A Matter of Life and Death

Here is the plain truth: We are in a situation where the worst president we have ever had—may be replaced by the only person who could possibly be worse—at the worst time imaginable.  The odds of this are astronomical.

A Matter of Life and Death

By Mario Murillo

Here is the plain truth: We are in a situation where the worst president we have ever had—may be replaced by the only person who could possibly be worse—at the worst time imaginable.  The odds of this are astronomical.

Let me take that last one first.  This is the worst time imaginable because a blanket of delusion hangs over the general population.    They have been assaulted, robbed, lied to and cast aside by Obama.  Yet—like a battered wife—millions of Democrats have signed up for more.

Moreover, the media has lost its soul.  They are busy lying, manipulating, punishing opposing views and utterly selling out to elect Clinton.  At any other time, people would be horrified and disgusted.

This is the perfect storm.  To my mind, there are only two possible reasons that all of this could be happening at the same time:  1. Satan is making his stand to destroy America.  2. God has sent a strong delusion to judge America.

Let me take the first one next.  Obama is not merely the worst president ever.  He may be the worst thing that has ever happened to America.  He did the opposite of everything he ever promised.

-He said Obamacare would save you $2,500.  Arizona will see an increase of over 116%.  The average national increase will be 60%.

-He promised jobs and instead drove 95 million Americans out of the workforce.

-He promised to heal race relations. Instead, he started a race war that has killed scores of police across the nation.

hillary-and-obama-pic-575x380

-He said he would make life better for blacks.  Instead he set records for suffering.  Lowest home ownership.  Highest crime rates.  Highest poverty rates. Since he has been in office, 8 thousand have been murdered in Chicago alone.  he has divided the races and poisoned all race conversations.

-He promised to heal our relationship to the Middle East.  What he gave us was a world of terror, civil war and imminent world war.

This is the worst time for Hillary.  If you believe that Hillary’s corrupt, heinous, hideous, malevolent, malicious, nefarious, ugly, vicious, vile and depraved (words fail me) character in anyway compares to Trump’s failings…you are indeed under a strong delusion.

People think that the point I am making is “watch out, Hillary will make things bad!”   No, no it is much worse than that.   Things are already bad, horribly bad.  Obama has made us utterly miserable…instead of hope and change, he gave us fear and loathing.

When it seems that things cannot get worse, Hillary will find a way.   She is the finishing touch on a dying nation.

This is not a dire warning…the “dire” is already here.   This election is not a choice between a bad candidate and a worse candidate.  No matter how impossible this election seems, you must vote.  No matter what the outcome, you will be able to say that you voted to save the country.

The delusion can be broken by prayer and brave action by vessels of God.  We are long overdue for a miracle.  Whatever you do…vote.

It is no longer just a vote…it is a choice between life and death.

This one ad says it all

This one ad says it all.  Sometimes we just need someone to put it all in perspective—true perspective about Hillary Clinton.  Here it is.

 

 

But wait…there’s more…

How soon we forget

by John Komula

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ready

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

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

hillary (3)

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

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

keys

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

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

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

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

Mario Murillo Ministries: Stopping the Nation Killing Machine

Stopping the Nation Killing Machine

By Mario Murillo

Hollywood, pop singers, sports figures, politicians, tech giants like Google, Apple and Amazon along with countless college professors are turning our children’s minds into a nation-killing machine.

This coalition has untold billions of dollars at their disposal.  They control the airwaves—and through Obama and Clinton, the FBI and the IRS.  They can rig elections.

Months ago this would have sounded like a tinfoil cone conspiracy—not anymore.

Now let’s talk about what God is doing.

As a kid, I liked monster movies.  (We are indeed in a monster movie right now.)  Those of you old enough to remember the black and white monster movies featured giant insects, aliens and people.  The culprit was almost always the A-Bomb tests.

There were two elements in those movies: 1. A dark moment of hopelessness when all weapons failed.  2. A controversial scientist who worked out of a barn.

The military reluctantly had to use the weapon from the barn…the monster was defeated.

I freely admit that Mario Murillo Ministries is that scientist working out of the barn.  When this beast of political correctness first oozed out of the swamp, we started warning the church.  

We declared that signs and wonders and the conviction of the Holy Spirit are the only weapons for a brain-washed generation.

We declared that we needed to stop fearing politicians and call them out.

We said young minds needed to hear why the teaching of Jesus is divine and they needed to hear the truth about American history.

Then the name-calling and ridicule began.  We were told it would never work.  We were roundly criticized and rejected.  None of this stopped us from finishing our divine training under the Holy Spirit.

Then came the summer of 2016.  The weapon came out of the barn and leaders began to see how it is exactly what is needed.  october-4

The images you see in this blog are snapshots of outreach this summer.  It was a summer of supernatural transformations and no compromise.

Leaders see how the make nice gospel is only making things worse.  Influential pastors are breaking with tradition and joining us on the frontline.  Most of all…there is a growing recognition that this weapon can kill the monster.

In an added piece of exciting news…phase one of our World Headquarters is now complete.  We have secured…and paid cash for a suite of offices in Sparks, Nevada.  The name of our offices is The War Room.  This is our new “barn” and brain center for the next phase of our national invasion to bring Living Proof to the youth of America.

october-5

An expert explains why Trump will win

ELECTORAL COLLEGE MATH, AND WHY I THINK TRUMP WILL WIN

As Donald Trump has caught up with Hillary Clinton in the polls, he has likewise closed the gap in the electoral college. Ipsos/Reuters says the race to 270 votes is now nearly tied. Many are focusing on Maine, which allocates its electoral college votes by Congressional district, and where one district going for Trump might change the result.

A reader who has been studying the numbers sends a link to 538 (“Democrats Should Panic … If The Polls Still Look Like This In A Week”) and adds:

I presume Trump wins Nevada. Adjusting for that, if this is accurate Trump loses 265 – 273. So he needs New Hampshire desperately to tie, and then win in the House…or NH plus Maine’s 2nd Congressional District for a bare win 270 – 268, second closest in history.

That could be right. But I think more likely, Trump will win rather easily, and win going away as he did the Republican primaries. I expect him to carry states like Ohio, North Carolina, Florida, Michigan, maybe even Pennsylvania. Why? Two reasons.

The first can be explained with an old story from the world of marketing:

A company came out with a new dog food, and hired an advertising firm to promote the product. The ad agency placed commercials on television and ads in magazines; millions of dollars went into the campaign. The commercials and ads were first-rate, but still the dog food did not sell. The client called a meeting at the ad agency and demanded to know what had gone wrong.

After a moment of silence, the leader of the ad agency team explained: “The dogs don’t like it.”

Hillary Clinton can be re-launched, re-packaged, and protected by a phalanx of reporters. The liberal establishment can do its best to jam her down our throats. But we–the voters–don’t like her. And the more we see of her, the more our dislike is confirmed. She is too weak a candidate to be elected president.

Second, everyone knows that the press is trying to elect Hillary, and most Americans resent it. Every day, editors and reporters try to inflict an anti-Trump theme on the rest of us. Today’s hysteria revolves around Trump’s comments on Hillary’s hypocrisy regarding gun control:

She goes around with armed bodyguards like you have never seen before. I think that her bodyguards should drop all weapons. They should disarm. Right? Right? I think they should disarm immediately. What do you think? Yes? Yes. Yeah. Take their guns away. She doesn’t want guns. … Let’s see what happens to her. Take their guns away, okay? It would be very dangerous.

Trump obviously was making the point that he and countless others have made many times before: liberals like Hillary Clinton, who are protected 24/7 by armed guards, are deeply hypocritical when they try to disarm millions of Americans who don’t have taxpayer-funded protection and rely on their own firearms for self-defense. The point is a powerful one, which is why liberal reporters don’t want to acknowledge it. Instead, they absurdly pretend that Trump was hinting that Hillary should be assassinated.

This kind of thing fools no one. Millions of Americans are quietly fuming over the press’s overreach, going over the top, day after day, to defeat Donald Trump. The blowback is building, and will continue building until election day.

At one point, when I was opposing Trump during the GOP primaries, I said to the press: Stop attacking Trump! Liberal reporters often began with a valid point, but their hysterical hatred for Trump caused them to go too far, making arguments that were patently unfair and unsustainable. Therefore, the more they attacked Trump the more his support grew. The same thing is happening now: most Americans have a pretty good sense of fair play, and they know that Trump is being treated badly by the establishment–a group for whom most Americans have no great affection.

Much more could be said, and will be between now and November 8. But let’s leave it there for now. Like most observers, I have usually been wrong this year, so there is no reason why anyone should pay much attention. But, for what it is worth, I don’t think this year’s election will turn out to be a nail-biter. Nor will it be a landslide, but I do expect a relatively easy win for Donald Trump in both the popular vote and the electoral college.

Could Trump screw it up by making a horrible blunder? Of course. But I think there is a greater chance of disaster coming from the Clinton campaign.

 

Obama makes voting for Hillary all about him

Obama: I Will Consider It An Insult To My Legacy If You Do Not Vote; Want to Give Me A Good Send Off? Go Vote

 

Obama: I Will Consider It An Insult To My Legacy If You Do Not Vote; Want to Give Me A Good Send Off? Go Vote

 President Obama made a strong sell for a candidate to succeed his legacy at the Congressional Black Caucus dinner Saturday night. The president invoked slavery and the Jim Crow era and preached that if they wanted to give him a good send off then register people to vote because his legacy is at stake.

Although he did not name Hillary Clinton, the president said he would consider it a personal insult from the African-American community if they did not for her.

“My name may not be on the ballot, but our progress is on the ballot,” President Obama said Saturday night. “And there is one candidate who will advance those things. And there is another candidate who’s defining principal, the central theme of his candidacy is opposition to all that we have done.”

 

“There’s no such thing as a vote that doesn’t matter,” Obama said. “It all matters. And after we have achieved historic turnout in 2008 and 2012, especially in the African-American community, I will consider it a personal insult, an insult to my legacy, if this community lets down it’s guard and fails to activate itself in this election. You want to give me a good send off? Go vote!”

Remarks:

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Our work’s not done. But if we are going to advance the cause of justice, and equality, and prosperity, and freedom, then we also have to acknowledge that even if we eliminated every restriction on voters, we would still have one of the lowest voting rates among free peoples. That’s not good, that is on us.

And I am reminded of all those folks who had to count bubbles in a bar of soap, beaten trying to register voters in Mississippi. Risked everything so that they could pull that lever. So, if I hear anybody saying their vote does not matter, that it doesn’t matter who we elect, read up on your history. It matters. We’ve got to get people to vote.

In fact, if you want to give Michelle and me a good sendoff, and that was a beautiful video, but don’t just watch us walk off into the sunset now, get people registered to vote. If you care about our legacy, realize everything we stand for is at stake, on the progress we have made is at stake in this election.

My name may not be on the ballot, but our progress is on the ballot. Tolerance is on the ballot. Democracy is on the ballot. Justice is on the ballot. Good schools are on the ballot. Ending mass incarceration, that’s on the ballot right now.

And there is one candidate who will advance those things. And there is another candidate who’s defining principal, the central theme of his candidacy is opposition to all that we have done.

There’s no such thing as a vote that doesn’t matter. It all matters. And after we have achieved historic turnout in 2008 and 2012, especially in the African-American community, I will consider it a personal insult, an insult to my legacy, if this community lets down it’s guard and fails to activate itself in this election. You want to give me a good send off? Go vote! And iI’m going to be working as hard as I can these next seven weeks to make sure folks do.

Hope is on the ballot. And fear is on the ballot too. Hope is on the ballot and fear is on the ballot too.

Mario Murillo:  Two things to take away from this:

  1. Hillary will continue Obama’s destruction of America—his true legacy. Everything you hate about Obama’s America…everything that has broken your heart continues in her. It will not only continue…it will accelerate.   Obama has removed all doubt: A vote for Hillary is a vote for his damage to intensify.
  2. He is not asking—he is summoning black people to vote for her. He believes he is entitled to command them. He believes they are his subjects.  He has never deemed himself an elected servant.  He views himself as an avenging angel—an angel with a strange admixture of Islam to Marxism—driven by religious and racial animosity.

Inside the mind of a shameless liar

 

Dr. Keith Ablow: Hillary Clinton — Inside the mind of a shameless liar

Recently, it has been reported that Hillary Clinton is using psychologists to prepare for her debates with Donald Trump.  Apparently, some within the Clinton campaign believed that Mr. Trump seemed ill-at-ease when, during a Republican presidential primary debate, he addressed Senator Marco Rubio’s contention that Trump’s small hands likely meant his private parts were also small.

In fact, Trump seemed completely comfortable addressing that intensely personal attack, simply saying that it wasn’t true.  His willingness and ability to dispense with the matter in such a straightforward way shouldn’t give the Clinton campaign confidence that Trump can be rocked with psychological missives; it should terrify them.  Because when a man can speak directly, in front of cameras and the entire nation, even about those matters which are usually unspeakable, he isn’t going to run away from much of anything.

Donald Trump wears his psyche on his sleeve.

Hillary Clinton is the one whose psychological make up would seem to leave her vulnerable.  Her penchant for lying is a problem, but the really big problem is that she seems unable to determine when her lies are registering with audiences as clearly untrue. At the core, people who lie transparently do so because they lack empathy—the ability to intuit and vicariously experience what others are thinking and feeling.  Locked behind walls of narcissism or arrogance or imperiousness, consumed with the pursuit of power, they can’t tell convincing lies because they can’t truly resonate with how their words and mannerisms are being received.

Hillary Clinton’s penchant for lying is a problem, but the really big problem is that she seems unable to determine when her lies are registering with audiences as clearly untrue.

Hillary Clinton is, to borrow from a fairy tale, like the emperor with no clothes, who thinks that others can’t see his nakedness. We have in Ms. Clinton, if you will, an empress with no clothes.  Everyone knows her cover ups are transparent—except, seemingly, Secretary Clinton, herself.

All that Donald Trump needs to do, in order to expose Ms. Clinton as a liar is to ask her to repeat her defenses related to her use of a personal email server when she was Secretary of State, her mingling of State Department business with Clinton Foundation business and her having abandoned Ambassador Chris Stephens, Foreign Service Office Sean Smith and two former Navy Seals to die at Benghazi.  Tens of millions of Americans watching will feel, in their hearts, that she is a liar.

Mainstream Media: Defeat Trump by Attacking His Supporters

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.

Trey Gowdy asks James Comey the question of the century

Comey challenges truthfulness of Clinton’s email defenses

07/07/16 11:10 AM EDT

Updated 07/07/16 11:38 AM EDT

FBI Director James Comey confirmed on Thursday that some of Hillary Clinton’s statements and explanations about her email server to the House Benghazi Committee last October were not true, as evidenced by the bureau’s investigation into whether she mishandled classified information.

During an extended exchange with Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), Comey affirmed that the FBI’s investigation found information marked classified on her server even after Clinton had said that she had neither sent nor received any items marked classified.

“That is not true,” Comey said. “There were a small number of portion markings on, I think, three of the documents.”

Asked whether Clinton’s testimony that she did not email “any classified material to anyone on my email” and “there is no classified material” was true, Comey responded, “No, there was classified material emailed.”

“Secretary Clinton said she used one device. Was that true?” Gowdy asked, to which Comey answered, “She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as secretary of state.”

Gowdy then asked whether it was true that Clinton, as she said, returned all work-related emails to the State Department.

“No, we found work-related emails, thousands that were not returned,” Comey said.

“Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work-related emails from her personal account. Was that true?” Gowdy asked.

“That’s a harder one to answer,” Comey responded. “We found traces of work-related emails in, on devices or in slack space. Whether they were deleted or whether when a server changed out something happened to them, there is no doubt that the work-related emails that were removed electronically from the email system.”

Gowdy asked whether Clintons’ lawyers read every one of her emails as she had said. Comey replied, “No.”

“In interest of time, because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, I’m not going to go through anymore of the false statements but I am going to ask you put on your old hat. False exculpatory statements, they are used for what?” Gowdy inquired.

Comey responded, “Either for the substantive prosecution or for evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.”

“Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right? Is that right?” Gowdy asked. “Consciousness of guilt and intent. In your old job you would prove intent as you just referenced by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record, and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the destruction that you and I just talked about, or certainly the failure to preserve. Would you argue all that under heading of content–intent. You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme, when it started, when it ended and number of emails, whether they were originally classified or up-classified, you would argue all of that under the heading of intent. You would also probably under common scheme or plan argue the burn bags of daily calendar entries or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal. Two days ago, director, you said a reasonable person in her should have known a private email is no place to send and receive classified information. You’re right.”

“An average person does know not to do that. This is no average person,” Gowdy said. “This is a former first lady, a former United States senator, and a former secretary of state that the president now contends is the most competent, qualified person to be president since Jefferson. He didn’t say that in ’08 but he says it now. She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account. She kept these private emails for almost two years and only turned them over to Congress because we found out she had a private email account.”

He continued, “So you have a rogue email system set up before she took the oath of office. Thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of which were classified at the time. One of her more frequent email comrades was in fact hacked, and you don’t know whether or not she was. And this scheme took place over a long period of time and resulted in the destruction of public records yet you say there is insufficient evidence of intent.”

“You say careless but not intentionally. You and I both know intent is really difficult to prove,” Gowdy continued. “Very rarely do defendants announce, ‘On this date I intend to break this criminal code section. Just to put everyone on notice, I am going to break the law on this date.’ It never happens that way. You have to do it with circumstantial evidence, or if you’re Congress and you realize how difficult it is to prove specific intent, you will formulate a statute that allows for gross negligence.”

Remarking that his time had expired, Gowdy said he still feared that there was no precedent for criminal prosecution for future cases similar to Clinton.

“And my real fear is this, this is what [Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah)] touched upon, this double tracked justice system rightly or wrong hey perceived this country, that if you are a private in the Army and you email yourself classified information, you will be kicked out but if you are Hillary Clinton and you seek a promotion to commander-in-chief, you will not be,”

QUESTION OF THE CENTURY

Gowdy concluded. “So what I hope you can do today is help the average person, the reasonable person you made reference to, the reasonable person understand, why she appears to be treated differently than the rest of us would be.”

 

Obama to Hillary: I own you

Obama to Hillary: I own you.

By Mario Murillo

America woke up this morning and found out that laws are for the little people.  This whole ugly, putrid affair was staged.  Hillary, Bill and Loretta Lynch and James Comey…are actors in a play directed by Obama.

Just days ago, Obama announced he would campaign with Hillary in North Carolina.  A sitting president would not appear on stage with a candidate facing indictment. It all unfolded according to plan.  He knew she would not be indicted…he ordered it.

He condoned (planned) the “chance” meeting of snakes on a plane: Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton.  Someone had to tell her “play ball and you keep your job in the next administration.”  How blatant!

Air Force One—according to plan—landed in North Carolina right after the preapproved script was recited by the FBI.  She is conveniently cleared of all charges just as he takes the stage.

He did it with such disregard for appearances. He did it with impunity.  He did it with arrogance.  He wanted to display his power and put fear in the hearts of his enemies. He wanted to be caught so he could say, “what are you going to do about it?”

 

Not since the night he went to sleep peacefully as Americans died in Benghazi has Obama been this cold-blooded.

We wondered all along how Obama would stay in office.  Many thought he would foment riots and declare martial law.  No this is much smoother…a bloodless coup. He can now run things from behind the scenes.

His message to Hill and Bill is clear: I own you. You are my third term as president.

What happened between Obama and Hillary is a scene from the movie All about Eve.  A young actress thinks she has used a powerful news columnist to get her way.    Addison is infuriated that Eve has attempted to use him and reveals that he knows that her back story is all lies. Her real name is Gertrude Slojinski, she was never married, and she had been paid to leave her hometown over an affair with her boss, a brewer in Wisconsin. Addison blackmails Eve, informing her that she will not be marrying Lloyd or anyone else; in exchange for Addison’s silence, she now “belongs” to him.  Watch the scene below.

Hillary belongs to Obama and stopping this crime family is now the sworn duty of every God-fearing American.

 

 

50% Say Clinton Should Keep Running Even If Indicted

even

50% Say Clinton Should Keep Running Even If Indicted

Most continue to believe likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton is a lawbreaker, but half of all voters also say a felony indictment shouldn’t stop her campaign for the presidency.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 43% of Likely U.S. Voters think Clinton should immediately stop campaigning if she is charged with a felony in connection with her use of a private e-mail server while secretary of State. Fifty percent (50%), however, think she should continue running until a court determines her guilt or innocence. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Voters were evenly divided on this question in January, but at that time we didn’t include the name of any candidate.

Among Democratic voters, 71% believe Clinton should keep running, a view shared by only 30% of Republicans and 46% of voters not affiliated with either major party.

Forty percent (40%) of all voters say they are less likely to vote for Clinton because of the e-mail issue, while nearly half (48%) say it will have no impact on their vote. Just eight percent (8%) say the issue makes them more likely to vote for the former first lady.

Sixty-five percent (65%) consider it likely that Clinton broke the law by sending and receiving e-mails containing classified information through a private e-mail server while serving as secretary of State. This includes 47% who say it’s Very Likely. These findings are unchanged from January. Thirty percent (30%) still say Clinton is unlikely to have broken the law with the e-mail arrangement, with 16% who say it’s Not At All Likely.

(Want a free daily email update? If it’s in the news, it’s in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on May 29-30, 2016 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Last August, 46% of all voters – and 24% of Democrats – said Clinton should suspend her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination until all of the legal questions about her use of the private e-mail server are resolved. But just 25% think it is even somewhat likely that Clinton will be indicted. 

In a report released last week, the State Department’s inspector general, an Obama appointee, concluded that Clinton knowingly broke department rules by using the private e-mail server for official business including top secret discussions. This contradicts her claims that the arrangement had been officially approved.

Just 30% give Clinton good or excellent marks for her handling of questions about her use of the private e-mail server while secretary of State. Forty-nine percent (49%) rate her performance as poor. This is little changed from voter perceptions last September.

Democrats are happier with Clinton’s answers than Republicans and unaffiliated voters are. But then 73% of GOP voters and 53% of unaffiliateds say it is Very Likely that Clinton broke the law with her use of the private e-mail server during her years as secretary of State. Only 18% of Democrats agree.

Women are slightly less critical of Clinton’s handling of the situation than men are and are more supportive of her staying in the race if indicted.

Those under 40 are less convinced than their elders are that Clinton broke the law and are more supportive of her staying in the race even if indicted. But roughly 40% of voters of all ages are less likely to vote for Clinton because of the e-mail issue.

Black voters are much less likely than white and other minority voters to think Clinton broke the law and feel much more strongly that she should keep running if indicted.

Fifty-four percent (54%) of all voters believe the Justice Department should name an independent prosecutor to decide whether criminal charges should be brought against Clinton in the e-mail case.

Ninety-two percent (92%) of Democrats believe Clinton is likely to be their party’s presidential nominee, with 62% who say it’s Very Likely.

Clinton is essentially tied with presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump in Rasmussen Reports’ latest weekly White House Watch survey. We will update those numbers Thursday morning.

Voters tend to think Hillary Clinton will work better with the United States’ allies if elected president but are evenly divided over whether she or Trump will be tougher with this nation’s enemies.