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

This man

This man

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” –Dr. Martin Luther King. 

Today we see the opposite of Dr. King’s dream.  We cannot judge the character of Barrack Obama because of the color of his skin.  You are not allowed to judge his character. 

In this final blog on Barrack Obama I will address his character, explain why this is my last blog on Obama and in the process issue a solemn warning to the Church of Jesus Christ in the United States.

In 2007 I began warning people about this man and laid out in glaring detail the calamity that is now our reality.  Many rejected me as a veritable madman for saying that one day America would look exactly the way she looks right now.  We are divided, we are poor, we are hated in the world and we are about to lose forever our power to get back everything that Obama stole from our children’s future.

In 2011, the blogs began.  No one but God knows the price that I have paid for writing these blogs.  When I began, not one preacher that I knew was willing to publicly oppose Barack Obama. 

I knew what this man was the first time I laid eyes on him.  He set off a universal alarm in my spirit that forced me to change the way I relate to politicians.  With Obama’s arrival a misty blanket of deception fell over the nation.   Suddenly, the American public was dull to common sense and lost their ability to state the obvious.  

Look into this man’s eyes and what do you see?   You see a sinister pathological smugness and indifference to truth.  He does not even attempt to put a spin on his debacles; he simply changes the subject and then orders us to consider only what he says next.  

Obama does and says things on a daily basis that would end anyone else’s career. He slept through the murders of innocent Americans in Benghazi.  He used the NSA to spy on Americans. He turned the IRS into a tool for his reelection. Because of this and ten thousand other crimes, he makes Richard Nixon look like Dudley Do-Right.

The media put a force field around him.  It never confronts him about his lies or wonders about what he does in secret.  No meaningful questions are permitted.  Any line of questioning that would undermine his messianic narrative is taboo. No wonder this man believes he is accountable to no one. 

He is laying the groundwork for a world without America.  What is America?  America is a firewall against tyranny.  North Korea, Russia, China and Iran cannot take over the world until America is weak.  This man Obama has, in 6 short years, weakened America more than all previous presidents combined.   

He has crushed us under debt, he has us at each other’s throats, and he promotes thugs and demotes righteous leaders.  The White House is staffed with all of the competence and wisdom of a banana republic.

I will not be surprised if this man tries to invent a civil disorder just so he can stay in office.

However, I believe that his ability to lie, cheat, steal and injure with impunity is also fueled by the supernatural.

That misty blanket of deception that came on America is supernatural. 

The widespread silence of American pastors is supernatural. 

The moral grogginess of Americans is as if we’ve all been drugged supernaturally.

It is supernatural that the church cannot come together to answer the threat of this man. 

It is supernatural that the church cannot galvanize against this man for the way he has turned on Israel in such an insulting and demeaning way.  This alone proves his Antichrist spirit.

It is supernatural how Americans are not outraged by Obama’s preference for Islam.  

It is supernatural that America can turn a blind eye to the world wide martyrdom of Christians.  This man could not even call the 21 Coptic Christians who were beheaded, Christians.

It is supernatural that for the first time in our history the 3 most popular American pastors refuse to preach on repentance, the Cross, the Blood, the inerrancy of the Bible and the existence of hell.

It is supernatural that there are those who continue to support Barrack Obama and yet call themselves Christians. Since the teachings of Christ and the policies of this man are in perfect opposition to each other, why do they bother to call themselves Christians?   Only the supernatural allows you to host such a contradiction in your mind.

It is the supernatural spirit of Antichrist that has allowed the illogical, the absurd and the inconceivable to feel normal.

And it is the supernatural power of God that has released me from writing about this man.  When I began no one stood with me. Now many voices are speaking out.  I pass this baton gladly.

Oh don’t think for a minute that I will stop exposing sin.  I will now turn my attention to the public that is deceived and groping in darkness.  I will preach revival and repentance like never before.

My energy will now go to preaching about the higher power that darkness cannot stand.  I will however, remain a loving irritant in the side of pastors.  

America can be brought out of this coma.  God can send a divine desperation into the hearts of millions.  That is now my unswerving mission…not this man.

Editor’s note:  please feel free to repost this blog!  Please provide a link to this site.

P.S. When you think of  the 21 who were martyred by Islamic Terrorists what kind of Christians are they?  Here is a worship service.

RUDY…RUDY…RUDY!

Pepsi 400

RUDY…RUDY…RUDY!

By Mario Murillo

Part one:  Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Rudy Giuliani said that Obama does not love America.  Then the firestorm began.   Press secretary Josh Earnest said “I can tell you that it’s sad to see when somebody who has attained a certain stature and even admiration tarnishes that legacy so thoroughly.”

Who is tarnishing their legacy Josh?  You are Obama’s press secretary which right now is the American equivalent of Baghdad Bob. 

No one can escape that fact that Obama does not love America.   No one put it better than Pastor Robert Jeffress.  He quoted Obama:  “I want to fundamentally change America.”   Jeffress said “can you imagine a man saying to his fiancée “I want to fundamentally change you”?

Josh and his ilk are yanking that moment out of the Wizard of OZ saying to all of America “Do not arouse the wrath of the great and powerful OZ and then says “pay no that man behind the curtain.”

 We are not supposed to look at the man behind the Hope and Change curtain?   Do not arouse the wrath of the man of smoke, mirrors, hollow promises and deception on a scale never seen before?

We are supposed to believe he loves America.  We are supposed to be vilified if we say he doesn’t?   No one has said louder and clearer than Obama himself.  His contempt for Christians, Jews, Conservatives, and anyone else who opposes him is well documented.

Part two: Nobody said it better than Dorothy…”if you were really great and powerful, you would keep your promises.”

 He never got you the job he promised.  He never brought the Arab spring he promised.  He never defended and protected the Constitution like he promised.  He never made our allies loves us as he promised.  He never did anything he promised except to “fundamentally change America” into a weaker and more divided nation than when he took office.

Obama loves us?  He spies on those he loves?  He uses the IRS as an attack dog on those he loves?   He goes to bed instead of saving those in Benghazi he loves?   He relentlessly refuses to protect us from our enemies because he loves us?   He refuses to admit that there is a war against us because he loves us?

 Part three:  I was spontaneously chanting Rudy, Rudy, Rudy!   I have zero concern for Rudy Giuliani’s legacy.  His true love for the City of New York cannot be questioned.  The heroic way he held that city together after 911 will resound in history.

He applied the same matter of fact courage in stating the obvious about this president.   Not only did he state the obvious, he was kinder and gentler than he could have been.  Rudy was well within the mark.  He tapped the nail on the head.  He understated the single most glaring fact about this president.   The question is not “does Obama love America”, the real question is “how much does actually he hate it?”

Now watch this amazing video of Rudy Giuliani