godanddonaldtrump.com TRUMP’S MIRACULOUS WIN ★★★★★ ON JANUARY 20, 2017, Donald J. Trump stepped forward to take the oath of office on the steps of the US Capitol, in Washington, DC, to become the forty-fifth pres- ident of the United States. It was a moment no one in the mainstream media or the political establishment had seriously considered. That auspicious occasion marked the culmination of one of the most contentious election campaigns in US history and the beginning of one of the most heated ideological struggles ever seen in this country. Outlasting a field of sixteen other GOP contenders while attracting the largest number of evangelical voters in history, the New York billionaire had delivered a stunning blow to his Democratic rival and sent shock waves of amazement and disbelief across the nation and around the world. By some miracle “The Donald” had actually won. Washington elites from both political parties had spent months pounding on
candidate Trump, questioning his intelligence, his sanity, his motives, his fitness for public office, and even his religion. Thrice married, a casino owner, and some- one known for his outrageous and often salty language, Trump did not have the persona of a model Christian, and his detractors were certain the conservative Republican base would never vote for such a man. And if they did, the pundits suggested, it would certainly be a betrayal of everything they once claimed to be- lieve. The New York Times pointed out that evangelical leaders had spent decades developing and fielding a cadre of strong conservative candidates capable of win- ning high public office. Gov. Mike Huckabee, Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Marco Rubio, Sen. Rick Santorum, Gov. Rick Perry, and Rep. Michele Bachmann were among the beneficiaries of that effort, yet none of them attracted the kind of support in the 2016 campaign accorded to the egotistical and unrestrained reality-TV star from Queens. Trump, they wrote, “is unabashedly ignorant of the biblical imperatives that form the foundation of evangelical culture and politics. That Mr. Trump is a Pres- byterian and not Evangelical is not the issue. It’s that he doesn’t pretend to understand evangelicalism, or even his own mainline Protestantism.”¹ The New York Times pontificating on the biblical imperatives of evangelical Christians ought to elicit at least a few chuckles for the irony. Nevertheless, Donald Trump never claimed to be a paragon of virtue; in fact, he has admitted repeatedly in interviews with reporters and biographers that he had been rude and undisciplined for much of his life. But evangelical leaders who have met with him, as I have, believe he understands the importance of sincere faith, and—especially over the last few years—he has made a sincere effort to ex- pand his knowledge of and his fluency with essential Christian beliefs. During the 1950s Trump attended Sunday school and church with his parents, Fred and Mary Trump, at First Presbyterian Church in Jamaica, Queens, which has been described as the oldest Presbyterian congregation in America. He was even awarded a Bible at his confirmation in 1959. After the family transferred membership to Marble Collegiate Church in Manhattan, Trump was strongly at- tracted to the preaching of Dr. Norman Vincent Peale, who served that congre- gation as pastor for more than fifty years, from 1932 to 1984. Peale’s message that faith in God and a positive attitude are the keys to
success in every area of life had an obvious appeal to the young Trump. Looking at Peale’s book The Power of Positive Thinking, which has sold more than twenty million copies, it’s easy to see how his message would have resonated in Trump’s life and business practices. Shortly before his retirement Peale wrote to Trump, congratulating him on completion of his landmark structure, the lavish Trump Tower. Peale reminded Trump that he had once predicted he would be- come “America’s greatest builder” and added, “You have already arrived at that status, and believe me, as your friend, I am very proud of you.”² Four years later Trump hosted Peale’s ninetieth birthday party at the Waldorf-Astoria hotel in Manhattan. But Trump’s education in biblical imperatives didn’t end there. It’s fair to say that he values the Christian faith because it defines a key part of the America he loves, not necessarily because he is a born-again Evangelical. He has been taught, counseled, witnessed to, and preached at for years, and he professes be- lief but keeps a healthy arm’s length from overtly doctrinaire and fundamental Christianity. From a purely pragmatic point of view, perhaps that’s for the best. His understanding, despite all he has said, may appear somewhat superficial to
understand evangelicalism, or even his own mainline Protestantism.”¹ The New York Times pontificating on the biblical imperatives of evangelical Christians ought to elicit at least a few chuckles for the irony.
Nevertheless, Donald Trump never claimed to be a paragon of virtue; in fact, he has admitted repeatedly in interviews with reporters and biographers that he had been rude and undisciplined for much of his life. But evangelical leaders who have met with him, as I have, believe he understands the importance of sincere faith, and—especially over the last few years—he has made a sincere effort to expand his knowledge of and his fluency with essential Christian beliefs.
During the 1950s Trump attended Sunday school and church with his parents, Fred and Mary Trump, at First Presbyterian Church in Jamaica, Queens, which has been described as the oldest Presbyterian congregation in America. He was even awarded a Bible at his confirmation in 1959. After the family transferred membership to Marble Collegiate Church in Manhattan, Trump was strongly attracted to the preaching of Dr. Norman Vincent Peale, who served that congregation as pastor for more than fifty years, from 1932 to 1984.
Peale’s message that faith in God and a positive attitude are the keys to
success in every area of life had an obvious appeal to the young Trump. Looking at Peale’s book The Power of Positive Thinking, which has sold more than twenty million copies, it’s easy to see how his message would have resonated in Trump’s life and business practices. Shortly before his retirement Peale wrote to Trump, congratulating him on completion of his landmark structure, the lavish Trump Tower. Peale reminded Trump that he had once predicted he would become America’s greatest builder
and added, You have already arrived at that status, and believe me, as your friend, I am very proud of you.
² Four years later Trump hosted Peale’s ninetieth birthday party at the Waldorf-Astoria hotel in Manhattan.
But Trump’s education in biblical imperatives didn’t end there. It’s fair to say that he values the Christian faith because it defines a key part of the America he loves, not necessarily because he is a born-again Evangelical. He has been taught, counseled, witnessed to, and preached at for years, and he professes belief but keeps a healthy arm’s length from overtly doctrinaire and fundamental Christianity. From a purely pragmatic point of view, perhaps that’s for the best. His understanding, despite all he has said, may appear somewhat superficial to the faithful, but a majority of the American people have decided that’s OK. They were seeking a true American leader, not a theologian. And in comparison with the Democratic alternative, there was never a serious debate. THE REAL STORY OF WHY TRUMP WON This perspective was articulated beautifully by my longtime friend and fellow pub- lisher Don Nori Sr. in a blog post for the readers of CharismaNews.com in Octo- ber 2015, a year before the election. Don wrote, “‘We the people’ have found our voice, and we intend to use it to shape the conversation, not to conform to anoth- er’s view of our country or our faith.”³ The mainstream media are so blinded by their own parochialism that they’ve missed the real story. Don wrote, “The media stand in amazement that a non-politician such as Trump can garner such widespread support among so many American sub- cultures….‘He doesn’t act like much of a politician,’ they say in stunned amaze- ment. But that is the point. We don’t want a politician. Therefore, we are not sur- prised when he does not act like one. They are surprised and horrified. Really? I want to hear the truth as a candidate sees it and not how someone spins it.
Trump is not too ‘spinnable.’”⁴ Don went on to list what he saw as evidence of Trump’s belief in Jesus Christ, not because of the litmus tests many denominations employ but because of his simple faith. “He believes Jesus is His Savior, reads his Bible, and prays every day. He is pro-life, wants to defund Planned Parenthood, and will stop the perse- cution of believers here in America.”⁵ Don wrote that his favorite quote of Trump’s was “Christianity is under attack. It’s time for Christians to stand up for themselves. I’ll stand up for Christianity.”⁶ What ought to be readily apparent is that Donald Trump believes in the Amer- ican Dream. He has achieved it himself, in a big way. Growing up in a middle- class neighborhood in the New York borough of Queens during the 1950s, Trump watched his father, with only a high school education, achieve his dream of becoming the most successful builder and real estate entrepreneur in Brooklyn and Queens. At an early age Trump decided to follow in his father’s footsteps. He worked for him, learning the ropes from the bottom up, and would eventually ex- ceed his father’s accomplishments many times over. But he understood that the American Dream was within the reach of anyone willing to work hard and play
fair, and that too requires a certain biblical ethic. That attitude apparently struck a chord with men and women in the heartland during the bruising 2016 campaign. Michele Bachmann, who had made an impressive run for the White House with major Tea Party support in 2012, didn’t hesitate to assure her supporters that Donald Trump was the best man for the Republican nomination in 2016. In a taped interview with CBN News commentator David Brody she referred to the Old Testament Book of Daniel, saying, “The bottom line of the Book of Daniel is this: it teaches us that the most high God lifts up who He will and takes down who He will.”⁷ Bachmann had not been a Trump supporter from the first but eventually de- cided he was the only electable candidate. “I actually supported Ted Cruz,” she said. “I thought he was fabulous, but I also see that at the end of the day God raised up, I believe, Donald Trump, who was going to be the nominee in this elec- tion. I don’t think God sits things out. He’s a sovereign God. . . . I think it’s very likely that in the day that we live in that Donald Trump is the only individual who could win in a general election of the seventeen who ran.”⁸ This is a perspective I have encountered more than once as I’ve observed and
participated in the vetting and exploratory process of the election. There are min- istry leaders and prophetic voices who are convinced God brought Donald Trump, who had said for many years that he was not at all interested in running for public office, to this place for this time. It may well be, as Bachmann and cer- tain prophetic voices have suggested, that Trump was sent by God as a bull in a china shop to break up the globalist agenda and interrupt the Left’s campaign to remake America in their own image. A man with a milder, gentler, less aggressive personality could never hope to take on the forces within the political estab- lishment and prosper, which explains why Donald J. Trump was the perfect choice for this hour. If you consider the level of shock in all quarters once it became clear that Trump had actually won, you would have to believe that some kind of backlash was to be expected. Democrats were stunned, and many Republicans were in disbelief as well. Even Trump’s most ardent supporters could hardly believe what had happened. Panic and anger ensued on one side, and euphoria on the other, but the impossible had actually happened. The Never-Trumpers and self- righteous conservatives and libertarians were utterly confounded, but the reaction
from hard-left groups funded by George Soros and other counterculture organi- zations escalated the anger and violent protests to unprecedented levels. The Left reacted furiously because their long-term agenda was being derailed. The Obama administration had been organized and commissioned as a catalytic operation—set into motion, no doubt, decades earlier. Saul Alinsky, a mentor of both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, taught that the historic framework of democracy in America must be destroyed. This was also the goal of the “new world order.” The powers that elevated Obama to prominence and supported his rise to the presidency in 2008 had given him a mandate. His administration was to be the key to unlock the gates of the antiquated American Democracy, to bring America at long last into the “community of nations,”⁹ and to clear the way for the global government President George H. W. Bush had promised seventeen years earlier in his 1991 State of the Union address before Congress. Bush had called it “a new world order, where diverse nations are drawn to- gether in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind.”¹⁰ Once Obama opened the door, the Clinton campaign would be poised to take it from there, to capitalize on that promise and complete the transformation. But
something unexpected happened on the way to global government: a grassroots rebellion and an act of God of magnificent proportions. A comparison of the plat- forms of the two political parties reveals the depth of division between them. But what those documents do not show is the depth of resentment of the men and women in the flyover zones who felt their country was being ripped from their fin- gers and their moral heritage was being squandered. Neither party and few mainstream pundits had recognized the tension building up in Middle America. Consequently Trump’s victory led to a wave of outrage from the Left followed by a massive campaign of resistance and retaliation. Even before the inauguration the liberal media were in full Terminator mode. There were vitriolic attacks on the president-elect like nothing we had ever seen. I will take a closer look at this development in a later chapter, but it would be foolish indeed to ignore the unprecedented hostility that began rising all around us. THE UNPATRIOTIC RESISTANCE Democrats had hoped to win back the House and the Senate as part of Clinton’s inevitable White House win, but, in fact, they managed to lose all three. So no
one is really surprised the Democrats would react to Donald Trump’s victory with alarm. Their agenda and their cushy appointed jobs in the government were being threatened for the first time in a decade, or maybe two, and that was enough to make them a bit crazy. Even more extraordinary was the level of hatred spewing from Clinton’s supporters in every corner of the country, not only in Washington, but also in New York, Hollywood, and many other places across the fruited plain. Faced with an overwhelmingly negative press, vulgar broadsides by the sitting president and members of Congress, insults by celebrities, and stereotyping by the media as a racist and bigot, Donald Trump knew he faced a difficult race. He would need a way to fight back, and he found it with Twitter, the news and social- networking service that allows users to post short comments of up to 140 char- acters to their online followers—in Trump’s case, that would be thirty-five million followers on @realDonaldTrump. Later he would add another twenty million fol- lowers on @POTUS, and Twitter would become Donald Trump’s direct link to the American people. Hollywood actress Meryl Streep carried the banner for the celebrity Trump haters in her acceptance speech at the Golden Globe Awards in January 2017,
calling for organized resistance to the Trump presidency. Without calling him by name, she painted the president as a heartless racist and bigot. Never one to dodge a fight, however, Trump tweeted in response to Streep’s Golden Globes tirade, “Meryl Streep, one of the most over-rated actresses in Hollywood, doesn’t know me but attacked last night at the Golden Globes. She is a . . . ”¹¹ and stopped short, leaving it for his followers to fill in the blank. Meghan McCain, daughter of the 2008 Republican nominee, went on defense for the president and tweeted that Streep’s speech provided a perfect example of why Trump won. “And if people in Hollywood don’t start recognizing why and how,” she said, “you will help him get re-elected.”¹² Name-calling by celebrities is one thing, but name-calling by a former pres- ident constitutes another matter, and Barack Obama—whose tasteless jibes at Trump during the 2011 White House Correspondents’ Dinner may have helped persuade Trump to make his bid for the presidency¹³—has not been greatly con- cerned about precedent or decorum. By longstanding tradition, former presidents do not criticize their successors. Bush never did, but Obama has referred to his successor as a liar, using a vulgar slur I can’t repeat.¹⁴ But even that appears
insignificant compared with the diatribes routinely leveled at Trump by the likes of representatives Nancy Pelosi, Elijah Cummings, Maxine Waters, and Sen. Chuck Schumer and their like-minded cohorts in the House and Senate. The bitterness on display in the halls of Congress and in hundreds of cities and towns feels disheartening. I think this kind of behavior displays a warning sign of what’s to come if the Christian consensus in this country continues its decades- old decline. While we expect our political adversaries to disagree with us on cer- tain issues, our leaders shouldn’t have to face unrestrained hatred and violence every day. But what has been most surprising over the past eighteen months is the hos- tility and vocal resistance to the Trump presidency posed by the substantial group of Republican and Libertarian journalists known as “Never-Trumpers.” Columnist George Will, an outspoken Never-Trumper, said in one televised dia- tribe that he would resign his membership in the Republican Party if Donald Trump became the nominee, which Will did.¹⁵ Former presidential candidates John McCain and Mitt Romney constantly criti- cized Trump from the time he entered the race, even accusing him of collusion
with the Russians and interfering with Justice Department investigations. At least three of the Republican candidates Trump defeated in the primary—John Kasich, Ted Cruz, and Jeb Bush—along with Jeb’s father and brother (Bush forty-one and Bush forty-three), have spoken out against Trump. Many in his own Republican Party, not just the Democrats, were working to de- stroy him. He didn’t have the ground game that Clinton had. He was far behind on fundraising and had minimal staff to work on solving these problems. A Trump campaign insider told me during a private conversation that major Repub- lican National Committee donors met several times with party hierarchy to figure out how they could derail the Trump campaign. Clearly Trump needed a miracle to overcome all the resistance, and the fact that the media caught its collective hair on fire every time he tweeted something outlandish only made the challenge that much greater. In all fairness Trump’s tweets about his opponents during the campaign were often offensive, and some viewed him as a bully. But many others were delighted by Trump’s attacks, exposing his political enemies. Weekly Standard editor at large Bill Kristol said in a tweet that if he were forced to choose between loyalty to Trump and joining with the gang of government
bureaucrats working undercover to embarrass and cripple the president, he would side with the “deep state.”¹⁶ In other words, he would choose treason over party loyalty. Until recently few in the general public knew the term deep state. Basically these are the government bureaucrats who run the government out of public view—the government that doesn’t change no matter which party holds power. The bureaucracy, the lobbyists, the insiders, the establishment, and even the intelligence agencies are involved. Even if most Americans are unaware of these men and women, they know intu- itively that something is wrong with the way the government operates. When Trump ad-libbed on the campaign trail that he was going to “drain the swamp,” he was talking about the permanent bureaucracy and the deep state, and the crowds erupted in cheers. Finally someone was going to deal with the unac- countable cadre that looks out after its own interests rather than the interests of the American people. For many years only right-wing political conspiracy theorists talked about the deep state. The Washington establishment and the left-leaning media ignored it because, as they said repeatedly, that was just right-wing conspiracy talk. Now,
however, everyone knows that US intelligence agencies were eavesdropping on Trump’s campaign and giving information to the press and the Clinton campaign. Leaks from intelligence sources in the NSA, CIA, FBI, and Department of State were given to the press to help destroy the Trump campaign. If these weren’t obstacles enough, Trump’s campaign was threatened by wide- scale election fraud. Illegal voting has become a standard campaign strategy in major cities where Democrats control the voting process. This issue is only get- ting worse and making it more difficult for Republican candidates to win in the swing states, particularly in the Midwest. I’ve heard some experts suggest that if there had been no illegal voting in the 2016 election, Trump would have also won the popular vote and possibly added more states to his electoral college total. When you add all this up, it makes Trump’s victory even more miraculous. The whole entrenched political system—including both political parties, the media, academia, covert corporate interests, and the deep state—was against him and created a roadblock to the White House, yet he won. Meanwhile notorious antidemocratic groups such as MoveOn.org, funded by Hungarian billionaire and former Nazi collaborator George Soros, were on the warpath.¹⁷ A laundry list of self-styled anarchist cells and racially motivated groups such as Black Lives Matter and UnidosUS (formerly called La Raza), along with rent-a-mob organizations and union thugs, were on the march, intimi- dating conservative gatherings, congressional town hall meetings, and even Christian churches. By stalking conservatives, screaming vulgar epithets, and threatening physical violence, these groups have been able to subvert the natural course of government and violate the rights of citizens to participate in the polit- ical process. All together such activity represents a dangerous—and I would add demonic—attempt to undermine free speech and our most basic freedoms. THE MEDIA’S LOSS OF CREDIBILITY We would like to think that public disapproval of such tactics would be a hot topic in the media. We would like to think the newsrooms of America would be ablaze with impassioned defenders of free speech unmasking the villains and cry- ing out for justice. But that hasn’t happened. We can no longer trust the main- stream media to give us a “fair and balanced” account of political events. Instead it has become only too clear that the mainstream media stands on the other side.
If any good news can be found in this scenario, it is that the public is not blind to what has been happening. They’ve been watching, and they’re not buying every- thing they’re told. Shortly after the election in November 2016 a Media Research Center (MRC) poll of more than two thousand adults found that, even as they fanned the flames of controversy, the mainstream media managed to alienate virtually every polit- ically active American. The survey found that 78 percent of respondents thought that media coverage of the 2016 presidential campaign was biased, 69 percent believed the news media were not “honest and truthful,” and 59 percent said the media were biased in favor of Hillary Clinton, while just 21 percent said the media were biased in favor of Trump. But perhaps most telling was the fact that fully 97 percent of registered US voters in the survey said they did not let the media bias influence their vote.¹⁸ In other words, for them the media had already lost all credibility. It’s hardly surprising the voters lost confidence. Across the board, in broad- cast, print, and electronic coverage of the campaign, the media had already cho- sen their candidate, and it was not Donald Trump. Meanwhile, in October, just
warpath.¹⁷ A laundry list of self-styled anarchist cells and racially motivated groups such as Black Lives Matter and UnidosUS (formerly called La Raza), along with rent-a-mob organizations and union thugs, were on the march, intimidating conservative gatherings, congressional town hall meetings, and even Christian churches. By stalking conservatives, screaming vulgar epithets, and threatening physical violence, these groups have been able to subvert the natural course of government and violate the rights of citizens to participate in the political process. All together such activity represents a dangerous—and I would add demonic—attempt to undermine free speech and our most basic freedoms.
THE MEDIA’S LOSS OF CREDIBILITY
We would like to think that public disapproval of such tactics would be a hot topic in the media. We would like to think the newsrooms of America would be ablaze with impassioned defenders of free speech unmasking the villains and crying out for justice. But that hasn’t happened. We can no longer trust the mainstream media to give us a fair and balanced
account of political events. Instead it has become only too clear that the mainstream media stands on the other side.
If any good news can be found in this scenario, it is that the public is not blind to what has been happening. They’ve been watching, and they’re not buying everything they’re told.
Shortly after the election in November 2016 a Media Research Center (MRC) poll of more than two thousand adults found that, even as they fanned the flames of controversy, the mainstream media managed to alienate virtually every politically active American. The survey found that 78 percent of respondents thought that media coverage of the 2016 presidential campaign was biased, 69 percent believed the news media were not honest and truthful,
and 59 percent said the media were biased in favor of Hillary Clinton, while just 21 percent said the media were biased in favor of Trump. But perhaps most telling was the fact that fully 97 percent of registered US voters in the survey said they did not let the media bias influence their vote.¹⁸ In other words, for them the media had already lost all credibility.
It’s hardly surprising the voters lost confidence. Across the board, in broadcast, print, and electronic coverage of the campaign, the media had already chosen their candidate, and it was not Donald Trump. Meanwhile, in October, just twenty-nine days before the election, then Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly re- ported that at least three media organizations had “ordered their employees to destroy Donald Trump,” and he was “100 percent convinced” the order was not merely rhetorical.¹⁹ An Investor’s Business Daily/TIPP Poll conducted in September 2016 found very similar results to the MRC study, showing that more than two-thirds of regis- tered voters (67 percent) believed the media’s reports on the candidates were inaccurate, while only a quarter of respondents trusted the accuracy of news sto- ries. Slightly less than half of voters felt the media were being too easy on the Democratic candidate, and only 16 percent said the media had been too tough on her. And most telling, more than two-thirds of Americans (69 percent) said the news media wields too much influence on the election process.²⁰ In reality Trump’s defeat of Clinton’s weak campaign should not have come as a surprise to anyone. Her negative numbers were enormous, and her history of scandals was all too familiar to the voters. In short, the Democrats could not have given themselves a worse candidate. When she started her presidential cam- paign, Clinton believed she had already won the race. She wrapped up the East
Coast, from Maine to Virginia, with the exception of little New Hampshire. She had promises of 97 electoral votes from her Democratic base. On the West Coast, from California to Washington state, she was guaranteed another 74 elec- toral votes. With 171 votes out of the required 270, Clinton was convinced she had the election locked up when she launched her campaign.²¹ In contrast, there were a lot fewer solid Republican states that Trump could count on. Chances are he would win the South, from Kentucky to Texas, and probably Kansas. The big question was the swing states, mostly in the Midwest, which in times past had been a Democratic stronghold. In recent elections if the Democratic candidate won either Ohio or Florida, he went on to win the presi- dency. By all rights Clinton should have won. The numbers were all on her side. Who would have imagined that Trump could win not only Florida and Ohio but also Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. It was politically unthinkable. Of course the media went along with all this, showing Clinton’s road to victory but never Trump’s road to victory. Even when it became obvious Trump had won, the networks were reporting that Clinton still had some sort of path to reach 270 electoral votes. It’s difficult to imagine the insularity that exists in America’s newsrooms, but that’s a dilemma conservatives and Evangelicals have wrestled with ever since I worked in newsrooms back in the 1970s. In a post-election col- umn in the New York Times journalist Jim Rutenberg admitted that the media missed the boat. They failed to capture “the boiling anger of a large portion of the American electorate that feels left behind by a selective recovery.” He said he was amazed at how often “the news media has missed the populist movements that have been rocking national politics since at least 2008.”²² The media have been challenged repeatedly, and countless polls show the lev- els of public dissatisfaction. Furthermore, the success of Fox News, Breitbart, the Drudge Report, Infowars, and other conservative news outlets, including my own Charisma News, ought to have given them a clue they were betting on the wrong horse. But clearly there exists a blind spot in the media’s worldview. The re- porters, editors, and bureau chiefs who fashion the headlines are opinionated and unwilling to change their bad habits. Apparently nothing short of a miracle will ever change that. A poll conducted by the liberal Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Pub- lic Policy at Harvard reported that coverage of Donald Trump during the election
run-up was overwhelmingly negative. While the authors of the study suggested that coverage of the Clinton campaign seemed equally negative, their own study doesn’t support that conclusion.²³ The numbers speak for themselves. 
The Shorenstein Center’s analysis of reporting on the presidential debates
reveals how one-sided the mainstream media’s coverage had been. So-called objective reporting on Trump by all ten of the major national news organizations was overwhelmingly negative, even at Fox News, which is commonly thought to be the only “conservative network.” More than 70 percent of Fox’s coverage was negative while less than 30 percent was somewhat positive. And much of the positive reporting came from the network’s three outspoken commentators, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Tucker Carlson. The Shorenstein Center’s charts illustrate what an uphill struggle the Trump campaign was in for. With so much negative press and attacks from members of both parties, how did Trump win? A comment from a longtime friend of Trump’s at the election night party at the New York Hilton may provide the answer. As we waited the long hours and watched the election returns on the TV screens set up around the ball- room, a wealthy businessman standing close to me said (a couple of hours be- fore the election was called for Trump), “If the results show that Trump wins, that proves there is a God.” Reason: “If Donald Trump wins, it will be a miracle!” And that’s what Christians had been praying for