I’ve mentioned in the past that ever since Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 Presidential election to President Trump, she’d become something of a ghost for the Democrat Party. She haunts them even in political death and is someone they wish they could just get rid of for good.
 
And since special counsel John Durham has been releasing bombshell after bombshell surrounding her schemes back in 2016, more and more people, surprisingly including Democrat voters, have come to the opinion that she should be investigated for her actions.
 
A poll taken last month, so before the most recent revelations from Durham that I will get to momentarily, from TechnoMetrica Institute of Policy found that 66% of Democrats surveyed want Durham to focus his investigation on Hillary Clinton, according to The Western Journal. TIPP often asks this same question, and even back in October, 44% of Democrats said they wanted Clinton investigated.
 
And again, this was before the most recent bombshell from Durham, so one can only imagine how much higher it might be now.
 
Back in September, Durham indicted Michael Sussman, a lawyer who represented the Clinton campaign, and was accused of lying to the FBI. And in December, Igor Dachenko, a contributor to the debunked Steele dossier, was charged with five counts of lying to the FBI.
 
On February 11th, Durham expanded on the claims surrounding Sussman’s activity in a filing which “alleged lawyers for the Clinton campaign hired a technology company to infiltrate computer servers and lay a false trail that would implicate the Trump campaign of having contacts with Russia.”
 
The charges also allege that Sussman, while he was doing this, was also working for the Clinton campaign, a claim which was unsurprisingly denied by Sussman.
 
Furthermore, Durham claims that Sussman “had assembled and conveyed the allegations to the FBI on behalf of at least two specific clients, including a technology executive (Tech Executive 1) at a U.S.-based internet company (Internet Company 1) and the Clinton campaign.”
 
In other words, Sussman brought up false evidence to the FBI not only for Hillary Clinton but also for a tech executive who likely has ties to the Clinton campaign and other Democrats, almost certainly including Clown-in-Chief Joe Biden. Naturally, I wish to learn just who this executive is (my money is on Mark Zuckerberg), and hope that Durham will also investigate that person.
 
The filing also claimed that Sussman’s “billing records reflect” that he “repeatedly billed the Clinton campaign for his work on the Russian Bank-1 allegations,” which all but prove his ties to the Clinton campaign as he was trying to defame then-candidate Trump.
 
But we’re not even close to done with the new claims.
 
The filing also claimed that Sussman and the aforementioned tech executive had met with another law partner who served as general counsel to the Clinton campaign, with Fox News reporting that said individual was Marc Elias from the law firm Perkins Coie, although there are other reports which claim that Sussman retained Lathan & Watkins LLP as the legal counsel.
 
Why is this important? Because Liz Cheney’s husband is partner at Lathan & Watkins LLP, thus implicating their involvement, even if minimally, to the Clinton campaign’s crimes.

Why does Fox News say it was Perkins Coie and not Lathan & Watkins? Do you really think RINO Fox News is going to screw over RINO Liz Cheney?

In any case, the filing also said that in July of 2016, Sussman and his colleagues began to “assemble the purported data and white papers. In connection with these efforts, Tech Executive-1 exploited his access to non-public and/or proprietary Internet data.” “Tech Executive-1 also enlisted the assistance of researchers at a U.S.-based university who were receiving and analyzing large amounts of Internet data in connection with a pending federal government cybersecurity research contract.”
 
“Tech Executive-1,” continued the filing, “tasked these researchers to mine Internet data to establish ‘an inference’ and ‘narrative’ tying then-candidate Trump to Russia. In doing so, Tech Executive-1 indicated that he was seeking to please certain ‘VIPs’, referring to individuals at Law Firm-1 and the Clinton campaign.”
 
But this PALES in comparison to the final bombshell claim made by the filing.
 
Finally, the filing claims that Tech Executive-1 and his associates exploited domain name system internet traffic regarding “(i) a particular healthcare provider, (ii) Trump Tower, (iii) Donald Trump’s Central Park West apartment building and (iv) the Executive Office of the President of the United States (EOP),” with the firm Tech Executive-1 having “come to access and maintained dedicated servers” for the Executive Office of the President as “part of a sensitive arrangement whereby it provided DNS resolution services to the EOP,” said the filing, adding that “Tech Executive-1 and his associates exploited this arrangement by mining the EOP’s DNS traffic and other data for the purpose of gathering derogatory information about Donald Trump.”
 
In other words, Trump was 100% right once again, as his wires really were “tapped.” Not only were Trump Tower and other Trump buildings tapped, so was THE WHITE HOUSE WHILE TRUMP WAS PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT-ELECT.
 
This is MAJOR and indicates a major security breach. This is a private company getting access to data from the highest office in the land, and basically getting the approval of Clinton and most certainly Obama as well to do this.
 
While not for the same purposes, I consider this no less criminally contemptible to what Julius and Ethel Rosenberg did during World War II, and should receive no lesser a punishment.
 
For context, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were spies who gave away American nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union, helping to facilitate their nuclear capabilities. They were charged with conspiracy to commit espionage for the Soviet Union and received the death sentence.
 
Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Michael Sussman, Marc Elias (potentially), Liz Cheney’s husband, Tech Executive-1 and everyone who worked for the Clinton campaign (to the level of knowing about these schemes, obviously not those at the lower levels) ought to face similar charges.
 
Even just spying on Trump Tower and other Trump facilities is grossly criminal, but getting access to White House data is on a league of its own.
 
There are people who are basically being treated like terrorists at Guantanamo Bay simply for having walked into the Capitol on January 6th, after they were basically welcomed inside by Capitol Police. So clearly, these historical buildings hold much significance to these people, and so breaching and “defiling” them ought to bring about serious punishment, no?
 
What the Deep Staters did to Trump is more than a million times worse not only for Trump but the whole of the country than what peaceful protesters did on January 6th.
 
These people deserve the chair, nothing less.
 
And with these revelations being made, it’s not too surprising that even Democrats want to get rid of Hillary. Heck, they didn’t even want her in either 2007/08 or in 2016. She’s the most disliked, or even hated, woman in America and for good reason.
 
Now, even a large majority of Democrat voters want her investigated for her actions in 2016 (which, no doubt, could trigger other investigations, like the Uranium One deal). And no doubt, this ought to also lead to both Barack Obama and Brandon being investigated.
 
They deserve to be investigated, charged, tried, and found guilty of a lot more than just their involvement in spying on Donald Trump. But this, hopefully, would at least be a step in the right direction towards justice.
 
Proverbs 21:15
“When justice is done, it is a joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers.”

There are roughly two or three narratives regarding the economy in certain Leftists’ minds. One of them is that the economy is not doing well at all, and that someone has to “fix” it, which is a very clear lie that even contradicts a different narrative that I will cover in a second. Another narrative is that the economy is nothing special and we should not focus on it. That is the narrative many on the Left choose to follow, sort of, because the economy is doing too good for them to realistically argue against it. They would much rather attack Trump’s “racism” or “sexism” or “bigotry” than tackle his successful track record as POTUS because they know they would come up awfully short (especially Michael Bloomberg). But finally, the third narrative is one that only one person would be foolish enough to try: Obama is the one who can take credit for this economy.
 
And who else to try and peddle this hilarious lie than the former Liar-in-Chief, former President Barack Hussein Obama?
 
Earlier this week, Obama tweeted: “Eleven years ago today, near the bottom of the worst recession in generations, I signed the Recovery Act, paving the way for more than a decade of economic growth and the longest streak of job creation in American history.”
 
In the words of a certain communist former president: “You didn’t build that.”
 
It is laughable that Obama would try to take credit for this economy (yet again) because we saw nothing of the sort regarding job creation or economic recovery at any point in his presidency.
 
A Forbes op-ed published in 2016, the last full year of Obama’s presidency, said: “The Obama recovery of the last seven years remains the worst in post-war American history. Average gross domestic product (GDP) growth since the bottom of the recession in 2009 was barely above 2.1% per year. The average since 1949 is well above 4% per year during the previous 10 expansions.”
 
“I believe the root cause of abysmal growth is the huge tax increases imposed by Obama and the Democrats in Congress since 2008. The most harmful were the increase in the capital gains tax from 15 to 20 percent, the increase in top bracket income from 35 to 39.6 percent, and the new tax of 3.8 percent on investment income in the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The massive increase in regulatory burden through the ACA and Dodd-Frank bills are also crushing, but unfortunately are harder to measure.”
 
Investor’s Business Daily also pointed out how bad the Obama economy was back in 2018 when the former POTUS also tried to take credit for the Trump economy:
 
“The rate of GDP growth was decelerating in Obama’s last year. It went from 2.3% in Q2, to 1.9% in Q3 to 1.8% in Q4 of 2016. Under Trump, GDP growth has averaged 2.9%. It was 4.2% last quarter and might be higher in the current one. The stock market also was stuck in neutral the year before the November 2016 elections. The Dow is up by some 45% since then.”
 
“Real median family income didn’t budge from August 2015 to November 2016, according to Sentier Research. It’s up more than 4% since Trump came into office. Wages are on the upswing. In Obama’s last year, unemployment rate remained basically unchanged – it was 4.9% in Jan. 2016, and 4.8% when Trump took office in Jan. 2017. Now it’s down to 3.9%.”
 
The National Review also highlighted some of Trump’s economic accomplishments since taking office:
 
“The census report ten days ago revealed workers’ earnings increasing at 3.4 percent annually, a rate not seen since the best of the Reagan years, and the poverty rate has declined to 11.8 percent, the best figure that has been recorded since the end of the Clinton administration and still resolutely proceeding in the right direction. Unemployment is at its lowest percentage since the Lyndon Johnson administration more than 50 years ago (and the numbers then were helped by having 545,000 conscripts in Vietnam). Minority groups are the principal beneficiaries of the Trump economy; it isn’t trickle-down, it’s surge-up. Average income for female-led single-parent households jumped 7.6 percent last year, well ahead of gains in higher income groups.”
 
“The poverty rate among female-led households fell 2.7 percent for African Americans, and 4 percent for Hispanics. Industries largely populated by women (and, historically, exploited women), especially hospitality and, to a lesser extent, health care, showed strong earnings gains, even as unemployment rates for African-American and Hispanic women fell to under 4.5 percent.”
 
“Another partisan Democratic falsehood that is exposed by the census is the myth that the middle class is shrinking. The percentage of total families at the lowest economic levels has fallen by over 1 whole percent and the brackets from $50,000 to $150,000 and above $200,000 have both increased by almost 1 whole percent (several million people in each case). There were sharp increases in the incomes of younger families (up to age 34).”
 
The contrast between the Obama and Trump economies are day and night, with the Obama economy having been absolute garbage and the Trump economy being the best economy we have seen in decades. It’s no surprise that jealous Barack Obama would attempt to take credit for this economy, which he had nothing to do with.
 
It’s also no surprise that the President’s team (as well as Trump himself and a slew of other people) reacted with mockery or simply telling it like it is in order to set the record straight as to whom should the credit go.
 
In a statement to Fox News from the Trump campaign’s national press secretary: “President Trump reversed every single failed Obama-era economic policy, and with it, reversed the floundering Obama/Biden economy. Obama and Biden orchestrated the worst economic recovery in modern history. By contrast, through deregulating, lowering taxes, and supporting free-market policies, President Trump has created the hottest economy on record, with unemployment hitting generational lows and all-time lows for African Americans, Hispanics, the disabled, veterans and many other hard-working Americans.”
 
“Paychecks are growing at the fastest pace in a decade and twice as fast for low- and middle-income Americans. It’s no wonder Democrats seek to take credit for the Trump economy after eight years of betraying blue-collar workers and inflicting pain upon the middle class as Americans everywhere suffered.”
 
“But the failed days of Democrat stagnation are over, and the soaring Trump economy is here to stay,” added the press secretary.
 
The President himself reacted to this on Twitter, writing: “Did you hear the latest con job? President Obama is now trying to take credit for the Economic Boom taking place under the Trump Administration. He had the WEAKEST recovery since the Great Depression, despite Zero Fed Rate & MASSIVE quantitative easing. NOW, best jobs numbers ever. Had to rebuild our military, which was totally depleted. Fed Rate UP, taxes and regulations WAY DOWN. If Dems won in 2016, the USA would be in big economic (Depression?) & military trouble right now. THE BEST IS YET TO COME. KEEP AMERICA GREAT!”
 
As previously said, it really is no surprise that Obama would try and steal credit for the good economy. For EIGHT YEARS, he blamed his predecessor for a bad economy. And while that could feasibly work for the first couple of years coming off a recession that began with the previous administration, the economy was TERRIBLE for his entire tenure in both terms.
 
I remember hearing Bill Clinton trying to give Obama credit for a “great” economic recovery that “even he” could not have orchestrated back during the 2016 election cycle to get people to believe the economy was good and that Hillary would continue Obama’s legacy (which she would have but that isn’t a good thing), but there was no such economic recovery. Things HARDLY got much better and that’s because the only place to go for the Obama economy was up, and even THEN, it didn’t go up by much.
 
The unemployment rates went down largely because people either stopped looking for jobs, got government contract work or got part-time jobs. Things that make the unemployment rate go down artificially. Trump’s economic recovery is REAL growth for our country, with people finding full-time jobs and there being a virtual SURPLUS of jobs.
 
The stock market went up during the Obama years largely because companies were buying their own stocks to artificially raise them. The only thing that’s artificial about the Trump economy is the fake news media’s claims that we are headed towards a recession, and even that garbage has largely been dropped because of how virtually IMPOSSIBLE it is for a recession to happen in this economic climate.
 
Obama was a terrible jobs president, to the point where he openly mocked Trump’s promises to bring manufacturing jobs back, saying “what magic wand do you have?”
 
Well, this is his magic wand: A REAL ECONOMY WITH A REAL RECOVERY FROM OBAMA’S TERRIBLE TENURE AS POTUS.
 
An economy so good, most Democrats will go to lengths to avoid discussing it, some Democrats will foolishly and laughably attempt to severely downplay it, and one will attempt to take sole credit for it when such credit is not due to him.
 
THIS is how you Make America Great Again.
 
Philippians 4:13
“I can do all things through him who strengthens me.”

As I have said multiple times in the past, I believe President Donald Trump will be re-elected this November for a variety of reasons (though with the warning that people should not be complacent here and go out to vote, while also reminding people that a lot can happen between now and the 2020 election). From the booming economy to the weak Democrat field, there is good reason to believe Trump will be re-elected. And according to a Gallup poll, Democrats will have to combat people being generally happier with the state of this country today than by the time Barack Obama left office.
 
Gallup recently released a survey in which they asked people a number of questions relating to their level of satisfaction regarding any particular subject, such as the overall quality of life in America or the position of women in the nation or the acceptance of gays and lesbians in the nation.
 
And the numbers tell a great story for Trump and a frightening one for Democrats.
 
According to Gallup, the following are the issues with which Americans are broadly satisfied at the start of this new year:
 

• The overall quality of life: 84% satisfied, 16% dissatisfied.
• The nation’s military strength and preparedness: 81% satisfied, 13% dissatisfied.
• The opportunity for a person to get ahead by working hard: 72% satisfied, 27% dissatisfied.
• The nation’s security from terrorism: 68% satisfied, 27% dissatisfied.
• The state of the nation’s economy: 68% satisfied, 29% dissatisfied.
• The position of women in the nation: 63% satisfied, 36% dissatisfied.
• The influence of organized religion: 59% satisfied, 38% dissatisfied.
• The acceptance of gays and lesbians in the nation: 56% satisfied, 40% dissatisfied.

 
ALL of these numbers, to one extent or another, should worry Democrats trying to get elected because they completely destroy any sort of argument that they can try to make.
 
Democrats said that Trump would make living life Hell for Americans; Americans are vastly satisfied with their overall quality of life and the ability to attain upward economic mobility through hard work. Democrats said that Trump was “weak” because he wasn’t starting any new wars against our foreign enemies (which they switched to “Trump is a warmonger” because he killed Soleimani, fully expeced that to spark WWIII, when nothing of the sort has occurred); Americans are very satisfied with the strength and preparedness of our country to protect us from foreign enemies and terrorism. Democrats said that Trump’s very election would cause the stock markets to crash and that his policies would lead to economic stagnation, if not a total collapse and recession; Americans are very satisfied with the state of the economy and “fears of recession” were only coming from partisan propaganda outlets in the fake news media. Democrats said Trump would be devastating for women; Americans are very satisfied with women’s positions today.
 
And perhaps one of the biggest ones: Democrats said Trump would be devastating for LGBT people in America because he’s such a “homophobe”; Americans are satisfied with the acceptance of gay people in the country. Of course, homosexuality is still a sin, but considering how often the Democrats like to accuse Trump of being a homophobe, the fact that Americans are satisfied with how gay people are treated is terrible for the Democrats.
 
Now, there are a slew of other issues which Americans show a great amount of dissatisfaction in. For example, “the nation’s laws or policies on guns” where 42% of people are satisfied with the way things currently are while 55% are dissatisfied with the way things currently are. However, this could mean a couple of things: either people are dissatisfied because the current gun laws/policies don’t go far enough aka they want more gun control, or people are dissatisfied because they think current gun laws/policies are too overreaching and think there should be less gun control. Conservatives and liberals both could very easily be dissatisfied with the current gun laws/policies in our nation but for two very distinct reasons and the poll does not ask a follow-up question asking if it is because they want more or less gun control.
 
They just ask the, at times, fairly vague question of whether or not they are satisfied with this issue and, again, there can be different reasons for a particular answer. Meanwhile, the opposite is not the case, because those who are satisfied think that the way things currently are with this level of gun control in America is satisfactory.
 
The same thing can be applied to the question on “The level of immigration into the country today,” where 35% are satisfied with it and 57% are dissatisfied. Leftists want more immigration to the point where it’s basically uncontrollable and conservatives want less immigration to the point where we almost have closed borders (an idea which I think people should consider, though illegal immigration levels have been declining as of late). And again, regarding the issue of “the nation’s policies regarding the abortion issue,” you find 32% satisfied with the status quo and 58% dissatisfied, with one side of the aisle being dissatisfied because they want abortion up to the point of birth and the other side being dissatisfied because killing babies in the womb is somehow legal and considered morally acceptable by people.
 
But regardless of that slight problem with the poll, we move on to what I believe to be the most important part of it and the worst thing for Democrats to see: the issues on which people are more satisfied today than by the time Obama left office.
 

• The state of the nation’s economy: Jan. 2017: 46% satisfied. Jan. 2020: 68% satisfied. +22
• The nation’s security from terrorism: Jan. 2017: 50% satisfied. Jan. 2020: 68% satisfied. +18.
• The nation’s military strength and preparedness: Jan. 2017: 66%. Jan. 2020: 81%. +15.
• The state of race relations: Jan. 2017: 22%. Jan. 2020: 36%. +14
• The nation’s policies to reduce or control crime: Jan. 2017: 38%. Jan. 2020: 47%. +9.
• The position of blacks and other racial minorities in the nation: Jan. 2017: 37%. Jan. 2020: 46%. +9.
• The way income and wealth are distributed in the U.S.: Jan. 2017: 35%. Jan. 2020: 43%. +8.
• The opportunity for a person in this nation to get ahead by working hard: Jan. 2017: 66%. Jan. 2020: 72%. +6.

 
Meanwhile, the overall quality of life, influence of organized religion, the nation’s energy policies, our system of government and how well it works, government regulation of businesses and industries, the size and influence of major corporations, and the moral and ethical climate have all also gone up in the last three years, though by nowhere near as much as the ones listed above, with quality of life having increased by 4 percentage points, the size and influence of major corporations increasing by 2, the moral and ethical climate increasing by 1 and the rest increasing by 3 points.
 
But if you would care to look back at the issues that increased by a lot over the last three years, what stands out to you? Well, to me, a lot of things stand out, such as the state of the economy, though I was not surprised by that at all. What I am specifically talking about here are two things: the state of race relations and the position of blacks and other racial minorities in the nation.
 
And here I thought Trump was supposed to be a horrifying racist who will put black people back in chains, segregate everything and send us back to pre-emancipation eras of racial relations. Well, that’s what the Democrats were telling everyone, at least. Perhaps the single most preferred word for the Left to throw at Trump (and his supporters) is the word “racist”. They love calling him that despite not having any real reason to do so. Hollywood, despite having known him for decades, hadn’t called Trump a racist even once until he decided to run for POTUS as a Republican. All Democrats, when they hear Trump and his supporters wanting a wall at the southern border, can’t help but react with scorn and hatred, believing that desire to be for racist reasons rather than security ones.
 
Trump was supposed to be the “racist-in-chief”, as many on the Left (at least on Twitter) choose to call him, and yet, racial relations are better off today than they were when THE FIRST BLACK AMERICAN PRESIDENT was in office. Race relations, by the end of Obama’s tenure, were awful. And no one was surprised by that, considering how often Obama would support black thugs or criminals when they were, unfortunately, shot and killed by police officers. Showing just about no remorse when police officers in Dallas were shot and killed by a BLM supporter also didn’t help race relations any.
 
But Donald Trump, the guy most often smeared as a racist by the true racists in the Democrat Party, has helped race relations over the last three years. And not by a little bit, but by a lot. A 14% increase in it is quite good. Granted, the bar was already fairly low by the time Trump entered office, but again, he was smeared as a racist and the Left assured people that he would be awful for blacks and minorities in general. And yet, the complete opposite is true, as is often the case when we are talking about Democrats predicting the future.
 
Democrats predict we will die in 10 years? A load of crap. Al Gore has been predicting we’d all die in 10 years for 30 years. Democrats predict the economy will collapse with a Trump presidency? The opposite wound up happening. The funny thing is that some Hollywood celebrities and Leftists are trying to tell people “we are screwed” if Trump wins AGAIN.
 
Just about every prediction the Left has made about anything, let alone about Donald Trump, has been utterly wrong. The economy has gotten better, the country is getting stronger, our enemies fear us again, our “allies” know they can’t take advantage of us anymore, and race relations are better today than when Obama left office. These are all things that should terrify and demoralize the Democrats, particularly if those numbers stay about the same, or even improve, by the time of the election.
 
Deuteronomy 28:7
“The Lord will cause your enemies who rise against you to be defeated before you. They shall come out against you one way and flee before you seven ways.”

Not that I find this surprising whatsoever, but what he actually says I feel must be addressed as he only continues to lie and mislead about gun laws in America.
 
Speaking at VTEX DAY, a digital convention in Sao Paulo, Brazil, last week, former President Barack Obama spoke about the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting that claimed the lives of 20 children and 6 adults and said it was the “hardest day of his life,” according to the UK Daily Mail. Okay, fair enough. It was a horrible tragedy that was heavy on everyone. The problem, however, comes in the fact that he, like every other ignorant Leftist, tries to blame the gun and gun laws in America as being culpable for the shooting.
 
“Gun laws in the United States don’t make much sense. Anybody can buy any weapon, anytime without, you know, without much if any regulation. They can buy over the Internet. They can buy machine guns.”
 
A rather short and concise statement, but full of lies and inaccuracies. First, not just “anybody” can buy a weapon. Depending on the state, there is a legal age limit for purchasing a weapon. Second, you can’t just buy a weapon “anytime… without much if any regulation.” That is the biggest lie in the entire statement.
 
Background checks can often be quite extensive, depending on the state. Going back to the original point of not “anybody” being able to purchase a weapon, one cannot even obtain a gun license (where one is required at least) if one is a convicted felon, is a fugitive from justice or has been proven to have some severe mental disorder that could lead to violence against another or oneself. So you absolutely cannot buy a gun “anytime”. Yes, it is possible to walk into a gun store, run the background check and it would finish within the day (often takes multiple days) and then purchase a gun, but it’s not like there is absolutely no regulation behind the purchase.
 
Third, not just anybody can buy “any weapon”. It is possible to purchase a machine gun, but that process includes tons of paperwork, a very in-depth federal background check, adding the purchaser’s name to a national registry and a nifty cost of $10,000 for the weapon on its own. And the legal inventory only includes weapons made before 1986, so no new weapons. Oh, and this entire process takes almost a year and a half to complete, so it’s not like you can just walk into a gun store, purchase a fully-automatic “military-style assault rifle” and walk out of it like it’s Grand Theft Auto (the video game series, not the crime).
 
Then there’s the claim about buying guns over the Internet. Technically, it’s true, but it hardly works the way it sounds. From the way people talk about it, you’d think the NRA would make a personal delivery to whomever purchased the gun online to the person’s house, or like how you would receive a package from Amazon. Far from it, as the NRA does not sell weapons and the gun is delivered to a gun store, where the process would have to be the same as if one were to walk into the store off the street. They still have to file all the paperwork, run all the background checks, etc.
 
Now, there is one more thing that I would like to point out. Obama has often said that his inability to restrict gun laws as much as possible is the “greatest frustration of his presidency,” according to the UK Daily Mail.
 
And while there were multiple times when he wished certain gun control resolutions would pass, only for them to fail in Republican-controlled Congress, there was a time when the Democrats held the Presidency, the Senate and the House of Representatives. That was after the 2008 election, when Obama was first elected. And if you remember, following the Sen. Ted Stevens case, the Democrats held a supermajority in the Senate.
 
Truly, this was the time for the Democrats, who usually manage to work together pretty well, to completely change our country’s foundation if they so desired. They could’ve swiftly passed bill after bill, changing whatever they wanted without a care in the world as to what the Republicans said. Obama and the Democrats could’ve done some serious damage to gun rights in America during those two years. So why didn’t they?
 
That’s really more of a rhetorical question than anything else. Research can only take me so far as to the reasons for this. I was too young at the time to really have paid attention to anything outside my own little world of Power Rangers and video games, so someone older might more easily be able to explain to me why they didn’t do more than they actually did.
 
Now, from what I know, I suppose one explanation could be prioritizing Obamacare, but that didn’t get passed until 2010, and even then, it had to be passed in two different bills, which the death of Sen. Ted Kennedy made harder, as that meant the Democrats would only have 59 votes, just shy of the 60 needed to pass anything at the time. Afterwards, Harry Reid essentially decided to employ the “nuclear” option, at the time called the “Reconciliation Rule”, in order to pass another bill to include into the ACA. So maybe the Democrats had tried to prioritize Obamacare, but again, that didn’t get passed until 2010 and they surely tried to get other stuff done, particularly with a supermajority, so there really isn’t much of an excuse for them here.
 
Now, that’s not to say that more heavy gun control legislation passing while the Democrats were essentially kings would’ve prevented any further shootings. Most of the time, guns used in shootings are illegally acquired, either by stealing them from someone else or getting one through some illegal black market. Whatever the case may be, legislation doesn’t stop a criminal from committing crimes. By definition, a criminal breaks the law. By “making it harder for criminals to get a gun”, that makes it harder for millions of other people who do not commit crimes to get a gun. And at the end of the day, these gun control legislations do not really make it harder for bad people to get a gun. Again, one can acquire a gun almost in any illegal way and these people literally do not care about what any law says.
 
Murder has been illegal for millennia in pretty much all countries ever, and yet, people still do it. Do you really think a criminal will care about Congress passing a bill that makes it harder to acquire guns legally? They are HAPPY when it happens because that means that THEY have guns but their targets have to go through more extreme lengths to get one through legal means.
 
So if there is one thing I can agree with Obama on is that U.S. gun laws really don’t make sense, but not in the same way that he thinks. It doesn’t make sense to punish the law-abiding for things they didn’t do. It doesn’t make sense to treat law-abiding people as criminals and potential (or actual) terrorists. It doesn’t make sense to force people who obey the law to jump through hoops just to protect themselves and their families.
 
But apart from that, everything Obama says is a complete lie or highly misleading. But then again, this is the former Liar-in-Chief we’re talking about, so what would we expect? I mean, for crying out loud, he’s tried on more than one occasion to take credit for Trump’s economy and he’s infamous for the line: “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”!
 
Proverbs 12:22
“Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, but those who act faithfully are his delight.”
 
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. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!

The biggest story of the weekend was the fact that on Easter Sunday, the day when Christians around the world celebrate the rising of the Lord Jesus Christ from the grave, signifying His defeat over death, multiple bombs, most of which were suicide bombings, targeted churches and luxury hotels, killing around 300 people (and expected to increase) and wounding 500 others in Sri Lanka.
 
The attack is believed to have been perpetrated by a radical Islamist terrorist group called National Thowfeek Jamaath, which might have ties to ISIS.
 
Included in the death toll are over 30 foreigners and 2 Americans.
 
Obviously, this is a very big deal. The death toll is very high and the attacks were numerous, with reportedly 7 locations being targeted: three churches and four hotels. According to the Wall Street Journal, six of the attacks were suicide bombings and the other one was a failed car bombing outside the St. Anthony Shrine. Another bomb was also found near Sri Lanka’s airport, but was found and defused before it went off.
 
The Wall Street Journal also reports that 85 other detonators were found abandoned in a bus station, indicating that the attacks carried out on Easter were supposed to only be the beginning of more chaos, death and destruction.
 
Considering this is major news, influential people took notice and wished to share their thoughts. However, one must recognize the sort of language used by people like former President Barack Obama and failure Hillary Clinton.
 
Obama tweeted: “The attacks on tourists and Easter worshippers in Sri Lanka are an attack on humanity. On a day devoted to love, redemption, and renewal, we pray for the victims and stand with the people of Sri Lanka.”
 
Clinton tweeted: “On this holy weekend for many faiths, we must stand united against hatred and violence. I’m praying for everyone affected by today’s horrific attacks on Easter worshippers and travelers in Sri Lanka.”
 
“Easter worshippers”?
 
And they’re not the only ones who used that odd term. Presidential candidate Julian Castro tweeted: “On a day of redemption and hope, the evil of these attacks on Easter worshippers and tourists in Sri Lanka is deeply saddening. My prayers today are with the dead and injured, and their families. May we find grace.”
 
Even ABC News tweeted: “Tourists, Easter worshippers lament the closure of Notre Dame.” Though that one was sent the day before the attacks, but still used that strange term.
 
Just what exactly is that supposed to mean? Because Christians are not “Easter worshippers”. I’ve seen many people tweeting at Obama, Hillary and others about how they can’t seemingly use the term “Christians” (maybe it burns them to mention Him) but they gloss over the fact that no Christian worships Easter. NO ONE worships Easter.
 
Do we celebrate Easter? You bet we do. But we do not worship it. We worship Jesus who rose again from the dead, which we celebrate on Easter Sunday.
 
It’s such a strange term to use in what is supposed to be a replacement for “Christians”.
 
But in any case, notice how they really can’t seem to be able to use that word. Why wouldn’t they note that Christians were targeted and killed on Sunday? Why would they use such a strange and erroneous term to replace the far-easier-to-type “Christians”?
 
These are really just rhetorical questions, of course. These people are themselves not Christians and absolutely hate Christians, so at any point where Christians are targeted, especially in such a grand and horrific way, they have to completely avoid mentioning it. To them, Christians are oppressors and vicious rulers, not victims and targets of persecution and execution.
 
Notice the sort of language they use to talk about multiple horrific acts of violence against Christians versus what they said about the Christchurch shooting in New Zealand.
 
Here’s what Obama said after the NZ shooting: “Michelle and I send our condolences to the people of New Zealand. We grieve with you and the Muslim community. All of us must stand against hatred in all its forms.”
 
And now Hillary: “My heart breaks for New Zealand & the global Muslim community. We must continue to fight the perpetuation and normalization of Islamophobia and racism in all its forms. White supremacist terrorists must be condemned by leaders everywhere. Their murderous hatred must be stopped.”
 
Rightly, they were outraged over the New Zealand shooting that killed 50 Muslims in a mosque. But they have no problem pointing out that Muslims were targeted in that attack while they perform verbal gymnastics to avoid pointing out that Christians were targeted in Sri Lanka.
 
The Left has no problem pointing out hatred and violence against Muslims when it happens (unless it’s Shiites being killed by Sunnis, as both are Muslims) but makes it their mission to try and diminish the effect of a far more destructive and deadly event. Not to minimize the horror of the New Zealand shooting, any destruction of life is tragic, but this attack led to more deaths and injuries, not to mention it was supposedly only the beginning of more planned terrorist attacks, likely targeting Christians.
 
50 dead Muslims is a major deal to the Left (as it should be) but 300 dead Christians and they can hardly pretend to give a damn.
 
Not that I expected anything less from these people, but it is a reminder of the sort of vile that they are. Especially looking over Hillary’s tweets. She wanted the NZ shooter’s head on a platter, denouncing Islamophobia (how come no one talks about Christophobia? Is that even a term?) and “racism in all its forms”. She says that “white supremacists terrorists must be condemned by leaders everywhere,” and insists that that sort of “murderous hatred must be stopped”.
 
But when Christians are the targets: they don’t get mentioned and are even lost in the crowd. “On this holy weekend for many faiths…” while not exactly wrong, as it is also Passover for Jews, this is an attack that specifically happened on Easter, a strictly Christian holiday, with Christians being the targets of the attacks.
 
They insist that we must stand in solidarity with the Muslim community around the world when they are targeted (which is rare, again, unless it is Muslim-on-Muslim violence which is frequent) and condemn Islamophobia, while not calling for any solidarity with the Christian community around the world when we are targeted and there are no calls for condemnation of Christophobia or the targeting of Christians at all.
 
And while Christophobia is technically a term, it is never outright used at any point. When someone targets gay people, that’s homophobia. Fine. When someone targets someone for their skin color, that’s racism. Fine. When someone targets women, that’s misogyny. Fine. When someone targets transgender people, that’s transphobia. Fine. When someone targets Muslims, that’s Islamophobia. Fine. But when someone targets Christians, the Left does not even recognize that they are Christians and certainly does not recognize any sort of trend of hatred towards Christians. Not fine.
 
But what makes this even worse is the actual term they use instead of Christians. If it had been “Easter observers” or “Easter celebrators” or something like that, it might’ve been marginally better. But “Easter worshippers” just rubs me the wrong way. It insinuates that what we worship is not Jesus Christ Himself, but the holiday. That we worship and have reverence towards a simple day on the week and not the Lord who made this day special with the unique and unprecedented feat of COMING BACK FROM THE DEAD. That we worship something that is not God.
 
THAT is what ticks me off more than anything else. Again, I fully expected this sort of behavior from the Left. I’m not at all surprised that they gave every damn they had about Muslims being killed in New Zealand but couldn’t be bothered to pretend about Christians. That is expected, but that term is outright insulting.
 
What Christian worships Easter? Point one out to me and I will tell you that he or she is not a Christian.
 
This is the definition of passive aggressive behavior. Implicit disdain of Christians.
 
Again, not exactly surprising behavior coming from the Left, whose heart is filled with hatred and evil, but we are yet again reminded of the sort of hatred and evil that they harbor.
 
John 15:18
“If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you.”
 
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. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!

Amidst all the “controversy” surrounding President Trump’s meeting with Putin, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders commented about a reported deal made between the President and Putin about sending a former Russian ambassador to Moscow for “questioning” regarding a financial scam that took place in Russia.
 
Despite the fact that we will not actually be sending anyone to Russia for “questioning” as that would be the equivalent to a death sentence, the world’s most notorious loser Hillary Clinton reacted to the possibility of sending someone to Russia in a disgusting and highly-hypocritical way.
 
She tweeted: “Ambassador McFaul is a patriot who has spent his career standing up for America. To see the White House even hesitate to defend a diplomat is deeply disturbing.”
 
Yep. You read that right. Hillary Clinton attacked the White House for possibly “hesitating” to defend a diplomat.
 
This is grade-A stupidity and hypocrisy. This is an utter lack of self-awareness. And this, among many other things, is why we must thank God that she is not President.
 
How can the woman who was Secretary of State at the time of BENGHAZI possibly attack anyone within the White House for supposedly “hesitating” in defending a diplomat?
 
Now, unsurprisingly, this caught a lot of people’s attention, specifically, from a former Special Forces officer who was a surviving member of a six-man security team that was given the “stand down” order from the CIA after receiving distress calls from the embassy in Benghazi.
 
Kris Paronto reacted the same way anyone in his position might have. “Are you f’n kidding me, Hillary Clinton?!!! You left Ambassador Stevens and us to die in Benghazi then spewed lie after lie to the family members of my dead teammates and to the world to cover it up and now you have the nerve to talk about defending diplomats?! You are disgusting!”
 
Frankly, I think he was sugarcoating things. The amount of disgust you get from reading that tweet from that nasty woman is almost enough to make you puke. To think this woman even came close to becoming President is unthinkable.
 
But this perfectly describes the Left today. Highly-hypocritical and completely lacking in self-awareness of their own actions and words. And if you remember, it’s not just that the White House “hesitated” in Benghazi. They flat out DENIED Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans the help they needed and honestly could have gotten if it weren’t for Obama and Hillary.
 
Former Deputy Chief of Missions for Lybia noted the Benghazi attacks four years later. This is what he said:
 
“The Benghazi Committee’s report graphically illustrates the magnitude of [Secretary Clinton’s] failure. It states that during August 2012, the State Department reduced the number of U.S. security personnel assigned to the Embassy in Tripoli from 34 (1.5 security officers per diplomat) to 6 (1 security officer per 4.5 diplomats), despite a rapidly deteriorating security situation in both Tripoli and Benghazi. Thus, according to the Report, ‘there were no surplus security agents’ to travel to Benghazi with Amb. Stevens ‘without leaving the Embassy in Tripoli at severe risk.’”
 
“Had Ambassador Stevens’ July 2012 request for 13 additional American security personnel (either military or State Department) been approved rather than rejected by Clinton appointee Under Secretary of State for Management Pat Kennedy, they would have traveled to Benghazi with the ambassador, and the Sept. 11 attack might have been thwarted.”
 
In other words, Ambassador Stevens was essentially marked for death by Obama and Hillary with the reduced security personnel in Tripoli and the denying of the Ambassador’s request for extra security personnel.
 
And even knowing all of this, Hillary Clinton has the audacity to attack the White House for possibly “hesitating” about defending a U.S. diplomat? I have no words to describe this other than utterly disgusting.
 
Even the State Department’s Accountability Review Board reviewed the incident in a report, saying:
 
“The number of Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS) security staff in Benghazi on the day of the attack and in the months and weeks leading up to it was inadequate, despite repeated requests from Special Mission Benghazi and Embassy Tripoli for additional staffing. Board members found a pervasive realization among personnel who served in Benghazi that the Special Mission was not a high priority for Washington when it came to security-related requests, especially those relating to staffing. The insufficient Special Mission security platform was at variance with the appropriate Overseas Security Policy Board (OSPB) standards with respect to perimeter and interior security. Benghazi was also severely under-resourced with regard to certain needed security equipment, although DS funded and installed in 2012 a number of physical security upgrades.”
 
Altogether, hypocrisy runs deep within the Left. Just last week, Obama spoke at the 2018 Nelson Mandela Annual Lecture in Johannesburg, South Africa, where he actually said: “Too much of politics today seems to reject the concept of objective truth. People just make stuff up.”
 
Kinda like “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor” or “the incident in Benghazi was because of a video” that no one ever actually saw. That kind of rejection of the concept of objective truth, right?
 
This is what the Left is. Liars, hypocrites, people with absolutely no self-awareness in the least.
 
It’s hard to believe that that communist compulsive liar was ever elected once, let alone TWICE (then again, he had extremely weak competition).
 
And it’s even hard to believe Hillary Clinton came as close to winning as she did. Forget the fact that she did cheat to become the Democrat nominee and did try to cheat to get to the White House. How can anyone who considers him or herself to be sane or someone with a soul ever support someone of her caliber?
 
It simply makes no sense, but hey, that also perfectly summarizes the Left, doesn’t it?
 
Either way, that particular tweet serves as a fantastic reminder of why the country adamantly rejected her and why we must thank the good Lord for keeping her out of power. Knowing her, she would have already sold us to China if she were POTUS.
 
Romans 8:28
“And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to His purpose.”

​No, you didn’t misread that. No, that’s not a typo. A gift from God is what this is. I can assure you I never expected to ever utter those words. I never expected what I will share with you to happen. I never expected the head of the Democrat Party to throw Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama under the bus.
 
What am I talking about? I’m talking about a Politico article that took some excerpts from Donna Brazile’s book to be published on November 7th, 2017: “Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns that Put Donald Trump in the White House.”
 
The article is quite long and takes a lot from the book, but there are some VERY key pieces that need to be shared. The article talks about how Donna wanted to look into the scandal that Hillary Clinton might’ve rigged the election and screwed Bernie from the beginning.
 
We begin with the first instance of throwing someone under the bus: “My predecessor, Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had not been the most active chair in fundraising at a time when President Barack Obama’s neglect had left the party in significant debt. As Hillary’s campaign gained momentum, she resolved the party’s debt and put it on a starvation diet. It had become dependent on her campaign for survival, for which she expected to wield control of its operations.”
 
Wow. We begin with a big one. In that paragraph alone, she threw three Democrats under the bus: Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Obama and Hillary. She essentially said that Schultz was doing next to nothing in terms of fundraising, but more significantly, she ACCUSED Obama of neglecting the party financially.
 
And that’s something I truly never thought I’d see. For as much as they loved Hillary, even they knew that she was a pretty terrible candidate. They knew the only thing she had going for herself was her gender. They were banking on that, since that was her only “positive”. I put positive between quotation marks because gender shouldn’t really be a significant factor in choosing a candidate for President. Just as voting for a black guy because he’s black is just as racist as voting against him because he’s black, voting for a woman because she’s a woman is just as sexist as voting against a woman because she’s a woman.
 
But let’s not get sidetracked too much. This revelation from Brazile is simply too astonishing to go down a tangent that I can talk about at any other point. The article continues with more under-the-bus-throwing: “Debbie was not a good manager. She hadn’t been very interested in controlling the party – she let Clinton’s headquarters in Brooklyn do as it desired so she didn’t have to inform the party officers how bad the situation was. How much control Brooklyn had and for how long was still something I had been trying to uncover for the last few weeks. By September 7th, the day I called Bernie, I had found my proof and it broke my heart.”
 
Then, we move on to a phone call made to Gary Gensler, the chief financial officer of the Clinton campaign. “The Saturday morning after the convention in July, I called Gary Gensler… He wasted no words. He told me the Democratic Party was broke and $2 million in debt.” She then responded to Gensler with: “I am an officer of the party and they’ve been telling us everything is fine and they were raising money with no problems.”
 
And then, comes the detailed revelation from Gensler: “That wasn’t true”, he said. “Officials from Hillary’s campaign had taken a look at the DNC’s books. Obama left the party $24 million in debt - $15 million in bank debt and more than $8 million owed to vendors after the 2012 campaign – and had been paying that off very slowly. Obama’s campaign was not scheduled to pay it off until 2016. Hillary for America (the campaign) and the Hillary Victory Fund (its joint fundraising vehicle with the DNC) had taken care of 80 percent of the remaining debt in 2016, about $10 million, and had placed the party on an allowance.”
 
Oh my God. I honestly can’t believe this is being released for the public (that at least researches a little) to see. Earlier, Brazile had thrown Obama under the bus by saying he neglected the party financially. Well, this is throwing Obama under the Space Shuttle. She’s revealing that Obama was terrible with even his own PARTY’S finances.
 
I’ve mentioned that Obama essentially killed the Democrat Party in the past, but this goes a step even further. Back then, I only meant that in terms of politics. People didn’t like what he did with the country, and decided to vote against Democrats. But now, we see that he even did his best in killing his party FINANCIALLY.
 
Regardless, we move on to the other target for the DNC bus: Hillary Clinton. The article continues: “On the phone Gary told me the DNC had needed a $2 million loan, which the campaign had arranged. ‘No! That can’t be true!’ I said. ‘The party cannot take out a loan without the unanimous agreement of all the officers.’ ‘Gary, how did they do this without me knowing?’ I asked. ‘I don’t know how Debbie relates to the officers,’ Gary said. He described the party as fully under the control of Hillary’s campaign, which seemed to confirm the suspicions of the Bernie camp. The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearinghouse. Under FEC law, an individual can contribute a maximum of $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign. But the limits are much higher for contributions to state parties and a party’s national committee.”
 
“Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund – that figure represented $10,000 to each of the 32 states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement - $320,000 – and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn.”
 
Ok, that’s a lot of information to look at, so I’ll break down what it means. Gary informed Donna that the Clinton campaign had full control of the party. Meaning that the FEC contribution limit doesn’t matter at all. The money contributed to either the Hillary Victory Fund or the individual states’ local Democrat party went straight to the DNC. And since the party was under the control of the Clinton campaign, that means that the money then could go straight to the campaign.
 
In essence, what Donna mentioned earlier was right: the Clinton campaign was using the party as a cash cow. A mere platform for fundraisers.
 
Now, parties do everything they can to raise money for their respective campaigns. And campaigns typically control the party when they have an incumbent, such as in 2012 when Obama was the incumbent Democrat president. But parties typically aren’t controlled by the campaign until a victor is declared. And Donna makes the shocking revelation (though, shocking to us conservatives for different reasons) that the Clinton campaign had full control of the DNC BEFORE she was the party’s nominee.
 
“I had tried to search out any other evidence of internal corruption that would show that the DNC was rigging the system to throw the primary to Hillary, but I could not find any in party affairs or among the staff… Then I found this agreement. The funding agreement with HFA and the victory fund agreement was not illegal, but it sure looked unethical. If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters decided which one they wanted to lead… I told Bernie I had found Hillary’s Joint Fundraising Agreement. I explained that… she had exerted this control of the party long before she became its nominee.”
 
That proves it. The agreement Donna is talking about shows that the Clinton campaign had full control of the party before Hillary was even the nominee. Now, I’m not shocked by this like, say, a liberal would be. I've known for a long time now that Hillary and the DNC screwed Bernie. What I’m shocked by is the fact that the current DNC head is REVEALING ALL OF THIS! She’s revealed right there that Hillary and the DNC screwed Bernie’s chances long before a nominee was even decided upon. Hillary had the nomination in the bag from almost the get-go.
 
I could talk so much more about this, but time constraints exist for me in these articles, so I’ll try to summarize my thoughts as opposed to expressing them with as much detail as I usually do.
 
When reading that Politico article, the first thing that came to mind was how the Left said that Republicans were being torn apart because of Trump. That we’re divided. That there’s no unity. But in reality, while there are RINOs that divide the party, most Republicans are in favor of Trump. We’re united with him.
 
But when we take a look at the DNC, we see nothing more than a dumpster fire. They are screwed financially. They are screwed politically. And they have no real sense of reality. At one point in the article, Donna even mentioned to Bernie that she did not believe the polls that had Hillary winning! Even THE DNC CHAIRWOMAN was hesitant about Clinton’s chances!
 
I’ll end this article with these words: the Democrat Party is in total shambles and I couldn’t be happier about it.
 
Romans 8:28
“And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to His purpose.”

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.”

​This past weekend, the president met with Saudi King Salman. While there, the president and king managed to reach a deal that would help the U.S. economically, having sold $110B worth of weapons, and would help Saudi Arabia in their fight against terrorism and the threat of Iran. Due to that deal, King Salman awarded the president with the kingdom’s highest medal of honor award for his efforts to “strengthen the relationship between the two friendly countries” and continuing to “enhance security and peace.”
 
It’s clear here that the king of Saudi Arabia and the Saudis in general are showing far more respect to Trump than they ever did to Obama. Of course, I don’t blame them for showing less respect to Obama. The former president made sure to BOW to the king, a sign of weakness and submission. A sign that warrants no respect from anyone. 
 
Even Trump said on Twitter back in 2012 “Barack Obama bowed to the Saudi King in public – yet the Dems are questioning Mitt Romney’s diplomatic skills.” While I’ll ignore the part about the 'never-trumper'/traitor’s questioned diplomatic skills, we have to acknowledge the fact that Obama’s bowing to the Saudi king is a sign of poor diplomatic skills. And the media hasn’t forgotten about that either (though, they largely tried to ignore it at the time).
 
The media, being the biggest source of fake news around, said that Trump is being hypocritical for bowing to King Salman upon receiving the aforementioned medal of honor. I gotta tell you, this is the easiest story to swat back at them. Largely due to the fact that Trump is significantly taller than King Salman, so in order to help the king give him the award, he had to bend over a bit to receive the honor. But the media wants a negative story on Trump so badly that they are scraping the bottom of the barrel and pretty much nitpicking at things the president does.
 
But here’s the thing: the media can't come up with any negative stories (at least, ones that stick). The media had been touting how Trump is a massive fool and would destroy relations with any country he meets with. The president has even taken action, having signed a deal that would be mutually beneficial, and yet, the media can’t spin anything against Trump? Why is that?
 
It’s because, while Trump is here at home, doing things to help this country, the media can spin them as disastrous. They can say that the vast majority of people want Trump impeached or never wanted him in the White House to begin with. But they can’t put words into another country’s mouths. They can’t claim that the Saudi king or people think anything badly of the president. Their own media get to decide what is said, and the Saudis largely LOVED having the president over. And it’s not just the president that accomplished things there, the First Lady and Ivanka Trump accompanied the president on this trip and made strides to help women in the kingdom. Granted, this being a Muslim country, I don’t know how far these efforts will get, but the two were certainly well received by the female population of the country.
 
The media in the U.S. wish to nitpick every little thing that occurs on this trip. And that’s all they’ve managed to do. The Washington Post wrote a story on how Trump’s trip to Saudi Arabia is “bizarre and un-American”. Here are some of the points they’ve nitpicked on:

• “It was a very strange choice for a first trip abroad.”
• “It was a very strange place to speak out against Islamist extremism”
• “The sword dance”: a dance signifying the start of notable occasions, in which only males are allowed to participate.
• “Ivanka Trump’s ‘outreach’ to women entrepreneurs.”
• “Tillerson talking about human rights in Iran.”
• “Tillerson holding a news press conference for foreign press only”.

 
Firstly, while it is true that previous presidents usually have their first trip abroad to either of America’s neighbors (Canada or Mexico), Trump doesn’t want to waste time. He wants to ensure that terrorism is dealt with altogether and relations between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia are strengthened.
 
Secondly, while Saudi Arabia is ok with some Islamist extremists (of course they are, they themselves are Muslim), they hate Iran and the terrorist organizations Iran funds..
 
Thirdly, the “sword dance” is, like I explained, a dance to commemorate the beginning of a notable occasion. The one in this case would be the strengthening of relations between our two countries. And while it is male only, it’s a part of their culture. A larger point being: since when does the Left have any complaints about Muslim tradition and culture?! Which leads me to my next point of emphasis:
 
Fourth, why would the media complain about Ivanka trying to help women in Saudi Arabia become entrepreneurs? Granted, this being a Muslim country, women hardly have any rights. Even the Washington Post points out that women can’t show their faces or “travel without the permission of male guardians.” But to repeat myself: Since when does the Left or the media altogether care about women in the Middle East? They didn’t complain when Obama went there. In fact, they made sure to avoid talking about that at all while Obama was there. So why care now?
 
Fifth, why is Tillerson talking about human rights in Iran considered a bad thing? All the media had to say about it is that it’s hypocritical. Even though it’s the Left that promotes gay rights here in the U.S. but flat out ignores the fact that gay people are horrendously tortured and killed simply for their sexual orientation. Talk about hypocrisy.
 
Lastly, of course Tillerson won’t allow the U.S. media in the press conference. The media is full of LIARS! They will attempt to make a mockery of Tillerson in such a conference and disrupt what the president is trying to accomplish in the region.
 
And finally, here’s my main point: Trump in a single trip has managed to accomplish more for this country than Obama did in 8 years. I’m not just talking about making the country $110B richer from one deal. I’m also talking about one of the things Trump promised during the campaign trail: that America would be respected again. He’s certainly making strides to accomplishing just that, and for that, we must truly be thankful to God that we don’t have Hillary as president and that we no longer have Obama as president either.
 
James 1:17
“Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.”