Success will not tame this blog

When I began this blog, I could not see how it could succeed.  Now readership is in the millions.  Success will not tame it.   We will provoke the church in the Trump era…

Success will not tame this blog

By Mario Murillo

My nerves were frazzled the first time I sat down to write something called a blog.  I argued with God.  I could not see how it would succeed. I knew there would be a firestorm over the things I was compelled to say.  I was right about the firestorm.

Now millions have read the blog in virtually every nation of the world.  Every day we are amazed at the impact of this little blog.

Check out this excerpt from the first time we spoke out:

“The America we once knew has been taken away.  It happened overnight.   Because America has changed ministries must change the way that they relate to this new nation.

Government has become our national God.   This new God is waging an incremental war on the Constitution.  The New York Times just called the U.S. Constitution an evil document that we should give up on.

Obamacare targets freedom of worship.  It forces Christian Institutions to violate their religious convictions.  Cardinal Dolan the spiritual leader of the Archdiocese of New York calls it “an unwarranted, unprecedented radical intrusion.”

The White House met with Cardinal Dolan and several Bishops met with the White House to talk.   He said he was told to “shut up and accept the mandate.”

charade

It is time for the people of God to speak out on the danger of gun control.

Mass shootings have become the excuse to take away our guns.    Obama wants absolute power.

Mahatma Gandhi the great pacifist said, “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.”

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison believed that the greatest threat to liberty was not foreign invasion or domestic unrest but rather a standing army and a militarized police force that had no fear of inflicting tyranny upon the people.

If Government is our new God, Celebrities are our new pastors.

Ben Stein asked, “Where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren’t allowed to worship God?  There are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities came from and where the America we knew went to.”

Hollywood is the most powerful propaganda machine in history and it has declared war on our faith. 

Ministries must change how they relate to America.  1 Samuel 10: 6 Says, “Then the Spirit of the Lord will come upon you, and you will prophesy with them and be turned into another man. 7 And let it be, when these signs come to you, that you do as the occasion demands; for God is with you.

Here is what I believe the occasion demands:

The Holy Spirit is saying we can publicly oppose government tyranny while still maintaining a loving witness.  Acts 16: 37 But Paul said to them, “They have beaten us openly, uncondemned Romans, and have thrown us into prison. And now do they put us out secretly? No indeed! Let them come themselves and get us out.”  Paul had just led a jailor and several prisoners to Christ and now he turns around and exposes politicians who have broken the Roman Bill of Rights.

We must accept the fact that there is a new generation that has no Christian orientation. “And also all that generation was gathered unto their fathers: and there arose another generation after them, who knew not the LORD, nor yet the works which he had done for Israel.” Judges 2:10

We must lay a new foundation of faith in America.  We must preach the central doctrines of our faith. The Bible needs to set fire to our sermons.”

bible fire

The big question now is what does the church do now that Trump is president?  In the next few blogs I will open my heart to you about the radical steps the church must take to seize this greatest soul winning opportunity in our lifetime.  Once again we must change the way we relate to government.

I know we need fresh fire.  Prayer, repentance and waiting for new orders are the keys for the American church this Christmas.

One thing is certain…success will not tame this blog.  It will continue to keep its edge.  It will continue to provoke, stretch and force minds to think and hearts to examine themselves.

THE KING CYRUS CRISIS: IF WE BLOW THIS IT WILL BE DISASTER

Trump is not a pastor or a moral reformer.  Trump is a foot in the door—a stay of execution.  He is an act of God to buy the church time to repent and return to her rightful role in American life.

The King Cyrus Crisis: If we blow this…disaster will strike

By Mario Murillo

Something worse than Obama looms.  Something indescribably bad can take over for the agony we have just left.  It will be more hellish than Hillary.  You can already see the evil forming.

Meanwhile, American Christians claim Trump is a miracle like King Cyrus.  In 536 B.C. God moved King Cyrus to fulfill the prophecy of Jeremiah who said that after 70 years the Jews would be sent home from bondage in Babylon.  Cyrus even provided resources to help rebuild Israel.

If history is repeating itself, we had better remember what happened next.  The restoration of Israel faced multiple warheads:

Pagan tribes:  The pagan tribes who settled in Israel set a sophisticated trap for the returning Jews.  At first, they acted like they wanted to help.  Instead, they hampered the work.  When that failed, they launched terror attacks.

Political backlash:  After Cyrus, the enemies of Israel lied to King Artaxerxes, accusing Israel of preparing for war, so the king stopped the work.

Morally corrupted Jews:  Many Jews wanted to stay in Babylon.  Some who came back to Israel were half-hearted in their mission to restore the nation.  Those who were left behind during the 70 years became pagans.  They knew nothing about Scripture or the laws of God.

If not for the astonishing endurance of a handful of priests, prophets, and one notable cupbearer, Israel would have remained in ruins.  (Read Ezra, Nehemiah and Haggai).  It took nearly 80 years after the king’s decree before the Temple and the wall were finished.

Let me let you in on a secret: we can’t wait 80 years—we don’t have 80 years.  Unlike Israel, this is our last chance.  If we do not learn from history—America will never be restored.  If we blow this…expect disaster.

The Christians who want to make America morally great again face significant headwinds and don’t realize it. Here are the threats:

-The left is staging a massive retaliation. A nefarious coalition of universities, billionaires and tech companies are ramping up their rhetoric, paying agitators and plotting against the church.

task

-The media doesn’t care that people know they are lying.  They are stepping up their lies. They learned nothing from Trump’s victory. The crocodile tears we saw from some media outlets meant nothing.  Their blatant falsehoods are back with a vengeance.

-Most Christians don’t know what to do because they don’t understand the miracle.  They thought Trump would save us.  They are not preparing for the work that we need to do right now.  They are already disappointed in Trump because they don’t get it.

Trump is not a pastor or a moral reformer.  He will not be a social conservative who will fight for family values.  If you look to him for that, you will be disappointed.  Worse still, it will distract you and you will miss your assignment in this miracle.

If you ever listened to anything I ever said, I beg you, listen now!  Trump is a foot in the door—a stay of execution.  He is an act of God to buy the church time to repent and return to her rightful role in American life.

Trump broke the political correctness that threatened to swallow us whole.  The revival is our job, not his.

-Morally corrupt Christians and lukewarm pastors don’t appreciate the miracle.   Why would we expect a generation of believers raised on Pablum to know what to do with this miracle?  They don’t read the Bible or pray.  They have never truly repented.  They have no concept of sacrifice.  There is no way they will stand in the heat of battle.

-We are not seizing the moment to repent because we do not appreciate God’s mercy.  The Jews did not appreciate the miracle of Cyrus’ decree.  It did not provoke them to repent.  Ezra the priest said, “And after all that has come upon us for our evil deeds and for our great guilt, since You our God have punished us less than our iniquities deserve, and have given us such deliverance as this, 14 should we again break Your commandments…” -Ezra 9:13,14.   This is a chilling warning to us.

muster

-We want Trump to do things for us that we must do ourselves.   Winning the lost is up to us, not Trump.  Trump may not be a big help to the church.  The Jews thought they could keep going back and complaining to the King about the same thing.  They vainly tried to communicate with the King and found that it was a waste of time.

The American church must build on the opportunity that Trump gave us. We must wake up to our task!  Our disunity is killing our cause.  Petty differences have never looked so petty!  We must shake off the disastrous apathy and complacency that is dulling us to our duty.   Churches must come together in citywide prayer and soul winning.  Pastors must push back on the lies being perpetrated against orthodox Christianity—they must roar from their pulpits.

We must muster all our strength and stand strong.  Seize this miracle for what it is. Remember the words of the man who God told to make Israel great again and build the wall, “And I looked, and arose and said to the nobles, to the leaders, and to the rest of the people, ‘Do not be afraid of them. Remember the Lord, great and awesome, and fight for your brethren, your sons, your daughters, your wives, and your houses.’” -Nehemiah 4:14

Trump will have vast powers. He can thank Democrats for them.

Trump will have vast powers. He can thank Democrats for them.  Liberals liked executive authority as long as Obama wielded it. Now they’ve set a precedent.

Glenn Greenwald: Trump will have vast powers. He can thank Democrats for them.

November 11
Glenn Greenwald, co-founder of the Intercept, led the NSA reporting that won the 2014 Pulitzer Prize for the Guardian.

Liberals are understandably panicked about what Donald Trump can carry out. “We have a president-elect with authoritarian tendencies assuming a presidency that has never been more powerful,” Franklin Foer wrote this past week in Slate. Trump will command not only a massive nuclear arsenal and the most robust military in history, but also the ability to wage numerous wars in secret and without congressional authorization; a ubiquitous system of electronic surveillance that can reach most forms of human communication and activity; and countless methods for shielding himself from judicial accountability, congressional oversight and the rule of law — exactly what the Constitution was created to prevent. Trump assumes the presidency “at the peak of its imperial powers,” as Foer put it.

Sen. Barack Obama certainly saw it that way when he first ran for president in 2008. Limiting executive-power abuses and protecting civil liberties were central themes of his campaign. The former law professor repeatedly railed against the Bush-Cheney template of vesting the president with unchecked authorities in the name of fighting terrorism or achieving other policy objectives. “This administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we provide,” he said in 2007. Listing an array of controversial Bush-Cheney policies, from warrantless domestic surveillance to due-process-free investigations and imprisonment, he vowed: “We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers.”

Yet, beginning in his first month in office and continuing through today, Obama not only continued many of the most extreme executive-power policies he once condemned, but in many cases strengthened and extended them. His administration detained terrorism suspects without due process, proposed new frameworks to keep them locked up without trial, targeted thousands of individuals (including a U.S. citizen) for execution by drone, invoked secrecy doctrines to shield torture and eavesdropping programs from judicial review, and covertly expanded the nation’s mass electronic surveillance.

Blinded by the belief that Obama was too benevolent and benign to abuse his office, and drowning in partisan loyalties at the expense of political principles, Democrats consecrated this framework with their acquiescence and, often, their explicit approval. This is the unrestrained set of powers Trump will inherit. The president-elect frightens them, so they are now alarmed. But if they want to know whom to blame, they should look in the mirror.

Obama’s approach to executive power flipped so quickly and diametrically that it is impossible to say if he ever believed his campaign-era professions of restraint. As early as May 2009, Jack Goldsmith, a Justice Department official under George W. Bush, celebrated Obama’s abandonment of his promises to rein in these authorities, writing that “the new administration has copied most of the Bush program, has expanded some of it, and has narrowed only a bit.” He added that the “Obama practices will be much closer to late Bush practices than almost anyone expected in January 2009.”

By putting a prettier liberal face on these policies, and transforming them from a symbol of GOP radicalism into one of bipartisan security consensus, the president entrenched them as permanent fixtures of the American presidency. As Goldsmith put it, Obama’s actions were “designed to fortify the bulk of the Bush program for the long-run.”

Liberals vehemently denounced these abuses during the Bush presidency. From 2001 through 2008, Democrats called them the embodiment of tyranny, an existential threat to democracy, a menacing expression of right-wing radicalism. “America’s Constitution is in grave danger,” Al Gore warned in a widely praised 2006 speech on civil liberties. Bush had become “the central threat that the founders sought to nullify in the Constitution, an all-powerful executive, too reminiscent of the king from whom they had broken free.” In one 2007 poll, 57 percent of Democrats said they wanted the Guantanamo Bay prison camp to be closed.

But after Obama took office, many liberals often tolerated — and even praised — his aggressive assertions of executive authority. It is hard to overstate how complete the Democrats’ about-face on these questions was once their own leader controlled the levers of power. According to a 2012 Washington Post-ABC News poll, 53 percent of self-identified liberal Democrats and 67 percent of moderate or conservative ones now supported keeping Guantanamo Bay open. After just three years of the Obama presidency, liberals sanctioned a system that allowed the president to imprison people without any trial or an ounce of due process.

In fact, a new Democratic Party orthodoxy took hold under Obama: the right of a president to detain people, or even assassinate them, without charges or a whiff of judicial oversight. This included even American citizens. “We do not believe that [Anwar] al-Aulaqi’s U.S. citizenship imposes constitutional limitations that would preclude the contemplated lethal action” by the military or the CIA, a Justice Department memo proclaimed in 2010.

Democrats (who had bitterly complained in 2005 about mere eavesdropping without court approval) not only failed to contest this assassination program but ultimately expressed their support for it. “Fully 77 percent of liberal Democrats endorse the use of drones,” according to the write-up of that 2012 Post-ABC poll. Support drops “only somewhat when respondents are asked specifically about targeting American citizens living overseas, as was the case with Anwar al-Awlaki, the Yemeni American killed in September in a drone strike in northern Yemen.”

And of course, Obama aggressively expanded the system of mass surveillance, including on U.S. soil, that had been secretly implemented by the National Security Agency after 9/11. Once Edward Snowden showed the world what had been created, many Democrats became the leaders in protecting this spying system from meaningful limits, reform or oversight. When, in the immediate aftermath of the Snowden revelations, a bipartisan coalition of House members headed by Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Justin Amash (R-Mich.) sought to impose serious limits on the NSA’s domestic spying, the White House turned to then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to lead the successful effort to stop them.

Civil liberties advocates and proponents of limited executive authority tried everything they could think of to persuade and cajole Democrats to rediscover their concerns about these abuses and once again become allies in the battle to constrain government power. But those efforts were largely futile. Partisan loyalties easily subordinated any commitment to the principles that they had purported, in the Bush years, to support.

The problem such advocates encountered was the same one they’d faced during the Bush presidency when trying (and failing) to persuade putatively small-government conservatives to oppose these expansions of presidential power: namely, many people are perfectly content to have such authority vested in leaders they trust, and fear them only when a politician from the opposing party wields them.

As such, the tactic of last resort to induce Democrats and liberals to oppose such policies was to ask them to think about how, one day, these powers could be in the hands of someone other than a benevolent, kind-hearted, trustworthy progressive like Barack Obama. Instead, Democrats were urged, imagine that a right-wing authoritarian, or a lawless demagogue, or a petty, vindictive tyrant won the presidency and inherited the framework of unrestrained, unchecked powers that Republicans implemented and Democrats expanded.

That day has arrived. With Trump looming, there is much talk of uniting across ideological and partisan lines to impose meaningful limits on executive authority, and those efforts are justified. But, as progressives were repeatedly warned, a matrix of power that has been defended and legitimized for 15 years by both parties will be very difficult to uproot.

On May 7th Mario Murillo predicted the #1 reason Trump would win

 

On May 7th, Mario Murillo predicted the top reason Trump would win.   The same reason that helped him win is also helping him get stronger right now.  Read more…

If you want him to win keep insulting his supporters

By Mario Murillo

May 7th, 2016

Donald Trump, president and chief executive of Trump Organization Inc. and 2016 Republican presidential candidate, stands for a photograph after a Bloomberg Television interview at his campaign headquarters in Trump Tower in New York, U.S., on Thursday, Oct. 15, 2015. According to Trump, Janet Yellen's decision to delay hiking interest rates is motivated by politics. Photographer: John Taggart/Bloomberg via Getty Images *** Local Capton *** Donald Trump

The fast track to getting Donald Trump in the White House is to insult his supporters.   Keep calling them names…it works every time.  David Masciotra of Salon news wrote a piece entitled We must shame dumb Trump fans.   He said, “The white working class are not victims.  It’s not smug liberalism to point out Trump backers are low-educated. What’s dangerous is to sympathize with them.”

After this came out Trump’s numbers went up.

At a rally for GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz in Utah, Glenn Beck chastised Southern Evangelical Christians for not supporting Cruz. “All throughout the South the Evangelicals are not listening to their God,” he said.  And what was the impact of a Mormon telling evangelicals who back Trump that they are disobeying Christ?

After this Trump’s numbers went up.

protestors

George Will addressed the Trump supporters directly: These are voters the Republicans want, the Republicans want all voters, and particularly these voters, but to say that he’s tapped into something;… {shaking head} … Henry Wallace tapped into something, with the far left of American Politics in the late 40’s; the John Birch society tapped into something, George Wallace tapped into something, and it was up to the grown-ups in the labor movement in the late 1940’s, and the grown-ups in the conservative movement in the 1960’s to read those elements the riot act, and say: come back in, but come back in on our terms because we are not going down the road you want to go”…In other words, Trump supporters are misbehaving children who—upon being properly punished by the “grown-ups” –can come back to the Republican party on ‘our terms.”

After this Trump’s numbers went up.

Vincente Fox, former president of Mexico disparaged Trump supporters as lazy, uneducated, TV watching drunks.

Well, you know what happened then.   The same thing that happens when you say Trump followers are racist, women haters, and xenophobic.   Spouting epithets without facts wins him votes.  As Mark Twain said, “facts are stubborn things.”

Attack him on his policies.  Arm yourself with facts so you don’t end up in the ash heap with those who say he said something he never said.

Trump supporters are smarter than we think.   They know why they are for him.  Do your homework so you can say definitely why you are against him.  Don’t say he is racist, homophobic, sexist unless you can back it up.   Otherwise, you are going to help elect him.

Hillary Already Building Obama’s Third Term

 

Looking to lay the groundwork for her presidency if she wins the White House in November, Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton named several veterans of President Barack Hussein Obama’s administration for her transition team.

Hillary Already Building Obama’s Third Term

By Luciana Lopez

Ken Salazar, a former interior secretary and U.S. Senator from Colorado, will lead a team of four co-chairs including one-time national security adviser Tom Donilon and Neera Tanden, a former Obama aide who now leads the progressive Center for American Progress think-tank, the Clinton campaign said.

The other co-chairs are former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm and Maggie Williams, director of Harvard’s Institute of Politics, the campaign said in a statement.

The announcement came as Clinton has gained momentum in the opinion polls against Republican rival Donald Trump, whose campaign has struggled after he made a string of controversial remarks since formally winning his party’s nomination last month.

Clinton leads Trump in the Nov. 8 presidential election by more than 5 percentage points in a Reuters/Ipsos tracking poll released on Friday. The current RealClearPolitics average of polls shows her 6.7 points ahead.

Clinton has been a former secretary of state, U.S. senator and first lady and her transition team includes old names from her long tenure in Washington, some of whom have also served Obama.

Tanden, who played a key role in shaping Obama’s health care overhaul, is a longtime friend and adviser to Clinton who worked on her Senate campaign. Williams was the 1992 transition director for Clinton when she became first lady, and then her chief of staff in the White House when Bill Clinton was president.

Two policy advisers on the campaign, Ed Meier and Ann O’Leary, will also move full time to the transition team.

Heather Boushey, the executive director of the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, will be the chief economist, the campaign said in a statement. Boushey has advised the campaign on economic policy.

Transition teams oversee personnel appointments and help develop an administrative framework during the period between the November election and the inauguration in January, to make it easier for a new president to begin implementing policy agendas.

Trump, a New York businessman who has never held elected office, picked New Jersey Governor Chris Christie to head his own transition team in May.

More establishment Republicans, alarmed by Trump’s inability or unwillingness to rein in his provocative remarks, have distanced themselves from the candidate in recent weeks. The Wall Street Journal, a leading conservative voice, said in an editorial on Monday that he should fix his campaign in the next three weeks or hand over to his running mate, Indiana Governor Mike Pence.

Trump drew heavy criticism after engaging in a prolonged spat with the parents of a Muslim U.S. Army captain killed in Iraq. Last week, he suggested gun rights activists could take action against Clinton, a statement critics found alarming but which he later said was aimed at rallying votes against her.

Trump also called Obama and Clinton the “co-founders” of Islamic State, a false claim he later said was sarcastic but did not wholly abandon.

Despite Clinton’s lead in polls, Obama warned Democrats against over confidence, telling a fundraising gathering on Monday in Massachusetts, “If we are not running scared until the day after the election, we are going to be making a grave mistake.”

 

Is this the video ad that will finish her?

 

Is this AD devastating enough to finish her campaign for President?  See for yourself…

 

 It does not take a prophet to predict that Hillary will do irreparable harm.  That likely hood is well supported by a shipload of scandals, criminal acts and an endless trail of lies.    No sane person believes that she will automatically reverse course and be a decent competent president.

Hillary will destroy America with stunning finality.   For anyone pining to see the demise of America…Hillary is the ideal next step.  She is Obama 3.0…and something worse.

 

How she is worse is seen in a simple comparison.  Obama is a malice-driven ideologue.  His passion is to dismantle the United States.  His hate for America, Christianity and Israel informs every policy.

if she wins

Hillary is not an ideologue.  There are no code, any manifesto or core beliefs with this one.   She lusts for power.  She will say and do anything in order to hold on to power.  Even her marital martyrdom to a serial adulterer is all for show to keep her in the game.

If she is elected president there are 4 things that will happen.  There is no maybe in this—these 4 things are guaranteed to take place.

 Economic collapse: She will continue secular progressive bloodletting.  She will increase addiction to government handouts.   We are nearing $20 trillion in debt.  Under her influence we will reach economic critical mass:  a debt we can never pay off.  America’s standard of living will never recover.

images

Moral nuclear winter:   Islam and immorality will enjoy widespread appeal as despair overtakes the nation.    The rights of Churches, Christian hospitals and colleges will be wiped out.  Free speech will evaporate.  Believers will be unable to move up in corporations or will be fired for their faith.    She will also abandon Israel with the same heartless ease that she abandoned the Americans in Benghazi.

Violence and death will overtake our children:   Discard morals—throw God out—honor debauchery and you will turn entire urban areas into killing fields.  The disregard that Obama engendered toward police will become outright rejection of law and order under Hillary.  Crimes will not be reported.  Guns will be confiscated leaving the average citizen utterly helpless.

She will also import criminals and terrorists.  Obama opened the borders—she will open the floodgates.  The cops will be hog-tied and violent offenders will avoid prosecution.

We will lose our Constitution:  Hillary has already boasted that she will exceed Barack Obama’s use of executive orders.  She will add justices to the Supreme Court that favor her mission to sidestep the constitution of the United States when it interferes with her ambitions.    She has repeatedly said that she wants to rewrite parts of the Constitution.

If she wins—historians will not ask “how did Barack Obama get elected” or even “how on earth did they reelect him?”  They will ask: “Why did they guarantee the death of the nation by electing Hillary Clinton?”

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.