literally hopping mad. The hot-mic comments from 2005 are especially horrifying. Can there be any question we should denounce them with flailing arms and screeching volume?

Trump’s behavior is odious, but Clinton has a deplorable basketful of deal breakers.

This question should hardly require an essay, but let’s face it: We’re living in strange times. America is in trouble.

Over this past year many of Donald Trump’s comments have made me almost literally hopping mad. The hot-mic comments from 2005 are especially horrifying. Can there be any question we should denounce them with flailing arms and screeching volume? I must not hang out in the right locker rooms, because if anyone I know said such things I might assault him physically (and repent later). So yes, many see these comments as a deal breaker.

But we have a very knotty and larger problem. What if the other candidate also has deal breakers? Even a whole deplorable basketful? Suddenly things become horribly awkward. Would God want me simply not to vote? Is that a serious option?

-What if not pulling the lever for Mr. Trump effectively means electing someone who has actively enabled sexual predation in her husband before—and while—he was president?

-Won’t God hold me responsible for that? What if she defended a man who raped a 12-year-old and in recalling the case laughed about getting away with it? Will I be excused from letting this person become president?

-What if she used her position as secretary of state to funnel hundreds of millions into her own foundation, much of it from nations that treat women and gay people worse than dogs? Since these things are true, can I escape responsibility for them by simply not voting?

Many say they won’t vote because choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. But this is sophistry. Neither candidate is pure evil. They are human beings. We cannot escape the uncomfortable obligation to soberly choose between them.

if

Not voting—or voting for a third candidate who cannot win—is a rationalization designed more than anything to assuage our consciences. Yet people in America and abroad depend on voters to make this very difficult choice.

Children in the Middle East are forced to watch their fathers drowned in cages by ISIS. Kids in inner-city America are condemned to lives of poverty, hopelessness and increasing violence. Shall we sit on our hands and simply trust “the least of these” to God, as though that were our only option? Don’t we have an obligation to them?

Two heroes about whom I’ve written faced similar difficulties. William Wilberforce, who ended the slave trade in the British Empire, often worked with other parliamentarians he knew to be vile and immoral in their personal lives.

Why did he? First, because as a sincere Christian he knew he must extend grace and forgiveness to others, since he desperately needed them himself. Second, because he knew the main issue was not his moral purity, nor the moral impurity of his colleagues, but rather the injustices and horrors suffered by the African slaves whose cause he championed. He knew that before God his first obligation was to them, and he must do what he could to help them.

The anti-Nazi martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer also did things most Christians of his day were disgusted by. He most infamously joined a plot to kill the head of his government. He was horrified by it, but he did it nonetheless because he knew that to stay “morally pure” would allow the murder of millions to continue. Doing nothing or merely “praying” was not an option. He understood that God was merciful, and that even if his actions were wrong, God saw his heart and could forgive him. But he knew he must act.

Wilberforce and Bonhoeffer knew it was an audience of One to whom they would ultimately answer. And He asks, “What did you do to the least of these?”

 

It’s a fact that if Hillary Clinton is elected, the country’s chance to have a Supreme Court that values the Constitution—and the genuine liberty and self-government for which millions have died—is gone. Not for four years, or eight, but forever.

Many say Mr. Trump can’t be trusted to deliver on this score, but Mrs. Clinton certainly can be trusted in the opposite direction. For our kids and grandkids, are we not obliged to take our best shot at this? Shall we sit on our hands and refuse to choose?

If imperiously flouting the rules by having a private server endangered American lives and secrets and may lead to more deaths, if she cynically deleted thousands of emails, and if her foreign-policy judgment led to the rise of Islamic State, won’t refusing to vote make me responsible for those suffering as a result of these things?

vote

How do I squirm out of this horrific conundrum? It’s unavoidable: We who can vote must answer to God for these people, whom He loves. We are indeed our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers.

We would be responsible for passively electing someone who champions the abomination of partial-birth abortion, someone who is celebrated by an organization that sells baby parts. We already live in a country where judges force bakers, florists and photographers to violate their consciences and faith—and Mrs. Clinton has zealously ratified this. If we believe this ends with bakers and photographers, we are horribly mistaken. No matter your faith or lack of faith, this statist view of America will dramatically affect you and your children.

For many of us, this is very painful, pulling the lever for someone many think odious. But please consider this: A vote for Donald Trump is not necessarily a vote for Donald Trump himself. It is a vote for those who will be affected by the results of this election. Not to vote is to vote. God will not hold us guiltless.

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

 

Trump and Cruz send shivers down GOP spines

Trump Ted

Trump and Cruz send shivers down GOP spines

The prospect of either man as the Republican nominee is setting off alarm bells among officials and operatives across the country.
By ALEX ISENSTADT 01/05/16 05:11 AM EST

With only weeks before GOP primary voters first cast their ballots, the level of alarm among establishment Republicans about the enduring dominance of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz is reaching new heights.

In private conversations with several former aides, Mitt Romney, who in March will keynote the National Republican Congressional Committee’s annual fundraising dinner, has expressed rising frustration about Trump’s prolonged lead in polls and has argued that the real-estate mogul could inflict lasting damage on the party’s brand.

In Washington and elsewhere, meanwhile, Republicans are on the hunt for a political entity that can be used to stop Trump. In recent weeks, Alex Castellanos, a veteran TV ad man who was a top adviser to George W. Bush and Romney, has been meeting with top GOP operatives and donors to gauge interest in launching an anti-Trump vehicle that would pummel the Manhattan businessman on the television airwaves.
Those who’ve met with Castellanos say he’s offered detailed presentations on how such an offensive would play out. Castellanos has said that an anti-Trump ad campaign, which would be designed to cast him as a flawed strongman, would cost well into the millions. It was unclear, the sources said, whether Castellanos, who did not respond to a request for comment, would ultimately go through with the effort.

One growing worry about Trump or Cruz, top party officials, donors, and operatives across the country say, is that nominating either man would imperil lawmakers in down-ballot races, especially those residing in moderate states and districts.

“At some point, we have to deal with the fact that there are at least two candidates who could utterly destroy the Republican bench for a generation if they became the nominee,” said Josh Holmes, a former chief of staff to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. “We’d be hard-pressed to elect a Republican dogcatcher north of the Mason-Dixon or west of the Mississippi.”

“Trump and Cruz are worrisome to most Republican candidates for governor, senator and Congress,” said Curt Anderson, a longtime GOP strategist and former Republican National Committee political director. “Some will say they are not worried, but they are.”

Romney has been calling around to former advisers to sound them out about the race, and to kvetch about Trump’s surprising durability. But in the immediate term, at least, he has expressed unwillingness to lend his hand to a stop-Trump effort — or to endorse a candidate more palatable to a GOP establishment paralyzed by his rise and worried that nominating him or Cruz would scupper an opportunity to control both the White House and Congress in 2017.

The concern is particularly acute in the Senate, where Republicans are fighting to preserve a relatively slim four-seat majority, defending more than half a dozen seats in hard-to-win swing states. Among them: Ohio, a presidential battleground state where Republican Sen. Rob Portman faces a perilous path to reelection.

When Trump traveled to the state in November, he met with Matt Borges, Ohio’s Republican Party chairman — who warned the front-runner that “divisive rhetoric won’t help us carry Ohio.”

“It’s time for people who have never won squat here to listen to the people who have been doing it for decades,” Borges said in an interview. “I’m just looking out for how we win in November.”

In Wisconsin, some party officials fret that a Trump or Cruz nomination could sink Republican Sen. Ron Johnson, who faces a tough race against his predecessor, Russ Feingold.
“Certainly, it would be bad for Ron Johnson if Trump is the nominee,” said Wisconsin Rep. Reid Ribble who, like Johnson, was swept into Congress in the Republican wave of 2010. “I think Trump is probably really bad down-ballot.”

Some top party strategists have spent months considering how the outcome of the primary will impact congressional races. Since last spring, the National Republican Senatorial Committee has been poring over research and polling data in hopes of better understanding how each of the Republican candidates running for president would affect GOP hopefuls running for Senate. The committee has held internal meetings to discuss the pros and cons of each presidential contender and how they would affect each key Senate race.

The House, where Republicans have a historic 30-seat majority, is more secure for the party. But there, too, the GOP has reason to worry: The party must defend nearly three dozen endangered seats — many of them in liberal-to-moderate states like California, New York and Florida.

Should Trump or Cruz win the nomination, party operatives say, some longtime officeholders in more conservative districts such as New Jersey Rep. Scott Garrett or Florida Rep. John Mica, who typically skate to general election wins, could find themselves in tougher-than-usual contests.

Cruz’s campaign pushes back on the idea that the Texas senator would imperil those running in House and Senate races. A Cruz nomination, they argue, would motivate conservatives to turn out to vote in a way that an establishment candidate couldn’t.

“Down-ballot Republicans need Ted Cruz at the top of the ticket because he is the only candidate in the race who can excite the base to show up in November,” said Rick Tyler, a Cruz spokesman. “If we chose another moderate, we will simply lose seats we would otherwise win.”

Trump’s campaign didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Some, though, are already counseling Republican candidates to begin to think about how to distance themselves from a Trump or Cruz in the event either wins the nomination.

“Candidates will need to develop their own brand,” said Pennsylvania Rep. Charlie Dent, a Republican who has represented a swing district in Lehigh Valley since 2004. “A candidate will need to run his or her own campaign and distance themselves from the top of the ticket.”

Among the tricky questions candidates will be forced to consider: whether it’s worth endorsing either potential nominee.

Illinois Rep. Bob Dold, a Republican who represents a liberal-leaning, suburban Chicago district, said he had ruled out endorsing Trump. He declined to say whether he’d back Cruz.

While Dold said he was monitoring the primary, he argued that voters would be willing to look beyond the party’s presidential nominee when determining his fate in November.

“Illinois 10th District,” he said, “has a long history of ticket splitting.”

 

MIRACLES WILL NOW APPEAR IN MAINSTREAM AMERICA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

MIRACLES WILL NOW APPEAR IN MAINSTREAM AMERICA

By Mario Murillo

Dear Reader,

Doctors will be amazed. Churches will be revolutionized. We will see the dead raised and the miraculous multiplication of food. Millions will experience wonder. But it is not all good news.

Here are the three reasons that miracles are coming that I was given by the Holy Spirit.

1.It is time because the Bible has been rejected. Outpourings of the Holy Spirit and clusters of miracles occur like weather patterns. Jesus said, “When it is evening you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red’;  and in the morning, ‘It will be foul weather today, for the sky is red and threatening.’ Hypocrites! You know how to discern the face of the sky, but you cannot discern the signs of the times.  -Matthew 16:2,3.

The Bible which was a guiding force throughout our history has been set aside as a myth.  It has never been like this before.  Never have we seen such a wholesale rejection of the Word of God like this.  Psalm 119:126 says, “It is time for You to act oh God for they have nullified Your Word.”  We are now a nation without a Bible.   It is been evicted from our halls of government, schools, and even church.  It is time for God to act…and He will.insert one

America is now the foreign mission field.  The Holy Spirit will now work to confirm the Word with signs following. The miracles, healings, and supernatural signs have been a regular part of outreach in Africa, Asia and Latin America will now appear in America.  Resurrections, multiplication of food, angelic visitations    

2.It is time because judgment must begin at house of God. When these miracles come it will not be an endorsement of the current church. In fact, I believe that God is displeased with the overwhelming majority of what we call church in America.    

These signs and wonders will bring judgment.  They will divide churches.  They will expose sin.  They will even bring death.  Remember, Ananias and Sapphira were killed by the Holy Spirit not simply for stealing money, but for doing it in a time of miracles.

The double lives of carnal pastors will come to light.   The sickly grace message that has believers sleeping around and getting drunk will be plowed under by the true fire of God.  Evangelists who operate in false gifts by the power of familiar spirits will be exposed as fakes in front of their audiences.

Judgment indeed will begin at the house of God but it will not end there.  Look for public officials, celebrities and anti-God voices to be suddenly removed.

3.It is time because America is on the brink of destruction.  Mideast Israel ElectionThe White House is demonstrating breathtaking stupidity by betraying Israel.  Israel, to its eternal credit, rejected the stupidity of the White House and placed its fate into the hands of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jesus.

There is no doubt that America has crossed a deadline.  The White House is guilty of the most blatant animosity toward the things of God that we have seen in American history.

The executive branch of our government is literally shaking its fist at God and daring Him to intervene.  If God does not act now there will be no America.  But there will be a World War Three.

There is radical, remnant core who have not bowed their knee to Baal.  There is a growing army who have discarded dead religion, repented of a prayless life and will obey the voice of God.  They are the rightful heirs of a new anointing that will shatter the darkness.  They will flow in true gifts of power and speak only the counsel of God!

I believe that these miracles, signs and wonders will be upon us within a few weeks.  But never forget that this is sobering news…God is giving America one more chance.

insert 2