Why I Have Come To Believe That Donald Trump WILL Be Elected President in November 2016

There’s a lot of stuff swirling around in the media right now.  And it’s pretty much a wash.  On the one hand, Hillary Clinton is SO damn guilty by any reasonable standard of both outright criminality and indifferent incompetence it is beyond unreal.  Too bad the Washington Post decided to unleash thirty reporters to dig into Trump’s dirt rather than dig through Clinton’s emails, but this IS the age of Goebbels, after all.  I’ve come to realize that one of two things is going to have to happen for Hillary Clinton to get indicted regardless of her obvious guilt: 1) the FBI from Director Comey on down promise to resign in mass and publicly expose Obama as being the Stalinist thug traitor that he is which would force him and his lawthug attorney general to allow true justice to take its course, OR Obama actually has a plan to allow Clinton to be indicted and then step in and declare that Donald Trump is such a threat to America and to democracy and to world peace that he has no choice other than to follow the path of the worst dictators in history and order the election (that Trump would have won) suspended.

On the other hand, we’ve got all these polls that say Trump is going to have an impossible time winning enough women, Hispanics and blacks to possibly win the election.  To which I say that by now the entire media establishment has so thoroughly and completely discredited their ability to prognosticate what will actually happen that they have made themselves a joke.  Trump has proven these fools wrong so many times it is beyond unreal.  Their last giant mistake was the worst, when they gleefully predicted a vicious GOP feud leading up to a broken and brokered GOP convention and the entire Republican Party unraveling over Trump.  And of course just as gleefully predicted smooth sailing for Hillary Clinton who would be crowed queen dominatrix over the space-time universe.  And that was only two months ago.  And what is happening now is the precise OPPOSITE of what all the damn experts said would happen, and now Democrats are wringing their hands and publicly worrying that Bernie Sanders is destroying Hillary Clinton’s chance to win.

I’m going to make a prediction that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with either of the above two paragraphs.

Allow me to state the twofold basis of my prediction succinctly: 1) Donald Trump will win because roughly 3/4ths of the American people believe we are heading in the wrong direction as a nation, and Hillary Clinton represents slogging down the path of that same wrong direction; versus Donald Trump who vows to shake things up.  And every time Clinton tries to fearmonger the American people with her demagoguery that Trump is a “loose cannon,” Trump says “That’s right.  And I’m going to start firing that cannon at everything that is preventing America from becoming great again.”  Obama just played that game – in a reckless, bitterly partisan, demagogic attack on foreign soil no less – claimed that overseas leaders are “rattled” by the prospect of a Trump presidency.  Without being able to name even ONE such leader, mind you.  And ignoring the fact that every ally of the United States has been way more than “rattled” by the OBAMA presidency.  And Trump heard that and basically said, “Good!  These leaders have been abusing and exploiting America for years, and it’s a damn good thing if they’re rattled.”  You want more of the wrong direction, Hillary is your candidate.  She’ll lead you straight to the hell you and your family deserve to rot in.

That thesis is well explained here by a liberal who realizes that prospect of right-direction versus wrong-direction.  And is frightened by it.  I wrote my own take on that article here.

Obama has utterly failed this country.  Obama and Democrats keep boasting of this low 5% unemployment rate.  But it has been based month after month with three and four times as many Americans just giving up and abandoning the hope of every getting a job for every American who actually finds a job.  The labor participation rate – measuring the percentage of working-age Americans who actually have a damn job – reflects that reality: it has sunk to the lowest level since the nadir of Jimmy Carter’s failed presidency; and things are actually far WORSE than when Carter was president, because most a far larger share of American women stayed at home and managed families and households rather than trying to enter the workforce back then.  And if the labor participation rate were what George W. Bush had left Obama in January 2009, we would have double-digit unemployment.

As CNBC reported recently, “the rate for the unemployed, the underemployed and the discouraged remains stubbornly above prerecession levels.”   You need to understand that the “Great Recession” officially ended in June 2009, no thanks to anything Obama did because nothing he’d done had actually done a damn thing by then.  And you put those two facts together and Barack Obama’s presidency has not only done nothing for the unemployed and underemployed, but actually made things far WORSE for them.  He never helped them at ALL!  The Federal Reserve recently reported “that 22% of workers were juggling two or more jobs last year, higher than what government jobs data would suggest. And nearly one out of three Americans said that they have no retirement savings or pension.”  They reported “that nearly half of U.S. households reported they would have trouble meeting emergency expenses of just $400.”

Meanwhile, the income-gap has EXPLODED under Obama.  The rich have gotten richer and the middle class has vanished under this failed fool.

The people of Venezuela tried socialism and their reward is SEVEN HOUR LINES for groceries with the government-supervised result being empty shelves when you get there.  People are eating out of garbage cans because that’s all Obama’s socialist friends can provide for them.  THAT is the assured result of continuing to travel in the direction Obama has set for us and Hillary Clinton has vowed to keep us heading in.

Between the colossal failure of ObamaCare, the horrible taxation rates and the godawful regulations and impositions on businesses, people simply cannot find a decent full-time job anymore.  And Hillary Clinton promises you that she will take that crap ball and run down the manure field with it and spike that crap ball in the poop zone for a sh*tdown.

I’ll put it this way: there are a lot of people who will ultimately think, “Donald Trump can insult me all he wants.  I just want to have a damn job and be able to work without some stupid jackass fascist liberal making that impossible.”  And so a lot of people are going to say, “I hate Trump and I’m scared of Trump, but he’s better than a sure thing when that sure thing is a lump of sh*t – and that is exactly what Hillary Clinton is.”

I’ll give a personal story to add truth to that above paragraph.  Recently, my 94 year-old next door neighbor – who had lived in that house for over forty years – was heartbroken and devastated when liberal government forced her to dig up her beautiful green lawn that she had her deceased husband had cultivated over all those years.  It’s now gravelled and the only water allowed is the tears of an elderly widow.  And that’s because some activist liberal turd drove by, saw that lawn, and became offended that somebody was happy on her own property and that was evil.  Meanwhile, night after night after night I walk past a government indoctrination center that passes for a “public school.”  And night after night after night I see the total indifference of government to do what it forces helpless citizens it oppresses to do.  The water main right alongside the sidewalk is just spraying water and has been doing so for MONTHS.

There’s a good ten cubit feet of soil around that main that is just SATURATED from the all the damn wasted water from that constant leak.  And no jackass fascist bureaucrat gives a flying damn about it.  There are two public schools side-by-side – an elementary school and a middle school – and they BOTH routinely have so many water issues it’s beyond disgusting.  But it doesn’t matter who I’ve contacted or what I’ve done; nobody fixes these things for months.  Because it’s so far easier for a bureaucracy to harass and oppress an elderly widow than it is for those same jackbooted jackass bureaucrats to get off their own unionized asses and do their damn jobs.  Because what’s right for me to impose on thee is to hard to comply with for me.  Liberalism is about forcing OTHER people to comply with what they themselves don’t bother to do and then seizing OTHER people’s money to pay for it.

And I’ll tell you what: when my neighbor buckled under the threats of the liberal government, she had to fire her Hispanic gardeners who were paid to come twice a month and take care of that lawn.  Because heavy-handed leftist fascist government thugs who are hypocrites to their lying cores took their jobs from them.  And who should they vote for???  Should they vote for the liberals who will protect the Delta Smelt at all costs no matter how many human lives and jobs they destroy, or should they vote for the people who would not have cost them to lose their job in the first place???

California liberals – the same damnfools who are responsible for refusing to fix water leaks that cost thousands of gallons a year of wasted water – just where I am walking by – are the same damnfool people who have dismantled dams and emptied reservoirs that we desperately need because of environmentalist policies that are literally just evil.  Our water management system is fifty years old and the Democrats who have controlled California politics have steadfastly refused to do ANYTHING to modernize our ability to harness and channel rainfall and snowpack runoff.  “Climate change” is not a big deal; it is as old as planet earth and humanity has dealt with it for thousands of years; the true menace to the human race is liberalism and the fools who time and time again put bugs and fish and vermin above human lives.

Vote for Hillery.  Vote for hell.  Vote for more regulation that is going to strangle more jobs.  Vote for more and bigger government that is going to be completely unresponsive to anyone who is not “in” with the politically-connected class.

So that’s one.  And it’s a doozy.  Hillary promises you that the exact same failed solutions that drove this country into a ditch will get us out when it will dig us even deeper into that ditch.  Trump says he’s created tens of thousands of jobs by himself and he understands what entrepreneurs like him need to do the same for millions of Americans who just want to work rather than have a nanny-state give them welfare on the backs of other people.

Here’s two:

I thought back over the last fifty years plus and I realize that the American presidency is largely a popularity contest going back to when Kennedy defeated Nixon.  In that election, a singular moment defined the trend I am describing:

It’s now common knowledge that without the nation’s first televised debate — fifty years ago Sunday — Kennedy would never have been president. But beyond securing his presidential career, the 60-minute duel between the handsome Irish-American senator and Vice President Richard Nixon fundamentally altered political campaigns, television media and America’s political history. “It’s one of those unusual points on the timeline of history where you can say things changed very dramatically — in this case, in a single night,” says Alan Schroeder, a media historian and associate professor at Northeastern University, who authored the book, Presidential Debates: Forty Years of High-Risk TV. […]

What happened after the two candidates took the stage is a familiar tale. Nixon, pale and underweight from a recent hospitalization, appeared sickly and sweaty, while Kennedy appeared calm and confident. As the story goes, those who listened to the debate on the radio thought Nixon had won. But those listeners were in the minority. By 1960, 88% of American households had televisions — up from just 11% the decade before. The number of viewers who tuned in to the debate has been estimated as high as 74 million, by the Nielsen of the day, Broadcast Magazine. Those that watched the debate on TV thought Kennedy was the clear winner. Many say Kennedy won the election that night.

In other words, if you were listening to that debate – and allowing your mind work unencumbered by your lying eyes – Nixon won.  But add in all the visual whiz-bangs, and the image of a handsome, vigorous Kennedy, and Kennedy wiped the floor with Nixon.  Because the facts were irrelevant and the image was everything.

And my thesis is that it has been that way ever since.

So let’s go down memory lane, from Reagan v. Carter in 1980.  Who had more personality?  More charisma?  The actor kicked peanut farmer ass.  Same thing when the actor destroyed Mondale in 1984.  Then we get to his successor, H.W. Bush vs. Dukakis in 1988: well, it wasn’t like H.W. Bush was a “best personality” winner, but compared to the turnip someone named Michael Dukakis?  H.W. in a landslide.  But then that same H.W. Bush met Bill Clinton in 1992, and the handsome, vigorous man who slickly played saxophone on the hip show Arsenio Hall took the win.   And we get to 1996, and who had more personality and charisma?  Bill Clinton or Bob Dole, who looked like the angry old man yelling at neighborhood kids to get the hell off his lawn?  That brings us to George W. Bush versus the wooden cigar store Indian otherwise known as Al Gore in 2000.  And “Dubya” won.  Or put it this way: “close is no cigar.”  Same thing when “Dubya” took on John Kerry, who sounded like the stiffest and most pompous ass imaginable in 2004.  Which brings us to our current national nightmare when a young, hip, charismatic, enigmatic figure named Barack Hussein Obama took on an old, white-haired decrepit named John McCain in 2008.  And then took it away again from the GOP’s answer to the aforementioned wooden cigar store Indian when he defeated the chump known as Mitt Romney.  And I can only wish that Romney had displayed the fire in his belly against Obama that he has recently displayed trying to take down Trump.  And all that Romney has proven is that if you don’t like boring establishment Republican RINOs, vote for Trump because Romney proves Trump aint one.

I’m just saying that the American presidency is largely a personality cult, and who has more personality and charisma: old hag Hillery – whose been a lying politician since dinosaurs walked the earth – or Donald Trump the hero of reality T.V. that brings us back full circle to Kennedy winning because of fake reality television to kick it all off???

I’m declaring that when people start looking at Hillary and The Donald, Trump will exude so much more personality and charisma than the screaming witch that the American people will cast their lot with him.  Hillery is actually and able debater, but she simply fails to connect with people because at her core – as her email mess and her secret server proves – she is a paranoid fascist who frankly can’t stand people being able to see her for what she truly is.

We just learn something very telling here through Hillary Clinton’s emails that the FBI managed to save after she tried first to delete emails that she was required by law to preserve and then to try to wipe her secret server that she stored them on to try to bypass any and all public accountability under things like the Freedom of Information Act: namely, she is so paranoid about revealing who she truly is it is beyond unreal.  She is THE most tightly scripted control-freak who ever ran for president by far.  This is a truly paranoid woman who demanded that her staff be able to examine a high school kid’s introductory remarks before a Clinton appearance.  She wants to have tight control over EVERYTHING, including what questions get asked and who gets to ask those questions.  Which is why this paranoid, fascist woman has refused to do a single press conference in over half a year (more than 180 days!).  Hillary Clinton knows that if you knew who she really was, you would reject her.  Whereas Donald Trump is out everywhere talking to anybody.

Hillary Clinton has proven over her entire career that she is the same “Fiefdom Syndrome” heartless, indifferent, tone-deaf lifelong bureaucrat-technocrat politician – especially as epitomized by Benghazi – who couldn’t be bothered to deal with the leaking water mains under her governance.   It boils down to the five words, “What difference does it make?”

And the answer is “None at all; IF you want to go in the same miserable failed direction that leads to hell.”  Otherwise it makes PLENTY of difference.

And so I predict Hillary will lose.   Not because she’s is GODAWFUL (which is WHY she should lose) but because she is BORING.  Because of a mindset that has been around for fifty years which has worked for and against both parties and to the betterment as well as the harm of this nation.

 

 

Hillary Clinton Savagely Attacks Elizabeth Warren For Greedily Exploiting Poor, Oppressed Families (At Least, If She Weren’t A Hypocrite)

Hillary Clinton tore into Donald Trump when her mainstream media dirt-mining propagandists dug up a 2006 Trump quote:

“He actually said he was hoping for the crash that caused hard-working families in California and across America to lose their jobs,” she said at a campaign event outside of Los Angeles. “All because he thought he could take advantage of it to make some money for himself.”

Clinton ally Elizabeth Warren pounced on the story with a tweet:

Sen. Elizabeth Warren jumped in as well last night, saying Trump was “drooling over a housing meltdown” and asking her audience, “What kind of man does that?”

There’s only one problem, Hell-ery: Elizabeth Warren, the heart and soul of the left, DID THE EXACT SAME FREAKING that Donald Trump did that you say is so damn vile:

Elizabeth Warren Bought Foreclosed Homes to Make a Quick Profit
by Jillian Kay Melchior & Eliana Johnson May 27, 2015 4:00 AM

Before the crash that she blamed on speculators, Senator Elizabeth Warren made a bundle by flipping houses.

Nearly two years after Veo Vessels died, her daughter, 70-year-old Mary Frances Hickman, decided to sell the home her mother had left to her. A sprawling brick house in Oklahoma City’s historic Highland Park neighborhood, it was built in 1924, just a year after Mary’s birth.

Decades later, one of Vessels’ great-grandchildren fondly recalls the wood and tile floors, the fish pond, the butler’s quarters, and the multi-car garage where children played house.

“It was really, really nice,” says Hickman’s granddaughter, Andrea Martin. That’s part of the reason she’s so surprised her grandmother sold the home in 1993 for a mere $30,000. Despite a debilitating stroke, Martin says Hickman remained sharp, and she had always been business-savvy. As an Avon saleswoman, she had at times ranked among the top ten in the country. “So I don’t know why,” Martin says. “Maybe she just wanted out from underneath it, but to sell it for such a low number — I don’t know. Maybe she got bad advice, maybe she was just tired.”

The home’s new owner: Elizabeth Warren, today a Massachusetts senator who has built a political career on denouncing the sort of banking titans and financial sophisticates who make a buck off the little guy. Five months after purchasing Veo Vessels’ old home, Warren flipped the property, selling it for $115,000 more than she’d paid, according to Oklahoma County Property Assessor records.

Warren rose to political prominence in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis as a crusader against big banks and a dispenser of common-sense economic advice. She campaigned for the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, intended to shield people from the predations of the mortgage and credit-card industries, among others. In her 2006 book All Your Worth, co-authored with her daughter, Amelia, Warren lists as a top myth the idea that “you can make big money buying houses and flipping them quickly.” She has made a career out of telling people how to behave in financially responsible ways, and out of creating laws that will make it illegal for them to do otherwise.

Five months after purchasing Veo Vessels’ old home, Warren flipped the property, selling it for $115,000 more than she’d paid.

But Warren bought and sold at least five properties for profit at a different time in her life, before the cratering economy and a political career made her a star. Her life story has been the subject of much interest, and her 2014 memoir, A Fighting Chance, chronicled her rise from humble beginnings in small-town Oklahoma and her struggle to make ends meet. It didn’t much mention, though, the early 1990s, years when her children were teenagers and she was once again happily married. These are years when she wasn’t yet the multimillionaire she is today, and, she has said, she was voting Republican.

As a professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania, and later as a visiting professor at Harvard Law School, she was doing well for herself, building both her professional profile and her wealth. She owes at least part of her considerable financial success, it seems, to snapping up these properties in her native Oklahoma and turning them for a profit — though today that’s not a practice she endorses for the many people looking to emulate her success. The Boston Herald reported on these purchases during Warren’s Senate run in 2012, noting that she invested in “the often topsy-turvy real-estate market of the 1990s” and that her actions “don’t seem to square with her public statements about the latest real estate boom and bust.”

(By our deadline, Warren’s office did not respond to our request for an interview with the senator or for a request for comment from the senator’s spokesperson about the home sales.)

Hickman’s granddaughter Martin says of the home flip: “I don’t think it’s right, but I don’t really know much about it. . . . You flip houses to make a profit, so I can’t really fault [Warren] much. I think my grandmother made a mistake by selling it for so cheap. . . . She had worked hard all her life and was a self-made woman.”

Don Vessels — a grandson of Veo Vessels, and the nephew of Mary Frances Hickman — said he had not known that Warren had purchased the family home, but “my reaction is that it’s kind of par for the course.” He added: “What’s said and what’s done in politics are two different things. Mary Hickman, being the executor of the estate, should have sold it for the highest price on the market, which I’m not sure she did. But the house was not in fantastic shape, I can tell you that. It was a very nice house when it was purchased, but my grandmother kind of let it fall into disrepair.”

Records show Warren bought the house Hickman inherited from her mother, located at 200 N.W. 16th Street, in August 1993 and quickly obtained permits to do plumbing and electrical work, selling it five months later for a 383 percent gain.

The article goes on to describe what Democrats would call greedy profiteering in the remaining cases of Pocahontas doing the very thing she demonized.  It ends thus:

In her 2014 autobiography, Warren wrote of the events that precipitated the financial crisis that “everyone seemed to have a story about someone they knew who was getting rich by flipping houses.”

She omitted a crucial one.

Because she’s a Democrat and that’s what Democrats do like no one else in the history of mankind.

If you are a Democrat, you are nothing but a cockroach hypocrite slandering liar of the worst form imaginable.

The history of socialism has been consistent from day one: incredibly cynical demagogues claiming to be doing everything they do in the name of the people who exploit the very people they falsely claim to be helping and hypocritically enriching themselves.  In the communist Soviet days you had your political class living it up in their Black Sea vacation dachas while the people they lied to had NOTHING.  And that tradition continues with Elizabeth Warren and Hiller Clinton.

Elizabeth Warren – again the heart and soul of the uber-feminist left – is just utter slime.  And Donald Trump is using her face like a mop and just wiping her face in the filthy toilet that is her life.

He calls her “Pocahontas” because this deceiving liar – who in biological fact is about as WHITE as you can possibly get – manufactured a “Native American” ancestry based on her narcissistic belief that she had “high cheekbones” and then cynically and dishonestly exploited her own lie to get benefit after benefit that she didn’t deserve.

This is clearly a woman who took about 3 million self-adoring selfies of herself too many, and came to believe her own delusions as she photo shopped herself into a Native American.  Well, either that, or she is just the worst sort of liar there is.

And now he just destroyed this witless, slimy hypocrite fool yet again:

I marvel at the dishonesty and hypocrisy that characterizes every single Democrat today as we enter the very last days just before Democrats worship the coming Antichrist and take his mark on their right hands, or on their foreheads.

The simple fact of the matter is that if every reporter covering Hillary Clinton doesn’t get in her face and ask if she thinks Warren should resign from the Senate due to her disgraceful past in which she “caused hard-working families in California and across America to lose their jobs” and “thought she could take advantage of it to make some money for herself.”  If they don’t, you can know for certain that every single mainstream media entity is on the same propagandist page as Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook and Katie Couric’s brand of rabidly biased “journalism.”

Just remember, if you see Hell-ery Clinton’s lips moving, whatever the hell is coming out of her mouth has nothing whatsoever to do with the truth, or with integrity.

And the same thing applies with her slick Willy husband Bill, who by her own words ought to be rotting in a prison cell right now for rape.  And Juanita Broadderick’s story is just another example of a dishonest media refusing to publish a story because to be a liberal is to be the worst kind of hypocrite.

Let’s sniff something called REALITY as we consider what Barack Obama has done to our economy and our way of life.  From the Los Angeles Times:

Shedding light on the precarious economic state of many American families, the Federal Reserve said Wednesday that nearly half of U.S. households reported they would have trouble meeting emergency expenses of just $400.

In addition, the Fed found that 22% of workers were juggling two or more jobs last year, higher than what government jobs data would suggest. And nearly one out of three Americans said that they have no retirement savings or pension.

Trump said about his 2006 comment that he is a BUSINESSMAN, and it is the essence of a good businessman to win whether things are good or whether things are bad.  If you want to elect someone who represents the status quo that two-thirds of Americans say is the wrong direction, who only knows how to make bad worse, then elect Hell-ery.  Because you deserve hell.

It Is Truly Amazing And Terrifying How The Political Left At EVERY LEVEL Distort, Deceive And Demonize Our Right To Hear The FACTS

I have documented multiple times how rank-and-file Democrats have done everything they could to use every means – including infiltration and outright acts of violence – to prevent Americans from participating in the political process according to their 1st Amendment rights to hear a major political figure offer his ideas at a political rally.  It has become so bad that at times, Donald Trump has been forced to climb walls and truck loading docks to enter venues through rear entrances to avoid violent Democrat “protesters.”  And the same media that was all over Donald Trump when ONE Trump supporter struck a Democrat fascist infiltrator who was trying to prevent Trump from speaking to his supporters have done exactly WHAT to confront Democrat candidates over their continuous violence as they go to Trump events and try to violently stop them???

I am so beyond SICK of the abject moral hypocrisy that IS the Democratic Party.  Recently, a bunch of thug Democrats turned violent in Las Vegas, Nevada because they have come to realize that the arbitrary way the Democrat Party picks its candidates is quintessentially fascist.  And while these people are perfectly fine with violent fascism, they want THEIR fascism and THEIR fascist candidate.  So they rioted and demonstrated that they “have a penchant for violence.”  So, being fascist thugs, they “shouted down the keynote speaker, Sen. Barbara Boxer, and others they thought were tilting the rules in Clinton’s favor.”  They “shouted obscenities and rushed the dais to protest rulings.”  And they created “a very dangerous atmosphere that ended in chaos and physical threats to fellow Democrats.”

Now, here’s the thing.  The same damn Democrat fascist thugs have been doing AND CONTINUE DOING the very same damn thing to virtually EVERY Donald Trump rally that they did to DNC crony-capitalist fascist mucky-mucks in Las Vegas.  And all of a sudden it’s “violent.”  But these Democrat Party Nazis already proved they are Nazis when they not only refused to call the violent Democrat thugs out but even praised them and turned them into victims when they were engaging in all the exact same tactics against Donald Trump and his supporters at Republican rallies.

By the same vile argument the Democrat Party and the propagandists masquerading as “journalists” offered, the Democratic Party is evil and violent.  Because after all, if Trump was responsible for the violence of these “protestors,” then surely the Democratic Party is just as responsible when these identical protestors “protest” the identical same way they “protested” Trump events.  Thrown chairs. Screaming speakers down.  Brute intimidation of people trying to exercise their 1st Amendment rights.  Leaked cellphone numbers. Substances intended to look exactly like anthrax people mailed to people.  Death threats spewed across the Internet.  You know, all the traditional Democrat Party Nazi thug tactics plus a couple of new ones.

You tell me how many times Hillary Clinton has been forced to low-crawl under a fence to attend a rally because violent rightwingers would attack her???

The answer to that question as well as the one I ended my opening paragraph with is ZERO to the ten thousandth decimal point.  Similarly, why is it that thousands of Democrats illegally blocking traffic at event after event, chaining themselves to cars at event after event, screaming to drown out speakers at event after event, resorting to frequent violence even against the police who are trying to keep the peace at event after event – and frequently doing ALL Of the above under a foreign country’s flag – is okay but when one Trump guy goes over the top trying to stop the fascist madness it’s an indictment of Trump???  Because we live in a society today that the left has shaped to be even more suppressing of truth and facts and objective process in media coverage and fairness in reporting than it was when Joseph Goebbels ran his Ministry of Propaganda for the Nazi Party.

The cat – which is actually a fascist ferret – is out of the bag now.  We can openly see the left’s intent to destroy the 1st Amendment even as they pursue the destruction of the 2nd Amendment and the clearly defined “right of the people to keep and bear arms” which “shall not be infringed.”  At least until fascists take over.  So we have a liberal writing for the liberal Harvard University saying this:

Harvard writer: Abolish free speech
Woman claims First Amendment threatens liberalism
Published: 1 day ago

A student writer at Harvard University is raising eyebrows after publishing her belief that free speech on campus should be abolished and professors with opposing views be fired.

Sandra Korn, a senior who writes a column for the Harvard Crimson newspaper, thinks radical leftism is the only permissible political philosophy, and the First Amendment only hinders colleges from brainwashing students with her viewpoint.

“Let’s give up on academic freedom in favor of justice,” states the subtitle of her Feb. 18 column, in which she insists Harvard stop guaranteeing students and professors the right to hold controversial views and conduct research putting liberalism in a negative light.

“If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals?” Korn asks.

“It is tempting to decry frustrating restrictions on academic research as violations of academic freedom. Yet I would encourage student and worker organizers to instead use a framework of justice. After all, if we give up our obsessive reliance on the doctrine of academic freedom, we can consider more thoughtfully what is just.”

You don’t have the right to speak unless a liberal agrees with you.  They have the right to shut you down, to shout you down which includes destroying your career, to punch you down, and the ends justifies the means.  Whether it’s Donald Trump or gay marriage or LGBT bathrooms or anything else.

This is now the official attitude of every single Democrat in any position of influence whatsoever.  And bad, wicked people vote for these fascists.

So we just found out that Facebook – one of the largest sources of “news” for young stupid morons who frankly don’t know a damn thing about reality because liberalism is Satanism – is an outright leftist propaganda source:

Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News
Michael Nunez
Monday 9:10am
· Filed to: Facebook

Facebook workers routinely suppressed news stories of interest to conservative readers from the social network’s influential “trending” news section, according to a former journalist who worked on the project. This individual says that workers prevented stories about the right-wing CPAC gathering, Mitt Romney, Rand Paul, and other conservative topics from appearing in the highly-influential section, even though they were organically trending among the site’s users.

Several former Facebook “news curators,” as they were known internally, also told Gizmodo that they were instructed to artificially “inject” selected stories into the trending news module, even if they weren’t popular enough to warrant inclusion—or in some cases weren’t trending at all. The former curators, all of whom worked as contractors, also said they were directed not to include news about Facebook itself in the trending module.

In other words, Facebook’s news section operates like a traditional newsroom, reflecting the biases of its workers and the institutional imperatives of the corporation. Imposing human editorial values onto the lists of topics an algorithm spits out is by no means a bad thing—but it is in stark contrast to the company’s claims that the trending module simply lists “topics that have recently become popular on Facebook.”

These new allegations emerged after Gizmodo last week revealed details about the inner workings of Facebook’s trending news team—a small group of young journalists, primarily educated at Ivy League or private East Coast universities, who curate the “trending” module on the upper-right-hand corner of the site. As we reported last week, curators have access to a ranked list of trending topics surfaced by Facebook’s algorithm, which prioritizes the stories that should be shown to Facebook users in the trending section. The curators write headlines and summaries of each topic, and include links to news sites. The section, which launched in 2014, constitutes some of the most powerful real estate on the internet and helps dictate what news Facebook’s users—167 million in the US alone—are reading at any given moment.

“Depending on who was on shift, things would be blacklisted or trending,” said the former curator. This individual asked to remain anonymous, citing fear of retribution from the company. The former curator is politically conservative, one of a very small handful of curators with such views on the trending team. “I’d come on shift and I’d discover that CPAC or Mitt Romney or Glenn Beck or popular conservative topics wouldn’t be trending because either the curator didn’t recognize the news topic or it was like they had a bias against Ted Cruz.”

The former curator was so troubled by the omissions that they kept a running log of them at the time; this individual provided the notes to Gizmodo. Among the deep-sixed or suppressed topics on the list: former IRS official Lois Lerner, who was accused by Republicans of inappropriately scrutinizing conservative groups; Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker; popular conservative news aggregator the Drudge Report; Chris Kyle, the former Navy SEAL who was murdered in 2013; and former Fox News contributor Steven Crowder. “I believe it had a chilling effect on conservative news,” the former curator said.

Another former curator agreed that the operation had an aversion to right-wing news sources. “It was absolutely bias. We were doing it subjectively. It just depends on who the curator is and what time of day it is,” said the former curator. “Every once in awhile a Red State or conservative news source would have a story. But we would have to go and find the same story from a more neutral outlet that wasn’t as biased.”

Stories covered by conservative outlets (like Breitbart, Washington Examiner, and Newsmax) that were trending enough to be picked up by Facebook’s algorithm were excluded unless mainstream sites like the New York Times, the BBC, and CNN covered the same stories.

And fat chance of that because the New York Slimes, BBC and Clinton News Network are every bit as biased as Facebook with the same sort of arrogant, self-righteous Ivy League liberals running them that are running Facebook.

Oh, the fascist leftist propagandists deny this ideological and outright dishonest suppression of truth has been going on.  But we have Zuckerberg himself on the record demonizing Trump every bit as much as the most rabid Clinton staffer, and we have Facebook’s own internal communications in which they ask, “What responsibility does Facebook have to help prevent President Trump in 2017?”

Yeah.  It’s not like the site that 140 million Americans get their “news” is rabidly BIASED or anything.

To answer the Facebook question above, how about NONE?  Because if you’re reporting as a NEWS SOURCE, you have a moral and ethical DUTY to merely REPORT the facts according to your own established objective criteria rather than play shenanigans and distort the record with your bias???

Easily proven leftist ideologue Mark Zuckerberg hired leftist ideologues as his “journalists” who then put their thumbs on the scales of every story they weighed to see if it was “trending.”  That’s what happened.

Then there’s the Washington Post, one of the two leading flagships of quote-unquote “journalism.”  We just learned that the leftist WaPo assigned a literal ARMY in journalistic terms of TWENTY REPORTERS to dig up dirt in every phase of Trump’s life:

Woodward: Washington Post Assigns 20 Reporters to Dig Into Trump’s Past
By Greg Richter   |    Wednesday, 11 May 2016 06:56 PM

The Washington Post has assigned 20 reporters to look into every aspect of Donald Trump’s past as the presumptive GOP nominee seeks to become the next president of the United States, famed Post associate editor, Bob Woodward, said Wednesday.

“There’s a lot we don’t know,” Woodward told the National Association of Realtors convention, according to The Washington Examiner. “We have 20 people working on Trump, we’re going to do a book, we’re doing articles about every phase of his life.”

Woodward himself is looking into Trump’s real estate deals, he said, saying that “The New York real estate world is more complex than the CIA.”

Woodward said Jeff Bezos, the Post’s publisher and a Democratic Party donor, has urged the paper to cover all of the candidates thoroughly.

“He said, ‘Look, the job at The Washington Post has to be tell us everything about who the eventual nominee will be in both parties, 15-part, 16-part series, 20-part series, we want to look at every part of their lives and we’re never going get the whole story of course but we can get the best attainable,'” Woodward said.

Woodward, who first exposed the Watergate break-in with fellow Post reporter Carl Bernstein, told the group that the Post also is working to get the “essence” of Hillary Clinton, the expected Democratic nominee. But he said he doesn’t believe Clinton purposely tried to use her private email server to send classified information when she was secretary of state.

“I don’t think anyone feels that there was intent on her part to distribute classified information in a way that was illegal or jeopardized security,” he said.

It’s amazing how subjective bias plays into their “objective” thinking.  And how these self-professing geniuses are too morally stupid to realize what they are doing.  Objectively, Hillary Clinton not only broke but SHATTERED every damn law on the books in her paranoid and fascist determination to establish a secret personal server so she could bypass all public transparency and reporting laws and bypass all security national laws.  And for the damn record, “intent” is totally irrelevant according to the law here, just as “gross negligence” is not a defense.  The question is merely, did Hillary Clinton put classified information on a nonsecure nongovernment device?  And if the answer is “yes,” she committed a federal crime.  Even the leftist Daily Kos – which albeit obviously is rooting for her opponent Bernie Sanders – acknowledges this objective fact.  But what do liberals do?  Let’s put aside the objective facts and focus on the most subjective element of all.  I mean, did they ever give Mitt Romney the benefit of the doubt in terms of his “intent” on ANYTHING they blasted him for???

Consider the Washington Post is trying to tell us that Donald Trump is somehow a new figure and they need to vet him.  Did they assign 20 reporters to dig up every shred of dirt on the totally unknown Barack Hussein Obama in 2008???  Nope.  Have they ever assigned 2o reporters to investigate ANY of Hillary Clinton’s vast conspiracies?  Benghazi?  The secret server?  The hundred million dollars the Clintons siphoned off from the world’s worst human rights abusers?  The fact that Bill Clinton just got caught giving $2 million dollars described for the IRS as “charitable contributions” to a “friend” he is in all likelihood having sex with?  The fact that the Clinton’s have a rather longstanding pattern of giving the VERY SCANT “charitable contributons” from their corrupt Clinton Foundation to political allies?  Keep in mind it is a documented FACT that the Clinton Foundation – officially for tax purposes a charity organization – gives only TEN PERCENT of the billions it is raising for “charity.”  And now we’re finding it goes to whore friends and crony friends.

These are just the very most RECENT facts that we’re learning.

We’re now learning that Hillary Clinton had a longstanding, regular and documented pattern that “show Hillary Clinton could not care less about the security of her communications.”  We’ve got her on the record saying send what by definition was secure information “nonsecure.”  strip the identifying headers saying “classified” all over the top of the page out first, mind out.  To the damn extent that “intent” even matters, how the hell does that not show her INTENT to break the law???  Especially when she was briefed and told and signed her acknowledgement that she was briefed and told what the damn law was.  And broke it over and over and over again anyway???

Now we’ve got Hillary Clinton caught red-handed in the damn act of lying to the American people yet again for like the fifty-trillionth time.  She has steadfastly maintained that she is NOT under FBI investigation but that this is all just a “security inquiry.”

Hillary Clinton for months has downplayed the FBI investigation into her private email server and practices as a mere “security inquiry.”

But when asked Wednesday by Fox News about Clinton’s characterization of the bureau’s probe, FBI Director James Comey said he doesn’t know what “security inquiry” means — adding, “We’re conducting an investigation. … That’s what we do.”

It’s in their damn NAME.  The last I heard it was the “Federal Bureau of INVESTIGATION.”  Hillary Clinton is under criminal investigation by the FBI and both she and the damn media are so pathologically dishonest we can’t even be told the damn truth about THAT.

But where the hell are your twenty damn reporters covering the past of Hillary Clinton when there are so many rotting and fresh bodies, so much toxic waste, so many crimes, it is beyond UNREAL???

The same place they’d be if the Washington Post was part of Goebbels’ Ministry of Propaganda during Hitler’s day.  Nowhere.

This exchange reveals the essence of modern “journalism” and the despicable bias that masquerades as “reporting”.  And how they will go after Republicans tooth and nail and then fascistically back-flip on what they had just sworn was their divine duty the moment a Democrat gets elected in favor of a different objective:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Yeah, well, you know what? I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new presidency work, and I think that —

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Is that your job? You just talked about being a journalist!

MATTHEWS: Yeah, it is my job. My job is to help this country.

Matthews wasn’t done with his odd new job description . . . An incredulous Scarborough kept pressing, astonished at such a complete 180 from Matthews’s repeated insistence during the Bush presidency that he had to hold the government accountable.

SCARBOROUGH: Your job is the make this presidency work?

MATTHEWS: To make this work successfully. This country needs a successful presidency.

Matthews will hardly be alone in that sentiment. Once Obama assumes office, the “speaking truth to power” line we’ve heard so often during the past eight years will be a thing of the past.

It’s so damn dishonest and hypocritical, but to be a liberal, to be a Democrat, means having a soul that SWIMS in dishonesty and hypocrisy.

The thing that makes me so viscerally angry about this is that liberals spent – from the very outset when they tried to delegitimize Bush’s very election as president – eight vicious years savagely undermining every aspect of the Bush presidency, and now react in horror that a conservative would even think of doing the same thing to an Obama presidency.

You go back to the pioneers that liberal journalists built their field upon, such as Edward Bernays:

In describing the origin of the term Public Relations, Bernays commented, “When I came back to the United States [from the war], I decided that if you could use propaganda for war, you could certainly use it for peace. And propaganda got to be a bad word because of the Germans … using it. So what I did was to try to find some other words, so we found the words Counsel on Public Relations”.

Bernays explained his project this way:

“the very essence of the democratic process” is “the freedom to persuade and suggest,” what he calls “the engineering of consent.” If the freedom to persuade happens to be concentrated in a few hands, we must recognize that such is the nature of a free society.

UNLESS of course a conservative gets to say anything.  THEN he should be shouted down.  Because to be a liberal is to be a fascist hypocrite who lied and said it was a level-playing field when they were so slanting the field that it was beyond unreal.

Bernay’s daughter described her father this way:

“Democracy to my father was a wonderful concept, but I don’t think he felt that all those publics out there had reliable judgment.. that they very easily might vote for the wrong man, or want the wrong thing. So that they had to be guided from above. It’s enlightened despotism in a sense. You appeal to their desires and their unrecognized longings that sort of thing. That you can tap into their deepest desires or deepest fears and use that to your own purposes.”  Ann Bernays said, ““Anyone who disagreed with him, he used the word dope and stupid over and over.  And the masses, they were stupid.”

That’s what we get today from the elite media who call Republicans and especially Trump voters as ignorant and uneducated and stupid and worse.

And Walter Lippmann who defined “journalism” this way:

Walter Lippmann described a “revolution” in “the practice of democracy” as “the manufacture of consent”

Lippmann – the “journalist” par excellance, has a terrifying definition of his profession which could come right out of Lenin:

It follows that two political roles must be clearly distinguished, Lippmann goes on to explain. First, there is the role assigned to the specialized class, the “insiders,” the “responsible men,” who have access to information and understanding. Ideally, they should have a special education for public office, and should master the criteria for solving the problems of society: “In the degree to which these criteria can be made exact and objective, political decision,” which is their domain, “is actually brought into relation with the interests of men.” The “public men” are, furthermore, to “lead opinion” and take the responsibility for “the formation of a sound public opinion.” “They initiate, they administer, they settle,” and should be protected from “ignorant and meddlesome outsiders,” the general public, who are incapable of dealing “with the substance of the problem.” The criteria we apply to government are success in satisfying material and cultural wants, not whether “it vibrates to the self-centered opinions that happen to be floating in men’s minds.” Having mastered the criteria for political decision, the specialized class, protected from public meddling, will serve the public interest — what is called “the national interest” in the webs of mystification spun by the academic social sciences and political commentary.

The second role is “the task of the public,” which is much more limited. It is not for the public, Lippmann observes, to “pass judgment on the intrinsic merits” of an issue or to offer analysis or solutions, but merely, on occasion, to place “its force at the disposal” of one or another group of “responsible men.” The public “does not reason, investigate, invent, persuade, bargain, or settle.” Rather, “the public acts only by aligning itself as the partisan of someone in a position to act executively,” once he has given the matter at hand sober and disinterested thought. It is for this reason that “the public must be put in its place.” The bewildered herd, trampling and roaring, “has its function”: to be “the interested spectators of action,” not participants. Participation is the duty of “the responsible man.”

Which is to say that you have the right to shut up and stand aside if you are not hysterically screaming the same vileness that our elite, godless masters are spouting.  This has – as Noam Chomsky put it – “an unmistakeable resemblance to the Leninist concept of a vanguard party that leads the masses to a better life that they cannot conceive or construct on their own.”

Elsewhere Chomsky has this brilliant observation about the nature of the intellectual left:

Hume was an astute observer, and his paradox of government is much to the point. His insight explains why elites are so dedicated to indoctrination and thought control, a major and largely neglected theme of modern history. “The public must be put in its place,” Walter Lippmann wrote, so that we may “live free of the trampling and the roar of a bewildered herd,” whose “function” is to be “interested spectators of action,” not participants. And if the state lacks the force to coerce and the voice of the people can be heard, it is necessary to ensure that that voice says the right thing, as respected intellectuals have been advising for many years.

The end game of the left, of its’ “journalism,” of its’ twisted definition of “tolerance,” is this as I have defined it:

Political correctness is not just a leftist way to make overly-sensitive people feel better. It was designed by early Marxists in Russia and the left continues to execute the Orwellian tactic today: if you can control words, you can control thought; if you can control thought, you can control actions.  “PC” is an enormous, sophisticated and highly-coordinated effort by elitist intellectuals to “fundamentally transform” Western culture as we know it by  redefining it – by shaping the “acceptable” language people are allowed to use – and thereby dictating the parameters of cultural arguments.  And people with incredibly radical agendas have been exploiting this tactic for decades and it has succeeded.

Ultimately what these “respected intellectual” will advise will lead to this:

It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name. — Revelation 13:16-17

The unwashed masses are being betrayed by these elites who profess themselves to be wise, but are fools (Romans 1:22).  We were warned by the Word of God, “Don’t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ (Colossians 2:8).  But these deluded fools hate the Word of God with a rabid passion.  And that is why they impose abortion when Psalm 139 among other passages clearly teach that the unborn babies that are being murdered are innocent human beings created in the image of God and literally formed by God in that womb.  That is why they impose homosexuality when Romans chapter one could not be more clear that any society that does this is demanding that the wrath of a holy God be poured out upon it.

We are now learning that THOUSANDS of emails that were just hanging fruit on Clinton’s unsecured server are now in the possession of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR).  They are hoping that the American people are stupid enough and wicked enough to elect Hillary so they can blackmail her into betraying the United States.

We are on the verge of actually electing a president who will be blackmailed into selling the soul of the United States of America to Vladimir Putin and Russia.  And NO ONE is talking about how Hillary Clinton betrayed America.

But don’t worry.  If Donald Trump every so much as tied his shoes improperly, you’ll know all about it on every television program, every newspaper and every magazine.

 

 

The ‘Trump Can Never Win’ Mantra May Well Be A Leftist ‘And They All Lived Liberally Ever After’ Fairy Tale

Let me begin by pointing out that I PREDICTED a Donald Trump would happen FOUR DAMN YEARS AGO.  My words on June 18, 2012:

Obama’s strategy is to set aside and flatly ignore the law for his own political benefit.  Every American who is not deeply troubled by that – troubled enough to not vote for this fascist – is UN-American.

What Obama has done is provide an example of out-and-out lawlessness on the part of the president of the United States.  And when we get a hard-core right wing president the way Obama has been a hard-core left wing president, Obama and the Democrat Party and all of those who voted for Obama and the Democrat Party will be entirely to blame for that president and his extremist actions.  You mark my words.  Because what goes around comes around, and if a Democrat can set aside the law the way Obama has now repeatedly done, well, guess who’s going to be stomping on your necks under your own president’s prior justification???  Conservatives are rising up in a spirit of righteous outrage.  You have repeatedly slapped us in the face through your messiah Obama, and the time is coming when we’re going to punch you hard in the nose and then keep on punching.  And when that day comes, liberals, look to yourselves for blame.

My point is that the anger – THE RAGE – that characterizes this country right now oozed right out of the cockroach soul of an incredibly wicked man named Barack Hussein Obama.  And that rage isn’t just on the right; virtually half of Democrats flatly reject the status-quo Democrat Hillary Clinton and want an openly avowed SOCIALIST to be the next president.

The one thing that about three-quarters of Americans agree upon is that Barack Obama has utterly and absolutely destroyed any trust or confidence whatsoever in the United States government.  And Donald Trump has an awful lot of pure, unadulterated RAGE to tap into.

Liberals are now gleeful at the thought of this horrible, blustering, bigoted buffoon tycoon running as the GOP candidate even as the GOP seems to be fracturing at every possible fissure point over Trump.

They might end up right.  But their demonic, gleeful laughter may turn into the mother of all hysterical crying jags, too.

I found this Washington Post article – keep in mind that WaPo runs reliably leftist – rather intriguing:

Democrats, don’t celebrate Trump’s nomination. Fear it.
By Fred Hiatt Editorial Page Editor
May 8 at 10:03 PM

I know the polls say Donald Trump cannot win. But what if we are looking at the wrong poll question?

What if Trump’s overwhelming negatives don’t matter? Or, to put it another way, what if the country’s negatives matter more?

Right now, about 6 in 10 Americans have an unfavorable view of Trump, and only 36 percent view him positively.

But the country is faring even worse. In the most recent average of polls calculated by RealClearPolitics, 26.9 percent of Americans think the nation is headed in the right direction and 64.9 percent think we are heading down the wrong track.

So what if even voters who respect Hillary Clinton’s competence reject her as the embodiment of business as usual? And what if even voters who do not like Trump’s bigotry or bluster care more that he will, in their view, shake things up?

Sure, these voters might tell themselves, he may be crude, or inconsistent, or ill-informed. He may insult women and Hispanics and other groups. But it’s part of a shtick. He probably doesn’t mean half of it. He’s just an entertainer. The desire to send a message of disgust or disapproval, in other words, could lead voters to overlook, discount, wish away or excuse many Trump sins.

Meanwhile, Clinton cannot shake free of the status quo. You may remember how this bedeviled Al Gore when he asked voters to give the Democratic Party a third straight presidential term in 2000. The vice president managed to achieve the worst of both worlds, alienating Bill Clinton and his most ardent supporters without establishing himself as an entirely new brand.

Unlike Gore, Hillary Clinton is not an incumbent. But she is no less associated with the establishment, having served as first lady, U.S. senator and secretary of state over the past quarter-century. Even if she were inclined to do so, she could not afford to distance herself from President Obama, whose backers she will need to turn out in large numbers.

I know there is an element of irrationality in these fears. I understand that not every dissatisfied American will vote for Trump.

About two-thirds of the country may think we are on the wrong track, after all, but Obama’s approval rating is 51 percent and rising.

Meanwhile, only 4.7 percent of eligible voters have actually cast a ballot for Trump in the party nomination process so far, as an analysis by FairVote shows. Many of the remaining 95.3 percent, no matter how unhappy most are with the performance of their government, will take their responsibility seriously enough that they will not vote for someone who casually threatens the faith and credit of the United States, breezily posits the merits of nuclear proliferation and cheerfully espouses torture as an instrument of U.S. policy.

Republicans are divided, the economy is improving, the demographics are increasingly in Democrats’ favor. The likeliest result of a Trump nomination is a Republican washout up and down the ballot.

I do get all that.

Still, when I hear smart people explaining why Trump cannot win, all I can think is: Aren’t you the ones who told us that he couldn’t top 30 percent, and then 40 percent, and then 50 percent in the Republican primaries? Weren’t you confident that he was finished after he called Mexicans rapists, and insulted prisoners of war, and dished out a menstruation insult?

Did you predict his nomination? If not, we don’t want to hear your certainty about his November defeat.

Nor is it reassuring to read how happy the Clinton camp must be to be facing such a weak opponent. They need to be running scared — smart, but scared — now and for the next six months.

I do have faith in the American voter, I really do. But when two-thirds of the country is unhappy, a rational outcome can’t be taken for granted.

Understand that this editorialist in the course of this article is trying to do what the Hillary Clinton campaign is going to try to do: fearmonger and demonize Donald Trump and say you don’t want an unstable, dangerous guy like this in the White House.

But what if, after the abject ruin of Obama, the American people not only want but DEMAND somebody who will be different???

And at this point, Hillary Clinton has literally tried to insinuate her molecules into the molecules of Obama and is running as the third Obama term.  Versus Donald Trump who says to hell with Bush and wears the Bush-era GOP establishment’s refusal to rally to him as a badge of honor.

It’s a war of Hillary Clinton’s “I’ll be even more like Obama than Obama was!” versus Donald Trump’s “I won’t be anything like those turds Obama OR Bush!”

Now, take me as a conservative.  I didn’t want Trump from the getgo.  And I’ve been watching the coverage of the campaign twist and turn and morph and totally contradict itself.  NOBODY thought Donald Trump was going to succeed to this point.  I mean, even just a couple of weeks ago, liberal journalists were gleefully salivating over the prospect of a brokered convention and the outrage they could manufacture – with Donald Trump’s assistance, of course – over any Republican establishment shenanigans that they might use to try to obstruct and deny Trump from clinching the nomination.  And that was the narrative for weeks and weeks until all of a sudden they were all proven wrong and Ted Cruz and then immediately John Kasich suddenly dropped out.

Mind you, Bernie Sanders hasn’t dropped out.  But then again, the liberal fracturing of the Democratic Party isn’t nearly as interesting for “journalists” to cover as the hype over the divides on the other side.  And so Democrat propagandists – otherwise known as “reporters” – continue to hype the Republican division.  Because to be a liberal is to be a hypocrite who can’t seen the log in their own eyes as they examine the speck in their opponent’s eyes.

Donald Trump has a number of advantages in this postmodern world that Democrats and liberals created that has long-since disregarded truth.  He can run to the right of Hillary Clinton when it suits him and he can run to the left of Hillary Clinton when it suits him.  For instance on the latter, Hillary Clinton is a horrible, failed, warmongering fool: just look at her Iraq War vote that she was all in favor of.  And Donald Trump says he was against that evil war.  And any Democrat who doesn’t want another Iraq War should therefore vote for Trump.  Or here’s another one: the trade agreements that Bernie Sanders has been tearing apart left and right that Hillary loves so much: Trump and Sanders are on the same page there.  Feel that “Bern,” Hillary.

And we’re already starting to see that Donald Trump will punch Hillary Clinton right in the mouth and keep punching her.   He won’t be like the typical Republican nominee who’s afraid to go after a Clinton because she’s a woman or an Obama because he’s black.  And he’s got about a trillion acres of the field of Clinton corruption history to burn to the ground.

Clinton’s emails have yet to surface in this race.  Hillary Clinton is either a corrupt criminal traitor or she is the most incompetent bungling bureaucrat to ever serve in a public office.  There is no other alternative between those two.  So all Hillary Clinton has to go with her incredibly low opinion polls is her record of “competence.”  Which aint very competent.  And meanwhile Clinton is promising the same failed strategy that drove this country right into the ground whereas Trump says whatever the hell Obama did I’ll do just the opposite.

This is going to be the angriest and most bitter election in the history of the American republic.  Because Barack Obama was the worst and most failed and most ideological and the most polarizing president in the history of the American republic.

I know things are going to get really ugly, really nasty, and really mean.  In my own case, I truly hesitated to support Donald Trump: it took the vicious, fascist, Stalinist thugs a.k.a. the Democrat Party who resorted to violence and screaming to shut down and shout down the 1st Amendment to convince me that THE most un-American people on earth are all Democrats.  Anybody who values freedom, freedom of speech, freedom to peaceably assemble and freedom to listen to political speech without Nazi Stormtrooper thugs trying to stop you cannot vote Democrat.  If Donald Trump hates Muslims and illegal immigrant Mexicans, Democrats hate the Constitution and our founding fathers even more.

I have no idea whose going to win.

But I do know that if Donald Trump wins this election, Democrats, that you got just the hell that you voted for when you voted for Obama and then voted to re-elect that slandering demagogue again.

Why Are Blacks Fleeing Liberal Cities? The Answer Ought To Destroy The Lie That Is The Democrat Party.

If Donald Trump marshaled facts like this, he would easily smash Hillary Clinton.  But recent Republican presidential nominees have a rather piss-poor track record of marshaling facts.

But here is the path to destroying the Democratic Party in November: pointing out their actual record and the devastation left in the wake of their stupid and frankly wicked policies.

Let’s just look at blacks for a moment.  Look at what a pompous, arrogant, fact-free, utterly dishonest Obama said:

“Like the rest of America, black America, in the aggregate, is better off now than it was when I came into office.”

And then look at the results of this fool-president’s fool-policies regarding blacks in America:

Here are some basic facts about life in black America under President Barack Obama:

1. In spite of Obama’s $275 billion in housing-market bailouts, home ownership has waned.
2. In the first quarter of 2009, 67.3% of Americans owned homes. By 1Q 2014, the Census Bureau figure was 64.8%.
3. Black home ownership has sagged from 46.1% in 2009 to 43.3% in 2014.
4. The poverty rate for blacks is now 25.8%.
5. Fewer than half of young black men are working a full-time job.
6. The black workforce is decreasing, down from 58.6% in June 2007 to 52.8% in August 2012.
7. The median minority family’s income is now almost fifth lower than it was when Obama took office with a net worth of just $18,100.
8. In contrast, white median wealth has increased by 1% to $142,000.
9. In 2009, white households were 7 times richer than black households. Now, white households are 8 times richer.

Tavis Smiley – no friend whatsoever to conservatives – said this about Barack Obama when asked the following direct question by Donald Trump’s bane, Megyn Kelly:

Megyn Kelly: On the subject of race, are we better off today that seven years ago?

Tavis Smiley: I’m not sure we are and I think ultimately the president missed a moment… On every leading economic issue, in the leading economic issues Black Americans have lost ground in every one of those leading categories. So in the last ten years it hasn’t been good for black folk. This is the president’s most loyal constituency that didn’t gain any ground in that period.

Blacks have lost ground ON EVERY SINGLE ECONOMIC CATEGORY ACROSS THE BOARD.  A vote for a Democrat is a vote to cut your own throat, especially if you are in one of the racial classes that racist Democrats most racially demagogue.

So I came across an article that described the massive black exodus from the liberal West Coast cities mostly to the GOP-bastion southern states, and every black person ought to be told about this.  What is going on?  It’s pretty simple: if you want to live your life as a worthless loser on the dole, the Democrat Party is the “massah” for you.  Don’t you worry, jigaboos, the white man knows you are his burden and you’ll get your meager portion of gruel.  The only downside to this arrangement is that that is ALL you will ever be allowed to get for the rest of your lives; because it is literally in the interest of the Democrat Party to keep you down, to keep you poor, because otherwise you would have your own wealth and you not only won’t need the Democrat dole machine, but you would actually become a threat to them as you start voting in such a manner to protect what you earn from your hard work from government taxes; you’ll resent the government regulations that strangle your economic growth.  Massa can’t have that on his plantation.

Again, I can point to reliably leftist sources to acknowledge my basic facts.  Take the very-left leaning Atlantic title and subtitle:

Why Middle-Class Americans Can’t Afford to Live in Liberal Cities: Blue America has a problem: Even after adjusting for income, left-leaning metros tend to have worse income inequality and less affordable housing.

The article begins thus:

On April 2, 2014, a protester in Oakland, California, mounted a Yahoo bus, climbed to the front of the roof, and vomited onto the top of the windshield.

If not the year’s most persuasive act of dissent, it was certainly one of the most memorable demonstrations in the Bay Area, where residents have marched, blockaded, and retched in protest of San Francisco’s economic inequality and unaffordable housing. The city’s gaps—between rich and poor, between housing need and housing supply—have been duly catalogued. Even among American tech hubs, San Francisco stands alone with both the most expensive real estate and the fewest new construction permits per unit since 1990.

But San Francisco’s problem is bigger than San Francisco. Across the country, rich, dense cities are struggling with affordable housing, to the considerable anguish of their middle class families.

San Francisco’s problem is bigger than San Francisco. Across the country, rich, dense cities are struggling with affordable housing, to the considerable anguish of their middle class families.

Among the 100 largest U.S. metros, 63 percent of homes are “within reach” for a middle-class family, according to Trulia. But among the 20 richest U.S. metros, just 47 percent of homes are affordable, including a national low of 14 percent in San Francisco. The firm defined “within reach” as a for-sale home with a total monthly payment (including mortgage and taxes) less than 31 percent of the metro’s median household income.

If you line up the country’s 100 richest metros from 1 to 100, household affordability falls as household income rises, even after you consider that middle class families in richer cities have more income.

So this brings us to the story of the Democrat Party’s demand for “fair wages” by imposing a $15 minimum wage on every single business whether it can afford it or not.  I most recently wrote about that on April 4 of this year.  And in that article I documented what happens every single time the left pulls one of these shenanigans.  It raises costs on businesses FAR BEYOND the minimum wage, because just for starters it increases the wages of every single worker across the board (i.e., imagine you were making $2 an hour above the minimum wage workers below you at a business; are you now going to earn less than the minimum wage workers, or are you now going to get $17 an hour?  It goes up the scale, which is why the unions wanted it and fought so hard for it even though these hypocrite weasels themselves continued to pay substandard wages to the workers they hired to picket and demagogue the cities and states to impose those wages.

It’s not just true of blacks, it’s true of Hispanics as well; it’s true of poor people in general.  If you take Democrat’s demagogic policies on illegal immigration, for instance, just consider a fundamental principle of economics known as “the law of supply and demand.”  The greater the supply of something, the lower demand for that thing will be.  Realize that when you massively increase the supply of poor, unskilled labor, the value of poor, unskilled labor goes down dramatically.  Which is why wages for unskilled labor have so plummeted, thank you, liberals.

And so the same damnfools who forced your wages down are now attempting to arbitrarily force them up.  So they devastated you by gutting your earning power, and now they’re going to respond by devastating you again by sending already high costs of living into the stratosphere.

Some businesses will go out of businesses, many others will lay off quite a few of their workers and strip their operation down to the bone to stay alive.  But of the business that remain, one thing is FOR CERTAIN: they will raise their prices and pass their increased costs onto their customers.  And that is merely one of myriad ways that liberals force the cost of living to go up and up and up again and then up some more.  Your groceries will cost more and your housing will cost more; and your costs will increase significantly more than the meager boost in wages because Democrats boosted the cost of everything all the way up the chain.

No president has ever been better for the filthy rich than the most dishonest president in American history, Barack Obama.  Under his incredibly dishonest and hypocritical regime, income inequality – the gap between the richest and poorest Americans – skyrocketed.  Again, I turn to a reliably leftist source in the Huffington Post:

Income Inequality Worse Under Obama Than George W. Bush
04/11/2012 06:19 pm ET
Alexander Eichler

President Obama may talk a big game about economic fairness, but his record on the issue doesn’t quite match up.

There are lots of reasons to think so — and we’ll touch on several in just a minute — but the most recent comes from Matt Stoller, blogging at Naked Capitalism, who points us toward a recent bit of number-crunching from Emmanuel Saez, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley.

Saez, who’s known for his work on the income gap, has highlighted a surprising and discouraging fact: during the post-recession period of 2009 and 2010, the rich snagged a greater share of total income growth than they did during the boom years of 2002 to 2007.

In other words, inequality has been even more pronounced under Obama than it was under George W. Bush.

This news may not come as a shock if you’re one of the many Americans who lost their job during the recession and couldn’t find another that paid as well. It also might not surprise you if you’re one of the 46 million people living in poverty — a record number, as it happens — or among the millions of Americans who can get by week to week, but would be ruined by a single financial emergency.

You might likewise not be surprised if you already knew that some household-goods companies are catering to this new reality by quietly neglecting their mid-price product lines, focusing instead on their high-end and budget offerings, since wages are diverging so much. Or if you knew that the U.S. ranks closer to China, Serbia and Rwanda than any other country in the developed world when it comes to income inequality.

Here’s an article that you just can’t take a quote from because every paragraph is just so devastating to Democrat stupidity.

Even Bernie Sanders is openly acknowledging that under Obama, income inequality is the worst NOT since the first decade of the 21st century under Bush, but the worst its ever been going back to 1928.

The disease of Obama is similar to the disease of alcoholism; you’re dying because you kept turning more and more to what was in fact killing you.  If you’re a Democrat – and especially if you’re a poor Democrat and most especially if you’re a racial minority Democrat – you’ve succumbed to a diseased pattern of thinking; you have been deceived into believing that what is in actual fact poisoning you and killing you is somehow helping you.

And I believe the metaphor of addiction best describes why so many groups cling to what is killing them: because the more Democrat poison they imbibe, the weaker and sicker they become, the less able to make good decisions.  To the end result that it doesn’t matter how horrible this crap is for you, you keep taking it.  You’ve lost the will and the ability to do anything else.  If you’re a drug addict, you give up your volition to your substance; if you’re a Democrat, you give up your volition to your government.  And either way you end up with your soul sucked out of you.

Democrats need you to depend on them; they need you to be flat on your back.  They will NEVER allow you to get off your back and earn your own way because if that happened you would vote those weasels out of office who want to seize what you earn and redistribute your wealth to other deceived people.  Because these are the kinds of things you have to be fool enough to believe to keep being a Democrat:

• If Democrats raise my taxes, I’ll have more money
• If Democrats bring in 12-20 million more illegal immigrants to compete for my job, my labor will be worth more
• If Democrats raise the cost of living, I’ll be better off
• If Democrats impose restrictive planning regulations, my house or apartment will cost less
• If Democrats regulate my business, I’ll have more opportunities
• The path to freedom is more and more government

Obama and Democrats have destroyed the Middle Class.  Average incomes have plummeted under Obama.

Your life sucks because you’re an Obamaholic and your substance is poisoning you body and soul.

Here is that article on blacks fleeing liberal cities in favor of GOP-dominated southern states:

Why has there been an exodus of black residents from West Coast liberal hubs?
By Aaron Renn
May 1, 2016, 5:00 AM

he Black Lives Matter movement has brought the challenges facing black America to the fore, and introduced racially conscious quality-of-life questions into the national debate. How are black residents in America’s cities faring? And how are those cities doing in meeting the aspirations of their black residents, judged especially by the ultimate barometer: whether blacks choose to move to these cities, or stay in them?

Though results vary to some extent, the broad trend is clear: West Coast progressive enclaves are either seeing an exodus of blacks or are failing to attract them. Midwestern and Northeastern urban areas are attracting blacks to the extent that they are affordable or providing middle class economic opportunities. And Southern cities are now experiencing the most significant gains.

Portland is part of the fifth-whitest major metropolitan area in America. Almost 75% of the region is white, and it has the third-lowest percentage of blacks, at only 3.1%. (America as a whole is 13.2% black.) Portland proper is often portrayed as a boomtown, but the city’s shrinking black population doesn’t seem to think so. The city has lost more than 11.5% of its black residents in just four years. It’s similar to Seattle, where the central city’s black population has fallen as the overall region’s has grown.

Lower down the coast, the San Francisco Bay area has lost black residents since 2000, though recent estimates suggest that it may have halted the exodus since 2010. San Francisco proper is only 5.4% black, and the rate is falling. The Los Angeles metro area, too, has fewer black residents today than in 2000.

If these figures merely reflected black consumer choice, they wouldn’t necessarily matter; but the evidence suggests that specific public policies in these cities are to blame. Primary among them are restrictive planning regulations, common along the West Coast, that make it hard to expand the supply of housing. In a market with rising demand and static supply, prices go up.

As a rule, a household should spend no more than three times its annual income on a home. But in West Coast markets, housing-price levels far exceed that benchmark — a hardship that more severely affects blacks than whites because blacks start from further behind economically. Black median household income is only $35,481 a year, compared with $57,355 for whites. The wealth gap is even wider, with median black household wealth at only $7,133, compared with $111,146 for whites.

According to the Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey, the “median multiple” — the median home price divided by the median household income — should average about 3.0. But the median multiple is 5.1 in Portland, 5.2 in Seattle, 9.4 in San Francisco and 8.1 in Los Angeles.

“West Coast progressive enclaves are either seeing an exodus of blacks or are failing to attract them.”

Even some on the left recognize how development restrictions hurt lower- and middle-income people. Liberal commentator Matt Yglesias has called housing affordability “Blue America’s greatest failing.” Yglesias and others criticize zoning policies that mandate single-family homes, or approval processes, like that in San Francisco, that prohibit as-of-right development and allow NIMBYism to keep out unwanted construction — and, by implication, unwanted people.

These commentators, however, ignore the role of environmental policy in creating these high housing prices. Portland, for example, has drawn a so-called urban-growth boundary that severely restricts land development and drives up prices inside the approved perimeter. The development-stifling effects of the California Environmental Quality Act are notorious. California also imposes some of the nation’s toughest energy regulations, putting a financial burden on lower-income (and disproportionately black) households. Nearly 1 million households in the state spend 10% or more of their income on energy bills, according to a Manhattan Institute report by Jonathan Lesser.

It’s not just liberal Western cities that are losing their black residents — many economically struggling Midwestern cities have the same problem. Detroit, Cleveland, Flint, and Youngstown all have declining black populations.

The greatest demographic transition is taking place in Chicago. A black population loss of 177,000 accounted for the lion’s share of the city’s total shrinkage during the 2000s. Another 53,000 blacks have fled the city since 2010. In fact, the entire metro Chicago area lost nearly 23,000 blacks in aggregate, the biggest decline in the United States.

But in northern cities with more robust middle-class economies, black populations are expanding. Since 2010, for example, metro Indianapolis added more than 19,000 blacks (6.9% growth), Columbus more than 25,000 (9%), and Boston nearly 40,000 (10.2%). New York’s and Philadelphia’s black population growth rates are low but positive, in line with slow overall regional growth.

The somewhat unlikely champion for northern black population growth is Minneapolis-St. Paul. Since 2010, the black population in the city has grown by 15,000 people, or 23%. The region added 30,400 black residents, growing by 12.1%.

Like Portland and Seattle, Minneapolis is considered a liberal stronghold. But, unlike those West Coast cities, it has cultivated a development environment that keeps housing affordable, with a home-price median multiple of only 3.2.

Similarly, in Columbus (with a median multiple of 2.9) and Indianapolis (also 2.9), black families can afford the American dream. (Boston, with its high housings costs, is an outlier.)

Where else are black Americans moving? One destination dominates: the South. A century ago, blacks were leaving the South to go north and west; today, they are reversing that journey, in what the Manhattan Institute’s Daniel DiSalvo dubbed “The Great Remigration.” DiSalvo found that black Americans now choose the South in pursuit of jobs, lower costs and taxes, better public services (notably, schools) and sunny weather for retirement.

Historically, Southern blacks lived in rural areas. A large rural black population remains in the South today, often living in the same types of conditions as rural whites, which is to say, under significant economic strain. But the new black migrants to the South are increasingly flocking to the same metro areas that white people are — especially Atlanta, the new cultural and economic capital of black America, with a black population of nearly 2 million. The Atlanta metro area, one-third black, continues to add more black residents (150,000 since 2010) than any other region.

In Texas, Dallas has drawn 110,000 black residents (11.3% growth) and Houston just under 100,000 (9.2%) since 2010. Miami, with its powerful Latino presence that includes Afro-Latinos, also added about 100,000 blacks (8.3%). Today, Dallas, Houston, and Miami are all home to more than 1 million black residents.

Many smaller southern cities — including Charlotte, Orlando, Tampa, and Nashville — are seeing robust black population growth as well.

Not surprisingly, these southern cities are extremely affordable. A combination of pro-business policies combined with a development regime that permits housing supply to expand as needed has proved a winner. (Among these southern cities, only Miami, with its massive influx of Latin American wealth, is rated as unaffordable, with a median multiple of 5.6.)

When it comes to how state and local policies affect black residents’ choices about where to live, cities with the West Coast model of liberalism are the worst performing.

These results should be troubling to progressives touting West Coast planning, economic, and energy policies as models for the nation. If wealthy cities like San Francisco and Portland — where progressives have near-total political control — can’t produce positive outcomes for working-class and middle-class blacks, why should we expect their approach to succeed anywhere else?

Aaron M. Renn is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor of City Journal. This piece has been adapted from the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal.

Who would have guessed that pro-business policies, zoning laws that prefer people over leftist environmentalist whining, fewer regulations, and the abandonment of leftist (Stalinist) top-down planning would win?  Other than anyone who is NOT A DAMN FOOL???

Democrats guarantee that they will make black people poorer and more dependent.  And all Democrats have is demagoguery and lies piled on top of more demagoguery and more lies.  But I’ll just end by quoting Forrest Gump:

Okay, that’s good but it doesn’t quite go far enough to describe why we’re where we’re at today.  So let me instead end with John Wayne:

.

Is National Israel Still Part of God’s Plan OR Has God “Superseded” National Israel With The Church?

At issue is the view that Jews who reject Jesus as the Jewish Messiah are consequently condemned by God, forfeiting the promises otherwise due to them under the covenants. Versus the view that God STILL has a plan for national/ethnic Israel which He will ultimately fulfill in the future.  This is an either/or question: it cannot be both.  If you cannot understand the role of Israel in God’s plan, you cannot understand the Bible.  So which view should you believe and why?

Amillennialists – representing the largest view in terms of sheer numbers (e.g. Catholics, Orthodox, Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, Methodist, Church of Christ, etc.) – hold that God is finished with national, ethnic  Israel and that the Church is now God’s only vehicle and only people.  Many of these Amillennialists bristle at the term “replacement theology,” saying it is not accurate.  They prefer terms such as “supersessionism” or “expansion.”  But what does it mean to “supersede?”

Merriam-Websters’s definition: “to take the place of (someone or something that is old, no longer useful, etc.) : to replace (someone or something); to cause to be set aside; to force out of use as inferior; to take the place or position of; to displace in favor of another.” The term “supersessionism” comes from two Latin words: super (on or upon) and sedere (to sit). Thus it carries the idea of one person sitting on another’s chair, displacing the latter.  The title “replacement theology” is this merely an obvious synonym for “supersessionism.”

From Wikipedia: “Supersessionism, also called replacement theology or fulfillment theology, is a Christian theological view on the current status of the church in relation to the Jewish people and Judaism.[1] It holds that the Christian Church has succeeded the Israelites as the definitive people of God[2][1][3] or that the New Covenant has replaced or superseded the Mosaic covenant.[4] From a supersessionist’s “point of view, just by continuing to exist [outside the Church], the Jews dissent”.[5]”   And in its Etymology section it states: “The word supersessionism comes from the English verb to supersede, from the Latin verb sedeo, sedere, sedi, sessum, “to sit”,[7] plus super, “upon”. It thus signifies one thing being replaced or supplanted by another.[8]”

So, in spite of a great deal of quibbling over semantics, there is very little question that yes, Amillennialism DOES IN FACT hold to “replacement theology.” It is simply dishonest to hold otherwise.

For the record, another of the three major views on eschatology – Postmillennialism – ALSO believes in “replacement theology.”  [See also here].  Their claim is that the Church took over all of Israel’s blessings/promises.  ONLY Premillennialism believes God STILL has a plan for national/ethnic Israel.

Let’s go back to the source of this view: In its simplest expression, replacement theology could be expressed as follows: “The Jews have rejected Christ; therefore God has rejected the Jews and the Church is now the ‘New Israel.’”  In the words of Origen of Alexandria (185-254 A.D.):

“We may thus assert in utter confidence that the Jews will not return to their earlier situation, for they have committed the most abominable of crimes, in forming this conspiracy against the Savior of the human race…hence the city where Jesus suffered was necessarily destroyed, the Jewish nation was driven from its country, and another people was called by God to the blessed election.”

From an article titled “The Truth About Israel”:

• “The Israeli claim to Palestine as a Jewish state by divine right is incorrect, and their continued enforcement of this claim, by military oppression, is unjust.”
• The progressive revelation of scripture makes it clear that today God has only one people and it is the Church. We must not apply Old Testament prophecies to the State of Israel when Jesus, Peter and Paul have radically redirected our thinking concerning the Covenants of Promise. They are now given directly to the Church.
• “It is a mistake for Christians to exalt Israelis to the position of being God’s chosen people.”

Should we believe this? Consider two verses of Scripture (Jeremiah 31:35-36) that prove we shouldn’t:

• This is what the LORD says, he who appoints the sun to shine by day, who decrees the moon and stars to shine by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar– the LORD Almighty is his name: “Only if these decrees vanish from my sight,” declares the LORD, “will Israel ever cease being a nation before me.” declares the LORD. — Jeremiah 31:35-36 NIV

First of all, God gave that land to ISRAEL as an EVERLASTING POSSESSION: Gen 12:1; 12:7a; 13:15; 15:18; 17:7-8; 17:19; 25:5-6; 28:3-4; 28:13-15; 32:28; Leviticus 26:40-45.

And I state for the record that I continue to see the sun, the moon, the stars, and the ocean tides continue. AND SO ACCORDING TO GOD’S PROMISE HE IS NOT FINISHED WITH NATIONAL ISRAEL.

Let’s consider the Abrahamic Covenant: “I will confirm my covenant with you and your descendants after you, from generation to generation. This is the everlasting covenant: I will always be your God and the God of your descendants after you. And I will give the entire land of Canaan, where you now live as a foreigner, to you and your descendants. It will be their possession forever, and I will be their God.”  — Genesis 17:7-8 NLT

Questions: “What does ‘everlasting covenant’ mean?” “What does ‘I will always be your God and the God of your descendants after you’ mean?” “What does ‘It will be their possession forever’ mean?”

Was Israel completely faithful? Let’s just agree they were completely faithless.  But what does the Mosaic Covenant say about this.  Did God say He would permanently sever His covenant?

And when all these things come upon you, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before you, and you call them to mind among all the nations where the Lord your God has driven you, and return to the Lord your God, you and your children, and obey His voice in all that I command you today, with all your heart and with all your soul, then the Lord your God will restore your fortunes and have mercy on you, and He will gather you again from all the peoples where the Lord your God has scattered you. If your outcasts are in the uttermost parts of heaven, from there the Lord your God will gather you, and from there He will take you. And the Lord your God will bring you into the land that your fathers possessed, that you may possess it. And He will make you more prosperous and numerous than your fathers. —Deuteronomy 30:1-5 ESV

What happens in this passage? Does God say here, “If you mess up, I am DONE with you!”??? NO!!!

What about the Davidic Covenant?: “Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as beforetime, And as since the time that I commanded judges to be over my people Israel, and have caused thee to rest from all thine enemies. Also the Lord telleth thee that he will make thee an house. And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever. “ — 2 Samuel 7:10-16 KJV

Again, in reference to the Davidic Covenant: “If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments; If they break my statutes, and keep not my commandments; Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes. Nevertheless my lovingkindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail. My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me. It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven. Selah.” — Psalm 89:30-37

How does this passage not tell us that even if Israel forsakes God He will NOT “utterly take from him” and “His covenant He will not break,” but that “his seed shall endure forever.”???

Remember we read Jeremiah 31:35-36? Consider these verses just before it.  It is one of the great promises in all of Scripture and why I am a Christian and not a Jew – because this Old Testament passage promises the NEW Covenant which Jesus inaugurated in His Body and Blood.  But note who God makes this covenant with: “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”  –Jeremiah 31:31-34

When the angel came to announce the Virgin Birth of Jesus to Mary, he gave to her a crystal clear reference to a literal fulfillment of 2 Samuel 7 regarding David’s throne: “And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. — Luke 1:30-33

What does the New Testament say about God’s relationship with Israel? Does it tell us that God is DONE with Israel and that they can and have been “replaced” in His plan?  Jesus’ words:  “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.” – Matthew 23:37-39

Jesus prophesies to Israel that they would be left desolate and not see their Messiah again. UNTIL THEY SAY…  And THEN they will be completely restored just as the rest of God’s word promises.

Paul’s words: For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: — Romans 11:25-26

Here the problem becomes worse for those who want to claim God is done with Israel and the Church fulfils all of Israel’s promises and blessings. Because after clearly distinguishing between Gentile believers and Jews, Paul states that the Jews will come back to God and be saved.  And so how on earth can they claim to be both the Gentiles AND the Jews at the same time and in the same sense when God’s word contrasts them this way???

One day, Paul promises, the Jews will come BACK to their true Messiah, as it is written: “I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.” – Zech 12:10

And on that day, national/ethnic Israel WILL say, just as Jesus prophesied, “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord,” and God will restore them as His Covenant people, just as He said He would all along.  Otherwise, these prophesies were FALSE.  Because it is very obvious historically that “the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem” have NEVER to this moment repented over what they did to their true Messiah Jesus.  This event MUST happen, which simply means amillennialists and postmillennialist are profoundly wrong.

Just before Jesus ascended to Heaven in Acts chapter one, His disciples “asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?” — Acts 1:6.  If Jesus was NOT going to restore the kingdom to Israel, this would have been the obvious moment to tell them, dontchathink?

God’s Word GUARANTEED that Israel would be resurrected in the very last days (see Ezekiel 37:11-12). There is NO condition for Israel to fulfil for this to happen: and how COULD they have–they were DEAD!

God is absolutely NOT finished with Israel. He has a plan to restore them and fulfill His EVERY promise.