Obama: My approval rating tanked because of the ‘fictional character’ Fox, Limbaugh created

by Tré Goins-Phillips 

If you have a negative view of President Barack Obama, it’s because of the “fictional character” Fox News and conservative talkers like Rush Limbaugh created over the years. That is, according to the outgoing commander in chief.

Obama recently sat down for a discussion with The Atlantic’s Ta-Nehisi Coates for a series titled “My President Was Black.” In the first two segments, which were published Tuesday and Wednesday, the president makes it clear he’s no fan of Fox or his conservative detractors in the media.

In the first interview, Obama claimed to be a victim of “concentrated vilification of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, the whole conservative-media ecosystem” during his 2008 bid for the presidency. And after he won the White House, he said the anti-Obama sentiment went into “full force,” permanently tainting the way a “large portion of white voters” saw him:

[T]hey weren’t seeing some image of me as trying to take away their stuff and give it to black people, and coddle criminals, and all the stereotypes of not just African-American politicians but liberal politicians. You started to see that kind of prism being established towards the end of the 2008 race, particularly once Sarah Palin was the [vice presidential] nominee. And obviously almost immediately after I was elected, it was deployed in full force. And it had an impact in terms of how a large portion of white voters would see me.

And what that speaks to — and this is something I still strongly believe — is that the suspicion between races, the way it can manifest itself in politics, in part comes out of people’s daily interactions and the fact that we’re segregated by communities, and by schools, and our churches, and people’s memories passed down through generations.

Then in the second segment, Obama told Coates that he suffered from diminished support due to the  “fictional” persona many conservatives, like Limbaugh, promoted because, apparently, it’s unbelievable someone just wouldn’t approve of him.

“There’s Barack Obama the person and there’s Barack Obama the symbol, or the office holder, or what people are seeing on television, or just a representative of power,” Obama said.

The outgoing president suggested that people use him as a scapegoat when they’re “angry that somehow the government is failing”:

So when people criticize or respond negatively to me, usually they’re responding to this character that they’re seeing on TV called Barack Obama, or to the office of the presidency and the White House and what that represents. And so you don’t take it personally. You understand that if people are angry that somehow the government is failing, then they are going to look to the guy who represents government. And that applies, by the way, even to some of the folks who are now Trump supporters. They’re responding to a fictional character named Barack Obama who they see on Fox News or who they hear about through Rush Limbaugh.

Obama’s comments followed his determination last month that the reason Democrats struggled to reach voters in the presidential election is, at least in part, because “Fox News is in every bar and restaurant in big chunks of the country.”

Report: Obama Admin Fires Scientist for Being Too Forthright With Congress

by Leah Barkoukis

A top scientist at the Department of Energy was fired for not toeing the Obama administration’s line regarding climate science, a new congressional investigation found.  

The report released by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, alleges that DOE officials withheld information from Congress and fired a top scientist at the agency all to advance the Obama administration’s climate agenda.  

In mid-2014, lawmakers introduced legislation, the Low Dose Radiation Act of 2014, to help regulate the program and minimize harmful side effects.

During an October 2014 briefing with senior DoE staff on the matter, lawmakers heard testimony from Dr. Noelle Metting, the radiation research program’s manager.

Less than a month later, lawmakers discovered that Obama administration officials had “removed Dr. Metting from federal service for allegedly providing too much information in response to questions posed by” Congress during the briefing, the report states.

Congressional investigators later determined that the administration’s “actions to remove Dr. Metting were, in part, retaliation against Dr. Metting because she refused to conform to the predetermined remarks and talking points designed by Management to undermine the advancement of” the 2014 radiation act.

Emails unearthed during the investigation “show a sequence of events leading to a premeditated scheme by senior DoE employees ‘to squash the prospects of Senate support'” for the radiation act, a move that lawmakers claim was meant to help advance President Obama’s own climate change goals.

One of the reasons DOE gave for removing Metting from federal service was “her failure to confine the discussion at the briefing to pre-approved talking points,” the report stated.

The report concluded that the agency put the president’s climate agenda ahead of its “constitutional obligations” to be truthful with Congress.  

 “Instead of providing the type of scientific information needed by Congress to legislate effectively, senior departmental officials sought to hide information, lobbied against legislation, and retaliated against a scientist for being forthcoming,” Smith said in a statement. “In this staff report based on lengthy record before the committee, much has been revealed about how senior level agency officials under the Obama administration retaliated against a scientist who did not follow the party line.”

He continued: “Moving forward, the department needs to overhaul its management practices to ensure that Congress is provided the information it requires to legislate and that federal employees and scientists who provide that information do so without fear of retribution.”

Blue states that voted for Hillary Clinton share something in common: they’re dying

by Sarah Lee

Apparently the top 10 states that voted for Hillary Clinton over President-elect Donald Trump during the 2016 election have a very disturbing commonality: they’re dying.

According to the Independent Journal Review, citing work by noted Washington Times columnist and economist Stephen Moore, those states are performing so poorly economically “people are clamoring to move out of them.”

The states include Massachusetts, California, Maryland, New York, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont, Illinois and Hawaii. From IJR:

According to economic expert Stephen Moore, writing in the Washington Times, the reasons Americans are fleeing these states are all driven by economics — namely, that they share the progressive values of “high taxes rates; high welfare benefits; heavy regulation; environmental extremism; high minimum wages.”

IJR breaks down in short, handy paragraphs a supporting statistic for each state. Take California for example:

Despite one of the highest minimum wages in the U.S., tech and Hollywood moguls enjoy a very different life compared to everyday Californians — which could explain why the state’s seen a net loss of nearly 1.3 million residents over the past decade.

Or New York:

It should come as no surprise that the state’s residency has taken a nearly 1.5 million hit from 2005 to 2014, more than any other state.

Or even Hawaii:

The Aloha State has one of the highest top marginal personal income tax rates and the highest sales tax burden, according to the ALEC study.

The sunshine is also not enough to keep people from migrating away from the state, which experienced a net loss of 36,000 residents from 2005 to 2014.

The article also notes, citing Moore, that the states with the highest percentage of Trump voters have seen net gains in population.

All of which makes the progressive-leaning articles that were written back during the start of the primary season seem a bit like wishful thinking rather than sound economic trend analysis. This one from The Atlantic titled, “Why America is Moving Left,”  is a long, expository, academic look at why America is becoming more liberal. And it missed the mark almost completely:

That doesn’t mean the Republicans won’t retain strength in the nation’s statehouses and in Congress. It doesn’t mean a Republican won’t sooner or later claim the White House. It means that on domestic policy—foreign policy is following a different trajectory, as it often does—the terms of the national debate will continue tilting to the left. The next Democratic president will be more liberal than Barack Obama. The next Republican president will be more liberal than George W. Bush.

Turns out rather than moving to the left, America is literally moving to the right.

Michelle Obama Confesses To Oprah: 8 Years Of Hope And Change Left People Without Hope

In an interview with Oprah Winfrey, First Lady Michelle Obama admitted that after eight years of hope and change, many Americans still feel like they have no hope.

DECEMBER 16, 2016 By The Federalist Staff

In a stunning interview with Oprah Winfrey, First Lady Michelle Obama admitted that her husband’s presidency, which began with a promise to usher in hope and change, failed to leave Americans with a lasting sense of hope for the future. Clips of the interview, which is scheduled to air on CBS next week, were released by the broadcast network on Friday morning.

“Your husband’s administration, everything, the election, was all about hope,” Winfrey asked the soon-to-be-former First Lady. “Do you think that this administration achieved that?”

“Yes,” Obama tentatively answered. After a long a pause, she elaborated, “I do, because we feel the difference now.”

She then contradicted her strained answer and noted that despite everything the president accomplished in the White House over the last eight years, many Americans nonetheless still have no hope.

“See, now we’re feeling like what not having hope feels like,” Obama said in an apparent reference to the 2016 election results.

During the interview, Obama bounced back and forth between saying her husband’s administration had indeed achieved the hope and change he had promised during the 2008 campaign, that this sense of hope created by the 44th president was no longer present due to the election results, and that hope was necessary to survive.

At one point, the First Lady seemed to intimate that hope is derived not necessarily from faith, peace and prosperity, constitutionally protected freedoms, or even government programs, but from whatever particular individual happens to inhabit the White House at any given time. She said people react to their leaders the same way children’s react to their parents: if a parent overreacts, the child will learn to overreact. If a parent is hopeful, the children will be hopeful, she said.

“What do you give your kids if you can’t give them hope?” she asked.

“I feel like Barack has been [the calm parent who doesn’t overreact to small things] for the nation in ways that people will come to appreciate,” Obama told Winfrey. “Having a grown-up in the White House who can say to you in times of crisis and turmoil, ‘Hey, it’s going to be okay.'”

“What do we do if we don’t have hope, Oprah?” Obama asked again at the conclusion of the clip.

You can view the full clip released by CBS on Friday here.

Nancy Pelosi slams Ben Carson. What is she so afraid of?

By Wayne Root

Did you hear what the Democrat Party’s leader in Congress just said about Dr. Ben Carson? 

I’m proud to call Dr. Ben a personal friend. He is the very definition of a good man, a gentleman, and a great human being. He defines “accomplished.” 

Ben is the living definition of “the American Dream” that people the world over believe in. 

President Obama talks about giving "hope" to people of color. But anyone can talk. Dr. Ben doesn’t talk, he walks the walk. He leads by example.

Ben may be America’s single greatest living African-America super-achiever. He rose from poverty, in a single parent household in the ghettos of Baltimore, to the world’s greatest brain surgeon, multiple-times national bestselling author, and then GOP Presidential candidate. Today he is President-elect Donald Trump’s choice for Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

Yet liberal Democrat leaders like Nancy Pelosi see all of those amazing accomplishments and call him “disconcertedly and disturbingly unqualified.” She actually says Dr. Ben doesn’t have “the credentials” for the job.

Really? If a white Republican political leader called a black super-achiever “disturbingly unqualified” wouldn’t liberals and the media immediately label him or her as a "racist?" Of course they would. And they’d be right.

What is Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party afraid of? That a talented, brilliant black man who has lived in public housing, who overcame poverty in the same inner city projects he will now be in charge of, might actually make a difference? 

Are they afraid Dr. Ben might actually give hope to black youth, instead of just talking about it?

Are they afraid Dr. Ben might break the vicious cycle of poverty in inner cities?

Are they afraid Dr. Ben might be able to teach and inspire black youth to achieve success, instead of playing “the blame game?”

Are they afraid Dr. Ben might counsel black America on the importance of having a father in every home?

Are they afraid Dr. Ben might actually work with President Donald Trump to provide a generation of black youth with jobs instead of a welfare check?

Are they afraid of Dr. Ben working hand-in-hand with President Donald Trump might create so much success that a new generation of black youth might actually wind up thinking positively about the Republican Party?

Because if that’s Nancy Pelosi’s thought process, I feel pity for the Democratic Party. That means they only care about black vote, not the quality of black lives. And that's a sin. 

If that’s the case, Nancy Pelosi and the leaders of the Democratic Party actually define “racist.”

This Republican-conservative patriot says...

Welcome and congratulations to Dr. Ben Carson.

Thank you for your discipline and sacrifice.

Thank you for your amazing accomplishments and credentials.

Thank you for being a role model for every youth living in poverty in America.

Thank you for being a great American. 

See more at http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/12/06/nancy-pelosi-slams-ben-carson-what-is-so-afraid.html

The painfully obvious reason Christians voted for Trump (that liberals just don’t understand)

Nov. 14, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) - Since the election of Donald Trump, the level of meltdown on the Left has now reached proportions rivalling Chernobyl. University students at Cornell hosted a cry-in, meeting together to weep at the fall of Hillary Clinton. As per usual, more hate crimes were faked, and every bit of potentially racist graffiti was pounced on as evidence that Trump’s election would result in vicious race wars. Actual violence and rioting done by angry progressives has been almost completely ignored. And then, the one theme that keeps recurring on talks shows across the nation: fear. As the result of Donald Trump’s election, many people, apparently, feel as if the leadership of the country is now fundamentally opposed to them in some way, and they are scared.

Which is exactly how Christians have felt under Barack Obama for the past eight years.

Many of my non-Christian and liberal friends find it bewildering that both evangelicals and Catholics voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump, a thrice-married casino operator infamous for his vulgar trash talk. I want to take a moment to explain to them directly why most Christians voted for him anyway. It’s simple, really: Christians voted for Donald Trump because they felt that the threat a de facto third Obama term posed to Christian communities was an existential one.

The attacks on Christians from the highest levels of government have been relentless now for nearly a decade. Obama wants to force Christian churches and schools to accept the most radical and most recent version of gender ideology, and he is willing to issue executive decrees on the issue to force the less enlightened to get in line. Christian concerns are dismissed out of hand as “transphobia.”

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton informed one audience that Christians would have to change their beliefs on some issues. And now Christians are having conversations around the dinner table about what do if the government forces curricula on them that they cannot accept, because their own government is increasingly indicating that Christian parents are too homophobic and too hateful to teach their own children. Can you understand how terrified mothers and fathers are at the prospect that those in power want to actively prevent them from passing their beliefs on to their own children?

I can understand why those from some immigrant communities might be worried about how a Trump presidency could affect them personally—but as for the largely white liberal university students throwing a temper tantrum—what do you have to freak out about? No one is saying that you can’t pass your values on to your children. No one is saying you’re a bigoted, fascistic hater of minorities simply because you happen to have a different belief system. But they are saying that about Christians—and you were, too. And they mean it. The students weeping in fear at a Trump administration have nothing to worry about. No one’s going to cancel their Women’s Studies program or shut down their LBGTQ2etc Collective. Get over it.

And then there was the rapid rise of rainbow fascism. Christian bakers are under attack. Christian photographers. Christian pastors. Real people are losing real businesses that they had labored for years to build. Their way of life is being destroyed. In some cases, Christian business owners saw the wages they needed to feed their families dry up because they were targeted by gay activists and labeled hateful, homophobic bigots simply for declining to assist in celebrating a gay union. That’s all. They just wanted to live their lives in accordance with their own beliefs, and because of that, activists came gunning for them. It wasn’t good enough to go down the street to any number of photographers or bakers who would be more than happy to help celebrate a gay wedding. They needed to see those little family businesses destroyed, even if it meant that the baker and his family ended up on the street. Dissenters must be crushed…

And then there was the fact that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton wanted to force Christians to fund the abortion industry, something many of you support because everyone babbles on about “reproductive rights” without ever talking about what abortion actually is. Abortion. Google it. I’m challenging you in all seriousness. That’s how I ended up involved in the pro-life movement: by Googling it…. Take a second, and actually look at pictures of the dead babies, and then remember that Barack Obama even voted against protecting those children who survived abortion, and that Hillary Clinton defended abortion even in the latest stages of pregnancy.

Is it really so hard for you to understand that those who fight tirelessly to protect these babies might be willing to gamble on the support of a brash billionaire rather than cast their vote for someone who thinks the youngest members of the human family are nothing more than soulless trash? I’ve seen an aborted baby before. I’ve held a butchered little boy in my hands. Maybe if you did, too, you could understand why we don’t think Hillary Clinton is a good person. We think her political positions directly result in dead children, because that’s the truth.

This is not even to get into the fact that the Democratic war on religious liberty was so malicious it had them going to court to force nuns—a group called “Little Sisters of the Poor”—to fund birth control. Dissenters must be crushed, after all.

The simple fact is that Christians voted in self-defence. They voted to put the brakes on the relentless, eight-year-long assault not just on their values, but on their ability to live their lives unmolested without having radical progressives attempt to force some newly invented ideology down their throat or hang some new “phobia” label around their necks or garnish their wages to pay for medical exterminators to suction tiny human beings into bloody slurry. Most of these Christians are not activists. Most of them simply want to be left alone. But for eight long years, they weren’t left alone. And so this time around, they voted to give Obama and his progressive minions the hugest shove they could.

Donald Trump may well prove to be destructive force. Time will tell. But for many people, he is currently destroying all the right things. Michael Moore wasn’t wrong to refer to Trump as a “legal Molotov cocktail” that the voters threw right through the front window of the elites. Secular progressives have been using political correctness to strangle the life out of Christians, calling them every name in the book and treating them like seething, hateful gay-bashers. Now, the media saddled a man with every label they could possibly come up with—and he won anyway. Progressives created a system that would convict Christians every single time, replete with ever-shifting speech codes that informed any number of bewildered men and women that the hate they didn’t feel towards anyone was obviously there, anyway. And then a sledgehammer named Donald Trump showed up, and the harried and henpecked voters decided to use it to smash a system created specifically to marginalize and label them.

by Jonathon van Maren 

What you have to understand is that Christians hear the media much differently than the rest of you. They hear themselves being mocked and ridiculed by men like John Oliver, who believes that a man with a penis can simultaneously be a woman. They hear themselves being cursed as awful people by Samantha Bee, who thinks that it’s perfectly okay to stab a baby in the skull in the third trimester of pregnancy. They hear themselves being called hateful bigots by Bill Maher, who claims to value diversity. And they may chuckle painfully, but they also know that they are loathed by those who are now demanding to know how they could possibly have voted for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, a woman who would have taken her own sledgehammer to religious liberty at the very earliest opportunity.

We’ll have to see how a Trump presidency progresses. With men like Mike Pence around him, he may prove to be an ally to the Christians who cast their ballots for him on Election Day. But even if he isn’t, Christians are simply relieved that he isn’t Hillary Clinton. As I pointed out prior to Election Day, most of us are quite aware that Donald Trump doesn’t care about abortion or religious liberty. But on the other hand, Hillary Clinton is passionate about abortion, and she is passionate about furthering her party’s radical social agenda. Even if Donald Trump does nothing for Christians, at least he’ll leave them alone. After eight years of Barack Obama, that would be a tremendous relief.

That’s why so many Christians voted for Donald J. Trump. 

see more at https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/the-painfully-simple-reason-christians-voted-for-donald-trump-that-liberals

Late night show

• The Late Late Show With James Corden
• California overwhelmingly went Democrat. So what this means is that these Clinton supporters stopped the cars of people who almost definitely voted for Hillary Clinton. Wasn’t their day bad enough?

Red shows who voted for Trump.

Billionaire Globalist Soros Exposed as Hidden Hand Behind Trump Protests

by Jay Syrmopoulos

Washington, D.C. – Billionaire globalist financier George Soros’ MoveOn.org has been revealed to be a driving force behind the organizing of nationwide protests against the election of Donald Trump — exposing the protests to largely be an organized, top-down operation — and not an organic movement of concerned Americans taking to the streets as reported by the mainstream media.

Wednesday saw protests in the streets of at least 10 major U.S. cities. Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Boston, Washington, D.C., Portland, Ore., St. Paul, Minn., Seattle, and several other cities saw protests, according to USA Today.

In light of the protests and rioting that have transpired since the election of Trump, a closer analysis of the dynamic at play is warranted to gauge whether it’s an organic grassroots movement, or something much more organized, sophisticated and potentially dangerous.

Soros’ affiliated organization MoveOn.org released the following press release yesterday afternoon:

Americans to Come Together in Hundreds Peaceful Gatherings of Solidarity, Resistance, and Resolve Following Election Results

Hundreds of Americans, dozens of organizations to gather peacefully outside the White House and in cities and towns nationwide to take a continued stand against misogyny, racism, Islamophobia, and xenophobia.

Tonight, thousands of Americans will come together at hundreds of peaceful gatherings in cities and towns across the nation, including outside the White House, following the results of Tuesday’s presidential election.

The gatherings – organized by MoveOn.org and allies – will affirm a continued rejection of Donald Trump’s bigotry, xenophobia, Islamophobia, and misogyny and demonstrate our resolve to fight together for the America we still believe is possible.

Within two hours of the call-to-action, MoveOn members had created more than 200 gatherings nationwide, with the number continuing to grow on Wednesday afternoon.

Now come reports from various protest locations that reveal a substantially coordinated effort, and not the organic grassroots showing by concerned Americans, as the mainstream media is reporting. Photos from Austin, Texas reveal a line of busses the “protestors” arrived in, making their appearance seem substantially less than organic – with a direct implication of being strategically orchestrated.

Note that the group is actively organizing protests to a democratic election that no one is contesting the legitimacy of in terms of whether the vote was rigged, etc. Essentially, they are displeased with the results and are calling for people to rise up and not accept the results. For an organization that feigns to promote democracy, their actions speak otherwise.

Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/soros-trump-protests-revolution/#FE8AOToE5p5GoHwz.99

That’s not a protest; it’s a tantrum

TheBlaze host Tomi Lahren took a moment Thursday to ensure that the angry demonstrations around the country in the wake of Donald Trump’s decisive and unexpected win are defined correctly going forward.

“Half of the country is angry right now,” she said “I get it. But before we start calling the reaction a protest, let’s get something straight. A protest is a peaceful objection to a grievance. A bunch of sore losers occupying a space is called a tantrum. And that’s exactly what we’re seeing around the nation after Trump’s historic and earned victory.”

She also noted that conservatives did not protest after President Obama won in 2008 and 2012, something she said was largely because conservatives were at work instead. Ouch.

see more at http://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/11/10/tomi-thats-not-a-protest-its-a-tantrum/

Bloodbath: Trump and the GOP leave Democrats searching for answers

by Leon Wolf 

Entering Election Day, Hillary Clinton and the Democrats had every reason to believe that they would buck the modern trend and have a wildly successful night. In the modern era, any political party that has held the White House for two consecutive terms has struggled to hold it for a third, but Democrats were bullish — the polls were in their favor, the demographic shifts were in their favor, and the GOP had nominated the wildly unpopular Donald Trump to oppose the first female major-party presidential nominee in U.S. history. It seemed like the time was ripe to deliver a death blow to the Republican Party.

One day later, all those dreams have fallen by the wayside as a series of excruciatingly close elections all seemed to fall the GOP’s direction. The party did not win many blowouts last night, but almost every closely contested race in the country managed to go the Republicans’ way, including the most stunning result of all: an Electoral College win for Trump on a night when Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton appears to have won the popular vote by possibly a full percentage point, once all the votes from California are counted.

Democrats also hoped to pick off as many as six or seven GOP Senate seats, but once again it appears that every close race — with the exception of the election to replace outgoing Minority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) — went to the Republicans. And they might end up losing only the seat belonging to incumbent Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) — although incumbent Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) remains locked in a too-close-to-call battle with Democratic challenger Gov. Maggie Hassan. Ayotte was clinging to a narrow lead in the early morning hours Wednesday. It also appears, stunningly, that Republicans may have held serve or better in the House, where Democrats were hoping to pick up between 10 and 20 seats.

Democrats were so confident of victory — at least in the presidential race — that they appear to have engaged in absolutely no contingency planning for a Trump victory. Texas Democratic Rep. Marc Veasey brashly stated last week that a Trump victory was “never talked about in much depth or detail” among Democrats: “[T]he guy is such a joke. We can’t fathom it and therefore are not planning for it.” Team Clinton is already producing spin suggesting that they saw this defeat coming, but even if that is true, most Democrats are waking up this morning to a sobering reality: Their party has a major problem connecting with American voters. Worse, the problem is so acute that they lost to a candidate who seemed, in so many ways, to be a poor caricature of the worst qualities of their partisan opposition.

It wasn’t supposed to be this way for the Democrats. Trump’s incendiary rhetoric toward Hispanics was supposed to present an insurmountable demographic firewall that would send the GOP marching off the cliff into oblivion. There simply was not supposed to be enough white voters who were susceptible to Trump’s message to overcome these demographic shifts, particularly given Trump’s struggles with well-educated whites. But  he worked his strategy to perfection: As predicted, he lost places like Chester County, Pennsylvania, but he ran up the score in the rural “T” area of the Keystone State, far outperforming Mitt Romney’s 2012 loss. Trump made a political calculation that, in the short term, it would be easier to increase his share of the white vote by a few percentage points than it would to increase his share of the Hispanic vote by 20 percent, and he rode that calculation to victory.

As a stunned Democratic Party begins the process of regrouping, the danger they face is that much of the data emerging from Election Day might convince them that no serious soul-searching is needed. Democrats may well conclude that their planned path to eternal political dominance remains unchanged; that Trump rode a wave of voter blocs that are shrinking demographically (evangelicals, whites, older voters) to a last-gasp, razor-thin margin. They might reason to themselves that doing the same things (only louder and shriller) will right the ship in 2018 and beyond.

Democrats would do well instead to confront an appalling reality: According to every set of exit polls, a majority of Americans who voted yesterday do not believe Trump has the right temperament, experience or judgment to be president, and he won anyway. The problem is not limited to dislike of Hillary Clinton, as the results in numerous Senate and House races from swing states demonstrated. The problem is that the American public does not appear to take the Democrats seriously as a party that can fix their problems. Democrats might well consider how defending a failing Obamacare system that has sent health care costs through the roof and spending much of the year confronting the critical issue of transgender bathrooms may have played into that perception.

For now, however, Democrats appear to have not even properly wrapped their minds around what happened Tuesday, as evidenced by the bizarre scene at Clinton headquarters, where Clinton herself refused to address her supporters, opting instead to send campaign chair John Podesta — who has been the focus of many WikiLeaks stories — on stage to defiantly promise that they would fight “until every vote was counted,” only to call Trump and concede mere minutes later. Many speculated that this bizarre dance occurred because Clinton literally did not have a concession speech prepared and had no idea what to say.

In that sense, Clinton’s campaign is a microcosm of the Democratic Party today — bewildered, bloody and without a clue which direction to take.

see more at http://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/11/09/bloodbath-trump-and-the-gop-leave-democrats-searching-for-answers/

professional protesters

by Sara Gonzales 

President-elect Donald Trump has been notably restrained since his general election victory, not making his presence known on social media with his usual signature lines and mostly dealing in platitudes.

But late Thursday, Trump couldn’t contain his feelings about the protesters who have taken to the streets objecting Trump’s presidency. He took to Twitter to vent about the situation.

Donald J. Trump 

✔@realDonaldTrump

Just had a very open and successful presidential election. Now professional protesters, incited by the media, are protesting. Very unfair!

7:19 PM - 10 Nov 2016

Trump has been criticized in the past for allegedly priming his supporters for civil unrest by purporting that the system was “rigged.”

Why do Protesters destroy property

by Melanie Eversley , Aamer Madhani and Rick Jervis , USA TODAY

For the third night in a row, anti-Donald Trump demonstrators took to the streets in several big cities and on college campuses across the United States, including an outburst of smashed windows and a dumpster fire in Portland that police countered with pepper spray and flash-bang devices.

About 4,000 protesters assembled downtown late Thursday chanting “we reject the president-elect!” the Associated Press reported. Some among the crowd vandalized 19 cars at a dealership in Northeast Portland, according to a sales manager, Oregonlive.com reports. Protesters then headed west, over the Broadway Bridge and into the Pearl District, where the windows of several businesses were smashed.

The protest was mostly peaceful until demonstrators met with an anarchist group, after which demonstrators vandalized buildings, kicked cars and knocked out power, KGW-TV reported.

On Twitter, Portland police said many protesters were "trying to get anarchist groups to stop destroying property" and that "anarchists" were refusing to do so. Demonstrators repeatedly chanted "peaceful protest."

Officers ordered protesters to disperse after the demonstration turned into what they called a riot, citing "extensive criminal and dangerous behavior." At least 26 people were arrested.

Police said the crowd, which included many people armed with bats, threw projectiles at officers, who responded by pushing back against the crowd, then making arrests and using flash-bang devices, pepper spray, rubber projectiles and types of smoke or tear gas to force people to disperse.

At about 6:15 a.m. ET Friday, the president-elect tweeted: "Love the fact that the small groups of protesters last night have passion for our great country. We will all come together and be proud! "

It was a change of tone for Trump, who weighed in on the protests Thursday evening, complaining that he took part in a "very open and successful presidential election" but now "professional protesters, incited by the media, are protesting. Very unfair!"

Meanwhile, demonstrations also took place in Columbus, Ohio, and Minneapolis, Minn., Thursday evening. Protests in Madison, Wisconsin's capital, and Milwaukee, the state's most populous city, drew some of the biggest crowds, with more than 1,000 demonstrators taking to streets in both cities.

Rudy Giuliani, a top Trump surrogate, described the thousands of anti-Trump protesters that have taken to the street as “a bunch of spoiled cry-babies."

"Calm down, things are not as bad as you think," Giuliani said of the protesters in a Fox & Friends interview Thursday.

see video at http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/11/11/anti-trump-protesters-pepper-sprayed-demonstrations-erupt-across-us/93633154/

Unify

Stephen Colbert, host of CBS’ “The Late Show,” is not typically known for being a figure that is friendly to the right. During his long stint on “The Colbert Report” on Comedy Central, his entire schtick was pretending to be the stereotypical depiction of a Republican. While oftentimes humorous, for anyone typically voting GOP, his show would often leave a bad taste in your mouth.

But during his show Tuesday night, Colbert seemed just as shocked as the rest of us when it was more or less certain that Republican Donald Trump was going to win the presidency. Colbert, however, didn’t spit venom, nor did he resort to breaking down the Republican Party and those who voted for them with biting comedy.

Instead, the host began to turn down the humor and spoke to the crowd, not as a partisan political pundit, but as a regular American. He began to discuss how everyone may be tempted to get angry and lash out.

“How did our politics get so poisonous?” asked Colbert thoughtfully to a silent crowd. “I think it’s because we overdosed. Especially this year. We drank too much of the poison. You take a little bit of it so you can hate the other side, and it tastes kind of good, and you like how it feels, and there’s a gentle high to the condemnation.”

Colbert went on to list for the audience humorous examples of things we can all agree on, before wrapping up with a funny, but unifying message.

“Now please. Get out there. Kiss a Democrat. Go hug a Republican. Give a Libertarian a reach around,” said Colbert. “I don’t care. The election is over. You survived. Goodnight, and may God bless America.”

see more at http://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/11/09/stephen-colberts-post-election-message-was-touchingly-unifying/

God Qualifies the Chosen

Ken Buck, U.S. Congressman, 4th CD from CO, spoke at our church about God’s healing his cancer when it was considered incurable.  He talked about how each of us is called upon to do our part in God’s plan.  One of the things he said resonated with me and most of the audience.  He said “God does not select the qualified, he qualifies the chosen.”  His “chosen" do not always exhibit qualities of leadership or character, but He gives them the help and guidance they need.

Moses was reluctant when God called on him to lead the Israelites out of Egypt.  He had a speech impediment and felt he would not be able to convince his people to leave Egypt for an unknown country.  God gave him the leadership talents and guidance that he needed.  There was  David, who slew a giant with only two stones and a slingshot, and became king of Israel.  David was not always a good man; he had a man killed so he could have his wife; but he repented.  With God’s help, David became a wise king.  The apostle Peter was not the sharpest knife in the drawer; he betrayed Jesus three times.   But God called on him to build his church; and build it he did.  WInston Churchill was Prime Minister of England during World War II.  He warned England about Hitler.  The aristocracy made fun of him; he had a drinking problem; the elite thought he was a buffoon.  He was not an example of Christian piety, but he led England through one of the worst wars a country ever faced.

Perhaps there is a deeper reason Trump is capturing the conservative vote; maybe he is the one who will lead us out of the mess our country is in now.  Help from the Lord sometimes come in unlikely forms.  I hope this is one of those times.  We should continue to pray for our country and its leadership.

another quote of the day

“The media isn’t just against me. They’re against all of you,” Trump said in St Augustine. “They’re against what we represent.” 

Quote of the day

While Democrats perpetually circle the wagons, 

Republicans engage a perpetual circular firing squad. 

Why ‘Never Trumpers’ Should Reconsider

October 27, 2016/by Matt Barber

While Democrats perpetually circle the wagons, Republicans engage a perpetual circular firing squad. The same holds true for many evangelicals. Democrats and secularists count on it.

And we never disappoint.

Full disclosure: I went from a dogged “Never Trumper” to a “Maybe Trumper,” and, finally, settled as a “Reluctant Trumper.” I, like any God-fearing father of daughters was, and remain, appalled by Donald Trump’s sordid past, and his 11-year-old vulgar video in which he objectified women. His words are indefensible and I fully expect the Clinton camp to strategically release additional revolting and embarrassing opposition research about the Republican nominee before election day.

Still, I will be voting against Hillary Clinton on Nov. 8 in what is objectively and irrefutably the most effective way possible: by casting a vote, for better or worse, for the policies and promises of Donald Trump — and for the vice presidency of Gov. Mike Pence.

Regrettably, with many of my Never Trump friends I’m reminded of the fanatic who refuses his daughter chemotherapy and watches her die in an effort to convince himself (and others) of the strength of his own faith. Pride is an awful thing. We are to be “wise as serpents and innocent as doves” (Matthew 10:16). Foolishness called “faith” is just foolishness.

Even so, there are Christian Pharisees on both extremes of this Trump fiasco: those Trumpian cultists who buy the “Make America great again!” pablum and deride any person who, while not casting judgment upon others, makes, with all sincerity, what they view as the principled decision. The latter say they’ll sit this one out (or go through the motions by voting third party — a wasted vote by any objective standard). While I appreciate this milder strain of Never Trumper’s sincerity, I nonetheless believe it is sincerely wrong.

And then there are the self-righteous, plank-in-the-eye Never Trump prigs who slander as having “lost their saltiness,” “sinned against God,” and “compromised their principles,” brothers and sisters who recognize the empirical reality that a vote for a horribly flawed (Lord knows I’m the worst sinner of all) baby Christian as president is a vote against Hillary Clinton’s tyranny in perpetuity.

Hillary and the Horror of Partial-Birth Abortion

The Media Research Center has done America a tremendous service. In 2014 the watchdog organization released a video of an actual partial birth abortion — something Hillary Clinton stood on stage during the final presidential debate, stared into the camera with cold, callous eyes, and then both lied about and defended unequivocally. I plead with Never Trumpers to watch the video and then prayerfully reassess their plans for Nov. 8.

Mrs. Clinton’s beloved late-term abortion practice is one so brutal and needless that even the left-leaning American Medical Association has admitted that it is dangerous to the mother and never necessary under any circumstances, not the least of which is for “the life or health of the mother.”

During a partial-birth abortion, the abortionist pulls a fully “viable” child — often kicking and thrashing — feet first from her mother’s womb, leaving only the top of her head in the birth canal. This is so the abortionist can technically claim to be performing an abortion, rather than committing murder.

He then stabs the child through the base of her skull with scissors, piercing her brain until her kicking and moving about suddenly and violently jerks to a halt. Next, he opens the scissors to enlarge the wound as blood and brainstem fluid gush down his hands, inserts a vacuum tube and sucks out her brains, thereby collapsing her skull.

Her now limp and lifeless body is then cast away like so much garbage.

This is homicide, plain and simple. Hillary Clinton supports it. Donald Trump opposes it.

We deserve God’s wrath and judgment as a nation for allowing this abortion holocaust to occur on our watch. In my estimation, Mrs. Clinton is a bloodthirsty monster who enthusiastically supports this barbarity. Her Supreme Court appointees will ensure that tens of millions of precious babies like the one in the video are murdered in the same brutal manner.

My conscience tells me that I must vote in such a way that exercising my civic duty will have the strongest net effect against Mrs. Clinton and ensure that she is stopped. She must not be elected president. To not vote — or to vote for a non-starter third party candidate, which is effectively the same thing — while not an actual vote for Mrs. Clinton, still puts this Mengele in a pantsuit one step closer to the White House and the Supreme Court.

It’s simple math and it’s undeniable. The most effective thing you can personally do as a citizen is to vote against Mrs. Clinton by voting for Mr. Trump. This does the most electoral damage possible to Candidate Clinton and offers the best chance for life that you can provide future generations.

With its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, the U.S. Supreme Court put the government’s official stamp of approval on mass murder. Since then, the battle lines have been drawn. This is war. “Pro-choicers” are the bad guys and pro-lifers, the good guys. It really is that simple — that black and white. It’s good versus evil.

History will reflect as much.

Under a President Hillary Clinton, millions more babies will be tortured and dismembered alive. Under a President Donald Trump, these millions might live.

The Devil and Democrats: Oh, how they love derision and division within the body of Christ.

see more at http://joemiller.us/2016/10/never-trumpers-reconsider/