What matters: What Hillary has done. Not what Donald has said

What matters: What Hillary has done. Not what Donald has said

By Mario Murillo

In an act of breathtaking hypocrisy, a very famous pastor and author from Texas explained why he opposes Trump: “If Obama had shown the same rudeness Donald Trump is showing I would have opposed him too.”

Here is his logic: Benghazi was the intentional loss of life but at least Obama and Hillary were not rude.  When they knowingly lied to the families of those that were killed—blaming the attack on a video to protect a reelection campaign—it was okay because they were polite.

Obama’s tone of voice was calm whenever he insulted the Bible and exalted the Koran.  His demeanor in ramming Obamacare, gay marriage and flooding our borders with people who would harm us was done courteously.

So, even though he is a pastor with a large following, he admits he did not fight to stop Obama in 2012.  He told his people, at that time, “I am staying out of politics.”  He remained silent as our morals were dismantled—our safety was compromised—our economy was trashed.

NOW HE DECIDES TO SPEAK UP—NOT AS A VOICE AGAINST ABORTION, IMMORALITY AND TERRORISM—BUT AS MISS MANNERS?!

Political correctness bends the brain in unusual ways.  But it is most bizarre when it twists the logic of an otherwise respected man of God.  No wonder the Bible says, “A righteous man who falters before the wicked is like a murky spring and a polluted well.” -Proverbs 25: 26

This blog is about a fat lie that is overruling common sense.  You hear it all of the time: “look at what Donald Trump said.”  This is a patently insane and false moral equivalence.   Here are examples:

  1. Trump not letting us see his tax forms makes him worse than Hillary.

Hillary erased 33,000 emails!   Putting these emails on a private server broke federal law and jeopardized national security.   She put all of us—you, me, and our children in danger!  How can anything on Trump’s tax forms compare to that?

Okay, one more time: 33,000 emails versus one tax form.  Top secret information that our enemies can use against us sat on a server that could be—and most likely was hacked by our enemies.

She covered her crime by erasing them even after she was ordered by Congress to protect them and turn them over.

Trump legally used tax laws—she deliberately violated federal law.

  1. Trump has called women names. He is worse for women.

Look at what she has done to women.  She took of millions of dollars from nations that treat women like indentured slaves and execute women for misdemeanors.

She tried to destroy women who were raped by her husband.

Can you think of a more horrendous role model for young girls than Hillary Clinton? Her message is: lie, cheat and discredit.  Stand by your man—not out of virtue—but to protect your ambitions.

  1. Trump has had bankruptcies that left contractors unpaid.

Hillary has been in a scandal or has bungled every single political project she has ever touched…no hyperbole here, just fact.   In 30+ years of politics, she has never created a single job or improved the situation.

Meanwhile: Trump took a one-million-dollar inheritance and built a company worth several billion employing thousands.  And he did in the most viciously competitive market on earth: New York City.

Nothing shows this demented form of false equivalency better that something Tim Kaine said in the debate against Mike Pence.  He spouted this: “The Clinton Foundation has a higher rating than the Red Cross.”   I am sure the victims of Hurricane Matthew in Haiti can’t wait for the Clinton Foundation to show up.

  1. Trump doesn’t have the temperament to be allowed to have the nuclear codes.   Temperament?  Let’s talk about temperament: Hillary once asked in a political ad, “who do you want answering that phone call at 3 AM?”   Well we already know…she got the 3 AM call from Americans begging for their lives in Benghazi.  Hillary—in order to protect her career—has cost people their lives…and maybe even worse.

In 1975, Hillary the attorney defended a man accused of raping a 12-year-old girl.  After she got him off.  Later,  she was caught on audio tape laughing about that little girl.   That rape victim now speaks out:

“It’s put a lot of anger back in me … Every time I see [Clinton] on TV I just want to reach in there and grab her, but I can’t do that,” 54-year-old Kathy Shelton told The Daily Mail, as Clinton tries to portray herself as a supporter of women and girls during the 2016 campaign.

“I don’t think [she’s] for women or girls. I think she’s lying, I think she said anything she can to get in the campaign and win … If she was [an advocate for women and children], she wouldn’t have done that to me at 12 years old,” said Shelton.

I heard you on tape laughing …. I just want to know, you’ve got a daughter and a grandbaby. What happens if that daughter of yours, if that would have been her [who was assaulted at age 12]?

You would have protected her. You don’t know me, so I’m a piece of crap to you … Who cares about me, as long as you can win your first case as an attorney?”  Her temperament has never changed…it has just gotten more sophisticated… is this the temperament we want with nuclear codes?

Pastor Stephen Jeffers from Dallas First Baptist Church has called this election a choice between Good and Evil.   I agree.  When you vote on November 8th you should think about what Hillary Clinton has done and not what Donald Trump has said.

Trey Gowdy Destroys James Comey

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.”