The biggest piece of news this week so far is the indictment of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. While his indictment shouldn’t come as a surprise given that Mueller leaked that they would be filing charges on someone the previous Friday (which is illegal, by the way), and given that Manafort’s home was raided months prior by the FBI, something like this shouldn’t really be a big shocker.
 
But do you want to know what’s funny about this entire ordeal? IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ELECTION! Do you want to know what the charges are? Conspiracy against the United States, even though there’s not even a single mention of Russian collusion. It talks about Manafort and Gates lying to the FBI about having worked with the Ukranian government, which leads to the following charges: Conspiracy to launder money and Failure to file reports of foreign bank and financial accounts for calendar years 2011-2014.
 
That’s it. There’s nothing about Russian collusion. Manafort and Gates aren’t even being CHARGED for it, but the Left still wants to pretend that’s what it’s about because Mueller was the one who pulled the trigger on this.
 
As a reminder, Mueller is investigating Trump, Russia and the 2016 Presidential election. The only reason Manafort and Gates are being indicted with this is because of their ties to Trump. Manafort was his former campaign chairman before Kelly Ann Conway and Gates was a “deputy campaign manager”, according to Fox News.
 
Despite of what they may or may not have done, there’s no doubt that the biggest reason they were indicted is because of their ties to Trump. And, to the MSM, this will seem as an effort to prove Russian collusion and would ultimately lead to the impeachment of Trump… but they are very wrong about that.
 
The official charges written by Mueller’s special counsel don’t even mention Russia. The charges aren’t for Russian collusion. And the only time the number “2016” is used is as a timeline for the money laundering charges they have on Manafort and Gates. There’s nothing on the election because there’s no evidence of collusion.
 
But Mueller saw some people calling for his resignation coming from the Left and he decided to pull the trigger on something. Anything to make himself look good, at least for now, in the eyes of the Left. Even though this has nothing to do with Trump, the Left and the MSM will see it as a step towards impeaching him, even though this won’t lead to anything of the sort.
 
But the MSM will take anything they can get. They’ve successfully convinced their viewers and readers that this indictment is about Russian collusion. But upon doing even a little bit of research, I found that this has nothing to do about the election. Unfortunately, many people won’t do research. They will be convinced this is about collusion, even though it’s clearly not.
 
I’ve seen trolls on pro-Trump pages saying things like: “Are you Trump supporters starting to s**t in your pants?” Even though this has nothing to do with Trump, Russia or the election, these people are convinced this will lead to the impeachment of Trump. This won’t even come close to that.
 
Do you want to know why Manafort’s indictment will backfire on the Left? Because this will be an example of them hyping something up, creating fake news, and disappointing their base. This won’t lead to impeachment as they hope. This will hardly even be a big deal by the end of next week. This doesn’t bring them one step closer to impeaching Trump because it has nothing to do with him, Russia or the election.
 
But they’ve reached this point of desperation. With Harvey Weinstein being exposed as a serial rapist, the Uranium One deal being a big talking point last week since it has ties to the Clintons and Obama, they needed ANYTHING to be happy about. Like a fan of a terrible sports team, they were hoping to have SOMETHING to cheer about while they get blown out.
 
They will take this very miniscule victory and make it a far bigger deal than it really is. They will hype this up as the beginning of the end for Trump and then they will fail to deliver on that promise. Just like they failed to stop Trump from becoming the Republican nominee, just like they failed to stop Trump from becoming President, they will also fail at impeaching Trump.
 
They’ve found no evidence of collusion for months now and they never will find any evidence of collusion. This doesn’t get them any closer to finding evidence of collusion. This doesn’t get them any closer to their dream of impeaching Trump. This will ultimately lead to a massive letdown for the Leftist base. It’s just another example of fake news.
 
They will celebrate for a very short time until they realize this won’t lead to anything of substance for them. Sure, Manafort and Gates are being targeted and prosecuted, but this won’t lead to anything more than that because of the charges set before them.
 
No matter what happens with Manafort or Gates, Trump won’t be affected in the least. His presidency isn’t at stake. The Left isn’t any closer to finding collusion. They’re not even closer to impeaching Trump. This certainly won’t even be the vaunted “First Step” the Left hopes it will be.
 
However, this could backfire even more for the Left than they realize. The indictment of Manafort and Gates could be the trigger for Trump to order Sessions to go after the Clintons and Obama for their involvement in the Uranium One deal. Or Hillary’s e-mail scandal. Or Obama’s fast and furious scandal. Or Benghazi. And/or every illegal thing the Democrats have done over this century.
 
Of course, I don’t know if Trump will do that. I don’t know if he will order Sessions to do it. But if there ever was a time or even one more reason to do it (other than delivering justice) this would be it. If anything, this might lead to the eventual indictment of the Clintons and/or Barack Obama.
 
So the Left can pretend this is a huge victory for them. Reality will hit them harder than a ton of bricks.
 
It’s coming too. According to Fox News: “Tony Podesta, the brother of Hillary Clinton’s former campaign chairman, John Podesta, has resigned from his lobbying firm amid reports he is under scrutiny from Special Counsel Robert Mueller.” This means that the Special Counsel is investigating him too.
 
I may have been too generous when I said that this would hardly be a big deal by the end of next week. We’ll see if this is even somewhat relevant by the end of THIS week.
 
Isaiah 40:31
“But they who wait for the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings like eagles; they shall run and not be weary; they shall walk and not faint.”

The Left simply can’t let go of this argument. It’s the only one they have to go on. They are too stubborn to admit they lost to Trump. And with GOP leaders announcing their plan to end their investigations into the election, the MSM wants to continue the fight that was born of nothing and will lead to nothing.
 
There’s a story on Politico with the following title: “GOP eyes end of Russia probes with Trump collusion unanswered.” It’s already been answered! THERE WAS NO COLLUSION! If there was, at least ONE piece of evidence would’ve surfaced by now given how many people are looking into it. The FBI, Congress, Mueller and MSM have all been looking into it for MONTHS and not a single thing to show for it.
 
The FBI began their investigation due to a b.s. dossier that only NOW has been revealed to the world to be absolutely b.s., Mueller has a team of DEMOCRATS looking into everything Trump has done since he learned to talk, and the MSM has been spending months covering a story that even one CNN producer has admitted to be fake.
 
The entire investigation was fabricated of absolutely nothing and, surprise, surprise, will result in absolutely nothing. But the Left can’t simply end it like that. They refuse to allow this story to die. They CAN’T admit that Trump beat Hillary fair and square and simply MUST reach a conclusion that Trump cheated and asked Russia for help. Hey, even the Politico article says that Trump INTENDED to collude, when that’s entirely false.
 
Let’s go through the important parts of the article:
 
First, the article begins: “Republican lawmakers say they’re approaching the end of their investigations into Russian interference into the 2016 presidential election even though the most politically explosive issue – whether associates of President Donald Trump colluded with the Kremlin – remains unresolved.”
 
The Left has been looking into this fervently and have yet to come up with a single piece of evidence. Either the FBI, members of Congress, Mueller and MSM are all Homer-Simpson-working-at-the-nuclear-plant levels of inept or there simply is nothing there to criminalize Trump for.
 
Next, “Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) has suggested his panel’s investigation will end early next year, emphasizing that he wants to wrap up by February… ‘If there’s evidence that there was something there, that will all be laid out. If there’s no evidence, how could anybody object to it?’ Burr said.”
 
Mr. Burr, the Left will object to it. By the time of your scheduled end to the probes, the Left will have spent nearly a year and a half on this story. If there’s no evidence, they will lose whatever they have left of their minds. To not object to it would surely mean the Left admitting defeat, and they’re simply too arrogant to do that. They were too arrogant in 2000, when Bush won. They are even more arrogant today. At least the 2000 election was close. 2016 was a nuke to the Left.
 
Then the article talks about Democrats wanting to meet with Republican leaders before the probes end and hope to “come to a unified bipartisan conclusion.” Quoting Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): “I think, frankly, it would be a good idea for the four of us (him, Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX) and Burr) to be collaborating as we go along rather than wait until the conclusion of our investigation.”
 
Oh, I don’t doubt that Schiff wants that. Historically, coming to a “bipartisan conclusion” or agreement usually means Republicans caving and Democrats getting their way. If Democrats want a conclusion, it will be one that will somehow result in the impeachment of Trump. They will b.s. harder than they ever have if that’s what it takes.
 
The article later on says: “Schiff and fellow California Rep. Eric Swalwell, two of the most outspoken House Intelligence Committee Democrats, say they too hope for unity but emphasized that despite the absence of a smoking gun, they’ve seen compelling evidence of Trump allies’ ‘intent to collude.’”
 
That’s what they’re down to? Intent? There was never any sort of attempt to collude. No INTENT to collude. This falls under the category of NO EVIDENCE FOR THE PAST 10 MONTHS! Let’s see what the article lists as intent, shall we?
 
First: “There’s the secret meeting with Kremlin-connected Russians that the President’s son, Donald Trump Jr., organized in Trump Tower ostensibly to obtain documents unfavorable to Hillary Clinton, as well as attempts by two Trump business associates to seek Kremlin help for a Trump Tower development in Moscow just as the presidential campaign was beginning to earnest.”
 
Let’s begin with the first part. Attempting to get information about a political opponent is as much a part of politics as the Parties. It’s called “opposition research”, a concept that the Left is very familiar with. Trump Jr. didn’t get anything out of said meeting, anyway. Not to mention that the dossier points to Clinton-Russia ties far more than Trump-Russia ties. If anyone should be under investigation, it should be Hillary. Not just for absolutely everything else that has earned her the name “Crooked Hillary”, but for the dossier as well.
 
The second part is even more ridiculous. What exactly does a Trump Tower development in Moscow have to do with collusion? When you’re in real estate, you have to get permission from the government of wherever you want to build something. He’s had to get permits from New York City, Miami and wherever a Trump Tower is in order to build there. Maybe New York City interfered in the election, if you’re following this logic. Maybe Miami interfered too. Give me a break.
 
Continuing with “examples of intent”: “There are also lingering questions about Trump’s first pick for national security adviser, Mike Flynn, and allegations he secretly assured Russia’s ambassador that Trump would lift Obama-imposed sanctions on Russia. And there’s the mysterious admission by a GOP operative, who claimed connections to the Trump campaign, that he sought help from Russians to expose thousands of emails deleted from Clinton’s private server.”
 
Ok, let’s break those down as well. First, the only reason anyone even knows about Mike Flynn is due to the fact that he was illegally unmasked. Holding a private conversation with someone from Russia about sanctions means nothing. Knowing what Obama has done in the past, lifting certain sanctions would be a good thing. It would strengthen America’s relationship with an enemy state.
 
Finally, the emails. Yes, can’t forget the emails, especially if you’re a Leftist. Try as you might, it’s still there. Never mind the fact that Hillary did hold confidential emails in a private server and proceeded to frantically delete the emails when it was discovered. No, that’s not shady at all. Let’s point to Trump making a JOKE that Russians should look for the emails. THAT is what we should be focused on.
 
Let’s also ignore the fact that the DNC WAS hacked by Russians and they adamantly refused to allow the FBI to look into it and opted to have their own people look into it. Yeah, not shady at all.
 
I can understand why the Left doesn’t want this investigation to come to an end. It’s everything they have. Nothing else has worked thus far and this is the one thing they lie to themselves about that it could work. We conservatives have warehouses-worth of ammunition against any Leftist argument, but the collusion story is one of their last lines of defense.
 
Calling him a racist hasn’t worked, as no one with a brain believes them. Calling him a predator while hiding the hundreds of skeletons in their own closet is laughable. Having an organization call him a fascist as they themselves act like fascists is worthy of a facepalm.
 
The media is no longer seen as trustworthy by the majority of Americans and the slow decent into insanity we’re witnessing by the Left is amusing.
 
They’re losing election after election and show no signs of improvement. They simply can’t allow this investigation to be ended. They can’t lose their story.
 
And no matter what verdict is found on the subject, the Left will always believe with all their being that Trump colluded with Russia. Facts have never mattered to these people, so why should they matter now?
 
But that’s ok. They can keep lying all they want. As long as there are people who speak the truth, the evils of their ways will continue to get exposed.
 
Ephesians 5:13
“But everything exposed by the light becomes visible, for everything that is illuminated becomes a light itself.”

One of the bigger news pieces floating around these days after the big Harvey Weinstein scandal is the fact that Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) announced his retirement from Congress, thus opting to not seek reelection.
 
In his retirement speech, Flake said that “There are times when we must risk our careers in favor of our principles. Now is such a time.” He’s essentially saying that the reason he’s retiring is because he feels as though he would be compromising his “principles” by running as a Republican under “Trump’s Republican party”. Yeah, never mind the fact that he was down by double digits to a candidate that lost to John McCain of all people in 2016. Never mind that he wasn’t going to have a career in Congress come the 2018 midterms anyway.
 
No, it’s compromising his “principles” that has him worried.
 
But why do I specifically mention the Mainstream Media in the headline? Simply because of the title of an article on CNN written by Chris Cillizza: “Jeff Flake just flew a kamikaze mission against Donald Trump.”
 
When was the last time you’ve heard anyone in the MSM write an article about how an opponent of Donald Trump was doomed, seemingly from the beginning? You know what a kamikaze mission is, right? Where a fighter pilot of an aircraft willingly crashes into an enemy, hoping to kill him as well as himself? Do you know why that analogy doesn’t quite work in this scenario? Because Flake’s “kamikaze” mission against Trump would be about as damaging as a fly running into your head, for Trump that is. For Flake, it’s about as damaging as a plane flying into a nuclear reactor.
 
No damage was made to Trump and Flake simply committed political suicide. The intriguing part, however, is that Chris seemingly took notice of the effort and likely result: Jeff’s defeat.
 
Perhaps what’s more intriguing is what Chris wrote at one point in his article. After noting that Steve Bannon is aiding Kelli Ward (the challenger Flake was losing by double digits to), Chris wrote: “It quickly became clear that in a fight between Trump/Bannon and Flake, the senator was going to lose – and lose badly.”
 
Again, when was the last time you’ve seen someone from the MSM admit that Trump would be the clear winner in a fight against an opponent? Up until the last few hours on election night, none of them were ready to report that Hillary would lose and Trump would be elected President of the United States. They wanted to believe there was no way Trump could win until reality hit them like a truck. This is quite possibly the first time we’ve seen someone from the MSM admit that Trump would come out of this fight as the clear winner.
 
The article later says: “This will be touted by the Trump forces as a victory. A chance to get rid of one of the burrs in the President’s saddle. A chance to further destroy the GOP establishment. And maybe it is. There’s little indication that outside of the likes of Flake, Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker and McCain, Flake’s retirement – and the speech he gave announcing it – will have any significant impact on how Republican leaders in the Senate and House react to Trump’s presidency. If anything, they may look to Flake as a cautionary tale of what happens when you publicly cross Trump and his base. If so, Flake will have failed. But he will have failed trying to show his party that, in his mind, following Trump blindly down the path he is heading could lead to the end of the Republican Party as currently compromised.”
 
There’s a decent bit from that quote, but here are the important parts:
 
    1. Chris recognizes that this fight against Flake was another fight against the Republican Establishment and that it’s very clearly a victory for Trump. A part of “draining the swamp”. 
   
    2. Chris recognizes that Flake’s retirement will have little to no effect on other Republicans about Trump’s presidency. He knows that, other than some Republican RINO’s, Flake’s retirement really doesn’t mean much. Flake’s voting record is very down-the-middle Republican. He’s voted conservatively sometimes, knowing something won’t get passed such as Obamacare repeal efforts and voted against his Party in other occasions such as relief efforts for Harvey victims. 
   
      3. Chris recognizes one of the effects of opposing Trump publicly: utter backlash and defeat. Now, he’s not saying Trump is unbeatable and he’s certainly not suggesting that Democrats and people in general shouldn’t oppose him. But he at least pays enough attention to see what happens when someone publicly goes against Trump, particularly someone from the Republican Party. 

      4. Flake is both right and wrong about one thing: the fate of the Republican Party. 
 
What do I mean by the last point? Let’s go back to the quote: “… he will have failed trying to show his party that, in his mind, following Trump blindly down the path he is heading could lead to the end of the Republican Party as currently compromised.” Flake is wrong in that it would mean the end of the Republican Party as a political party, but he’s right in that, as currently compromised, the end of the Republican Party is nigh.
 
When you hear Trump say “drain the swamp”, what exactly do you think he means by that? To me, it means defeating the Washington Establishment that cares only for itself and ignores the will of We the People and giving We the People back control over our country. Part of that process includes defeating not just already-elected Establishment people, but also reforming the Party’s leadership.
 
The Republican Party Jeff Flake fears will cease to exist is the one that’s been promising to repeal Obamacare for 7 years and has yet to deliver on that promise, no matter how many great opportunities they have to do it. The one that, during rallies, sounds super conservative but winds up voting liberal. The one that in one moment promises to defeat Barack Obama swiftly and then does nothing to make it happen.
 
That Republican Party is the one we’ve had to deal with for DECADES! The Republican Party led by the Bush’s, McCain, Romney, Ryan, McConnell and the like. THAT is the Republican Party Flake fears for, THAT is the Party that faces extinction and THAT is the Party that I want to see be destroyed. The Party of Lincoln, the Party of Reagan, the Party of Trump is the one I want in Washington. The one that will actually FIGHT the evil that is the Left and not merely allow them to do as they wish because it means the media won’t get too mad at them.
 
In Trump's Republican Party, there is no room for Establishment RINO’s (Republicans In Name Only, in case you didn’t know). In Trump's Republican Party, we only accept those who are willing to fight the Left and their anti-American ways. We don’t accept those who would undermine the Presidential administration that wants to Make America Great Again.
 
To use the ever-popular phrase: “You are either with us, or against us.” There’s no middle-ground here. If you’re against Trump and what he stands for, you’re siding with the Left. No other way around it. And if you’re siding with the Left, you’re ultimately siding with evil.
 
Romans 8:31
“What then shall we say in response to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?”

Ever since Trump became president, the Left have whined and moaned that he somehow cheated to get elected and that he collaborated with Russia to beat Hillary in the election. We’ve known it was utter b.s. for a long time now, but now we’re starting to see the real scandal surrounding the election.
 
No, Russia didn’t do anything to alter the election results, but that hasn’t stopped the DNC from accusing Trump of collusion with a dossier. You know the one, right? The Russian dossier that says Russia and Trump were working together for 5 years (a ridiculous claim), that Russia had been giving Trump information on Hillary for 5 years (an even more ridiculous claim, considering we didn’t know who was going to be the nominees of the parties back then), oh, and that Trump hired prostitutes to pee on a bed in a presidential suite that the Obamas used once.
 
The ridiculous dossier, as it turns out, was FUNDED BY THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN AND DNC! And what’s the media doing? What they always do whenever the Democrats do something terrible: ignore it and try to redirect the blame on Republicans.
 
The Daily Caller talks about how many people in the media are trying to falsely claim the GOP funded the dossier first and, with one person in particular saying to the POTUS in a tweet: “… your son, son-in-law, and campaign manager met with Russians claiming to have dirt on Clinton.” So Clinton trying to spread b.s. dirt on Trump is fine but meeting with Russians (who didn’t have anything and never did) is treason?
 
Do you know what that b.s. dossier led to? THE ENTIRE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION BY THE FBI! Comey said that the dossier was the basis for the investigation. Now, knowing that the DNC funded the dossier, we know FOR SURE that the investigation will lead nowhere. Granted, we’ve known that for a long time now. But knowing the DNC funded the basis for the investigation completely kills the efforts made by the FBI, MSM and special counsel for the past 10 MONTHS!
 
So now it’s clear to everyone who has an ear to hear that the Russian investigation is based on nothing of substance. However, that doesn’t mean there wasn’t some sort of collusion between a former candidate and Russia.
 
No, there was no collusion in the election. There was no hack or anything of the sort. There was, however, collusion between Hillary Clinton, her husband Bill, as well as the then-president Obama and Russia: in a little deal called THE URANIUM ONE DEAL! Unsurprisingly, this is not something being talked about by the media. But The Hill wrote a story on it.
 
The title: “FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration approved controversial nuclear deal with Moscow.”
 
The article is very detailed, but Breitbart made sure to highlight key factors about the Uranium One deal.
 
According to Breitbart: “The Hill reported last week that ahead of the deal, the FBI had uncovered ‘substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering’ to expand Russia’s nuclear footprint in the U.S. as early as 2009. The agency also found that Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. to benefit the Clinton Foundation…”
 
Later on, they focus a bit more on the Clinton Foundation: “The Clinton Foundation took big bucks from Uranium investors. According to the Times, the Clinton Foundation received $2.35 million in donations from Ian Telfer, a mining investor who was also the chairman of Uranium One when Rosatom (a Russian company) acquired it. It also received $31.3 million and a pledge for $100 million more from Frank Giustra, the Canadian mining financier whose company merged with Uranium One.”
 
It’s clear to me and to anyone who reads this that there is more collusion between the Clintons and Russia than between Trump and Russia. That there’s more collusion between Obama and Russia than Trump and Russia.
 
Friends, THIS is the real Russian collusion story. This just helps put the Clintons in a far darker light than they ever were before. That, alongside the fact that they, along with the DNC, helped fund that b.s. dossier that accuses Trump of collusion with Russia.
 
If there was an award for “biggest crook”, that award would have to be shared amongst Obama, the Clintons and the DNC. Do you see why Trump won? Ignore the fact that millions of people felt as though they were losing the country and Trump offered them hope for a better future and is thus far delivering on it. It’s not just that Trump was heavily favored by many Americans, it’s also that Hillary was INSANELY CROOKED!
 
The Clintons live and breathe corruption. Everything that they’ve done up to this point has been corrupted. Hillary was a corrupt Secretary of State, why else would she try so diligently to get rid of tens of thousands of emails and wipe the server that contained them clean? She was also a crooked candidate, screwing over Bernie Sanders by making it utterly impossible for him to be the Democrat nominee. She is a crooked politician who takes money from foreign governments in exchange for favors.
 
The Democrat Party is probably the most corrupt political party the world’s ever seen. And like the propagandists they are, the Mainstream Media chooses to ignore the Left’s corruption and instead tries to accuse their opponents of being corrupt.
 
Knowing all of this, I hope AG Jeff Sessions is useful at least one more time for Trump as opposed to just kinda being there and launches an investigation on the Clinton Foundation, the Obamas and the Democrat Party.
 
Those people deserve to go to jail.
 
James 3:16
“For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice.”

It’s nothing new to know that when a liberal man does something nice for women, they get praised. It’s also not new to know that when a conservative man does the same, he gets criticized and is labeled a sexist.
 
What exactly am I talking about here? The double-standard that exists when a conservative man and liberal man both treat a woman with care and respect, yet the conservative guy gets bashed and liberal guy gets praised.
 
A story on the Daily Wire depicts the time when former “Friends” star David Schwimmer was interviewed by a female critic. The title: “David Schwimmer Did Something Awesome To Make A Female Critic Feel Comfortable. The Media Cheer Him. So Why Did They Target Mike Pence?”
 
It begins: “On Tuesday, critic Nell Minow revealed a little-known story about former Friends star David Schwimmer – a story that shows how classy Schwimmer is, and how hypocritical the Leftists in the media are… Schwimmer was doing a press junket for his film ‘Poynter’. She was supposed to interview Schwimmer in the bar of the hotel, but it was too loud, so Schwimmer offered to do the interview in his room.”
 
According to Indy 100 (the source for the Daily Wire article): “Perhaps realizing that this might be an uncomfortable and potentially dangerous situation for a woman, Schwimmer added that he could guarantee that a third person would be present in the room… Nell didn’t feel threatened and declined Schwimmer’s offer but appreciated the star’s sensitivity and consideration.”
 
Schwimmer clearly did the right thing. He offered a better place to have the interview and made sure that his female critic didn’t feel threatened or in danger, and thus offered that a third party be present with them to alleviate the critic. I praise him for it, as does the media. Particularly given the Harvey Weinstein bombshell that hit Hollywood a couple of weeks ago.
 
However, at this point you may be asking “where’s the double-standard you were talking about earlier?” Well, for that, let’s continue with the Daily Wire article.
 
The article, after praising Schwimmer themselves, continues with: “Flash back to April. Vice President Mike Pence found himself raked over the coals for the sin of stating that he would not dine alone with a woman not his wife, or attend functions at which drinking took place without his wife present.”
 
Pretty noble, if I dare say so myself. He makes sure to respect women by not dining alone with them without his wife present and refuses to go anywhere that might include drinking if his wife wasn’t with him there either. He doesn’t want to make his female counterpart feel nervous or scared. He doesn’t want to run the risk of hurting someone else by requiring himself to be with his wife at such events.
 
He’s quite the gentleman, isn’t he? Worthy of at least a thumbs up or an approving nod if you can’t bring yourself to say something nice about the VP, right? Wrong, apparently.
 
According to the Los Angeles Times: “If professional women and men cannot be alone together, women are the ones who will pay a price. They will not have the kind of mentoring that promotes workplace advancement. They will not develop the same kinds of relationships with bosses that their male colleagues do. They will lose out. ‘I believe this is gender discrimination,’ said Kim Elsesser, 52, a UCLA lecturer on gender and psychology who founded a proprietary quantitative hedge fund at Morgan Stanley after graduation from Vassar and MIT.”
 
And according to The Atlantic: “When men avoid professional relationships with women, even if for noble reasons, it actually hurts women in the end.”
 
Yep, Mike Pence is discriminating against women when he prefers to not make them feel unsafe, but Schwimmer is a perfect gentleman when he does the same. Not to take anything away from Schwimmer - his actions were praise-worthy. But when a conservative man wishes to respect women in that particular manner, why is it considered sexist?
 
There’s not just a conservative-liberal double-standard, but also a man-woman double-standard. In the Times article, the author talks about men and women not being able to be alone together affecting the woman but not the man. But that’s only assuming that the man is the mentor and the woman the mentee. What if the roles are reversed? What if a 20-something year old guy wants to be mentored by, say, Jennifer Aniston and she says no? Is that discrimination against the guy? Of course not!
 
The Left makes victims of women, so they are the only ones that can be discriminated against. Same thing happens when race is involved. So there’s a double-standard to how they react when a guy is “discriminated against” and when a woman is “discriminated against.”
 
It’s the same (though slightly different) when it’s a conservative and a liberal guy. Schwimmer made sure to make the female critic feel safe and was praised for it (as he should be), but when Pence says he doesn’t want to be alone with a woman other than his wife and wants to be a perfectly fine gentleman, he’s bashed and attacked for “discriminating against women.”
 
The Daily Wire summed it up perfectly: “If they participate in precisely the same behavior, religious conservatives do it because they’re supposedly sexist, and secular Leftists do it because they’re supposedly glorious and caring.”
 
It doesn’t surprise me that the media reacted the way they did about Pence’s decision to be A GOOD GUY. He will never be a good guy in their eyes. Everything he does must be for a malicious reason, even if it’s clearly not. He could donate baskets of muffins to a children’s hospital and they would think he’s poisoning the muffins and killing sick children.
 
It’s beyond the Isaiah 5:20 verse about people calling evil “good” and good “evil”. It’s people calling good “good” only when a liberal does it but calling it “evil” when a conservative does it.
 
To the Left, anything we ever do is considered evil. Why else do you think those college students I talked about last week thought Trump’s plan was bad before they even heard it? They thought it was going to be bad simply because it had the word “Trump” next to it. They thought it was going to damage the middle and lower classes and benefit only the rich - a lie that the Leftist media continues to spew no matter what.
 
I don’t expect this to ever end, which is why I added “constant” in the title. I don’t expect the Left to ever come to their senses, admit to their hypocrisy and sinful and evil nature. I’d be the most naïve person in the world to expect as much. But it’s important that I (as well as other conservatives) write articles like these to highlight the hypocrisy and disgust of the Left as much as I can. I may not be able to convince Obama or Hillary to progressively become more conservative, but I can convince people outside the Establishment to be more conservative, and therefore, be closer to Christ.
 
And in the end, that’s really the main goal of this site. To tell you the Truth and call out lies, deceit and overall evil in the world.
 
Ephesians 2:8
“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God.”

It isn’t uncommon for former presidents to wish to continue doing things in public once they are done being POTUS. Obama has gone back to his “community organizer” days in the hopes to further destroy the country, albeit at a relatively smaller scale (at least in public).
 
Jimmy Carter is no different. After 4 years of being the, then, worst president the country had ever seen, Carter decided to continue to be relevant by creating The Carter Center, a way for him to continue to do things on an international level.
 
And now, he hopes to be sent to North Korea by President Trump to try and alleviate tensions between the two nations. And the way he’s doing it? Appear to be more conservative than he’s ever been... sort of.
 
In an interview with the New York Times, Carter defended the President from the media, saying: “I think the media have been harder on Trump than any other president certainly that I’ve known about. I think they feel free to claim that Trump is mentally deranged and everything else without hesitation.”
 
And that’s not all. The New York Times interviewer asked the former president about many different issues.
 
On North Korea, the largest reason he’s even doing this: “I’m afraid of a situation. I don’t know what they’ll do. Because they want to save their regime. And we greatly overestimate China’s influence on North Korea. Particularly to Kim Jong-un…” He also said that he’s spoken with Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, Trump’s national security adviser, and said to the interviewer: “I told him that I was available if they ever needed me.”
 
On Trump’s “souring our image in the world”, according to the New York Times: “Well, I think he might be escalating it but I think that precedes Trump. The United States has been the dominant character in the whole world and now we’re not anymore. And we’re not going to be. Russia’s coming back and India and China are coming forward.”
 
While I commend Carter’s comments (a sentence I thought I’d never say), I have to also raise a point here. He’s not very optimistic about the country, is he? I think America can go back to being the “dominant character in the whole world”. Why? Because Trump is a lot like Reagan, who MADE America the dominant character in the whole world. When Trump says he wants to Make America Great Again, that’s what he’s talking about: American dominance in the world stage. Yes, Russia is coming back and China (not so sure about India) is growing as well. But I’m certain that we can beat them to return to being the absolute hyper power we were at the fall of the Soviet Union.
 
On Obama: “He made some very wonderful statements, in my opinion (when talking about the Middle East), when he first got in office, and then he reneged on that.” According to the New York Times, Carter “complained that Obama ‘refused’ to talk to North Korea more…”
 
On “Russian collusion” in the election: “I don’t think there’s any evidence that what the Russians did changed enough votes, or any votes.”
 
On Confederate statues: “That’s a hard one for me. My great-grandfather was at Gettysburg on the Southern side and his two brothers were with him in the Sumter artillery… I never have looked on the carvings on Stone Mountain or the statues as being racist in their intent. But I can understand African-Americans’ aversion to them, and I sympathize with them. But I don’t have any objection to them being labeled with explanatory labels or that sort of thing.”
 
On NFL players kneeling: “I think they ought to find a different way to object, to demonstrate. I would rather see all the players stand during the American anthem.”
 
On Trump “deepening racial divisions”, according to the New York Times: “Yes, I think he is exacerbating it. But maybe not deliberately.”
 
While Carter isn’t full-on defending Trump on everything (such as the bogus claim that he’s deepening racial divisions, something Obama is the biggest culprit for), he’s still trying to make himself out to be a bit more likable to Trump, while not completely abandoning his Leftist ways.
 
However, there are some problems with that. First, HE ALREADY TRIED THE NORTH KOREA THING! Not in recent times, mind you. No, he tried it in 1994. You know, the year the U.S. made a deal with the Norks that eventually led to North Korea building nukes? Yeah, that one. He’s already royally screwed up one deal with the communist nation, why would we send him again? We’d be better off selling Dennis Rodman to Little Rocket Man in exchange for peace. (Yes, I’m aware Rodman is black. No, this isn’t a race thing. Relax, potential liberal reader if there are any).
 
Secondly, it’s painfully obvious that he’s just selling himself to the President. While he may truly believe the things he said about the way the media treats Trump and that NFL players should stand and look to protest another way, his end-goal is clear: do something somewhat relevant this millennium. Ok, maybe that’s a bit harsh, but it’s the truth. The only reason he did this interview is so that Trump would consider sending him to North Korea for peace talks simply because he doesn’t hate Trump as much as everyone else.
 
Lastly, negotiations aren’t going anywhere. Little Rocket Man hasn’t fired a nuke yet because 1), they’re absolutely screwed if they dare do anything of the sort and 2) they don’t want to tick off China. China has said that if North Korea attacks first and the U.S. retaliates, they will not interfere AKA they will allow North Korea to be utterly destroyed. But China doesn’t want that. If North Korea falls, especially to the U.S., it means one less communist state in the world, and one less communist puppet in the world.
 
So with all that, there’s absolutely no reason for Trump to send Carter to North Korea. Not to mention that Carter could be captured, made a political prisoner, and be forced to reveal sensitive info about the country. It’s safer for everyone, including Carter, if Trump denies Carter’s request.
 
Not to mention that the interview was an obvious façade. Like I said, the point of the interview was not to get on Trump’s good side, but to try to go to North Korea, try to fix that hot mess and be relevant at least once in the last 20 years - he just has to actually make the effort to be liked by Trump. Earlier I said that he may truly believe the things he’s saying, but it’s just as possible that he DOESN’T believe those things. He’s a Leftist and a life-long member of the Establishment. I don’t trust those snakes. While his intentions may not be malevolent, I still wouldn’t trust Carter no matter what he says.
 
John 2:24-25
“But Jesus on His part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people and needed no one to bear witness about man, for He Himself knew what was in man.”

I believe there’s a bit of conservatism within all of us who are not in the Establishment. I remember seeing a tweet by basketball superstar LeBron James that came off as rather conservative, saying that the Golden State Warriors (who are worth roughly $2.6 billion, according to Forbes) should be able to use however amount of money they want in the NBA’s free agency period BECAUSE they’re worth so much. Unfortunately, the NBA only allows teams to use a certain amount of “cap space” to sign players and their worth as teams don’t matter.
 
I’d say that’s a rather conservative tweet coming from a largely Leftist athlete. Why? Because conservatism involves COMMON SENSE! However, LeBron’s tweet isn’t the topic of today’s article. The topic of the article is what was discovered by a journalist working for CampusReform.org. The journalist went to George Washington University to ask some students how they felt about Trump’s tax plan.
 
Initially, they were all against it. None of them knew what was in it, but because it has Trump’s name attached to it, they think it’s a heartless, cold tax plan that will benefit the rich at the expense of the middle and lower classes. The students said things along the lines of: “It’s better for the upper class than for anyone else.” As well as: “It’s probably not the most efficient nor beneficial to the general populous.” They all felt negative towards Trump’s plan, having never heard it… then, they heard it just not the way they thought they would.
 
The journalist then told the students: “So, Bernie Sanders came out with his plan. Some people are calling it a ‘compassionate alternative’”, and then, he told them the details of TRUMP’S plan. “First, one of ‘Bernie Sanders’ plans is to increase the Child Tax Credits, which is tax money given back to families when they have children.” That was just the FIRST part of the plan.
 
When asked how they felt about that part, the students all felt POSITIVE about it. One said: “Parents who have children go through a lot… getting money back really helps the children.” And another saying: “I think that’s great.”
 
Then, the journalist detailed the second part of the plan, which is to eliminate the Death Tax, a tax that takes some money from those who die by taxing their estate and such things, while the rest would go to the family. This way, the family keeps ALL of the benefits during their time of grief. When asked about this particular point, the students reacted the same as with the previous one. They loved it.
 
“I think that’s definitely something that we should be doing.”, said one of the students. “I think that’s a good idea because I’m from New Jersey and we used to have like a really heavy inheritance tax.”, said another.

Then, the journalist reveals part 3 of the plan, which is to lower small business rates to a maximum of 25%. This means that small businesses can’t be taxed more than 25% on what they make. And THIS ONE is really the one that students should’ve realized that this was not Bernie’s plan. Bernie would NEVER try to lower taxes for any sort of business because he’s a communist lunatic who thinks capitalism and competition are evil and bad for people.
 
And yet, the students also reacted positively to that part as well. With one of them saying: “My family has a small business, so I would definitely think that’s a positive.” And, perhaps my favorite comment: “Taxing them less makes more sense.” What did I tell you? There’s a bit of conservatism within all of us simply because it involves common sense.
 
Finally, he asks the students if they think “Bernie” did a good job with this tax plan, and they all think he did, indeed, do a good job, with one of them saying: “I think it’s pretty good. Definitely better than whatever Trump is proposing.” … and then, comes the reveal. He says “What if I told you that this is actually Trump’s tax plan, not Bernie’s”. And that simply leaves them stunned.
 
With one of them saying: “I am shocked that I do agree with Trump on certain things.” And another saying: “I’m definitely happily surprised that it sounds a lot better than I would’ve expected it to.”
 
They were all shocked to see it, with another one saying: “I would’ve imagined he would be a little more stupid than that.” And then the same student says that she doesn’t think it’s a stupid plan.
 
Then the students reflect back on their initial feelings towards Trump’s plan, now knowing what it is. They realize that, because Trump’s name is attached to it, they would’ve expected it to be some sort of evil scheme to screw everyone in America except for the 1%. To their credit, they realize they were simply being biased against Trump for it, believing the plan was good when they thought it was Bernie’s.
 
And, surprisingly, one of the students said that because people tend to go to one source of media, and they don’t go to others, it’s “tough to get other points of views”. Kudos to that particular student, realizing (at least for that particular moment) that getting news from only one source is not going to get you the whole truth (or any part of the truth at all).
 
Now, I say “at least for that particular moment” because it’s entirely possible that some of them will simply go back to being how they were about everything Trump does and proposes. Some of them might learn to do their research on something before immediately believing the MSM and what other people think of it, but it’s also possible that they will be biased against future Trump proposals simply because of the negative connotation they believe there is with Trump’s name.
 
I certainly do hope that all of these students learn that just because Trump’s name is attached to something it doesn’t mean that it will be a plot for world domination. But it’s refreshing to see at least some shred of conservatism (even if they claim to be hardcore Leftists) within these college students. They know a good tax plan when they see one, but first they actually have to SEE IT as opposed to being told by their favorite politician what is in it.
 
If everyone did research, learned history and found out what exactly the Left proposes, no one would ever vote Democrat. The reason why Democrats win in the first place is because they deceive people into believing that something bad for them will be good and something good for them will be bad.
 
Deceit is the only way the Left can ever win. They can’t win in the realm of ideas because no one would ever back their ideas if people knew what they were. People were deceived into loving Obamacare, when it’s insanely unaffordable and covers things people simply don’t need. It’s a terrible piece of legislation, but people were deceived by the Left into thinking it was great and affordable.
 
If people actually knew what was in the bill, they would want it repealed immediately. It’s the whole issue about wicked people vs. weak people. The wicked lie to the weak. But when told the truth, the weak don’t fall to the wicked and become strong.
 
But that’s a topic for another time. As of now, I will simply delight in the fact that, when people use common sense, they tend to be more conservative, even if they think they’re being liberal.
 
Ephesians 5:6
“Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.”

Linda Bloodworth-Thomason, a T.V. writer, author and filmmaker wrote a story on Hollywood Reporter about the sexual harassment in Hollywood. In her story: “Lessons from Witnessing Four Decades of Harassment in Hollywood”, Linda details stories she’s heard from other women in Hollywood about the sexual harassment history of Hollywood, as well as recounting some of her own. And boy, does she tear into Hollywood.
 
She begins: “I always knew I wanted to be a writer… my first three mentors were Hollywood giants Norman Lear, James L. Brooks and Larry Gelbart… It wasn’t until a few years later that I began to experience sexual harassment – the producer’s hand rubbing my back inside my blouse during meetings; the studio exec who, on my first day, encouraged me to wear a bikini to work… I didn’t know then that this is a man’s town, based mostly on male friendships. Forget those iconic letters that make up the Hollywood sign. It would be much more fitting if there was a giant penis casting a shadow over all the women who tirelessly endeavor to rise above this unpoliced playground for men.”
 
Now, this article is insanely long, so I will forgo a good chunk of it. What’s important to know is that Linda herself has been victim to sexual harassment at the hands of Hollywood people. She also tells the stories of other women who have been victims of sexual harassment. “I remember the revered star of a classic TV crime drama telling me a story about the president of her network. During her show’s final season, this actress was invited to his executive dining room for lunch. When she began to pitch her next series, he told her she was now way too old for his network. She started to cry and got up to go. He stood up, too, took her by the shoulders and said, ‘I’m sorry. I can’t let you leave like this’. She softened, almost forgiving him. Then he shoved his tongue down her throat.”
 
And that’s just one horrifying story of sexual harassment (or abuse, given the ending). She then tells the story of the people in a sitcom demanding that the “youngest, best-looking women show up for work at the crack of dawn wearing tight, revealing shorts.” And that once they discovered that one of the young women was utterly afraid of guns, they “forced her to purchase one and shoot a raccoon that lived on the stage.” And that when Linda called ABC to file a complaint, she discovered that while the producer had lost his job, the star of the show was left “unscathed”.
 
She then goes on to talk about gender inequality and ageism in the entertainment business. That by the time a male Hollywood star retires, roughly 3 generations of female actresses would have played his wife. (It’s important to note she uses Michael Douglas (aged 74) as an example of a male Hollywood star and Blythe Danner, who’s 74, Gwyneth Paltrow, who’s 45, and Apple Martin, who’s… wait for it… 13, oh, and Paltrow’s daughter.)
 
She also mentions a point I also agree with. “The over-sexualization, humiliation and brutalization of women on television and in movies remains rampant.” I certainly agree that women have been disgustingly over-sexualized in nearly every adult movie, humiliating them and making them look as though they are nothing more than pieces of meat to use for sex.
 
She then goes on to mention that she’d think that with all the “rampant misogyny”, Hollywood would “take on the issue of social justice for women – the same way it has embraced the cause of the African-American, Jewish (yeah, ok), and LGBTQ communities. But so far... just the sad sound of crickets.”
 
Sadly, since it’s basically a rule that Leftists must rip on Trump if they’re talking about politics, she also goes out of her way to call HIM a sexual predator. When she attacks the excuses people (usually Leftists) give for people like Harvey Weinstein, such as “they’re really not bad people, just ill”, she says the following: “Truthfully, I would’ve preferred the simple and more honest explanation given by our president, Donald J. Trump. ‘Grab ‘em by the p***y… When you’re a star, you can do anything.’ Thank you, Donald. I believe you’re the only sexual predator, to date, who’s told the truth.”
 
Yep, she just couldn’t resist trying to attack an innocent man when talking about the very guilty people of Hollywood. She’s a Leftist, after all.
 
And perhaps the best part of the story is when she talks about a personal friend of hers: “… I will be the first to admit that clearly delineated moral choices can still be painfully complex where friendship is involved. One of the best friends I will ever have and a man I love dearly, former President Bill Clinton, has certainly taxed my feminist conscience, but always without diminishing my affection. I even helped write his apology to the nation for his own sexual misconduct… and believe to this day it was based on something that was none of our business.”
 
I honestly think that, with those lines alone, she killed the point of her own story. How can you claim to be against sexual harassment when you still think highly of an ADMITTED sexual predator? And how can she say she believes it was based on something that was none of their business while at the same time saying that women should speak out against those who harass them? Isn’t it Weinstein’s business who he rapes, by that logic?
 
She does say that some may find it hypocritical (because it is), but that that doesn’t matter because she warned people against “allowing Harvey Weinstein to host political fundraisers.” THAT is the excuse she gives. She’s not even denying that she’s being hypocritical, she just switches back to talking about how she tried to warn people about Weinstein.
 
Aside from the obvious hypocrisy of her article, there is one thing she forgot to mention: Hollywood is entirely LEFTIST! She knows very well that Hollywood is Leftist, and yet, she fails to see wherein the problem lies. It’s not the fact that Hollywood is owned by men. It’s the fact that Hollywood is owned by LEFTISTS! Leftists who, for THIRTY YEARS, knew about Weinstein’s behavior. And that includes Leftist women. Leftists who have no moral conscience, only a script for what to say when politics is involved. They know they have to side with political correctness, social justice, and the Left.
 
But by doing that, they ignore morality. I’ve said before, the Left is without morals. You can’t honestly expect Leftist men to be morally sound about anything. Weinstein isn’t the first, nor will he be the last, Leftist in Hollywood to rape and sexually assault and harass women. And Linda shouldn’t be one more of the people within Hollywood who fails to realize where the problem stems. It’s not an issue of gender, it’s an issue of MORALITY!
 
There’s a reason Lust is one of the 7 Deadly Sins. It’s one of the most disgusting things for God to witness in the world He’s created. And Hollywood is chockfull of it. From the over-sexualization of women (and men) that even LINDA points out, to all the corruption and sinfulness of studio execs and stars, to the Harvey Weinsteins of the industry, Hollywood is inundated in lust. But that problem doesn’t come from men. That problem comes from the HEART of those men.
 
Hollywood is a great example of what happens when God is not allowed in your city. I say great as opposed to “perfect” because it’s not the perfect example. Nazi Germany would be the perfect example. Soviet Russia would be the perfect example. Hollywood is not quite at those levels because, as rotten as California’s local politicians are, they don’t rule the country. If left on their own, they would descend into Communism. Its celebrities would want to flee the country and demand that the new country be like California.
 
But that’s beside the point. The point is that Hollywood is a terrible place for women not because of gender inequality, but because of the sinful hearts of those with power. Hollywood is horrible because it’s Leftist. And Hollywood is Leftist because it’s horrible.
 
Psalm 36:2
“In their own eyes they flatter themselves too much to detect or hate their sin.”

For years now, we’ve known that MSM sources are largely biased against Republicans, conservatives, Christians and now, more specifically, against Trump. So I’m not exactly surprised to see a NYT editor admit to it herself.
 
Project Veritas, the same people that caught a CNN producer saying that the Russia story is “largely b.s.”, are back at it again, this time secretly recording a New York Times editor: Desiree Shoe (Des for short).
 
The video (after a brief preview of the major parts) begins with Des Shoe explaining what her job is at the NYT. “So, I monitor breaking news, write alerts and then also like… Essentially my job right now is to curate the front pages…”, Des explained to an undercover journalist.
 
So, given her role, it’s clear that she has control over what the New York Times shows in their front pages. She decides what the major topic of a day’s editorial will be. This is important information to know for the future.
 
The video then continues with the undercover journalist mentions that during the election, the whole front page was about Trump. It would make sense that he’d be mentioned a lot, but Des explains that there’s a deeper reason as to why he would always be on the front page. “Yeah, part of it was because it was sensational, so people… But also, I think one of the things that maybe journalists were thinking about is like… Oh, if we write about him, about how insanely crazy he is and how ludicrous his policies are, then maybe people will read it and be like, oh wow, we shouldn’t vote for him.”
 
There it is. There. It. Is. She admits that the New York Times was trying to sway the vote from Trump by focusing on him and being biased against him. The problem with that is that not everyone that reads the New York Times is dangerously ignorant. People, when they care about something like politics and who to vote for, will do more research than to just take what the NYT says about someone and make their decision off of that. Well, most people, anyway.
 
If they say that Trump wants to cancel the Constitution and rename the United States to the Trump States of America, not everyone will take their word for it. Particularly now. Now, that example is clearly an exaggeration, but it’s not too far from what they would say. The media, as of late, is saying that Trump demanded that we increase our nuclear arsenal tenfold, but Trump never said that and no one on his staff heard him say something like that.
 
So the MSM lies and makes things up all the time, knowing that at least some of their low-information readers and viewers will believe it, simply because they think Trump is an idiot as well.
 
But not everyone is like that. If the New York Times slams his policies, there will be people that do their research and determine that his policies are actually great and good for the country.
 
So, based on that quote alone, we can see that the Mainstream Media did more to interfere in the election than Russia did. Isn’t that something?
 
But jokes aside, she’s essentially admitting that the New York Times isn’t about journalism, but propaganda. No different from North Korea’s news stations and Hitler’s media in the 30’s and 40’s.
 
And want to know what else is funny? According to Project Veritas, Des Shoe (and anyone who writes for the New York Times, basically) is in violation of Section 62 of the New York Times’ “Ethical Journalism” handbook.
 
Section 62 states: “Journalists have no place on the playing field of politics. Staff members are entitled to vote, but they must do nothing that might raise questions about their professional neutrality or that of The Times.”
 
To her credit, Des admits that The Times’ stories are “supposed to be objective”. But she also knows that “It’s very difficult in this day and age to do that.”
 
When asked about why that is, Des immediately goes to a subjective answer, saying: “Because when you have… When you have something like the Charlottesville story, it’s hard to portray… For instance, the President in an unbiased light when the words that are coming out of his mouth are apologetic toward white supremacists, which is what they were.”
 
She’s essentially answering the question of why they are biased with “because we believe the b.s. we spew out.” She truly believes that Trump was defending the neo-Nazis and white supremacists in Charlottesville, even though he initially said that there was violence in the city of Charlottesville coming “from many sides”, meaning both the white supremacists AND BLM and Antifa. Even though it was a peaceful rally before BLM and Antifa showed up, anyway.
 
Then, three days later, he came out against the white supremacists AT THE REQUEST OF THE MEDIA and the media called him insincere. He realized he simply couldn’t win with the media, so he went back to blaming all sides involved.
 
And let’s not forget that anyone who speaks his mind against Leftists is considered a white supremacist by the Left. Anyone who doesn’t agree with them is a white supremacists in the Left’s collective mind.
 
So I’m also not surprised that she calls Trump’s actions apologetic towards white supremacists. Likewise, I’m also not surprised that she has personal hatred for the President.
 
The video then goes on to show Des unloading how she feels about the POTUS and VPOTUS. “I feel like Trump is a… is just a… is sort of an idiot in a lot of ways. Just an oblivious idiot.” Yeah, I’m not surprised she thinks this way. Because any idiot can become a multi-billionaire after coming back from bankruptcy and defeating a Democrat idol to become President. If he’s an idiot, that just makes Hillary look worse, because that means she LOST to an idiot.
 
But if Trump managed to do all of that, help a struggling U.S. economy to re-stabilize, help reduce unemployment and create over 1 million jobs in a little over half a year, pull out of a scam of a climate agreement, and push back against a communist little ball of rage while simultaneously working towards obliterating ISIS, therefore showing America’s might under a true leader, I think that’s a little much for a mere idiot to handle.
 
Des then goes on to speak even more ill of the Vice President. “If you impeach [Trump]… If you impeach him, then Pence becomes President, Mike Pence, who’s f**king horrible… I think maybe, possibly worse than Trump.” And the reason she gives as to why she thinks he’s horrible are both unsurprising and ridiculous. “He’s a… he’s extremely, he’s extremely, extremely religious. Extremely religious. He at one point backed a bill that hinted at conversion therapy for gay people… Which is like electrocution, stuff like that.”
 
Since I’m not simply going to take her word for it, I decided to do a bit of research myself. Mike Pence’s website in 2000, back when he was running to gain a seat in Congress for the 2nd congressional district of Indiana, said that federal AIDS money should be going “toward those institutions which provide assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior”.
 
And the media, with that particular set of words, spun the story as “Pence supports conversion therapy of gay people.” First, those words aren’t even there. Second, gay conversion therapy is supposed to change someone’s sexual ORIENTATION, not behavior. Behavior, in this instance, could just as easily mean someone like, oh I don’t know, Harvey Weinstein? Sexual predation is considered sexual behavior, is it not?
 
Furthermore, according to the Daily Caller, “Those 14 words (in Pence’s website) are the only evidence Pence’s detractors have proffered to show the man supports conversion therapy.”
 
So she’s also lying about Pence supporting such an immoral bill.
 
There’s more to the Project Veritas video about how Trump has gotten NYT subscriptions to skyrocket since the election, but I won’t get into that because this article is long enough already. Regardless, I think we can all see clearly that the media is very much anti-Trump. None of us needed a Project Veritas video to show us how bias and crooked the MSM (more specifically, the NYT) is. We’ve known they were fake news well before Trump even coined the term.
 
But it’s refreshing to see corruption call itself corrupt. Evil calling itself evil. An editor to the New York Times calling her employer company biased and Left-leaning. Why? Because it gives us more arrows to put in our quiver. More ammo to use against the Left.
 
Ephesians 5:12-13
“For it is shameful even to speak of the things they do in secret. But when anything is exposed by the light, it becomes visible.”

The reason I add “surprisingly” to the title is simply because I didn’t think Hillary Clinton could sink to a new low following the 2016 election.
 
While she’s still blaming Russia for her election loss, the way she’s blaming Russia is incredibly astonishing and offensive.
 
In a speech at the Southbank Centre’s London Literature Festival, Hillary made sure to remind the audience what she thinks was the reason for her loss: Russian interference.
 
“I think there are a lot more connections that have yet to come to light”, Clinton said in her speech. She also mentioned that if she had been elected President, she “would have called for an independent commission to get to the bottom of it.”
 
Well, there are a few things wrong with that:
 
First, THERE WAS NO RUSSIAN COLLUSION! This is a point we’ve been making ever since this excuse began to float about in the Democrat Party and MSM. Nearly a year after the election and not a single piece of evidence of collusion.
 
Second, the only reason this excuse was given is because SHE LOST! If she had won, NO MENTION OF RUSSIAN COLLUSION WOULD’VE BEEN MADE BY THE LEFT! Even Trump was worried, before the election, that there could be Russian collusion against him. And do you know what happened? Obama assured the country that Russia couldn’t possibly hack into our elections and the media made fun of Trump for even suggesting such a ridiculous notion.
 
Third, we do have a sort of “independent commission” who are “trying to get to the bottom of it”. They’re called the MSM. They’ve been independently investigating Trump and Russia for nearly a year now. Not to mention that aside from the MSM, there’s Robert Mueller’s special counsel who are also investigating this. Though, mostly, they’ve been investigating Trump’s personal and business life than anything else, because they literally have nothing that ties him to Russia during the time of the election. And frankly, they also won’t find anything on Trump the way they’re doing it.
 
If anything, there’s been more collusion between the Obama administration and Russia than Trump and Russia. The Hill wrote a story on how the FBI has uncovered business dealings between the Obama administration and Russia about American uranium. I won’t go into much detail about it, considering this is a story about something else entirely, but this just goes to show how much more corrupt the Left is than they even claim Trump to be.
 
If you want to read that Hill article, the title is: “FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration approved controversial nuclear deal with Moscow.”
 
Returning to the topic of conversation, at this point, you might be wondering “what did Hillary say that was ‘offensive’ as you put it, Freddie?” Well, here it is: “We had really well-respected security, intelligence veterans saying this was a ‘cyber 9/11’ in the sense it was a direct attack on our institutions.”, Hillary said in her speech.
 
Yep, Hillary’s comparing her election loss to the 9/11 attacks that killed 3000 people and brought down two iconic towers in Manhattan. If you have lost a loved one on 9/11, Hillary is saying that her election loss was just as bad. That the made up Russian attack was just as significant and tragic as the very real Islamic terrorist attack on our nation.
 
This, I believe, might be a new low for Hillary Clinton. Again, I did not think she could sink any lower than she already has. Maybe I gave her too much credit. Maybe I’ve yet to learn just how offensive, ignorant and insensitive the Left is about our country and just how self-absorbed they are.
 
You must be a massive narcissist to believe a national tragedy such as 9/11 could even compare to you losing an election. On September 11th, 2001, the whole world stood still as we witnessed evil taking down the twin towers. We lost 3000 souls that day. We vowed that justice would be served. And promised to never forget.
 
On November 8th, 2016, the whole world stood still as we witnessed God’s glory in making Trump President of the United States. We witnessed America looking to become stronger. We lifted the spirits of true American patriots that otherwise would’ve lost all hope for our country with the election of a crook. We vowed that we would do everything we could to Make America Great Again. And we promised to once again become the world’s hyper power. To become a beacon of light for the world to see. To become leaders of the world, as opposed to followers.
 
Hillary, your election loss wasn’t a “cyber 9/11”. It was one of the best days of my young life. I wasn’t around to see Reagan be elected and make the country great. And this is the first time I’m seeing a true leader in the White House, after 8 terrible years if ineptitude, incompetence and evil coming from Obama and 8 years of Bush kinda just being there (I was too young to pay attention at the time, and I wouldn’t understand anyway).
 
On 9/11, we lost 3000 innocent people. On November 8th, THE LEFT lost the America they envisioned. One that was just as impotent and fragile as Obama sought to make it.
 
Matthew 5:16
“In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in Heaven.”