Tuesday, October 11, 2016







Is Wayne Grudem Lying About Not Knowing Donald Trump’s Past? Watch The Video

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

The video of Donald Trump bragging about his infidelity and describing his assaults on women have put many of his supporters in a bind. Do they stick with Trump? If they rescind their support, how do they justify turning on him now and not sooner?
Evangelical theologian Wayne Grudem was in a particularly sticky situation. Grudem is a thought-leader to many evangelicals. His book on theology is (literally) required reading in many evangelical churches. Because of this, his defense of Donald Trump as “a morally good choice” drew a lot of attention among evangelicals.
Then came the video of Trump boasting of his infidelity, attempts to sleep with a married woman, and his sexual assaults on women. Grudem wrote a new essay and had take down his previous defense of Trump. An archived copy of his July essay is still available.
But this isn’t the story of a theologian who came to his senses. This is the story of a theologian who railed against Trump’s infidelity as disqualifying in February, downplayed Trump’s past as a mere “flaw” in July, and now claims he was ignorant of Trump’s past now that Trump has become too embarrassing for a theologian to support.
In his updated assessment of the ethics of voting Trump, Grudem stated,
I previously called Donald Trump a “good candidate with flaws” and a “flawed candidate” but I now regret that I did not more strongly condemn his moral character. I cannot commend Trump’s moral character, and I strongly urge him to withdraw from the election.
He says he came to this new conclusion after seeing the video of Trump, which opened his eyes to Trump’s immorality.
His vulgar comments in 2005 about his sexual aggression and assaults against women were morally evil and revealed pride in conduct that violates God’s command, “You shall not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:14). I have now read transcripts of some of his obscene interviews with Howard Stern, and they turned my stomach. His conduct was hateful in God’s eyes and I urge him to repent and call out to God for forgiveness, and to seek forgiveness from those he harmed. God intends that men honor and respect women, not abuse them as sexual objects.
The video made Trump’s words and actions clear, but they were not surprising. The video revealed little new information. This is not a case of a hypocrite being caught in a lie. Trump had a history of bragging about his infidelity and sexual behavior. So why turn on Trump now based on his moral character?
Grudem’s excuse is that he didn’t know. He says he should have known, but he didn’t do enough research:
Some may criticize me for not discovering this material earlier, and I think they are right. I did not take the time to investigate earlier allegations in detail, and I now wish I had done so. If I had read or heard some of these materials earlier, I would not have written as positively as I did about Donald Trump.
The only problem with this I-didn’t-do-my-homework excuse is that he is on record of knowing about Trump’s boasts of infidelity and exploitation of women.
In his earlier endorsement, Grudem acknowledged Trump’s past.
“[Trump] has been married three times and claims to have been unfaithful in his marriages,” Grudem said. “These are certainly flaws, but I don’t think they are disqualifying flaws in this election.”
But the real evidence of Grudem’s understanding of Trump comes from a video of an address he gave to pastors during an Illinois Family Institute event in February.
Grudem stated again and again that Trump’s infidelity and moral character disqualified Trump “because a man who cannot be trusted to be faithful in his marriage cannot be trusted to lead the most powerful nation on earth.”
Grudem was explicit about Trump boasting about his infidelity and sexual past:
Now we have a Republican candidate leading in many polls who boasts that he has slept with many women, married and unmarried, many of the most beautiful women in the world. He boasts about it and yet he is leading in many polls. Does a man’s moral character no longer matter in choosing someone to be the most powerful man in the world?
Grudem went further, recounting that Trump made millions of dollars on casinos and strip clubs. Grudem said that these strip clubs “scarred the souls” of women and men.
Grudem called on pastors to speak out that “moral character matters” and to remind themselves that “moral character matters” when they are tempted to vote for Trump.
During his talk, Grudem avoided saying the name “Trump.” Instead, in the middle of his discussion of Trump’s past, Grudem joked, “I’m not going to mention the candidate’s name. If you don’t know, you have no business voting.”
The audience laughed because they knew Trump and his character. So did Grudem.
But now, in the aftermath of Trump’s so-called locker-room banter video, Grudem expects evangelicals to believe that he did not know Trump lacked the moral character to be president.
Grudem claims he made a mistake by not following up on “allegations” made against Trump. It’s not true. In February, he was willing and able to rattle off Trump’s immoral behaviors, including his boasts of infidelity, in a forceful charge that Trump’s moral character made him unfit for office.
Grudem is acting as if now—and only now—he has enough information to conclude that Trump treats women as sexual objects. The video shows the opposite. Grudem knew Trump’s past. He talked about it in detail. He called on pastors to talk about Trump’s treatment of women and to not be tempted to back Trump. Between then and July, Grudem failed to follow his own advice to pastors.
The video released this weekend did not provide new information. It did not reveal anything new about Trump’s moral character. But it did reveal something about Grudem’s own moral choices.
And the choice Grudem must now face is whether he is willing to admit that he knew Trump’s past but ignored it or if he wants to continue to feign ignorance of something he already knew about Trump.
You should also read Jonathan Merritt’s column from July, Wayne Grudem, Donald Trump and admitting when you’re not an expert
GRUDEM: Why Pastors Should Preach About Political Policies
Grudem: Politics According to the Bible, 
or According to Grudem?

Wayne Grudem’s Flip-Flop on the Donald Trump Moral Conundrum

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Remember back in July when Wayne Grudem said this?
I do not think that voting for Donald Trump is a morally evil choice because there is nothing morally wrong with voting for a flawed candidate if you think he will do more good for the nation than his opponent. In fact, it is the morally right thing to do.
We at Pulpit & Pen have continually warned about the lack of discernment in those who are pushing support for the morally “flawed” presidential candidate, Donald Trump. In fact, we believe that the same lack of discernment that would allow Grudem to be a continuationist–or sign an ecumenical document like the Manhattan Declaration–or pronounce a devout Roman Catholic saved, is the same lack of discernment that would allow him to throw his support behind the debauched candidate. We’ve heard over and over about how much worse the opponent is, therefore, we need to vote to “do the least damage.”
Grudem, a man who believes we can still hear directly from God today outside of Scripture, was unable to predict the moral catastrophe that Trump has become.
The issue here is that anyone with a sense of biblical discernment could see that Trump’s character was a cataclysmic failure. Yet, Grudem would defend him anyways, saying,
I do not think it is right to call him an “evil candidate.” I think rather he is a good candidate with flaws.
Really? He isn’t evil? Jeremiah 17:9, maybe?
Anyways, apparently he’s now come around–and it’s taken a freight train derailment to convince him. Now, on the same blog site, Grudem has officially Canerized his original post praising Trump, and in a seemingly 180-degree turn in which he withdraws his endorsement for the man, now says this:
There is no morally good presidential candidate in this election. I previously called Donald Trump a “good candidate with flaws” and a “flawed candidate” but I now regret that I did not more strongly condemn his moral character.
Hey, thanks for coming around, Wayne. But maybe, just maybe, you should have seen this before. After all, the lesser of two evils is still evil. Even Jerry Garcia knew that. But the simple fact that someone who calls themselves a Christian could unhesitatingly throw support behind a man whose character is that awful is quite telling of one’s discernment–or lack thereof.
A man who has openly stated that he hasn’t asked God for forgiveness because he doesn’t have anything to ask forgiveness for. A man who claims he was led to Christ by one of the foremost false teachers in the world, Paula White. And now, recently released, the audio of a man who unashamedly brags about groping women for sport, and says things so horrible that even the left-wing news outlets won’t repeat what he said.
I mean, come on…who didn’t see this coming?
Apparently, not Wayne Grudem.
The bigger issue at stake here is that these so-called evangelical Christian leaders go out on a limb to throw their support behind this debauched man. What does this say about Christianity to those on the outside watching this charade? “Do not be deceived: “Bad company ruins good morals”,” says 1 Corinthians 15:33. You get behind someone as morally corrupt as Donald Trump, and it just might start rubbing off on you. This is far worse than a mere lack of judgment…a mistake to simply be sorry for. This affects the Church’s witness for Christ.
This nonsense goes on in evangelicalism all the time.
[Contributed by Jeff Maples]
See also:


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

At a recent meeting of government representatives of nations participating in the United Nations’ Programme of Action (POA), the focus was on tracking of civilian weapons, component parts, and ammunition, and how the United States should spend more money helping foreign countries accomplish those goals.
At the Second Meeting of Governmental Experts (MGE2) held at the UN headquarters in Manhattan, the globalists discussed a couple of agenda items that should give pause to Americans.
First, the delegates at the MGE2 deliberated on how to eliminate the threat of technologically advanced weapons, including so-called polymer firearms and 3D printed guns, as well as the tracking of materials used in the “craft-production of small arms and light weapons.” 
Not surprisingly, the representative from China called for increased UN-mandated regulations on 3D printers and the weapons they produce.
In the Chair’s Summary, the group united in a call for “strengthening 3D printing regulations in the context of 3D weapon printing,” for “ensuring export licenses [are] in place for 3D printers,” for drawing global attention to “the need to pay attention to the resale of such printers,” and for “strengthening controls over 3D printing technology.”
No one is shocked, of course, that the globalists at the UN want to draw up comprehensive plans to take guns — any and every variety of gun — out of the hands of civilians.
After discussing similar strategies to lock down the manufacture, purchase, sale, and transfer of polymer weapons and modular weapons, the next item on the MGE2 attendees’ agenda warrants an immediate withdrawal of the United States from the world body.
Paragraph 33 of the Chair’s Summary of the meeting calls for urgent tracking of civilian-owned firearms, recommending that manufacturers be forced by the UN to install “RFID and biometric technologies in limiting the access to the weapon to authorized users only,” with authorized users defined as state actors (UN member nations).
That’s right. As part of the Programme of Action (the foundation upon which the Arms Trade Treaty is built), the United States has committed to passing legislation that will require domestic firearms and ammunition manufacturers to equip their products with RFID chips and biometric technologies that will help the government slowly but surely disarm civilians.
That’s not all. At the end of that paragraph, the UN suggests states (member countries) look into combining RFID chips, biometrics, with GPS tracking technologies to be sure to prevent regular people from getting their hands on guns.
Next, in the overview of the published summary of the conference, the UN looks to one source to help pay for the implementation of these new disarmament policies: increased foreign aid.
Specifically, the unelected, unaccountable UN globocrats call for greater “international cooperation and assistance” (read: American taxpayer dollars) to offset the massive cost of the “transfer of technology and knowledge” necessary to make the proposed gun grab a reality.
It should be noted that Paragraph 42 of the summary proposes funding this fascism “through the UN regular budget,” 22 percent of which is paid by the United States, through a process that can be described as nothing less than legalized theft of the wealth of the American worker.
As if the point was already made, the document calls for the cultivating of a “culture of peace,” which is certainly shorthand for flooding the United States with UN-created propaganda linking the civilian ownership of firearms with homicide and other violent crimes. 
In the wake of the horrific Chattanooga murders, it doesn’t take too much foresight to predict a panoply of renewed calls for controlling and regulating civilian access to firearms.
Finally, according to the text of the latest draft of the agreement, the POA will serve as an “international instrument to enable states to identify and trace, in a timely and reliable manner,” the small arms and light weapons that are the subject of the scheme.
In practice, this means that the governments of member nations (including the United States) will soon create a massive, all-inclusive database of all parties that manufacture, own, sell, trade, or transfer arms and ammunition.
If recent history is a reliable indicator of how such data would be used, after the catalog is complete, Congress could pass a law (or the president could issue an executive order) compelling “voluntary” surrender of privately-owned weapons, ammo, parts, and components (including reloading equipment). If, after a statutorily-set window, citizens don’t turn in these items to their local law enforcement, then officers will be sent to remind violators of their responsibility under the law to disarm.
Paragraph 32 of the Chair’s Summary lays out the plan for “real-time tracking” of firearms and ammunition “from manufacturer to storage and from storage up to the individual users.” 
Once the governments of the member nations begin tracking and confiscating weapons from civilians, the Programme of Action (paragraphs 30 and 31) mandates that member governments take “direct control over transfers of small arms and light weapons.” 
This control will require the federal government to begin stockpiling these items and making a database of the recently impounded guns, bullets, 3D printers, plastics, polymers, and component parts.
This database must include "the marking, record-keeping and tracing of weapons, and in this regard considered barcodes, radio frequency identification (RFID) and biometrics for purposes of electronically identifying stored items, collecting data on them and enabling the data to be entered automatically into record-keeping systems."
It is evident from a reading of this latest UN disarmament publication that despite the rhetoric related to ”promotion of a culture of peace,” there are only two reasons the UN is making every effort to disarm the population of the United States: to weaken our sovereignty, and to take from our people their ability to resist those despots (at home and abroad) who would place us under the boot of tyranny and demote us to the ranks of slaves on a “sustainable” global plantation.
The next round of meetings for hammering out the details of the Programme of Action is scheduled for 2016. That gives Americans almost one year to convince their representatives in Congress to pass legislation defunding the UN and forcing the world-government-in-waiting to relocate to a more hospitable home.
Americans interested in joining this fight are encouraged to look into The John Birch Society (JBS). For nearly four decades, the JBS has worked to “Get US out of the UN.” Therefore, the group is uniquely equipped with the resources necessary to finally achieve this urgent aim.
Dr. Oz Promotes The Mark Of The Beast
Dr. Oz Pushes the RFID Microchip Implant
The Masses Will Be Forced to Take Them
Published on Oct 10, 2016
Revelation 13:16 reads "And the second beast required all people small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their forehead," That quote leads us to the small hamlet of Geneva, Switzerland. Where the elite go about doing Lucifer’s work. Geneva, Switzerland…Home of the European headquarters of the United Nations, and CERN. Geneva hosts the highest number of international organizations in the world including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), the World Health Organization (WHO), the International Labour Organization (ILO), International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the International Baccalaureate Organization (IBO) and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Apart from the UN agencies, Geneva hosts many inter-governmental organizations, such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Economic Forum (WEF), the International Organization for Migration (IOM), and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).
Published on Oct 7, 2016
We are in the LAST DAYS as foretold in scripture! Well known TV personalities, Dr OZ and Brian WIlliams espouse awe and excitement of the new RFID chip that is currently being implanted in the public! If you are a christian you KNOW the dangers of this! DO NOT TAKE THE MARK. You will damn your soul!! The scenario will probably unfold like this: in order to vet immigrants and track them, or to track migrants movements or track terrorist movements, all persons MUST receive the mark for global security. Also, because of the collapsing of the old economic systems of the world the IMP and UN have now ordered all persons to be chipped to buy and sell. ....You may now go to your nearest Walmart Health Clinic or any CVS or Walgreen where you receive your flu shot to receive your RFID chip. School aged children will be able to receive their chip at their local health clinic on their school campus!! Y'ALL PLEASE GET CLOSE TO JESUS, and PRAY. We are in the last days. "And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: 17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. 18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six." ~ Revelation 13:16-18 King James Version (KJV) "New International Version "'They will throw their silver into the streets, and their gold will be treated as a thing unclean. Their silver and gold will not be able to deliver them in the day of the LORD's wrath. It will not satisfy their hunger or fill their stomachs, for it has caused them to stumble into sin."~ Ezekiel 7:19 "This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, truce breakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, high minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away."~ 2 Timothy 3:1-5 King James Version (KJV) "36 And a man's enemies shall be those of his own household."~ Matthew 10:36 "12 In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, 13 while evildoers and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus."~ 2 Timothy 3:12-15 "Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?"~ Galatians 4:16 "On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?""~John 6:60 LINK: NY TO TEST FACIAL RECOGNITION CAMERAS


The Conservative Tribune reports, After a series of straw poll votes, the United Nations Security Council recently agreed upon that Portuguese Prime Minister Antonio Guterres would become the next secretary-general of the international body, taking the place of outgoing secretary Ban Ki-Moon, who has neared the end of his second five-year term.


SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

In an article published on October 4, President Barack Obama revealed that he has a woefully wrong understanding of the separation of powers, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution.
“Our most basic workings as a nation aren’t possible without a functioning judiciary at every level,” the president wrote in a Huffington Post op-ed. “Commerce is hindered and lives are put on hold. If we ever hope to restore the faith in our institutions that has eroded in recent years, we cannot tolerate a politically motivated, willfully negligent vacancy on the Supreme Court,” he added.
The purpose of the piece is to point out that Republicans in the Senate are preventing the nation’s highest federal court from “weigh[ing] these pivotal issues [separation of church and state to intellectual property to congressional redistricting to the death penalty] because the Court [is] one Justice short of [its] full panel of nine.”
Regardless of Republican maneuvering, that a president of the United States would demonstrate such ignorance of key constitutional principles of republican government is unacceptable.
While there are several examples from Obama’s article of constitutional confusion, a sampling of a few will suffice to prove the point.
First, the idea that without the opinion of the Supreme Court the country cannot function properly is ludicrous and would be laughable were it not being published by a sitting president.
The Supreme Court has usurped power not granted it in the Constitution, and its sister branches in the federal government (and state legislatures) have permitted it to continue. 
For example, in 1907, former Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes declared that “the Constitution is what the judges say it is.” Or, as another tyrant once said, “L’etat c’est moi.” ("I am the state.")
The pronouncement by Hughes is compelling evidence of the federal bench’s systemic disregard of any sort of objective, constitutionally-based standard of interpretation. The justices regularly replace such authorities as the Federalist Papers with their own agenda, creating a situation where the judiciary is a subjective scene of ever-changing, never consistent “judicial review.”
President Obama is apparently a fan of unconstitutional lawmaking on the part of a black-robed oligarchy. 
It takes a usurper to know a usurper.
Were Americans to accept Obama’s interpretation of Article III and his overly generous grant to the courts of the power to re-write laws, we would find ourselves in the perilous situation described by Thomas Jefferson:
At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance.
To the point, this reporter has personal experience with the establishment’s method of perpetuating the myth of judicial supremacy over the Constitution. I attended law school, and for one year took a required class called (ironically) Constitutional Law. Here’s a frightening fact of American legal education: in Constitutional Law we never opened the Constitution — not once. We read dozens of “key” Supreme Court decisions on constitutional issues, but we were never asked to read even a single clause of the Constitution.
No wonder, then, we find ourselves in a country where even the president promotes and publishes the doctrine of judicial review and ultimate judicial authority over issues that “touch people’s lives every day.”
For redress of this wrong, let’s do something radical and actually read the Constitution. 
Article III of the Constitution lists nine classes of cases within the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court.
Among those nine powers, one does not find “amending the Constitution,” or “voiding the will of the people,” or “forcing states to accept social attitudes inconsistent with their citizens,” or anything even close to amending the Constitution via judicial decision.
Article V of the Constitution sets out the amendment procedure and “whatever the Supreme Court says” is not part of the constitutionally mandated process!
Thomas Jefferson had something to say in the matter. In 1804, he wrote that giving the Supreme Court power to declare as unconstitutonal acts of the legislature or executive “would make the judiciary a despotic branch.” He noted that “nothing in the Constitution” gives the Supreme Court that right.
Abraham Lincoln recognized the lack of constitutional authority for the Supreme Court’s assumption of the role of ultimate arbiter of an act’s conformity with the Constitution. Lincoln said that if the Supreme Court were afforded the power to declare whether an act of the federal government was constitutional, “the people will have ceased to be their own masters, having to that extent resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”
In his 1887 book The Constitutional Law of the United States of America, renowned German-American constitutional scholar Hermann Von Holst explained the error in accepting the Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiter of constitutional fidelity. 
"Moreover, violations of the Constitution may happen and the injured cannot, whether states or individuals, obtain justice through the court. Where the wrongs suffered are political in origin the remedies must be sought in a political way," he wrote.
He continued, regarding this “aristocracy of the robe,” “That our national government, in any branch of it, is beyond the reach of the people; or has any sort of ‘supremacy’ except a limited measure of power granted by the supreme people is an error.”
It is an error now committed publicly by the president of the United States.
Finally, the president’s chastising of GOP leadership for supposedly purposefully keeping the Supreme Court one justice short of its full constitutional bench is also wide of the constitutional mark.
There is no constitutional requirement of nine Supreme Court justices. No law was ever passed by Congress mandating a nine-justice Supreme Court. In fact, there have been several times in our history where the Supreme Court’s bench has been more or less crowded than it was before the death of Justice Antonin Scalia created a “vacancy.”
The Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number of Supreme Court justices at six. Eight years later, Congress changed the number of justices to seven. Then, 30 years later, the number of justices was set at nine. In 1863 it was briefly bumped up to 10. In 1866, the number went back to seven as a result of the Judicial Circuits Act passed by Congress. In 1869, Congress put the number of Supreme Court justices at nine and there it has stayed ever since.
There was, though, a famous attempt by President Franklin Roosevelt to pack the court with justices favorable to his socialist “New Deal” programs. Roosevelt wanted 15 justices (a new justice for every one of the sitting justices over 70 years old who refused to retire). Congress refused to give in and the number stayed at nine, as it had been set in 1869.
So, anyone familiar with the Constitution, with the will of the Founders, and with the history of the high court would recognize a few things that President Obama doesn’t understand: first, the country can function just fine without the Supreme Court settling all social issues for us; second, the Supreme Court doesn’t have the power to overrule the will of the people; and finally, there is no constitutional mandate of a nine-justice Supreme Court bench.
In light of this, it is ironic, then, that in the final paragraph of his op-ed, the president writes:
"We didn’t grow from a fledgling nation into the greatest force for good the world has ever known by flouting the institutions that define our [sic] democracy. We did it through fidelity to the values of our founding, and an understanding that our American experiment only works when we the people have a say."
The people again and again have tried to "have a say" in the laws of their respective states and the Supreme Court has forced them to accept what they say is unacceptable.


Published on Oct 10, 2016
He was a mid-level, party activist, DNC delegate to the 1996 Chicago Democratic Convention. But what he saw Hillary and Bill do there so Disillusioned him that he became the protestor at the Kaine event whose video went viral. This is what he witnessed.





SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

By: Devvy Kidd

October 11,
While it greatly pains me, I tuned into FOX and lucky me, I got Megyn Kelly. As usual she had that giggly 'I can hardly wait' demeanor as if this were some kind of entertainment once seen in old days of the Roman Empire featuring gladiators.
Trump came out at the same time as Clinton. In all honesty he looked like warmed over paste. He was pale and judging by his sniffling, Trump might have a cold. How human. Unlike his usual self, Trump did not look relaxed. He looked, justifiably so in my opinion, very angry.
Clinton's body language told a lot. She was so stiff and the smirking smile on her face was plastered there throughout the 90 + minutes. To me she looked medicated to the hilt which would account for her dragging responses. Several times she made sure she was close enough to use her chair to keep upright. As Trump walked around behind her my impression was Clinton expected him to take a whack at her; fear. Absurd, but then again we're dealing with with someone always looking over her shoulder from the long arm of the law.
Something else that I believe greatly affected that vile creature. Prior to the actual debate, Trump called a news conference and played the disgraced media. Again.
"The women—Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick—have each leveled various charges against Bill Clinton. They also each have charged that Hillary Clinton was an “enabler” of Bill Clinton’s behavior in exclusive interviews with Breitbart News’ Aaron Klein published on Sunday. In addition, Kathy Shelton—who was allegedly raped when she was 12 years old, while Hillary Clinton defended her accused rapist—spoke as well."
Hillary cannot hide the audio of her laughing about how she gamed the system and got Shelton's rapist off the hook. How ugly. Juanita Broaddrick has never deviated from the account of when and how Billy Clinton raped her. The Democratic/Communist Party USA's media has spent decades trying to cover up or lessen Billy's four decades of sexual debauchery and serial cheating but now it's all over the place.
"CBS News’ veteran anchor Bob Schieffer expressed outrage Sunday that Republican nominee Donald Trump focused attention on the women who accused former President Bill Clinton of rape and sexual assault. How have we come to this? This is supposed to be a campaign for the most powerful office of the land. Here we're marching in women into the hall who supposed to have some relationship with one of the candidate's spouses. What's that supposed to prove?”
"The “relationships” that the women had with Bill Clinton allegedly included rape and violent sexual assault."
“So, you can say anyway you want to say it, but Bill Clinton was abusive to women. Hillary Clinton attacked those same women. Attacked them viciously. Four of them are here tonight. One of the women, who is a wonderful woman, at 12 years old, was raped at 12. Her client, she represented, got him off, and she's seen laughing on two separate occasions, laughing at the girl who was raped.
“But what President Clinton did, he was impeached, he lost his license to practice law, he had to pay an $850,000 fine to one of the women, Paula Jones, who's also here tonight, and I will tell you that when Hillary brings up a point like that, and she talks about words that I said 11 years ago, I think it's disgraceful and I think she should be ashamed of herself, if you really want to know the truth.” Hillary declined to address Trump’s specific accusations, instead firing back: “So much of what he said is not right, but he gets to run his campaign any way he chooses.”
What can she say? Hillary Clinton has been Billy's enabler for almost 4 decades.
Those women were in the audience which had to have irked Clinton to no end. Clinton had to carry on knowing those four women were in the audience watching her every move. Billy Clinton had to sit there like an elephant on a telephone pole.
Her serial cheating husband and rapist has been dogged across the country at speaking engagements with people holding up signs that say Clinton is a rapist. Of course, being Slick Willy, the former president just brushes it off as if the charges are no more serious than not having enough butter on his toast.
As most everyone has written or remarked on the boob tube or radio, the first 30 minutes were tense. So tense you could slice the air with a butter knife. Trump apologized again for his foul language during that 11-year old conversation with Billy Bush, who by the way has now been indefinitely suspended by NBC. Trump also, at least to me, was doing a lot of thinking while walking around at the beginning while Hillary blathered on and when the moment came he pounced on her lies and incompetence.
Trump pinned her down on the disaster over in the Middle East - from the transcript:
TRUMP: "By the way, just so you understand, when she said 3 o’clock in the morning, take a look at Benghazi. She said who is going to answer the call at 3 o’clock in the morning? Guess what? She didn't answer it, because when Ambassador Stevens…
COOPER: "The question is, is that the discipline of a good leader?
TRUMP: … "600 — wait a minute, Anderson, 600 times. Well, she said she was awake at 3 o’clock in the morning, and she also sent a tweet out at 3 o’clock in the morning, but I won't even mention that. But she said she'll be awake. Who's going — the famous thing, we're going to answer our call at 3 o’clock in the morning. Guess what happened? Ambassador Stevens — Ambassador Stevens sent 600 requests for help. And the only one she talked to was Sidney Blumenthal, who's her friend and not a good guy, by the way. So, you know, she shouldn't be talking about that."
What Trump was referring to is 600 times additional security was requested during Clinton's time as Secty of State for personnel over in Libya and each time it was denied. Four Americans died while defiant Hillary says," What difference could it possibly make now?" The difference you witch is your complete and utter failure while playing Secretary of State causing the deaths of four Americans.
NEW YORK – "A video obtained by WND from Libyan sources shows a fighter aligned with the jihadists supported by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton beheading a defenseless taxi driver shortly before the terrorist attack on Sept. 11, 2011, in Benghazi that resulted in the deaths of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.
"WND previously published three videos that also demonstrate the extreme brutality unleashed by the mercenaries and Islamic fighters who joined Libyan-based jihadists to oust leader Moammar Gadhafi with the backing of Hillary Clinton’s State Department and NATO.
"The videos, obtained through a trusted source, were vetted by Libyan tribal parliamentary leaders who spoke to WND. The Libyans verified the videos were taken in Libya in the weeks after the U.S.-backed NATO bombing that began in 2011. As WND has reported, Clinton’s State Department had decided to rebuff offers Gadhafi had made to abdicate peacefully and avoid a war. And, meanwhile, the Obama administration is moving to drop charges against an arms dealer who had threatened to expose Hillary Clinton’s determination to arm anti-Gadhafi rebels.
"The Libyan tribal parliamentary leaders, in an exclusive Skype interview published by WND on Sept. 21, characterized Clinton as the “Butcher of Libya.” They contended her State Department was “behind the terrorist groups controlling Libya, Ansar al-Sharia, behind the militia in Misurata who destroyed a great part of Libya and displaced 2 million people from their lands because they were accused of being loyal to Gadhafi." Rest at link.
The rest of the debate, about one hour, Trump wiped her face with the floor. Of course it didn't help Hildebeast when a fly landed on her face. As others have pointed out, Clinton didn't so much as flinch where most people try to bat flies away. Then again, if one is doped up they might not have felt it. The criminal impostor in the White House's face over the years has been a frequent landing strip for flies.
Trump went after Clinton for, as he put it, bleaching her email servers. Comey and co-conspirators covered up her crimes:
If you didn't see the debate the full transcript is here.
Last year Trump said Hillary Clinton belongs in jail: Trump: If Hillary Were Republican, 'She'd Already Be in Jail', August 20, 2015
"If a Republican becomes president, Trump said, "hopefully" Clinton will face charges, but then "you have a statute of limitations of five or six years. Hillary might have to win this election because if a Republican wins, I would imagine that their attorney general and their people are going to be their various prosecutors, because it goes on for years after the election." So, as a result, Clinton "might be fighting for her life in more ways than one," said Trump, as "what she did is probably criminal. I think almost you could say it's almost certainly criminal."
Last night Trump not only called her a liar in front of the whole world, he repeated she would be in jail for what she's done (Trump: I’ll Have Special Prosecutor For Clinton Email, ‘You'd Be In Jail’). That is a very dangerous thing for him to say. While it is the truth, the Clinton's play to the death, literally. Trump has been wearing a bullet proof vest since July 2015 for a reason. His life is in danger every time he steps out of Trump Towers. Trump humiliated Clinton last night badly in front of the whole world.
As I wrote in an earlier column, if Trump is elected I believe Loretta Lynch will bail as Attorney General. I believe she should also be indicted for obstruction of Justice. One would think Trump would quietly ask for James Comey's resignation as FBI chief. Trump would become a hero of this country if he appoints a new AG and FBI Director (who pass the senate) that open a real investigation and/or refer Clinton's email disaster as well as the Clinton Foundation to a special prosecutor.
THAT's what Hillary Clinton fears more than anything else Trump throws at her. Even 'Teflon Don' John Gotti's luck ran out; he died in prison. Trump will not forget what Clinton's henchmen have done to him. Likewise, Hillary will not forget the lashing she took Sunday night by Trump.
Republicans in the House are not going to give up on their investigations. Clinton doesn't care about them as long as Lynch and Comey remain in their jobs and, God forbid, she is elected. It's Trump in the White House that scares her and her masters. Hillary Clinton is a globalist who will go into the Oval Office with one goal and that is the total and complete destruction of our sovereign nation. Open borders, trade agreements that reduce us to rags made in other countries, continued massive unemployment and more. Like promising to raise taxes on the middle class (while the zombies at her event clapped and nodded their empty heads) and put all coal miners out of work. Yes, she said those things.
Hillary Clinton will take us into WWIII make no mistake about that. She is an incompetent buffoon who is a legend in her own mind. Her comments about Putin and Trump are completely false. One thing that is true: Neither Trump or Putin want their countries sucked into a one world order under global domination.
Trump is the train coming at her and as cool as she likes to play it, don't think she isn't sweating buckets. Trump is dead serious and that makes him a big target. Bed wetters like Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell and all the other holier-than-thous can keep throwing their tantrums and work towards getting Hillary Clinton in office. But, this movement created by Trump grows by the day and his promise to clean out the vermin makes him very dangerous. It also makes him very popular with the American people.
I simply must add this link. Do take the few minutes to watch. It's brilliant:Liar Liar Pants On Fire Hillary Song
 Trump 3.2 million votes - 92%
 Don't know who won: 218 thousand - 6%
 Hillary Clinton 55.8 - 2%
Billy Bush Fired from NBC 'Today Show' for Being Heterosexual
Published on Oct 11, 2016
Today Show host Billy Bush was suspended indefinitely by NBC after the leaded video tape of Donald Trump and him talking about beautiful women. Liberals are pretending to be outraged over Trump's comments, and now NBC has fired Billy Bush for simply listening to Trump and agreeing that beautiful women are nice. Media analyst Mark Dice has the story.

Donald Trump MASSIVE Rally in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania (10/10/2016) FULL SPEECH HD 
Following Debate

Jerry Falwell Jr. Thinks The GOP Establishment Leaked The Trump Tape