No, I have not joined the dark side, I can assure you. The fact that Hillary Clinton might run for 2020 makes me happy not because I admire her or some literally insane nonsense like that. I don’t want her to win the White House, knowing full-well she would be terrible for the country. However, I will explain why I am happy to hear this momentarily.
First of all, while nothing’s exactly official yet in terms of the Hillary campaign, the reason this is even being talked about in the manner that it is is because of a Wall Street Journal article titled “Hillary Will Run Again”.
I don’t know about you, but when I first saw that, I honestly thought of the phrase “The South will rise again”. Funny, considering it’s Democrats who fought to keep black people as slaves. I even tweeted that that title sounded like it was Hillary’s “The South will rise again” moment.
In any case, let’s dive further into the article. The sub-headline reads: “Reinventing herself as a liberal firebrand, Mrs. Clinton will easily capture the 2020 nomination.”
Yet another statement that brings a smile to my face.
For further context, this piece was written by Mark Penn, a pollster and senior adviser to both Clintons from 1995-2008, and it was also written by Andrew Stein, who was the Democratic Manhattan borough president and New York City Council president.
Here is their lead paragraph: “Get ready for Hillary Clinton 4.0. More than 30 years in the making, this new version of Mrs. Clinton, when she runs for president in 2020, will come full circle – back to the universal-health-care-promoting progressive firebrand of 1994. True to her name, Mrs. Clinton will fight this out until the last dog dies. She won’t let a little thing like two stunning defeats stand in the way of her claim to the White House.”
To be 100% honest with you, upon reading the subhead and the lead, I honestly thought the writers were trying to roast (make fun of) Hillary to some extent.
Let’s go over a few things from the subhead and lead. First, they mention she is “reinventing herself as a liberal firebrand…”, they mention this is Hillary Clinton “4.0” and that she is coming full circle, back to “the universal-health-care-promoting progressive firebrand of 1994”.
I’m sorry, I must’ve missed something important, because that’s exactly the same Hillary Clinton I voted against in 2016, will vote against in 2020 should she miraculously “win” the nomination again and the same Hillary Clinton I have seen for quite some time. How do you reinvent yourself into a lunatic liberal when that’s already what you are?
The other thing that made me think these two were roasting Hillary was when they mentioned: “She won’t let a little thing like two stunning defeats stand in the way…”
Maybe I took it to mean something else, but that sounded a tad bit condescending, don’t you think? Not condescending to Obama and Trump, but to Hillary. It’s like saying “this boxer won’t let a little thing like getting his butt kicked for 11 rounds stop him from winning in the 12th”. It might sound like they’re trying to uplift Hillary, but it also comes off as giving a back-handed compliment. Like saying “she messed up majorly and screwed herself to a post twice before, but now, she’s ready to hopefully avoid screwing herself again.”
The article then says: “Hillary Clinton 2.0 was a moderate, building on the success of her communitarian ‘It Takes a Village’ appeals and pledging to bring home the bacon for New York. She emphasized her religious background, voiced strong support for Israel, voted for the Iraq war, and took a hard line against Iran.”
“As Hillary 3.0 catered to the coastal elites who had eluded her in 2008, Mr. Trump stole many of the white working-class voters who might have been amenable to the previous version. Finally she had the full support of the New York Times and the other groups that had shunned her for Mr. Obama – but only at the cost of an unforeseen collapse in support in the Midwest.”
Okay, I have a few things to say. First, I shall repeat an earlier question: how do you reinvent yourself into a lunatic liberal when that’s already what you were? The fact that they use “2.0” and “3.0” and now “4.0” indicates they believe Hillary is somehow different today than she was as a New York Senator, Secretary of State, or DNC candidate.
Second, I thought it was Trump colluding with Russia that cost Hillary the election. How would Trump “stealing” white working-class voters be a factor whatsoever if Trump and Putin were colluding behind closed doors, offering each other gay sexual acts (and that’s something the Left has been saying, ignoring their hypocritical homophobia) and ultimately stole the election from Hillary. We even have an investigation into the matter, don’t we? If that’s not what happened and it was the fact that Trump “stole” the white working-class and others who were legitimately left in the dust by a Democrat Party that is trying to become the Democratic Party of Mexico, then why do we have an investigation into something that didn’t happen and something that even they don’t actually believe happened?
(All of that was sarcasm, in case you couldn’t tell. I know precisely why this hoax of an investigation that some on the Left don’t even really believe is still ongoing.)
Finally, Trump didn’t “steal” the white working-class. The white working-class was altogether abandoned by the Democrat Party. Though they may have been the party of unions at one time, that’s not something they even care to keep anymore. They hope to ride on minorities’ backs to win them elections (yet another slavery reference?). And if they don’t win them, they can blame the white working-class and white women for their losses, which is the equivalent of touching a hot stove and being surprised that it burned them.
Turns out that abandoning an entire class of voters doesn’t exactly encourage those voters to vote for you.
In any case, the WSJ article is not done. They still offer hilarity and back-handed comments:
“[Hillary] will not allow this humiliating loss at the hands of an amateur to end the story of her career. You can expect her to run for president once again. Maybe not at first, when the legions of Senate Democrats make their announcements, but definitely by the time the primaries are in full swing.”
“Mrs. Clinton has a 75% approval rating among Democrats, an unfinished mission to be the first female president, and a personal grievance against Mr. Trump, whose supporters pilloried her with chants of ‘Lock her up!’ This must be avenged.”
“Expect Hillary 4.0 to come out swinging. She has decisively to win those Iowa caucus-goers who have never warmed up to her. They will see her now as strong, partisan, left-leaning and all-Democrat – the one with the guts, experience and steely-eyed determination to defeat Mr. Trump. She has had two years to go over what she did wrong and how to take him on again.”
That is an awful lot and I don’t think I can go over absolutely everything. This article is plenty long as is and I have yet to even state why this whole thing makes me happy.
So allow me to do just that. The reason I am happy Hillary is running again is because after her defeat, she has only gotten worse in my eyes, and likely in many people’s. After the election, she went on a long trip of mental breakdowns and even wrote a book titled “What Happened” to try and reason why she lost. Now, I didn’t read that book, but I take it it mentioned Putin, Russia, racism, sexism, bigotry, and all the excuses she could possibly get out of her hot sauce bag.
And this is ignoring the fact that there have been revelations that it was HER campaign that tried to steal the election and still managed to lose somehow. HER campaign hired foreign agents to write a fake dossier about Trump. HER campaign was the one that was helped by the Obama DOJ, FBI and FISA court.
She tried to steal an American presidential election. And this is ADDING to her rap sheet of crimes connected to the Clinton Foundation including selling 20% of our Uranium supply to, well, what do you know? VLADIMIR PUTIN! And let’s not forget that she also STOLE the Democrat nomination away from Bernie back in 2016 as well. Now, I’m personally glad she did that, considering the disaster that a possible Bernie Sanders presidency would’ve wrought (I still think Trump would’ve won, but just barely, kind of like in 2000). However, one cannot deny the dishonesty and overall wrongful act that was committed by the DNC to crown Hillary with the nomination.
If she runs again, and if she becomes the nominee again as these two writers say she will, then she will be utterly crushed even worse than last time.
What Trump didn’t have in 2016 was experience in the field and a record of successful policy, which is natural given he was an outsider at the time. Now that he’s had 2, and by the time 2020 comes around, 4 years of experience, he has only improved his chances of winning in 2020 to the point even Michael Moore legitimately believes he will be reelected if facing against anyone but Michelle Obama (and I think he could even beat her).
So I sincerely hope she wins and she becomes the nominee once again.
Now, regarding the last few paragraphs that I just shared with you, some of it returns to my earlier question of reinventing yourself into something you already were. They mention she is now left-leaning, partisan and all-Democrat as though she wasn’t in the past. Don’t make me laugh.
And one last thing. She didn’t get beat by an amateur. She got beat by TWO amateurs. Here, they were only thinking about Trump, who never held public office and was most definitely an amateur at the time. But we can’t forget that she lost in 2007 against an amateur who was US Senator for only TWO years, after serving in the Illinois State Legislature and was a “community organizer” before that.
But in any case, I look forward to the 2020 campaign on the Democrat side. Even if Hillary loses, her running will create some form of divide. If even Nancy Pelosi’s speakership is in peril because of young socialists like Ocasio-Cortez, then Hillary likely doesn’t stand a chance. Ironically, the writers also mention towards the end that Hillary would “trounce” all other candidates, including Joe Biden, but I really doubt the Democrats want to allow Hillary anywhere near their nomination once again… if they’re smart, that is.
“Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. While Democrats like Hillary might promise everything for free, you can rest assured that this does not have hidden fees or taxes to be paid at a later date. If I say it’s free, that means it’s free. So make sure to check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
The November 6th elections have come and gone, with some very interesting changes and developments occurring throughout the night. Obviously, the biggest story of the night was the fact that Democrats have successfully reclaimed the House of Representatives by taking 26 or so seats, more than enough to give them a majority, slim as it may be.
And as it stands, the White House, obviously, is Republican, the Senate is Republican and now the House is Democrat. I have an awful lot of things to say about this, but I will do my best to keep it as short and concise as possible, while at least touching on the many things I want to discuss.
The first, and most important thing I want to mention is that, as predicted, there was no blue wave. Not even close to that. Yes, Democrats retook the House, which is unfortunate and will only serve to further divide this nation and hurt people in the individual districts, but no one can say that this is a blue wave. Furthermore, Republicans actually did a lot better than you might think.
The House is lost, and that is unfortunate, but one thing that needs to be mentioned is the great number of pickups we got in the Senate. Before the election, Democrats held 49 seats. Now, they only hold 44. Senators Heidi Heitkamp, Bill Nelson, Kyrsten Sinema, Joe Donnelly, Claire McCaskill and others all have been unseated. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) managed to get re-elected, but I find it rather ironic that he is the only Democrat that voted in favor of approving Brett Kavanaugh. The other Democrats who lost on Tuesday all voted against Kavanaugh, so that had some effect, I believe.
Not to mention that Ted Cruz managed to beat supposed Democrat superstar Beto O’Rourke in a race that shouldn’t have been anywhere near that close (though I suspect illegal votes are to blame, if the Project Veritas video covering illegal voting in the midterms is anything to go by). And in Florida, Rick Scott beat incumbent Bill Nelson, with another supposed Democrat superstar, Andrew Gillum, losing in another tight race.
The unfortunate thing is that Florida passed an amendment that will allow 1.4 million felons to vote, so I don’t have much hope for the state in the future. Of course, I don’t think all 1.4 million felons will vote, but felons tend to vote Democrat because Democrats also have a wanton disrespect for the rule of law and law enforcement. Not to mention that Cruz’s victory being about a 2 point margin is indicative of a blue trend in Texas (again, likely affected by illegal immigrants, but also likely affected by Leftists from California and New York moving there and voting for the policies and people that drove them out of those Leftist states in the first place).
Another bit of bad news is that, with Democrats in control of the House, there will definitely not be a wall getting built in the next two years and there definitely won’t be a repeal of Obamacare.
However, let’s move on to the better news. Apart from the pickups in the Senate, you also have to look at the fact that Democrats, at best, will simply be a lot of white noise over these next two years, as they have been over the past two years. Yes, they will launch investigation after investigation, and subpoena after subpoena, but what’s that going to amount to? They’ve been trying to prove Russian collusion for the past two years. Another two isn’t going to get them anything.
Not to mention that, while they might try to impeach Trump, they are not going to even come close to succeeding. Anything Democrats pass in the House will get stopped in the Senate. And an impeachment against Trump requires two-thirds of the SENATE, as well as approval from the VP, or enough votes to overturn the Vice President’s vote against impeachment.
So impeachment of the President would have to be a bipartisan effort, one that I don’t think will happen. Sure, Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) might vote in favor of impeachment, but a lot of conservative, not to mention pro-Trump people, won in the Senate as well.
At most, the Democrats will be a major nuisance. Nothing will get passed, but not much was getting passed before anyway. Not to mention that Trump still has EO power, something that his predecessor set as a precedent for a tool for passing laws even when faced with an opposing party majority in the legislative branch.
And let’s not ignore the fact that Democrats winning in 2018 leaves Trump with a clear target for 2020. Trump has mastered the art of successfully putting the blame where it belongs: the Democrats. With nothing passing and Democrats being a massive force of obstruction, and little more, Trump can thoroughly expose the Democrats as little more than a pest that should not be in control of a doll house, much less of the House.
Now, these last two years should have logically led to Democrats suffering big losses in 2018. There was a lot of that in the Senate, but unfortunately, not so much in the House. But there is good news in Democrats taking some of these House seats. As Jake Tapper mentioned during his live coverage of the elections, many Never Trump Republicans were shown the door. Sure, some pro-Trump Republicans also lost, but it shows that going against the popular Republican President is not a solid campaign strategy.
Going forward, such losses should send a clear message that it’s best to support Trump and the MAGA agenda, instead of betraying your constituents. You would think that would be a common sense thing, but what can you do?
One other thing to mention that I want to at least talk about a little bit is that in Alabama and West Virginia, constitutional amendments were passed that protect the unborn. According to the Daily Wire: “In Alabama, voters approved an amendment to the state’s constitution affirming that the unborn have a right to life… In West Virginia, voters approved an amendment to their state constitution, which could end the practice of taxpayers funding elective abortions.” Not to mention that Alabama also passed an amendment that would allow for the Ten Commandments to be placed in public places. So these things are all great pro-life and pro-religious freedom news to take away from the elections.
Now, another thing I want to mention is the fact that, since Democrats won’t be able to pass laws in the Senate, any attempt at getting rid of the GOP tax cuts will be completely futile. We might not be able to pass anything, but neither will they. And these tax cuts are good for quite some time.
Yet another thing to mention is that, so far, Trump is doing far better than Obama did, electoral-wise. Let’s not forget that in 2010, Democrats lost 63 seats in the House and 6 seats in the Senate. THAT was a wave election.
So let’s look at some numbers over the years, according to Lawrence McDonald, who quotes data from the NY Times. In 2010, Obama lost 63 seats in the House. In 1994, Clinton lost 52. In 1958, Eisenhower lost 48. In 1974, Ford lost 48. In 1966, LBJ lost 47. In 1946, Truman lost 45. In 2006, Bush lost 30. In 1950, Truman lost 29. In 1982, Reagan lost 26.
Wanna know how many Trump lost? The same amount as Reagan, which is a pretty good sign, if you ask me, considering Reagan went on to be re-elected in the biggest landslide in U.S. political history.
Now, is this situation ideal? Definitely not. If I could have things my way, every Republican in every race, Senate, House, local, etc. would’ve won. But all things considered, we also stand to gain an awful lot in 2020, and I have no doubt Trump will be re-elected, with Republican control of Congress once again.
The last thing I want to mention, that ultimately has the biggest hand in putting a smile on my face after the elections, is that regardless of who controls the House, who controls the Senate, who controls the White House, it is Jesus Christ that is our ultimate Representative, Senator, and President. No matter who gains control of anything anywhere, Jesus is King. God is in control.
It’s no surprise to Him that Democrats retook the House. And He wouldn’t have allowed it if it weren’t part of His grander plan for us.
The good thing about losing sometimes is that losses can make you humble. After 2016, we were grateful to the Lord for the massive win. After 2018, we are still grateful to Him, and we come to Him in supplication and prayer, that He might heal our nation and that we might continue seeking His blessings.
I trust the Lord, and if He decides Democrats retake the House, then who in the world am I to argue? I merely implore to Him that this will be the definitively last time Democrats ever win anything again.
“The Lord brings the counsel of the nations to nothing; He frustrates the plans of the peoples. The counsel of the Lord stands forever, the plans of His heart to all generations. Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord, the people whom He has chosen as His heritage!”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. And while the Democrats promised free everything, this newsletter is actually free. So check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
In my last article, I briefly mentioned how even Oprah Winfrey running for President wouldn’t save the Democrat Party and the Left from the disaster that they currently are. Here, I want to further talk about this topic and point out many reasons why Oprah Winfrey would not beat Donald Trump and win the 2020 Presidential election should she choose to run.
First, I want to bring up the only point I made about this topic from the last article: she’s a Leftist who would bring back Obama policies.
Having endorsed then-candidate Barack Obama in 2008, it’s not crazy to think she would attempt to bring back Obama-type policies. Policies which had torn down America as much as possible for 8 years. Policies that were partly responsible for the rise and election of Donald Trump. Policies that put us in the mess we were in for nearly a decade and we’re still trying to get out of. And with Trump, we’re doing a pretty decent job so far of getting out of the mess Obama put us in.
Aside from policies, the Daily Wire gives us a countdown of five “fails” Oprah has made in her career (which translate into reasons she shouldn’t be elected).
According to the Daily Wire, number 5 is her Golden Globes Award Speech.
“Hollywood and the mainstream media promoted Oprah as ‘brave’ following her speech at the 75th Golden Globes Awards, but, as Shapiro pointed out (in an interview with Fox News), ‘What the hell kind of risk was she taking?’”, saying that “She was standing in front of an entire town filled with sexual abusers and harassers. She said nothing about it for 20 years; she was being cheered by people who said nothing about it for 20 years, and there she is pretending that she’s leading the fight.”
He continued: “Well, I was under the impression that most of us agreed with that stuff when this stuff first broke and she lauded the Hollywood Foreign Press Association. Where were they reporting on the sexual harassment and abuse scandal for the last 20 years?... Where was the Hollywood Press Association that was receiving such plaudits at the hands of Oprah Winfrey, again, a woman who was good friends with Harvey Weinstein, being cheered by Meryl Streep, a woman who gave a standing ovation to Roman Polanski?”
I would add on to that Streep comment by mentioning that she once referred to Weinstein as “God”. More importantly, TheGuardian.com reports that Polanski won’t face criminal charges for the allegations made in 1975 when he molested a 10-year-old girl. The reason? You honestly won’t believe it.
Because the allegations are too old.
Remind me again how old the allegations made against Roy Moore are? And yet that battle is still going on.
Regardless, we continue.
According to the Daily Wire, number 4 is that “Oprah suggests Americans are racist – even if they do not have ill will toward black people.”
“In a 2013 interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, Oprah Winfrey and Forest Whitaker, stars in ‘The Butler,’ strongly hinted that Americans were racist – even if they did not have any ‘ill will’ toward the black community.”
Winfrey said that “People don’t feel it’s race because people don’t call it race… A lot of people think if they think they’re not using the n-word themselves… and do not harbor ill will towards black people that it’s not racist. But to me, it’s ridiculous to look at that case and not to think that race was involved.”
So we’re racist even if we harbor no ill will against the black community? By the same token, isn’t assuming something like that inherently racist in itself? If you assume everyone else who is not black is racist, isn’t that racist itself? The funny thing is that, with everything the Left says about white people, if they replaced the word “white” with the word “black”, I can just imagine the shock they would get to find that what they’re saying is racist.
Racism is a two-way street. A black person can be racist against white people (case in point, the apparent Democrat front-runner) as much as a white person can be racist against black people. Neither is right. Neither should be accepted.
Alas, we move on.
The Daily Wire then says number 3 is: “Oprah gives platform to an Islamic scholar who says Islamic jihad is only a spiritual battle – not a ‘Holy War’.”
“Varun Soni, the dean of Religious Life at the University of Southern California, appeared on Winfrey’s ‘Belief’ series where she explained that all of the horrifying acts of violence committed in the name of Islam were all just great big misunderstandings of a core Islamic belief.”
“One of the most misunderstood concepts of Islam is ‘jihad’, which many people interpret as a ‘holy war’”, Soni said. “But there is nothing holy about war. What ‘jihad’ actually represents is an internal struggle, the battle that is raging in our own heart. And all of our religious traditions talk about that internal struggle. In that respect, jihad is not just a Muslim idea but it’s a reality of the human condition.”
Thankfully, the Daily Wire is quick to call out the b.s. “In the Quran, Mohammad speaks of jihad, or holy war, repeatedly. Though the concept of ‘greater jihad’ (internal spiritual battle against sin) has been a part of Islamic teaching since at least the 11th century, the word jihad is most often used in canonical writings to refer to armed conflict.”
What’s interesting is that the Quran also teaches its followers that it’s ok to deceive non-believers if it benefits Islam. They can even lie about rejecting Allah as long as they are not sincere about the rejection. They can deceive people that way if it means saving their lives (which in turn helps further the growth if Islam).
So it’s not surprising to see this Muslim “scholar” lying to Oprah and her viewers about what “jihad” means. If it were strictly an internal struggle, Muslims wouldn’t be killing people and calling it jihad!
Regardless, we move on.
According to the Daily Wire, number 2 is “Oprah makes ‘absolutely not true’ racism allegations against a store clerk in Europe.”
“Winfrey, the most powerful woman in the world, accused a clerk at a small store in Europe of being racist towards her but refused to offer any identifying information of the alleged incident. Eventually, the store and the clerk were discovered and they said Winfrey was a liar.”
This really is somewhat of an extension of the 4th “fail”. The one about how all Americans are racist. Although this one is more about a poor European store clerk. I don’t want to spend too much time on this one since it’s very similar to that 4th fail, but it’s worth mentioning that she is not hesitant of accusing people of being racist. Then again, she’s a Leftist, so it’s expected that she’ll accuse people of that.
Finally, and perhaps the most crushing to her potential presidential bid: “Oprah says older generations ‘just have to die’ to solve the problem of racism.”
While this also deals with the topic of racism, it’s more noteworthy considering the ACTUAL WORDS SHE USED to suggest a way to end racism.
“In a 2013 interview with BBC, Winfrey said that entire generations ‘just have to die’ to cure the problem of racism.”
The actual quote: “Of course [the problem of racism] is not solved. You know, as long as people can be judged by the color of their skin, problem’s not solved. As long as there are people who still, there’s a whole generation – I say this, you know, I said this, you know, for apartheid South Africa, I said this for my own, you know, community in the south – there are still generations of people, older people, who were born and bred and marinated in it, in that prejudice and racism, and they just have to die.”
Man, Oprah Winfrey really doesn’t like old white people. She’s not saying that the concept of racism and practice of it has to die. She’s not saying that the mindset of racism has to die. No, she’s saying that old people who were “born and bred and marinated in it” have to die. Let’s not even give them a chance to change. No, because they were merely BORN into it, they have to die.
Funny enough, that’s awfully similar to the Nuremberg Laws established in Nazi Germany. Jewish people had to die (partly) if they could not or would not help the German War Machine. But even the Nazis were interested in at least somewhat keeping their Jewish captives alive, even if it’s at the edge of death. Not to take away anything from the horrors of the Holocaust, but it seems that Oprah would be more than ok with a genocide of old people.
Ok, that may be a bit much, but it’s clear she holds no love for old people if she doesn’t even want to give them the chance to change and makes assumptions that all old people are racist. That, in itself, is very hateful and bigoted.
To sum up, there’s no way Oprah would or even SHOULD beat Donald Trump in 2020. If the country does spectacularly well with Trump, there’s no reason for anyone to vote against him. There’s especially no reason to vote for someone who is as hypocritical and hateful as Oprah Winfrey is.
Ben Shapiro made the point that a presidential run would hurt her image of being a “uniter”. He says that merely getting political would hurt her image, since politics are always polarizing. Well, after reading all of this, it’s pretty clear that she’s not a “uniter” as people call her. She’s a hypocrite for covering for Harvey Weinstein. She’s judgmental of white people even if they harbor no ill will towards black people. She’s allowed a Muslim to spread misinformation about jihad. She’s made accusations against people based on nothing and she’s hateful of people simply for having been born in the era they were.
America doesn’t need someone as despicable as Oprah Winfrey in the White House.
“The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.”
Author: Freddie Drake Marinelli.
Danielle Cross and Freddie Marinelli will bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free...