The biggest story of last week was obviously the many Republican victories in key elections which showed the unpopularity of the Brandon agenda. But there was another story being told at the same time, which went less talked about because of the elections: Kyle Rittenhouse’s trial.
 
The idea that he has to be in a trial charged with two counts of homicide and one count of attempted homicide is an abortion of the law, as anyone with even a single-digit IQ who paid attention to what happened in Kenosha in 2020 could tell you that Rittenhouse acted entirely in self-defense while he was trying TO HELP protesters who might be hurt, while protecting businesses from being utterly destroyed as was the pattern in other BLM and Antifa-led terrorist attacks throughout the country.
 
But, of course, Leftists tend to have a negative IQ, so the young man was arrested and charged and is currently in trial over it.
 
His case for self-defense was exceedingly strong even before the trial, and I have already talked about that, but new evidence came to light during the trial which makes his case EVEN STRONGER.
 
For a quick recap of the events that unfolded last year, Rittenhouse was seeking to protect businesses in Kenosha while also trying to attend to people’s wounds regardless of whether they were victims or protesters/rioters. At one point, he began to be chased by a rioter who threw what appeared to be a Molotov cocktail at the young man and gunshots could be heard being fired from behind Rittenhouse. Specifically, gunshots from a 9mm handgun. This is important because Rittenhouse was protecting himself with what appeared to be an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle.
 
Rittenhouse was attacked by multiple people, eventually falling down on the street (where he kept being attacked), with him having to kill two of them and injuring another.
 
But there is new footage out now which shows not only what happened in the moments before Rittenhouse was attacked, but even has Forward Looking Infra Red (FLIR) footage which showed who was where and roughly what happened. For those unfamiliar with the term above, if you’ve ever seen a military movie where they showed an image of people silhouetted in white with other things being either gray or black, that’s basically what FLIR is, and it’s used to detect heat signatures usually to find where people are.
 
Say the police are looking for a suspect, but the suspect is well-hidden in foliage, or something; FLIR would easily be able to find them.
 
What the FLIR footage does here is show us where Rittenhouse was and where his attackers were. But more importantly, it shows shots being fired behind Rittenhouse.
 
And that goes a LONG way to exonerating the kid, since he was running and had no idea whether or not the shots were directed at him. Seemingly, the shots were fired into the air, but again, Rittenhouse had no way of knowing this because he was being chased by a terrorist. As far as the case would go, he reasonably could have assumed the shots were at him and that he was defending himself from that (not to mention that, again, he was still being attacked otherwise and this has been known since last year).
 
Thankfully, Rittenhouse’s judge seems to be logical, having even barred the prosecution from calling the terrorists that Rittenhouse killed “victims”, so with the evidence we already have, plus this new evidence, it’s entirely likely that the kid will be rightfully acquitted of all charges.
 
But this does beg the question as to why we are only NOW seeing this footage, and with a better camera (FLIR) than what was used to record the already exonerating evidence of Rittenhouse being attacked?
 
Well, the answer is obvious: the communist FBI has an agenda, knew that Rittenhouse was innocent, and sat on this evidence because they hoped the fake news media and others would demonize the kid sufficiently.
 
In my opinion, there should be a law which forces the police agencies to release all exculpatory evidence as soon as they get said evidence, or at least before the damn trial commences. Because the only thing that protects them right now is that the Brady Rule applies only to trials.
 
For those not in the know, the Brady rule is a rule established following the 1963 Supreme Court case Brady v. Maryland, in which prosecutors (including entities like police departments and FBI) are required to turn over any material exculpatory evidence they have to the defense. They don’t always do this, however.
 
Most famously, the case of Senator Ted Stevens, who was charged with making false statements, particularly for his failure to report on his Senate Financial Disclosure Forms gifts he received from Bill Allen, the CEO of VECO Corp. (who pled guilty to corruption charges and became a witness against Stevens), as well as others. The government made a motion to file ex parte an unredacted whistleblower complaint which raised allegations of misconduct relating to the investigation, but only provided a redacted copy to Stevens’ defense, which redacted exculpatory evidence for Stevens.
 
The defense, before and during the trial, alleged many other discovery violations and prosecutorial misconduct, and while the District Court (in D.C., so he was never going to get a fair shake being a Republican and being a seat standing in the way of a Democrat Super Majority in the Senate following the 2008 election) remedied some of these things (for example, they forced the government to provide an unredacted copy to the defense), they ultimately did not dismiss the case or declare a mistrial, leading to a Stevens guilty verdict. Even after the verdict, more whistleblower complaints came out about federal employees violating policies, procedure, discovery, etc. regarding the investigation into Stevens and his trial.
 
The law firm John T Floyd’s website has an entire section on Brady violations and general prosecutorial misconduct happening in numerous circuit and state courts, and offer some summary of the Brady case and other similar Supreme Court cases.
 
At any rate, the FBI ultimately did what they are required by law to do in releasing the footage, but maliciously sat on exculpatory evidence surrounding a case in which a young man was demonized by the evil fake news because he stood in the way of terrorists destroying yet another city.
 
There are MANY criminal actions committed by the fake news and the FBI surrounding this whole thing, but that the FBI can sit on exculpatory evidence until the trial is unacceptable. Because of a technicality, they are allowed to not reveal what they have surrounding this case and so allow a young kid to be maligned and demonized by people who are the real demons.
 
Thankfully, Rittenhouse’s self-defense case was already pretty strong beforehand, but that doesn’t excuse this bullcrap. Imagine if the FBI sat on evidence this entire time which exonerated someone and that was the ONLY piece of evidence which showed someone’s innocence. The defendant would be character assassinated and personally destroyed because of political and ideological goals.
 
And the whole justice system is so inconsistent as well. OJ Simpson walks free from committing double-homicide because of a glove he didn’t necessarily have to have worn which didn’t fit his hand. And yet, we have a young kid whose entire life has been destroyed and maligned even despite ALL the evidence showing his innocence?
 
JFK is attributed with saying that he “wanted to splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.” I’d say “throw the FBI with them too.”
 
Proverbs 19:9
“A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who breathes out lies will perish.”

We are less than 40 days away from the 2020 presidential election, but even today, we are still finding out new things relating to the corrupt Mueller probe and the attitude of many (though not all) who were a part of said probe.
 
Well, I say “new” things rather liberally here. They are not new things, but more like new details that were previously unknown. We all knew perfectly well that the Mueller team’s primary objective was to just “get Trump” as one FBI agent suggested. The way it was formed was more akin to how investigators in a banana republic work as opposed to a constitutional republic.
 
Time and time again, I have pointed out that the Mueller team was not given a particular crime to investigate, but rather, were given a target to investigate to see what crimes were possibly committed. Actual, legitimate investigators look into crimes to find the suspect(s); they don’t look at the suspect(s) to find the crime.
 
Lo and behold, that concept is further reinforced by an FBI agent who was a part of Crossfire Hurricane, and Crossfire Razor, which specifically investigated Gen. Michael Flynn.
 
During an interview with U.S. attorney Jeffrey Jensen, who is at the head of a DOJ review of the case against Flynn, FBI agent William Barnett noted that “he saw little reason to investigate Michael Flynn and that he believed that members of the special counsel’s team prosecuted the former national security adviser in order to ‘get Trump’,” reported The Daily Caller, who reported on a recently released memo.
 
The memo reads: “BARNETT thought the TRUMP Campaign may have been aware the Russians were attempting to impact the election, but that was far different from the TRUMP Campaign and the Russians having a deal and/or working together ‘quid pro quo,’”
 
The memo also notes that Barnett believed there was little reason to carry an investigation into General Flynn, and once theories of collusion began to float around, Barnett told Jensen that such a theory was “opaque” with no real evidence to suggest illegality.
 
Barnett mentioned that one basis for the investigation into Flynn was a speech that the former General had given in Moscow which was hosted by Russian news outlet RT back in December of 2015, in which Flynn was seated right next to President Vladimir Putin. The FBI agent said that he believed such a trip was “ill-advised” on Flynn’s part, but that there was nothing to suggest that he had committed any criminal acts.
 
The memo specifically pointed out that “BARNETT did not understand the point of the investigation.”
 
Interestingly, on the day of the election, Nov. 8, 2016, specifically at 5:42 p.m., Barnett wrote in a message to colleagues that FBI officials ordered Crossfire Razor to be shut down. However, the FBI heads changed their minds when it became clear that Trump had won, and the investigation remained ongoing.
 
I say this is interesting because it shows just how corrupt and perverse these people are. Had Hillary been an actually decent candidate and won, the FBI would have dropped their investigation into Flynn. They had nothing and at no point did they have anything that showed criminality and a reason to continue to investigate the guy. The ONLY reason they didn’t drop the matter is because Trump won and would subsequently name Flynn to a cabinet position.
 
Again, they had nothing and at no point did they get anything. They thought they might have gotten something following the revelation of Flynn’s call with Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergei Kislyak, but that had nothing either and yet, they still kept on going.
 
Of course, eventually, they pressured Flynn enough (aka threatening to send his son to jail) to get him to plead guilty to lying during an interview with the FBI at the White House (an interview that Flynn did not think he could get into trouble for the things he said and for which he did not have a lawyer present. Not to mention the FBI agents interviewing him never suggested it was an official interrogation and Comey even admitted he did not think Flynn lied in that interview, only that he misremembered some things, but I digress) and now, Flynn is fighting against the Deep State which has ruined his life and is still in pursuit of him.
 
By the way, the only reason we even know about this memo, and the only reason it exists, is because the Flynn case is still being pursued not by the DOJ but by a corrupt judge seeking to destroy Flynn for political reasons. That memo was written because of the attorneys looking into the Flynn case, which is still ongoing. With the matter dropped, this would not have come out and we would not have gotten such a clear picture of how utterly disgusting and corrupt the Obama DOJ was (not that we needed this to know that, but the details help paint the picture better).
 
And God bless Agent Barnett, one of the actually decent people in the FBI (who is relatively high up, as I suspect most people in the FBI are patriotic Americans, save for the ones at the very top). The memo noted that he wanted out of Crossfire Razor, noting that it was “problematic” and even pointed out an agenda-driven investigator in the Mueller Special Counsel who goes by the name of Jeannie Rhee, who seemed to be convinced Trump colluded with Russia (and really wanted to get him and everyone in the Trump administration).
 
Barnett told Jensen that he believed Rhee “was obsessed with Flynn and Russia and she had an agenda.” Not even a little bit surprising, but it is interesting to see that not everyone in the Mueller investigation was on the same boat about trying to destroy Trump. It was easy to assume every last one of them was on that counsel because they were in agreement that they would look into whatever they could to charge Trump with something and get him kicked out of office, but it seems that at least one of them was reasonable enough to recognize that there wasn’t much out there to suggest that Trump colluded with Russia.
 
The Obama administration is easily the most corrupt administration this country has seen, at least as far as I can tell. It worked to undermine, at every step, the incoming Trump administration and sought to make irrelevant the results of the 2016 election. To them, we, the People, should never have been able to elect Donald Trump as President of the United States. We were supposed to pick Hillary and continue on with their evil dominion over us. We never were supposed to have an actual say as to who inhabits the White House.
 
Unlikely as it is, I do hope and pray that before Trump leaves office for good (in 2025), that all of these evil bastards are sentenced for their criminal acts. What they committed was treason against the United States. They ought to serve the due punishment for such a crime.
 
But for now, let’s focus on winning 2020 and ensuring that another remnant of that corrupt Obama administration does not get the chance to set foot in the White House as POTUS.
 
James 3:16
“For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice.”

As if we needed any more confirmation of the legitimately traitorous actions the FBI committed with regard to various subjects from spying on the Trump campaign through Carter Page to knowingly submitting a fake dossier to get a FISA warrant to the handling of Trump’s former National Security Adviser, we now have unsealed FBI documents that show how the bureau sought to destroy Gen. Flynn purely because of politics.
 
Handwritten notes show an unidentified FBI agent writing: “What is our goal? Truth/admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”
 
So it is pretty clear that the people at the FBI investigating Michael Flynn aren’t exactly interested in finding the truth, but FORCING THE GUY TO COMMIT A CRIME BY LYING TO THEM! The FBI agent is asking what their purpose with Flynn is and seemingly has grown accustomed to the possibility of the FBI getting a subject to lie to have him prosecuted, which shows it to be common practice. They aren’t interested in whether or not Flynn had ties to the Russians. If he had any, they would’ve found them and they would have been happy with it. But he didn’t, so they had to look for something else to destroy him over. What they charged him with was lying to the FBI and they, as well as his lawyers, pressured Flynn into pleading guilty by threatening his son.
 
The notes went on to show: “We regularly show subjects evidence, with the goal of getting them to admit their wrongdoing. I don’t see how getting someone to admit their wrongdoing is going easy on them.”
 
It’s clear here that the unidentified FBI agent was unaware of the outright COLLUSION between the FBI and Flynn’s own lawyers. Not going after Flynn’s son was going easy on him, but they only would not have gone after him if Flynn had “admitted” to “wrongdoing” via pleading guilty.
 
“If we get him to admit to breaking the Logan Act, give facts to DOJ + have them decide, or if he initially lies, then we present him [redacted] + he admits it, document for DOJ + let him decide how to address it.”
 
The agent speaks of the Logan Act here, which says that no American citizen can interfere in U.S. foreign policy affairs with another country (like what John Kerry has been doing with the Iranians, or Ted Kennedy was doing with the Soviets, or Joe Biden is likely doing with the Chinese). The problem here is that the official reason for the FBI to go after Flynn is because of a phone call Flynn made to then-US ambassador to Russia Sergei Kislyak when Flynn had already been named National Security Adviser by President Trump (though had yet to officially come into office). We only know of this phone call because it was ILLEGALLY leaked to the Washington Post, something that U.S. Attorney John Durham has been investigating.
 
They were trying to get Flynn out of a technicality because he had yet to assume the office HE WAS ALREADY APPOINTED AND APPROVED TO TAKE.
 
In any case, the handwritten notes end with this: “If we’re seen as playing games, WH will be furious. Protect our institution by not playing games.”

This shows their desire to cover their own behinds from the Trump White House, as if he caught any wind of this and the utter malarkey that was going on, the President really would have been furious and would have done something about it. Granted, at the time, the focus was him supposedly colluding with Russia and he would have been close to firing Comey at any rate (he would fire him shortly after his inauguration), so the timing wasn't quite there for Trump, but I don't doubt he would have tried to stop them, regardless of how the media would interpret his actions (which they will always interpret any Trump action as being negative, dumb or against "Democracy" or any combination of the three).
 
Aside from handwritten notes, however, there were also some emails from our good, ol’ buddies Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.
 
In the first e-mail we are shown, we see Strzok discussing how a potential interview with Flynn might go according to what the General might ask of them.
 
“I’m sure he’s thought through these, but for DD’s consideration about how to answer in advance of his call with Flynn:
Am I in trouble?
Am I the subject of an investigation?
Is it a criminal investigation?
Is it an espionage investigation?
Do I need an attorney?
Do I need to tell Priebus? The President?
Will you tell Priebus? The President?
Will you tell the WH what I tell you?
What happens to the information/who will you tell what I tell you?
Will you need to interview other people?
Will our interview be released publically [sic.]? Will the substance of our interview be released?
How long will this take (depends on his cooperation – I’d plan 45 minutes)?
Can we do this over the phone?
I can explain all this right now, I did this, this, this [do you shut him down? Hear him out? Conduct the interview if he starts talking? Do you want another agent/witness standing by in case he starts doing this?]”
 
In another e-mail, this time from Lisa Page, she asks of the person she is emailing (an unidentified individual): “I have a question for you. Could the admonition re 1001 be given at the beginning at the interview? Or does it have to come following a statement which agents believe to be false? Does the policy speak to that? (I feel bad that I don’t know this but I don’t remember ever having to do this! Plus I’ve only charged it once in the context of lying to a federal probation officer). It seems to be if the former, then it would be an easy way to just casually slip that in. ‘Of course as you know sir, federal law makes it a crime to…’”
 
This one might be one of the worst ones on here, because it shows the tactics of the FBI in getting Flynn. Again, they didn't try to find the truth. They tried to GET HIM TO LIE AND CATCH HIM ON SOMETHING. Whether that something is an outright intentional lie or misremembering something (as it turned out to be), it didn't matter. That statement "I don't remember ever having to do this" isn't in reference to having to remind people that they can't lie to the FBI. It's a reference to the TYPE OF TRAP they were setting for Flynn here. She has never had to target someone like this and purposely set up a perjury trap to get a conviction. At least, that is my personal interpretation of the contents of this e-mail.
 
Again, Flynn faced pressure from both the FBI and HIS OWN LAWYERS to plead guilty to lying during the January 24th, 2017 interview, the one where Comey did not believe Flynn was outright lying, simply misremembering things, under the threat that the FBI would go after Flynn’s son and destroy his life too. Like any good father would, he sought to protect his son at the expense of his own life (of course, he was financially destroyed too, so that also affected his family), and decided to plead guilty. However, he has since requested that guilty plea to be rescinded.
 
What’s more, much of this would not have happened if Peter Strzok hadn’t intervened. Operation Crossfire Razor, the operation to investigate Flynn, would have been closed on January 4th, but Peter Strzok sent a message to an unidentified agent saying: “Hey if you haven’t closed RAZOR, don’t do so yet.” Had Razor been closed, this entire thing would not have happened, but the Deep State agents within the FBI made sure that this kept going because they are evil S.O.B.’s, not that I need to remind you of that.
 
In any case, it is possible that Flynn might be exonerated, which is considerably better than being pardoned. A pardon still carries with the person being pardoned the supposition of guilt. A President can pardon someone charged with something and found guilty of it regardless of whether or not they actually are guilty of it (and we know very well that the justice system is flawed and finds guilty people who are not, particularly when exculpatory evidence is withheld, like with former Senator Ted Stevens or MICHAEL FLYNN). If someone is pardoned, the supposition is that they are still guilty of whatever they did, but the President has decided that they should not serve the sentence they were given for whatever reason.
 
Being exonerated, however, officially erases any possible guilt. Of course, at the end of the day, anti-American Leftists and RINOs will still believe Flynn to be guilty, but in the eyes of the law, an exoneration clears Flynn entirely. However, I do not think that is enough. Flynn’s life was destroyed in many different ways. His reputation has been tarnished (exoneration helps, but doesn’t fully restore it) and is on the brink of financial collapse. All because he refused to be part of the Deep State and supported Trump’s efforts to become President.
 
Because of petty politics, a man’s life was ruined by one of the most powerful institutions on Earth: the FBI, at the behest of the larger Deep State. In an effort to destroy Trump, they tried to destroy those around him with whatever means they had available.
 
I hope that Flynn gets exonerated and given a position within the Trump administration, but I also hope he sues the living crap out of his lawyers (he will probably need financial backing to do that) and I also hope that the people responsible for attempting this not-so-secret coup, from James Comey to James Clapper to Peter Strzok to Lisa Page to EVERYONE who was involved in Flynn’s ruin, get the justice they deserve.
 
People need to go to jail for this. Whether they do or do not will further go to show what kind of a country we are.
 
Romans 16:20

“The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.”

Imagine you are in a courtroom, hearing a defense attorney in a murder trial arguing to the judge that his client did not actually commit the murder despite all the evidence clearly pointing to him as being guilty. Imagine the defense attorney then attempts to argue the definition of “murder” and says: “Your Honor, my client did not murder the victim; he simply un-alived her without her consent.”
 
You would think that’s a pretty stupid argument, correct? And yet, that’s the sort of argument the New York Times tried to make recently about the FBI spying on the Trump campaign in 2016.
 
The NYT ran a piece where they attempted to downplay what will be in the Inspector General’s report regarding Obama-era FISA abuses and FBI spying into the Trump campaign before the 2016 presidential election.
 
Of course, the NYT doesn’t have the IG report yet because it will be released on December 9th. So what is their source of information? “People familiar with a draft” of the report aka anonymous sources that may or may not exist.
 
Here is a chunk of what the NYT wrote:
 
“The Justice Department’s inspector general found no evidence that the F.B.I. attempted to place undercover agents or informants inside Donald J. Trump’s campaign in 2016 as agents investigated whether his associates conspired with Russia’s election interference operation, people familiar with a draft of the inspector general’s report said.”
 
“… The finding also contradicts some of the most inflammatory accusations hurled by Mr. Trump and his supporters, who alleged not only that F.B.I. officials spied on the Trump campaign but also at one point that former President Barack Obama had ordered Mr. Trump’s phones tapped. The startling accusation generated headlines but Mr. Trump never backed it up.”
 
“The finding is one of several by Mr. Horowitz that undercuts conservatives’ claims that the F.B.I. acted improperly in investigating several Trump associates starting in 2016. He also found that F.B.I. leaders did not take politically motivated actions in pursuing a secret wiretap on a former Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page – eavesdropping that Mr. Trump’s allies have long decried as politically motivated.”
 
It’s interesting that they would say that conservatives were claiming the FBI was spying on Trump, because that is also what the New York Times essentially admits later on IN THIS VERY PIECE.
 
Later in the piece, we read:
 
“The F.B.I was cognizant of being seen as interfering with a presidential campaign, and former law enforcement officials are adamant that they did not investigate the Trump campaign organization itself or target it for infiltration. But agents had to investigate the four advisers’ ties with Russia, and the people they did scrutinize all played roles in the Trump campaign.”
 
“Mr. Trump and his allies have pointed to some of the investigative steps the F.B.I. took as evidence of spying, though they were typical law enforcement activities. For one, agents had an informant, an academic named Stefan A. Halper, meet with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopalous while they were affiliated with the campaign. The president decried the revelation as an ‘all time biggest political scandal’ when it emerged last year.”
 
“The F.B.I. did have an undercover agent who posed as Mr. Halper’s assistant during a London meeting with Mr. Papadopalous in August 2016…”
 
So what exactly do we have here? An outright contradiction within the NYT piece. Read the very first part I shared with you again. The NYT said earlier that the report would find that there was “no evidence” that the FBI tried to “place undercover agents or informants inside” the Trump campaign. And later on, they say that they DID place undercover agents and informants, at least to engage in conversation with members of the Trump campaign under false pretenses to discuss Trump campaign affairs and report any information discovered back to the FBI.
 
That’s called “SPYING”. What’s worse is that this isn’t even the first time the NYT tried something exactly like this. Back in May of 2018, they had the following piece: “F.B.I. Used Informant to Investigate Russia Ties to Campaign, Not to Spy, as Trump Claims.”
 
Let me go back to my original hypothetical scenario of the courtroom scene. The defense attorney (NYT) has just claimed that his client (the FBI) did not murder the victim (spy on Trump) but simply caused her life to end by his hands without her consent (used an informant to extract information from Trump campaign staffers and report back to the FBI). Do you think the defense attorney is using an even semi-decent argument? OF COURSE NOT! He’s trying to make a distinction without a difference. He’s basically saying the same thing but trying to make it mean something else entirely.
 
“I didn’t rob the bank, your Honor, I just forcefully made a manual withdrawal of all the money in the safe while threatening to kill people with my gun.” It’s an insanely idiotic argument, but it’s what we’ve come to expect from the New York Times. How many stories have I written myself that discuss the outright idiocy of this “news” organization? How many stories have they written that I did not write about myself that are equally as stupid?
 
I don’t know what the IG report will ultimately say, but if it doesn’t fully acknowledge the FBI’s egregious attempts at spying on the Trump campaign, and in particular, James Comey’s actions of using the defunct Steele dossier as a means to try and get FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign, then Horowitz messed up badly. Even by the NYT’s own admission, there were informants looking into the Trump campaign under false pretenses and trying to report back whatever they found. What the FBI did is out in the open and is, as Trump says, the all-time biggest political scandal in American history.
 
If this wasn’t about politics and only about possible ties to a foreign government, why didn’t the FBI look into Hillary’s ties to Russia and Ukraine? If this behavior is perfectly “normal” for law enforcement practice, why didn’t they plant a spy, oh, sorry, I mean an informant, into the Hillary campaign? With all the allegations regarding her and the Clinton Foundation’s foreign assistance, why didn’t the FBI think to look at her too, if this wasn’t about politics?
 
It’s not like there was any actual proof of Russian ties to the Trump campaign or the staffers themselves; just allegations. So if that was all it took, why did Hillary get a pass despite all the allegations surrounding her?
 
Rhetorical questions, all, as we definitely know the answer. The Obama administration spied on the Trump campaign, something Lisa Page and Peter Strzok acknowledged given their texts about the then-POTUS knowing about it and given the “insurance policy” Strzok mentioned.
 
No amount of mental gymnastics and word redefining will erase the fact that the FBI, under orders from Obama, spied on the Trump campaign.
 
Galatians 6:7-8
“Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.”

​The Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General recently released a report regarding former FBI Director James Comey’s behavior in his final days as FBI director and the time following that, detailing various times in which Comey violated, with clear intent, several FBI and other federal policies.
 
In what is rather reminiscent of the Hillary Clinton case regarding leaking and deleting of e-mails back in 2016, the OIG report lays out all the violations Comey committed:
 
“Comey’s actions with respect to the Memos violated Department and FBI policies concerning the retention, handling, and dissemination of FBI records and information, and violated the requirements of Comey’s FBI Employment Agreement,” reads the OIG report.
 
Those memos are the ones Comey wrote in the first three months of Trump’s administration before the President fired him. The memos he had kept after leaving the FBI, which is a violation of DOJ and FBI policy. Upon leaving the FBI, he was required to return all official FBI documents, but Comey’s excuse to the OIG was that he considered those memos to be “personal records”, so he thought he should be able to keep them. The OIG, in their report, found no legal basis for him to believe they were his.
 
The OIG also said that Comey was at fault for failing to “tell anyone from the FBI that he had retained copies of the Memos in his personal safe at home,” despite the fact he had his former chief of staff, associate deputy director and three FBI officials went into his home to “inventory and remove all FBI property.”
 
So he kept FBI property, giving a poor excuse for it, there is no legal basis for him to have done so, and despite all of that, he won’t be prosecuted? What a disgrace, but that's not all of it.
 
What's more, Comey also further broke Bureau policy by sending a copy of a memo regarding General Michael Flynn, wherein the President had asked the then-FBI director to “let this go”, in reference to the criminal prosecution of Flynn regarding lying to the FBI (in what even Comey himself didn’t think he lied, but he was still prosecuted anyway), to a friend of his with instructions to give it to The New York Times.
 
In doing this, the OIG writes: “Comey violated FBI policy and the requirements of his FBI Employment Agreement when he chose this path. By disclosing the contents of Memo 4, through [Daniel] Richman, to The New York Times, Comey made public sensitive investigative information related to an ongoing FBI investigation, information he had properly declined to disclose while still FBI Director during his March 20, 2017 congressional testimony.”
 
Now, the law is rather strange when it comes to what a federal government official can disclose to the media and what one cannot. James Comey, in a tweet, quoted the OIG report when it says they had “found no evidence that Comey or his attorneys released any of the classified information contained in any of the memos to members of the media,” followed by arrogantly asking people to say “sorry we lied about you” when he’s the one who has been lying for the past two years.
 
But in any case, that is important because leaking classified information is a prosecutable crime and if there is no evidence of doing so, a prosecution cannot happen. However, he violated several other FBI policies and by Comey’s own standard of “intent”, he should be prosecuted over them because there was clear intent.
 
If you remember back in 2016, then-FBI Director James Comey gave a press conference in which he detailed a number of ways in which Hillary Clinton violated multiple federal policies when she was Obama’s Secretary of State, including the use of an illegal and unsecured server as well as using a personal email address to conduct official business and to handle classified information. Despite laying out all of Hillary’s sins (at least the ones regarding gross negligence), Comey, in acting as Attorney General despite not having the authority to do so, said that she would not be prosecuted because there was no “intent” to violate these policies despite the fact that intent is not part of the statute and it’s difficult to inherently prove intent.
 
Hillary Clinton should’ve been prosecuted but was not because of dubious circumstances and the excuse that there was “no intent” (though I disagree, but that doesn’t really matter). For James Comey, there definitely was intent to violate policy and violation of policy should be punished, otherwise there is no reason for the policy to be there in the first place.
 
The OIG mentions that “by not safeguarding sensitive information obtained during the course of his FBI employment, and by using it to create public pressure for official action, Comey set a dangerous example for the over 35,000 current FBI employees – and the many thousands more former FBI employees – who similarly have access to or knowledge of non-public information.” And while I agree, what really sets a dangerous example for not just FBI, but all federal employees as well, is the lack of punishment for violating such federal policies.
 
It’s far more dangerous for society to let someone who breaks the rules get away with it than for someone to just break the rules. In schools or in the workplace, when someone breaks the rules, they have to be punished and be made an example of. “Don’t do what he did or what happened to him will happen to you” is what people should be learning. Instead, through this inaction, the OIG and all of the DOJ set a far worse standard for federal employees than James Comey did.
 
Comey is one person and not even a well-liked individual. He’s the type of person corrupt politicians would be more than okay with throwing under the bus to save their own skin. But through this inaction, we are under the understanding that no one is judged equally under the law. That there certainly are people who are above the law and such a standard turns this country into an oligarchy far faster than any election could.
 
Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, James Clapper, Christopher Steele, James Comey and several other characters have all shown themselves to be above the law. Despite having broken the law to one extent or the other, they are all free men and women who got away with it. The fact that I’m not all that shocked that Comey gets to walk free is an indictment of the Department of Injustice. I don’t even EXPECT the law to be fully applied to these people when they break it.
 
Now, I’m not demanding that Comey be thrown in jail for life and the key to be thrown away. A no-name FBI agent leaked classified information regarding NATIONAL DEFENSE and only got a four-year prison term, so I can’t exactly expect to see the law getting rid of these people for good. But the fact that not a damn thing will happen to James Comey (and I expect nothing to happen to McCabe either) is truly sad. And yes, I know that the OIG and prosecutor John Durham are also looking into FISA warrant abuse by Comey, but I have no expectations for this.
 
Even if there is evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Comey, it’s pretty clear that these people are untouchable.
 
There is truly only one Judge in this world, who is incorruptible and unchangeable. These people might escape Man’s law and judgment, but they can’t escape God’s.
 
Proverbs 24:24-25
“Whoever says to the wicked, ‘You are in the right,’ will be cursed by peoples, abhorred by nations, but those who rebuke the wicked will have delight, and a good blessing will come upon them.”
 
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!

After roughly two years of Attorney General Jeff Sessions doing nothing to run his Department of Justice, choosing to look into low-priority weed-related crimes, new Attorney General William Barr has already done more for this country in a couple of months than Sessions did in his entire time as AG. And as far as we can see, this is only the beginning for AG Barr.
 
After telling Special Counsel Robert Mueller to wrap up his investigation, leading the Special Counsel to find no evidence of collusion and leaving it up to Barr to determine whether the firing of James Comey and the Twitter rants against the Special Counsel were considered obstruction of justice (spoiler alert: they’re not), Attorney General William Barr is set to “assemble a team to investigate the origins of the Obama administration’s FBI counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign during the 2016 presidential election,” according to the Daily Wire.
 
This also comes a day after William Barr had spoken to the House Judicial Committee, where he mentioned that he believes that there was spying of the Trump campaign (why would he even say, under oath, that he thinks so and plans to investigate it if he didn’t honestly believe there was anything wrong there?), saying he would look into whether such spying was warranted or not (which is likely just a means to keep the Dems from looking too much into what he is doing).
 
During the hearing, Barr said: “I am reviewing the conduct of the investigation and trying to get my arms around all the aspects of the counterintelligence investigation that was conducted during the summer of 2016.”
 
What’s more, Fox News has reported that “the Justice Department’s Inspector General (IG) is separately looking into whether Comey mishandled classified information by including a variety of sensitive matters in his private memos” and will look into “the FBI’s FISA application process.”
 
And if they find what I think they will find – an FBI director (and perhaps a former CIA director) using the FBI as a political weapon against someone he doesn’t like with the purposes of swaying, if not outright fixing, the results of an election – then we could see James Comey in some serious trouble at some point down the line.
 
And that would only likely be the beginning of it. People like Peter Strzok, Lisa Page and whomever was involved in the spying on the Trump campaign could face some time as well. And that’s just from these two investigations alone. If they result in what I think they will result (or at least hope they will result), other investigations could be opened as well, namely things like investigating the Steele dossier, investigating Hillary Clinton’s e-mails again (remember: Comey said there would be no charges against her, but he was overreaching his power as he was not the AG at the time and there was never a trial, only Congressional hearings, so double-jeopardy does not apply here), investigating the Uranium One deal, investigating the Clinton Foundation with regards to Haiti (reportedly, the Foundation stole money that was donated to the people of Haiti after a terrible earthquake back in 2010), and some other things.
 
Of course, this is largely a pipe dream at this point. Possible, but I don’t know if entirely likely. For one, they would likely have to wrap up this planned investigation before moving on to other things. Not to mention I am not entirely certain that the DOJ will ever actually prosecute the Clintons for anything. And as far as Obama goes, while I think he was the head honcho of the FBI spying on Trump, I am not certain the DOJ will prosecute him either for some of the same reasons as with the Clintons.
 
Still, this is definitely a step in the right direction of applying some seriously overdue justice on those who have sought to use the power of the State to influence an election and overturn its results when it wasn’t what they wanted.
 
For two years, the media has insisted that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election from Hillary Clinton. And while this 100% is not going to stop, regardless of what Mueller has said in his report (Schiff is so full of it he claims the evidence is plentiful and out there for anyone to see, despite Mueller’s findings pointing to the contrary), we are at least beginning to turn the tides a little bit.
 
Rush Limbaugh theorizes that the Mueller investigation was the “insurance policy” as noted in one of the released text messages between Strzok and Page. He theorizes that the investigation is meant to be a sort of cover-up for the Obama administration spying on Trump and people working for Trump, as well as a sort of cover-up for Hillary for her role in the Steele dossier (you know, funding the thing?).
 
I’m not 100% sure if the Mueller investigation in itself was meant to be the “insurance policy” considering Strzok wrote that text months before the election even took place, but I do think the FBI spying on Trump (at the behest of Obama, whom Strzok and Page mention in their texts) was supposed to be the “insurance policy”, with the Mueller investigation eventually being a sort of bonus after Trump fired Comey (which a lot of people honestly should’ve expected).
 
But whether I am right or Rush is right, what is important here is the fact that, after two years of investigative resources being wasted in a witch hunt, Attorney General William Barr has the guts to do what Sessions could not be bothered to do: investigate the rotten stench coming from the Left.
 
Sessions should’ve looked into SOMETHING when the Strzok-Page texts were revealed. He should’ve looked into something when we discovered that the FBI was, indeed, spying on Trump. He should not have recused himself from the Russia investigation, which sought to look at everything in Trump’s life going back to the day he was born, seeing if he was colluding with Russians in the utero.
 
Instead, the biggest news Sessions announced since his recusal was his intention to look into weed farms and other dumb things. Yeah, because in the midst of one of the biggest political scandals in American, if not world, history, one of the few people who can do something about it ought to spend his time busting potheads.
 
Thankfully, we now have an Attorney General who is not afraid of actually investigating wrongdoings (not people, for the record, but reportedly criminal actions, as investigators in countries not in a banana republic tend to do).
 
Because what we know, and what AG Barr knows, is that the FBI did, indeed, spy on the Trump campaign. One can make the case for this being legitimate or illegitimate (guess which side I am taking), but that’s precisely what Barr is going to look into. Not Comey specifically to find if he did something wrong, but a particular action that Comey was involved with, or at least heavily responsible for, and investigating if there was reasonable cause for what he did.
 
But regardless of the findings, this is at least a step in the right direction. The FBI spying on Trump is a big deal that should be looked into, regardless of whether or not the FBI had a legitimate reason for doing so (I’m willing to bet they didn’t if the Steele dossier is all they had to go on, which has been confirmed to be garbage).
 
We should thank God for this.
 
Proverbs 21:15
“When justice is done, it is a joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers.”
 
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!

On CBS’s “60 Minutes”, while trying to promote his new book regarding Trump and the FBI (which is 100% likely to have b.s. all over it), former FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who was fired by President Trump on the eve of his retirement, claimed that “he and other Justice Department officials discussed recruiting Cabinet members to oust President Donald Trump using the 25th Amendment after Trump fired then-FBI director James Comey,” according to the Daily Wire.
 
The New York Times also reports that McCabe makes the claim that “top Justice Department officials were so alarmed by President Trump’s decision in May 2017 to fire James B. Comey, the bureau’s director,” that they contacted various Cabinet members to see how they would respond to the desire to apply the 25th Amendment, an amendment in the U.S. Constitution that allows for the Cabinet to “vote out” the president if he or she is incapacitated or otherwise is incapable of fulfilling his or her duties.
 
In other words, the FBI, at least McCabe, and the DOJ looked to test the water in Trump’s own Cabinet to see if they would be willing to remove the president using the 25th Amendment. Given that this attempt at a very obvious silent coup resulted in nothing the Deep State wanted, it is safe to assume the Cabinet did not wish to remove Trump from office.
 
Of course, that didn’t stop the Deep State from continuing trying to remove the duly-elected President from office just because they don’t like him one bit.
 
McCabe also made the claim that Comey’s firing “prompted Mr. McCabe to order the bureau’s team investigating Russia’s election interference to expand their scope to also investigate whether Mr. Trump had obstructed justice.”
 
Again, it’s clear this amounted to nothing because Trump fired Comey in May of 2017. It’s been nearly two years and there has only been suggestions that it was obstruction of justice from the media, but no concrete case could be made against Trump because the FBI operates under the Executive branch, which Trump is the boss of, so he can fire whomever he wants for whatever reason he wants.
 
This includes terrible FBI directors who are incompetent at best and outright treasonous at worst (and sometimes both, considering they failed to complete their objective of destroying Trump).
 
Now, the man who interviewed McCabe is CBS’s Scott Pelley. Pelley discussed his interview with McCabe on “CBS This Morning” on Thursday.
 
Pelley said: “The most illuminating and surprising thing in the interview to me were these eight days in May when all of these things were happening behind the scenes that the American people really didn’t know about.”
 
To me, it’s very illuminating of the kind of corruption there is in the Deep State, but it comes as no surprise to me. We’ve known that there has been a silent coup against Trump for about two years now. It’s just very illuminating seeing the details of something we knew very well about already.
 
In any case, Pelley continued: “There were meetings at the Justice Department at which it was discussed whether the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet could be brought together to remove the president of the United States under the 25th Amendment. These were the eight days from Comey’s firing to the point that Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel. And the highest levels of American law enforcement were trying to figure out what to do with the president.”
 
Again, none of this comes as any surprise to me. Still, it is always good and fascinating to learn of the procedures that were undertaken to try and remove Trump from office that very clearly failed.
 
And the funny thing is that McCabe also confirmed that Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein discussed having agents wearing a wire when speaking with Trump was discussed seriously, not as a joke, which Rosenstein tried to affirm.
 
Now, let me tell you a little something about what it takes to become an American citizen. Trust me, what I will tell you has more to do with this than you might think.
 
While seeking to become a citizen of the United States, people need to take certain oaths as part of becoming a citizen. Apart from taking tests and being able to speak basic English (although that might’ve been removed from the requirements for seriously dumb reasons), you have to swear allegiance to the United States of America.
 
And as part of this oath-swearing, you are required to swear and affirm that you will never attempt to overthrow the American government.
 
Obviously, everyone says that they won’t do that as part of trying to become a citizen, but people that try to overthrow the government very clearly receive some sort of punishment if they do try it. Now there exists in the penal code title 18 of the U.S. penal code § (Section) 2385 – Advocating overthrow of Government.
 
There is also title 18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Treason. However, I do not really think there is a case against McCabe (or anyone else involved in this silent coup) using these two code sections.
 
The Advocating overthrow of Government section talks about people who violently or forcefully seek to overthrow the government. Talking with Cabinet members to use the 25th Amendment does not even get close to that requirement. As far as Treason goes, that largely talks about levying war against the U.S. or adhering to our enemies, “giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere”.
 
So I do not think there is a case against McCabe using either of these two clauses.
 
However, that does not mean that McCabe and others involved with this silent coup, such as Rod Rosenstein, Comey, etc., should simply get away with it. Of course, I’m not saying we ought to break the law to punish them. That would make us no better than these scums of the earth.
 
However, what I am saying is that it’s become crystal clear just what we are dealing with. The Deep State is a den of snakes. Corrupt people at various levels and areas of the government that routinely poison the well.
 
It is not enough to simply defeat Democrats in elections, we have to completely defeat the Left socially and spiritually. You’ve seen, for the past two years (and just about any time there is a Republican in office) the sort of visceral and vile reactions the Left shows.
 
When Trump beat Hillary, everyone on the Left was crying foul while they themselves were guilty of foul play, being covered up by the Mueller investigation into Trump. Every day, the media suggested Russia either hacked the election, and when that was shown to be an asinine argument, began to insist Trump and Russia colluded to steal the election.
 
When Bush beat Gore, the Left went haywire on the Supreme Court and on Florida, crying foul play. Now, I don’t know if they were themselves guilty of similar foul play back then, but I wouldn’t put it past them to have at least tried something. I’m too young to remember the Bush presidency (I’m also not from here, as I moved to the U.S. when Obama was in office), much less remember the 2000 election, apart from the cries from the Left against Florida and the Supreme Court (and I only learned about all this long after Bush left office), so maybe those who were here for it can remember some shady things, but since I do not have anything even close to evidence, I won’t allude to much. All I’ll say is I wouldn’t be surprised if they tried to destroy Bush in a similar manner to Trump.
 
When Lincoln beat Southern Democrat John C. Breckinridge and Democrat Stephen A. Douglas in the 1860 presidential election, seven states in the Democrat South decided to secede before Lincoln was even inaugurated.
 
The Left has historically HATED it when a Republican would beat a Democrat in a presidential election, going all the way back to the very first Republican president.
 
Instead of accepting the results of the elections like civilized and rational people, they often throw hissy-fits that last throughout that president’s entire tenure, be it one or two terms.
 
If it’s not outright secession from the Union, it’s attacking the Supreme Court and the State of Florida. If it’s not attacking the highest court in the land or the Sunshine State (Florida’s nickname), it’s insisting that the Republican victor of the election was in cahoots with foreign agents (a crime which the Clinton campaign and the DNC are very obviously guilty of themselves).
 
And now, we see some more details regarding the silent coup the Deep State has been attempting for the past two years. Again, it’s not surprising at all, but very illuminating.
 
And it’s fitting, to be quite honest. The Bible tells us an awful lot about works being made in the darkness coming to light.
 
Verses such as Luke 8:17: “For nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest, nor is anything secret that will not be known and come to light,” and Luke 12:3: “Therefore whatever you have said in the dark shall be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in private rooms shall be proclaimed on the housetops,” are only some verses that come to mind (and a quick Google search).
 
Whatever the enemy, be it Satan or the Deep State, is plotting in the dark will eventually come out into the light. Be it soon after it is plotted or years and years later. Be it immediately or takes a lifetime, these things are made known to us eventually. Not to compare this silent coup to the Holocaust because any comparisons to it tend to cheapen the horrors of it, but the Holocaust was something that was discovered to have happened only after WWII had already ended. All-the-while people were looking at Hitler as this bad guy looking to rule the world, many were made unaware of the true horrors that evil socialist was carrying out in the dark.
 
Again, not to compare what Hitler did to what the Deep State is trying here because there really is no comparison in terms of their horrifying natures, but they both do share in common that they are works by evil people, people completely devoid of Christ in their hearts, working in the darkness against people they hate/hated.
 
And both have come out into the light for the whole world to see. Of course, the extent of the silent coup is not quite yet known so far, but it will be made known eventually, whether it be in a few months, years, decades, or in the afterlife, it will be shown.
 
Certainly no part of it is any secret to God. The Deep State can hide whatever they want from the public for however long they feel is necessary, but nothing they do is a surprise to God. He knows precisely what they are doing and what the intentions of their hearts are.
 
We will see what kind of excuses these people come up with to justify their entrance into the Kingdom of God. I bet none of them have the correct answer.
 
1 Corinthians 4:5
“Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God.”
 
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!

That title could really be directed towards the entirety of the Left, but I will particularly set my sights on ABC’s “The View” hosts for something that at least one of their hosts said that I will promptly share with you.
 
On Thursday, upon learning that the FBI investigation did not find any sort of sexual misconduct, harassment or even come close to corroborating Dr. Ford’s claims of sexual assault against Judge Brett Kavanaugh, the hosts of “The View” were, unsurprisingly, furious. Granted, that seems to be their perpetual mood given that they are Leftists and they hate everyone and everything that isn’t like them, but still.
 
NewsBusters covered this story, and in their article, they give the following context: “Referencing Don Jr.’s comments that men could be falsely accused, Whoopi lectured that men needed to trust in the system and should want thorough FBI investigations. Host Sunny Hostin added that women had to ‘teach their sons to respect women’ and ‘teach their sons about consent,’ before going on a tirade about how women’s ‘truth’ should be believed.”
 
This is what Hostin is quoted as having said: “I also think like you do, Whoopi, that women should be believed! Our daughters should be believed! Our sisters, our mothers. Since when is someone not saying, ‘This is my truth. This is what happened to me’ enough? I don’t understand that!”
 
Here’s the thing: there is a difference between believing a woman’s story and wanting to destroy someone’s life based entirely on the woman’s story.
 
Allow me to explain. There is such a thing as due process, despite what the Left wants to do. In due process, a woman’s (or anyone’s) claim is not enough to destroy someone’s life, be it sending them to jail or otherwise punishing the accused.
 
Hostin is basically asking: “since when is it not enough for a woman to say something happened to her to be believed?” The issue is not whether or not she is believable. The issue is whether or not what she says is the truth and whether or not she has evidence to prove her claims.
 
In asking this question AFTER the FBI investigation issued their report, Hostin isn’t simply talking about people not believing Ford, but rather about why Kavanaugh isn’t being punished for having been accused of what Ford says he did.
 
The precedent the Left wishes to create with the Kavanaugh case is that “all women should be believed” should be taken to mean “all women tell the truth and are right” when accusing someone of something. That is what I took Hostin to mean by that question. “Why isn’t Kavanaugh being punished? Why isn’t Ford’s testimony not enough to punish him?”
 
That is what she ultimately means by asking this question. The problem she has isn’t actually that Ford isn’t believed – she is. The problem is that Kavanaugh isn’t being punished just because they want him to be. And notice how she mentions “my truth”. Not “the truth”, but “my truth” as though truth is subjective.
 
But that’s beside the point. The point is that, in this Kavanaugh case, the Left wants to set the precedent that all women should be taken as telling the truth even if they don’t present evidence of their claims, and the man being accused should immediately be destroyed.
 
Hostin asks since when is the claim not enough to destroy someone? As far as I know, since the Magna Carta was signed in 1215.
 
One of the Magna Carta’s clauses (of the original 63) reads as follows: “No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land… To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.”
 
Basically, it’s a clause guaranteeing English subjects the right to justice and a fair trial. But of course, this is the Magna Carta, a British charter and constitution. We live in America, under different laws. Right? Well, the Founding Fathers and the Framers of the Constitution saw the Magna Carta as a great document for a free people to guard against oppression (if enforced). So they saw fit to add a similar clause to our 5th Amendment:
 
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
 
So if you want to ask since when is a woman’s “truth” not enough to punish someone? The answer would be: since 1789, when the Constitution of the United States was implemented.
 
We have due process for a reason. If I were to say that Elizabeth Warren sexually assaulted me a decade ago and provided no evidence or witnesses to corroborate my accusation, she should not be penalized in any shape, manner or form.
 
If I were a woman and were to make a similar claim against Cory Booker, again providing no witnesses or evidence, he should not be penalized for it.
 
Under due process, we are penalized for crimes we committed, not crimes others say we committed. We are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.
 
And the word of a woman, without any corroborating evidence or witnesses, should not be worth more than the word of the man she is accusing. We are equal under the law for a reason: to avoid horrible injustices that the Left wants to implement now.
 
About a month and a half back, before this entire thing with Kavanaugh started, there was a case in Connecticut about a woman pleading guilty to having falsely accused two Sacred Heart University football players back in 2016.
 
In the world the Left wants to live, those two football players would be sentenced for rape and be imprisoned for 5-10 years (the usual sentence for rape). Despite the allegations having been false, the Left’s court system would have punished those two, while the accuser would have been seen as a survivor of rape.
 
And there are other cases out there about women having falsely accused men of rape, and even times when the man actually is found guilty, despite not having actually done it. I won’t get into those particular cases, but they should be pointed out.
 
Under the kind of judicial system the Left wants to implement, any man would immediately be seen as a predator and would have to prove his innocence rather than the accuser having to prove his guilt.
 
That sort of system is the polar opposite of justice. But hey, that’s the Left for you. No justice for anyone they don’t like.
 
Hitler would be proud.
 
Psalm 106:3
“Blessed are they who observe justice, who do righteousness at all times!”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. It is a compilation of the week’s articles put together into a single email delivered to your inbox. And as the name suggests, it’s completely free. No hidden fees, nothing unjust. Check it out today!

Recently, the DOJ’s Office of Inspector General report on the FBI’s handling of the Clinton e-mails investigation revealed a text message conversation between two FBI employees the day after Trump won the 2016 election.
 
Here is the exchange:
 
FBI Employee: “I’m very upset.”
FBI Employee: “haha”.
FBI Attorney 2: “I am so stressed about what I could have done differently.”
FBI Employee: “Don’t stress. None of that mattered.”
FBI Employee: “The FBI’s influence.”
FBI Attorney 2: “I don’t know. We broke the momentum.”
FBI Employee: “That is not so.”
FBI Employee: “All the people who were initially voting for her would not, and were not, swayed by any decision the FBI put out. Trump’s supporters are all poor to middle class, uneducated, lazy POS that think he will magically grant them jobs for doing nothing. They probably didn’t watch the debates, aren’t fully educated on his policies, and are stupidly wrapped up in his unmerited enthusiasm.”
 
Love you too, bud.
 
But seriously, you might be thinking “this is just what the Left in general thinks of us, what’s the big deal? They’ve called us worse.” True, but those were all people on social media or in the MSM. These people are FBI AGENTS who are supposed to REMAIN UNBIASED!
 
Take a look back at these texts. I’ll also remind you that Peter Strzok also texted Lisa Page that “they” would stop Trump from becoming President. I don’t know who these two employees are, but clearly there was a larger conspiracy to rig the election.
 
Of course, this is nothing new to us. We knew that Hillary conspired to cheat and we also knew that Obama did as well, but this really puts things into perspective. This is evidence that the FBI was politically biased throughout the campaign. Meaning, there is reason to believe there was bias in the handling of the e-mail investigation as well.
 
The FBI attorney was wondering what they could have done differently. Regarding what? It’s unclear. The conversation seems to focus on the Hillary investigation. But the larger context is regarding the election. What could they, as FBI agents, have done to keep Trump from becoming President? Clearly, not very much. But what gives them license to believe they even could have done anything? Was their handling of the investigation meant to help out Hillary?
 
Of course, we know that it was. Comey usurped the authority of the Attorney General by exonerating Hillary and not seeking charges against her. He didn’t have the power to do that as FBI director. The FBI director can make recommendations to the AG, but he/she does not have the authority to decide the fate of the person being investigated.
 
But again, as we already knew all of this and the corruption within the FBI, this further puts things into perspective.
 
Now the conversation didn’t just end there. Of course, the attorney continued his or her upset tirade by saying: “I just can’t imagine the systematic disassembly of the progress we made over the last 8 years. ACA is gone.”
 
And the employee made further known just what he thinks of us: “Who knows if the rhetoric about deporting people, walls, and crap is true. I honestly feel like there is going to be a lot more gun issues, too, the crazies won finally. This is the tea party on steroids. And the GOP is going to be lost, they have to deal with an incumbent in 4 years…” And then he says something pretty interesting: “We have to fight this again.”
 
Who is “we”? Who is the “we” that Strzok talks about when saying they would stop Trump? Of course, I have no doubt that it’s the Deep State, the swamp, the Obama people who can’t stand to lose and must not allow people their right to vote for people they disagree with.
 
To this elitist jackhole, we are too stupid to know what is right. We are too uneducated and must be helped in choosing who to vote for. And if we vote for the wrong person, they will do whatever they can to destroy said person, undermine that person and rule his or her election null and void.
 
This is corruption at its finest. Thankfully, the American electorate system seems to have been solid enough that no matter what these holier-than-thou elitists tried to do, they wouldn’t get away with it.
 
And since it’s in my nature, I will obliterate this man’s claims here.
 
First, the only ones who are crazy here are the people who believe themselves big enough and bad enough that they could influence and alter the results of an election to benefit themselves every time out. The only ones crazy here are the ones who fight for a political side that would ultimately see the United States destroyed from within, that would see American citizens at the mercy of the government… or Sharia Law, honestly. The only ones who are crazy here are the ones who believe a fetus is nothing more than a random assortment of cells, Islamic terrorists can be appeased by giving them jobs, Antifa terrorists are peaceful angels sent from Heaven, a man can be a woman and vice versa, and that MS-13 are innocent souls.
 
Second, what gun violence? You mean the one that ravaged the nation during Obama’s 8 years when he did absolutely nothing about it, even with a Democrat majority in his first 2 years as POTUS? You mean the one where we saw record numbers of shootings perpetrated by Democrats or Muslims? I won’t deny there isn’t gun violence in Trump’s America, but Obama had the best opportunity to actually do something about it and did nothing. Not to mention that some of the most dangerous places in the country in terms of gun violence are places where Democrats have power, such as Chicago, Oakland and Detroit.
 
Third, I simply love how he blasts poor and middle class people. Aren’t the Democrats supposed to be the ones who cared about the low and middle class people? Aren’t they the ones who do great things for the downtrodden? How are Trump’s supporters the poor and middle class?
 
This is just another example of how the Left has utterly abandoned the low and middle class. Particularly, the white, blue collar class. They make fun of you, they attack you, and then, somehow expect you to vote for them? What a joke.
 
Finally, the FBI employee makes fun of Trump’s promise of bringing back jobs and of your expectations that jobs will “magically” come back. Well, abracadabra, jerk. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (from March 2018), Donald Trump has created nearly 2.5 million jobs since becoming President. This goes along with record-setting unemployment rates in the last few months as well.
 
Reading what these people think of us, I feel mixed emotions. For one, I feel indifferent, as this is something I would expect out of mind-numbed Leftists who believe Obama is God. The problem is that, as I mentioned earlier, these are FBI employees. They’re law enforcement. They’re SUPPOSED to remain unbiased in how they handle investigations and their overall work. THAT is what makes me angry. Although, it’s also something to be expected. This is the swamp, after all. The Deep State. These are corrupt, biased and evil people we are talking about.
 
People who have seemingly worked to alter the results of an election. People who have sought to undermine the people they are supposed to serve. People who have taken Democracy into their own hands and tried to taint it.
 
We really have to thank the Lord for Donald Trump’s election victory. It’s not just Hillary that he had to beat. It was also government corruption. And by some miracle, he managed to do it. All thanks to the Lord.
 
Because here’s the thing: it really doesn’t matter what these FBI employees tried to do or will try to do. It doesn’t matter the extent Hillary and Obama and his administration went to cheat. It doesn’t matter what they think they are capable of. Ultimately, it is God who decides what happens.
 
He gets to decide who wins an election. He gets to decide what policy an authority figure enacts. None of it is a surprise to Him. He gets to decide who goes where and what they end up doing. For as powerful as the FBI might think they are, or might actually be, they are absolutely nothing compared to the Lord.
 
Usually, I would use an analogy here to compare a situation, but no analogy could honestly be properly used. Because there is nothing that can compare to God’s power. Nothing that can compare to the power gap that exists between God and Man. Man, ultimately, has no power. We only have as much power as the Lord gives us.
 
These fools may think they can play God. Ultimately, they are nothing.
 
We must also be thankful that these things are coming to light. It might be scary to believe our government can be so corrupt as to try and steal an election away from the American people, but it’s worse to not be aware of the danger.
 
Make no mistake, this is war. A war that we cannot afford to lose and cannot afford to not participate in. This isn’t Democrat vs. Republican anymore. It’s not conservative vs. liberal. It’s the Left vs. We the People. It’s Evil vs. Good. It’s government corruption vs. the American people. The Deep State vs. the rest of us.
 
The swamp may be big, but it’s not unbeatable. As I said before, it is the Lord who gets to decide who wins and who loses. If He is with us, who in the world are they to be against us?
 
Proverbs 19:21
“Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the Lord that will stand.”

It’s been reported lately that the FBI had planted a spy in the Trump campaign, further signifying the Deep State’s desire to get rid of Donald Trump before he was even President. Even as a candidate, he posed a threat to the Establishment, which is a no no, in their minds.
 
Trump even tweeted: “Reports are there was indeed at least one FBI representative implanted, for political purposes, into my campaign for president. It took place very early on, and long before the phony Russia Hoax became a ‘hot’ Fake News story. If true – all time biggest political scandal!”
 
So, in a flimsy attempt of damage control, the fake news media, particularly the Washington Post and NYT, released stories saying the FBI’s intentions were to “protect” Trump, not spy on him.
 
The Washington Post’s headline: “The FBI didn’t use an informant to go after Trump. They used one to protect him.”
 
Really? Let me ask how this line would hold up: “You got it all wrong, Your Honor. I didn’t rob that bank to steal the money; I robbed the bank to keep the money from being stolen by other people.” Or “You’re wrong, Mr. Principal. I didn’t stuff little Jimmy in a locker to be mean to him. I stuffed him in there to protect him from other bullies.”
 
The Post article was written by, well, what do you know, a former FBI agent. It reads: “Trump and his backers are wrong about what it means that the FBI reportedly was using a confidential source to gather information early in its investigation of possible campaign ties to Russia. The investigation started out as a counterintelligence probe, not a criminal one. And relying on a covert source rather than a more intrusive method of gathering information suggests that the FBI may have been acting cautiously – perhaps too cautiously – to protect the campaign not undermine it.”
 
Oh, so the FBI was only trying to protect the Trump campaign? From foreign intelligence? How nice of them. But let me ask one question: if the FBI was only looking to protect the Trump campaign from foreign intelligence, why didn’t they do the same with the Clinton campaign?
 
Why didn’t they plant a spy in the Clinton campaign as well? If the sole purpose of the FBI spy was to look into foreign intelligence in order to protect a campaign, why not do it for both campaigns? Surely Obama would be more interested in protecting the Clinton campaign than the Trump campaign. Why would he only “help” Trump’s campaign and not Hillary’s? Does he not like Hillary? Did he want her to lose? Why only put a spy in Trump’s campaign if the entire reason for a spy was for national security reasons?
 
Of course, you and I both know the answer to these questions. The FBI didn’t spy on the Trump campaign to protect it. They were spying on it to destroy it, if at all possible. Which clearly didn’t work.
 
Now, what did the NYT say about this? Here’s their headline: “FBI Used Informant to Investigate Russia Ties to Campaign, Not to Spy, as Trump Claims.”
 
If the FBI knew the Trump campaign had ties to Russia, wouldn’t that have made a major headline at some point during the election? This whole “Russia ties to Trump” only started AFTER Trump won, not before. If the FBI had even somewhat of a hunch that Trump had ties to Russia, it would certainly have leaked to the press.
 
The funny thing is that the Times says this: “Details about the informant’s relationship with the FBI remain scant. It is not clear how long the relationship existed and whether the FBI paid the source or assigned the person to other cases.”
 
So the MSM has next to no facts regarding the FBI spy, his or her relationship with the FBI, or the information he or she gathered, but still wants to say the intentions were only to protect Trump.
 
Read those headlines again. They read matter-of-factly, don’t they? As if to say: “No, Trump. You’re wrong! The FBI was only trying to protect you because they’re the good guys and were only looking into your ties to Russia. They were not focused on you.”
 
Those are CLAIMS the Post and NYT are making, and yet, both are entirely wrong based on fact and logic.
 
Again, if the purpose of having a spy in the Trump campaign was to investigate possible ties to Russia in order to protect the campaign, why wouldn’t they do the same for the Clinton campaign?
 
So far, without having the FBI or a special counsel looking into it, we have found far more evidence of the Clinton campaign rigging the 2016 election (both for the primaries and the general election). We have found more Russian collusion within the Clinton campaign. We have found more foreign intelligence used against Trump than we have found foreign intelligence used against Hillary. Remember Christopher Steele? The author of the Golden Showers dossier? British.
 
If the FBI felt it necessary to spy on the Trump campaign to protect it from foreign entities, why didn’t they do the same for the Clinton campaign? And if people in the Clinton campaign knew the campaign was dealing with foreign entities, why didn’t they blow the whistle or inform the FBI or DOJ? If such a thing is a threat to the campaign, why wouldn’t they talk?
 
I feel it’s unnecessary to be asking all of these questions when the answer is as clear as glass. The FBI wasn’t looking to protect Trump – but rather destroy him. The FBI didn’t put a spy in the Clinton campaign because Clinton is part of the Establishment. You don’t go about spying on your own people like that. And even if you do, you certainly don’t bring what they are doing to people’s attention, much less prosecute or bash them for it.
 
This is the Deep State we are talking about. The Obama DOJ. The Obama FBI. There was no justice with Obama’s DOJ and FBI – only corruption.
 
Even then, I find it hard to use the word “corruption”. It’s the Deep State. There is no corruption there. Why? Because you can’t corrupt what was never honest. What was never moral. What was never right. Frankly, corruption within the Deep State would mean delineating from the status quo of the Establishment, which no member does.
 
The Establishment, for as long as it’s been around, has always been immoral. Its very definition is unjust. And they could never allow someone like Trump to be in power. Never mind what they think of him. Never mind that they believe he is brutish and stupid. That’s not what bothers them. Frankly, they are ok with brutish and stupid people. The elected bunch of the Deep State DEPENDS on brutish and stupid people. No, what they truly hate the guy for, what drives them to destroy him isn’t his attitude or behavior or demeanor. It’s his status as an outsider.
 
A man who has lived his entire life as an outsider cannot be allowed to come in and run the place. He’s meant to stay an outsider. He’s meant to remain out of power. He’s meant to deal with the things THEY want to implement on people, whatever strikes their fancy. He’s meant to SUBMIT to the Deep State as pretty much everyone else is meant to. And he’s not supposed to call them out. He’s not supposed to let people know that there are people in power with more control than civilians believe.
 
It’s those things that tick off the Deep State the most. The fact that he’s an outsider coming in and not only running the place, but doing it SUCCESSFULLY AND WITH TONS OF SUPPORT. But perhaps what ticks them off the most is not just that he’s an outsider. It’s that they haven’t beaten him thus far.
 
Every attempt at thwarting him, destroying him and his reputation, has resulted in utter failure. The Establishment has never had so much trouble getting rid of someone in the past. They would either convert them and make them part of the Establishment, like with Lindsay Graham, or scare them into silence. 

Not one of their tactics has worked so far, and that is what annoys them the most.
 
So, they do what they can with what they’ve got. They spy on their opponent and disregard any consequence that may follow in their public view. They don’t honestly care. They want Trump gone through whatever means necessary.
 
The only problem with that is what happens if they succeed. If they take out Trump through illegitimate means, that will enrage much of America. No Democrat would be elected for a generation. And if they take out Pence as well, let me tell you, there is a reason the 2nd Amendment still exists.
 
While I hope it never comes to it, if pushed around enough, the American people will take up arms against a tyrannical government once again.
 
That being said, there isn’t much, if any, indication of such a thing coming to pass. Like I said, the Deep State’s attempts at destroying Trump have all ended in failure. Not to mention that the more they fight him, the more people will be willing to support him. Meaning, the more people will be willing to vote Democrats (and RINOs) out of Congress. That only chips away at the power and influence they have.
 
Regardless, with all of that said, it’s honestly funny seeing the MSM trying to defend the FBI’s actions in such a way. First of all, those actions are indefensible. Second, those headlines indicate a very flimsy attempt at defending this. Honestly, who would believe this garbage?
 
Well, to their credit, it’s entirely possible that more people will honestly believe this trash than their attempts at protecting MS-13.
 
Psalm 52:2
“Your tongue plots destruction, like a sharp razor, you worker of deceit.”