The most recent breaking story circulating out there is that new text messages between FBI agents Lisa Page and Peter Strzok reveal that then-President Barack Obama wanted to “know everything we’re doing.”
According to the Daily Wire: “The Senate suggests that this text was not about the Trump-Russia collusion investigation, but rather about the Hillary Clinton probe, which had not yet been closed.”
This makes sense, since this text was sent on September 2nd, 2016. Well before the election.
Another text, written on September 28th, 2016 by Strzok, says: “Got called up to Andy’s [McCabe] earlier… hundreds of thousands of emails turned over by Weiner’s atty to sdny [Southern District of New York], includes a ton of material from spouse [Abedin]. Sending team up tomorrow to review… this will never end.”
And the Daily Wire tells us that “the FBI didn’t inform Congress until a month later that they were re-opening their email investigation into Clinton.”
Another text depicts Strzok calling Virginians “ignorant hillbillies” for not electing McCabe’s wife to the Senate.
And another text written by Page on November 13th, 2016, 5 days after Trump’s election victory, says: “I bought all the president’s men. Figure I need to brush up on Watergate.”
Without much context, it looks like Page was looking to find a way to impeach Trump, if she mentioned Watergate. I can’t be too sure, since by this time, Obama was still President and she could simply be talking about defending him or at least Hillary since her situation is closer to a Watergate situation (in reality, it’s 33,000 times worse).
The Daily Wire notes that the most “shocking material here is obviously the news that President Obama wanted to be updated on the Clinton investigation – particularly when Obama stated on national television in April 2016 that he did ‘not talk to the Attorney General [Lynch] about pending investigations. I do not talk to FBI directors about pending investigations. We have a strict line and always have maintained it. I guarantee it. I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department or the FBI, not just in this case but in any case. Period'.”
Those words will become Obama’s version of “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” He’s blatantly lying on air and his words give us reason to doubt him. This being Obama, we always had reason to doubt him, but now it’s clear that he was lying through his teeth. It’s all about language.
His insistence on making that point is what draws us to suspect his words (aside from the fact that it’s Obama who is speaking the words).
Now, lying to the media is not unlawful by any means. Democrats do it all the time. But while it’s not unlawful for him to lie to the media or even to ask to be updated about any case (the POTUS has every right to do as much), it does point out the corruption of his administration.
He said he wasn’t involved in the Hillary investigation but he certainly was. Comey said he wasn’t investigating Trump but he certainly was. These people are being exposed for their corruption left and right and I’m savoring this moment so much.
Of course, that’s not gonna matter whatsoever to the media and the Left. But it doesn’t matter what they think. THEY ARE PART OF IT!
Now, let’s return to the main topic of this article.
It’s clear that Obama was involved in the Hillary investigation and worked with the FBI to determine an end to it without justice.
So we’ve answered the first part of the title question. He most certainly helped Hillary to avoid serving time for her crimes. But now comes the second question. Why did he help her?
Did he honestly think she was going to become President? Was he afraid of her? Did he fear what she would do to him if he didn’t help her? We already know that Obama isn’t exactly Hillary’s favorite person in the world. After all, he’s the one that essentially robbed her of the Democratic nomination in 2008. That election was supposed to be hers. She was supposed to become the first female President. And, frankly, that was the election she had the best chance to do it. She was a rock star in the Democrat Party and the Republicans offered very weak competition.
After the economic collapse of the late 2000s under George W. Bush, adding that to the fact that Bush was a heavily hated President and the GOP offered peanuts in terms of good candidates, 2008 was the Democrats’ for the taking and Hillary thought herself to be the woman for the job.
But then came a charming African-American 2-year Senator rookie by the name of Barack Hussein Obama. For all that Hillary had going for herself back then, Obama easily overshadowed her. Obama was charming. He was very Leftist. And most of all, he was black. So, the Democrat Party abandoned Hillary and backed Obama all the way to his election and beyond.
No doubt, Hillary felt robbed of something she felt was rightly hers. So robbed, she felt, that the next time she would run, she had to make sure she would win and not give someone else any sort of chance to do so.
But 2008 wasn’t the only time Obama essentially destroyed her. The other time came when he named her to be his Secretary of State. He knew Hillary wasn’t very bright so he knowingly (not that he’d admit it) set her up for failure.
No doubt he let out a good chuckle when Hillary presented the Russian PM at the time with a red button that was supposed to say “reset” in Russian, but instead said “overcharged.”
It’s not the typo that I want to talk about here. It’s the ridiculous gesture by Clinton that should be the main focus. I mean, c’mon. An actual “reset” button? Lame… Sorry, that’s the millennial in me.
But it’s not just the ridiculous button that further damaged her image. Mostly, it was the tens of thousands of e-mails that almost entirely destroyed her. Without that, there wouldn’t have been any investigation.
Heck, without her being Secretary of State, there wouldn’t have been an investigation.
So Obama has somehow managed to destroy her chances of becoming President in two separate elections – inadvertently or not.
But of course, at the time, none of us knew for an absolute fact that she would end up losing an election that has been so clearly rigged in her favor. So he tried to help her avoid being the first President to be sworn into office behind bars (a joke, of course. Prison would’ve meant she would be replaced as the Democrat candidate).
But the question remains unanswered. Why did he help her? Was he actually afraid she would win and she would destroy him? If he was afraid she would win, why not finish the job and destroy her? Why not obliterate the Clintons in the Democrat hierarchy and replace it with his own family?
Am I simply overestimating the power that he had? Or am I overestimating the amount of balls that he had? Did he actually believe she would maintain his legacy? That she would effectively be his third-term in office, just as H.W. Bush was supposed to be Reagan’s? Am I overestimating his level of intelligence, then?
Because the reality of the situation comes down to three choices. Either he didn’t have the power we thought he had (which is not likely the case, given the amount of corruption in the FBI, DOJ and other federal agencies), he didn’t have the spine we thought he had or he didn’t have the intelligence we thought he had.
I can’t say for certain which is the right option. There may even be another option that I’m missing. All I know, and all we now know, is that Obama saved Hillary from going to jail for the massive threat to national security she posed due to the e-mails.
Of course, we’re likely to be finding more things out as we go along. If it’s possible to have learned all the corruption going on within the FBI and DOJ, it’s certainly possible to discover the answers to these questions. Whether or not we will depends strictly on God. He has let us know all we know and without Him, we know nothing. And if anyone truly knows the answers to these questions, it’s the Lord God Almighty.
“For the Lord gives wisdom; from His mouth come knowledge and understanding.”
Author: Freddie Drake Marinelli.
It’s been a full year, 365 days since the last election. A day that will live in infamy for the Left and a day most Americans will remember as the day we began trying to Make America Great Again.
It’s been a full year since the Left has cried themselves to sleep every single night and now, even an MSM source admits that Trump would still beat Hillary Clinton if the elections were held tomorrow.
Interestingly enough, that’s less shocking than you would think it is. I’m not talking about what the MSM source says would be the results of the election. I’ve known for a long time now that Trump would always be more popular than Hillary.
No, what I’m talking about is the level of surprise I get from seeing an MSM source admit to something like this.
One thing I’ve noticed over the past month or so is that, slowly but surely, the MSM is beginning to get some sort of sense for reality. Just last week, I was talking about how the economy was doing so well that even the MSM (CNBC, in particular) had to take notice. I’ve also talked about how a writer for CNN admitted that Jeff Flake’s attempt to take out Trump was doomed from the start.
Sure, the MSM has been trying their hardest to continue to be the #1 seller of fake news for the public, but there come points in time that people, even news organizations, have to face reality.
A year ago, they had to face the reality that Trump had beaten Hillary Clinton in the election. For months after, they were shouting that Russia had interfered in the election, but realized they had no evidence to support their claim. They’re still trying to run with that story, but at this point, would the Washington Post (the specific MSM source I’ll be talking about) write a story titled: “12 months later, Trump would probably still win the 2016 election”?
If they honestly believed Russia had anything to do with the election, they wouldn’t be writing something like this – an admission that Trump would still do better in terms of numbers than Hillary (albeit with reportedly lower numbers).
The article begins: “It has been almost exactly one year since President Trump shocked the world by defeating Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. And he might well do it again today.” Keep in mind, this story was written yesterday.
But it’s certainly interesting to see a Washington Post writer admit that, if the election were held today, Hillary Clinton would still lose to Donald Trump.
Even after the constant bashing, ridiculing, mocking and deceiving that they’ve been doing to Trump, Washington Post has to admit that Hillary would still be seen as the less favored candidate, showing that her numbers are even worse than the day of the election.
Now, I’m not exactly surprised by that. The MSM has been exposed as fake news, so not many people believe them. And I’m not exactly surprised to see Hillary’s numbers be even worse than last year’s. What with every single scandal that the Clintons and the Democrat Party have had this year, it’s obvious that people’s views on them have only worsened.
According to WaPo: “The Washington Post-ABC News poll asked respondents how they’d vote in a redo of the 2016 election, and, if anything, Clinton seems to have lost more ground than Trump. Among those who voted, 46 percent say they picked Clinton last year and 43 percent picked Trump – a slightly more favorable sample than the 2016 election, in which Clinton won the popular vote by two percentage points. But in a head-to-head rematch, Clinton’s support drops even more than Trump’s does, and they wind up in a 40-40 tie. Given that Trump overperformed in key, blue-leaning swing states, that means he’d probably have won again.”
That’s a lot to look over, so let’s break it down.
First, there’s the 46-43 difference. Knowing how the MSM tends to run their polls, oversampling Democrats, those numbers are terrible for Hillary and the Democrats. If, after a year of constant bashing and character-assassination attempts, the difference between the two candidates in an MSM poll is still that tight, reality might be worse for them than they realize. The reason Clinton won the popular vote is largely because of California (and voter fraud in Detroit and other Leftist cities, but we’ll ignore that for the time being). Take California out of the equation and Trump annihilates Hillary in popular vote as well. That’s why we have the Electoral College, so that one state doesn’t decide the election for the whole country.
Next, the 40-40 tie. Yet another sign as to why the Democrats are in major trouble. The previous numbers were about real voters. About how they had voted in the election. Those are previous numbers. The 40-40 tie makes things worse for the Left because it means that, out of those voters sampled, 40% of them would vote Clinton (meaning that 6% of them wouldn’t vote for her again) and 40% of them would vote Trump (meaning 3% of them wouldn’t vote for him again).
Typically, support for the loser of an election tends to slide, but this is simply devastating for the Clintons. Hillary was horrendously unpopular a year ago and her image has only worsened since then.
Of course, I won’t be so quick to believe the MSM when they say a decent amount of people would not vote for Trump again. I believe them when they say people wouldn’t vote for Clinton again, but not when they say people wouldn’t vote for Trump again. Why? Because they have no reason to lie about Hillary’s numbers dropping, but they have every reason in the world to say Trump’s numbers are dropping.
Other than covering the Russia story, the MSM has spent their time running b.s. polls that have Trump’s approval numbers trying to break the 40% mark. That’s just another part of the effort to smear Trump. Another part of the character-assassination effort. But it’s not working. If it were, THE WASHINGTON POST WOULDN’T WRITE A STORY DEPICTING TRUMP AS THE WINNER!
Of course, even the Washington Post writer has to try to take down Trump as well in a story saying he’d win again. According to WaPo: “… even as Trump’s disapproval rating has reached a new high of 59 percent, he has still got enough of a base to win reelection if there was a rematch today. Of course, that’s if he wound up facing the same historically unpopular Democratic nominee that he did in 2016… Trump certainly can’t count on facing another opponent who is so unpopular in 2020… he can still win under the right circumstances. The kind of circumstances he was in a year ago today, for example.”
I won’t argue that part of the reason Trump won is because Hillary was a disaster of a candidate. In fact, even I have said that that’s one of the reasons why Trump won. But here’s the thing: that’s not the only reason.
If the Democrats’ best hope is to get a candidate that doesn’t majorly suck, they are on the fast track to yet another election loss. How do I know this? Take a look at some of the recent special election results. It’s entirely arguable that nearly every Democrat candidate was better than Hillary Clinton, or at least more likable. And the Republican candidates they faced likely aren’t as popular as Trump is. And yet, the Democrats have lost every significant election this past year.
You can clearly see that Democrats have been largely unpopular, even in elections they should’ve easily won. Take Montana for example. Or Georgia.
What I’m saying is that a candidate that is more likable than Clinton would do very little for the Democrats. Let’s look at some of the potential prospects for the Democrat Party, shall we?
First, there’s Bernie Sanders. Provided he lives for another three years, Bernie would be a decent candidate for the Democrat Party. He’s an open socialist and knows nothing about the economy or much of anything. He’s the prototypical Democrat candidate. He would get the Millennial vote because my generation will likely go down in history as the worst to have ever lived. But I still don’t think he would win against Trump. Why? Because from a conservative’s point of view, he’s even worse than Hillary.
Next, there’s Kamala Harris. A rising star in the Democrat Party, but by 2020, it’s likely that Trump supporters will see her as just as unfavorable as Hillary Clinton. Being from a 21st Century California, it’s hard for anyone outside that state to like her. She certainly wouldn’t draw any Trump supporters, because she, too, is just another socialist.
I won’t discuss this much further, given my time constraints, but I’ll end things off with this: the Democrat Party is in total disarray. Trump’s support only continues to grow. The Democrat Party will likely lose in 2018 if people vote for conservative challengers to RINO seats, which is a great possibility.
Every Democrat effort to stop Trump has been a total failure. And I don’t think going full-on socialist is going to help them just yet. The country is still too conservative and Christian for that. Millennials may be the most ignorant generation to walk the Earth, but there’s still conservatives among them, as you can clearly see given just who is writing these articles.
I don’t see the Democrat Party winning again any time soon.
1 Corinthians 15:57
“But thanks be to God, who gives us victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Author: Freddie Drake.
I’ve mentioned before that it’s not a surprise how the Left reacts to certain things. Whenever there’s a shooting, they blame the gun, gun owners and Republicans. When there’s a terrorist attack, they blame Republicans for not being friendly to them, or something along those lines. Likewise, whenever a Democrat does something extremely shady (or flat out illegal), the media tends to stay away from that story like it’s the plague.
They’ve ignored the Harvey Weinstein story for years. They’ve ignored every account of unconstitutional actions undertaken by the Obama administration. They’ve ignored the Clinton e-mails, the fraudulent Russian dossier, the Uranium One deal, and now, the revelation that Hillary Clinton pretty much bought out the Democrat Party to ensure her nomination.
And I’m not surprised in the least that they choose to ignore such a groundbreaking story. Why? Newsbusters.org puts it best: “They [don’t] want to ruin their narrative that Clinton was a pure angel who was a victim of Donald Trump and Russian collusion.”
Narrative is the only thing that matters to them… well, as long as it brings results.
Harvey Weinstein has been raping and sexually assaulting women for 30 years? He’s a good Democrat donor. Our decree is that nothing happens to him! (Unless all the women he ever assaulted come forth).
Bill Clinton did the dirty deed with a WH intern as President of the United States? A slap in the wrist for him! No need to impeach him.
Barack Obama spied on political opponents using a government agency? Good! That’ll teach those no-good Republicans! Nothing but praise for the man while pretending he did nothing wrong!
The Clintons sold 20% of our uranium to a Russian company? I’m sure they had good reasons and that it was perfectly legal to do it. No need to discuss the matter any further!
An Islamic Terrorist killed 8 people with a truck in New York City? He does not represent the only religion in the world that has a constant terrorism problem! He wasn’t a true Muslim! Neither was the Orlando shooter. Neither was the shooter in Tampa, FL that killed two people for disrespecting Islam back in May 19th. Neither were the San Bernardino shooters. Neither were… my God, that’s a long list of Islamic terror attacks on American soil in the website religionofpeace.com/attacks/american-attacks. (Seriously, I suggest you check out that website).
On the other hand…
Trump literally ran on a positive campaign that should resonate with everyone with his slogan “Make America Great Again”? What a racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic pig!
It doesn’t matter what sins Democrats commit every single day. It doesn’t matter just how corrupt they are while they call others corrupt. It doesn’t matter just how much Hillary cheated while they all shout Trump cheated.
The media will ignore every groundbreaking story that places any Democrat in a bad position. Not only that, they will try to spin something like the Manafort case as something that will lead to Trump’s impeachment.
The Mainstream Media is truly despicable. And now, they continue with their Leftist tendencies and ignore the story that A TOP DEMOCRAT WROTE HERSELF! But this is about as surprising as the Patriots winning the Superbowl or the Warriors winning the NBA Championship. It was expected from the beginning.
Their decision to ignore the story comes as a shock to exactly no one. This is nothing more than another attempt at hiding the bodies created by the Democrats. The bad news for them is that people like us exist: conservatives. We dig up the skeletons in the Left’s closet for the world to see. And we do this nearly every day.
Like Ephesians 5:13 says: “But everything exposed by the light becomes visible…” It’s hard to ignore the reality that the Left is a bunch of despicable, deceiving, evil people. Their actions are more often than not seen by the masses, at least eventually.
The Uranium One deal happened 3 years ago, and yet, just NOW we’re beginning to talk about it more.
Harvey Weinstein has been a sexual reprobate for an entire generation, but just NOW he’s been exposed. And it’s not like it was a massive secret. Almost everyone in Hollywood knew about it, quite possibly including the nearly 58,000 homeless people in Los Angeles County.
And even beyond him, we’re seeing a ripple effect of exposing more and more sexual predators in Hollywood, including the likes of Kevin Spacey – a man that was so confident that the Left would forgive him for his actions that he came out as “gay” to excuse himself. (And that backfired on him miserably.)
There’s a very good reason Trump started calling the MSM “fake news”. It’s not just that they falsely report things about Trump. It’s that they also ignore every shady business deal, every shady action, every single sin Democrats commit because it doesn’t fit their narrative. Their narrative that the Democrats are the “good guys”. Their narrative that they “care about people”. The narrative that they actually have a soul. It’s all a sham.
Nothing could be further from the truth. They are not the “good guys” – good guys don’t sell 20% of our country’s uranium to an enemy state. Good guys don’t give $150 billion to a rogue enemy nation that literally calls for our deaths every single day.
Democrats don’t care about people. They work their hardest to keep people poor. To make sin look like the greatest thing since sliced bread and make Christ look like a worthless religious idol that only idiots and racists worship. They promise to “stick it to the rich guys” when they make shady business deals with said rich guys. They promise to unite the country when they’ve spent the past 8 years dividing it in terms of racial issues, gender issues, sexual preference issues, and so on.
They DON’T have a soul. But maybe that’s a good thing for them. Because if they did have souls, they would be on the fast track to eternal damnation.
And no, that’s not a “righteous condemnation” that the Left accuses us Christians of doing. I’m not the one judging them. If anything, I’m warning them. If they don’t course-correct, they will face infernal punishment.
I don’t have any right to judge them. God on the other hand…
2 Corinthians 5:10
“For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.”
Author: Freddie Drake.
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.
“And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to His purpose.”
Author: Freddie Drake.
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.
“For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice.”
Author: Freddie Drake.
The reason I add “surprisingly” to the title is simply because I didn’t think Hillary Clinton could sink to a new low following the 2016 election.
While she’s still blaming Russia for her election loss, the way she’s blaming Russia is incredibly astonishing and offensive.
In a speech at the Southbank Centre’s London Literature Festival, Hillary made sure to remind the audience what she thinks was the reason for her loss: Russian interference.
“I think there are a lot more connections that have yet to come to light”, Clinton said in her speech. She also mentioned that if she had been elected President, she “would have called for an independent commission to get to the bottom of it.”
Well, there are a few things wrong with that:
First, THERE WAS NO RUSSIAN COLLUSION! This is a point we’ve been making ever since this excuse began to float about in the Democrat Party and MSM. Nearly a year after the election and not a single piece of evidence of collusion.
Second, the only reason this excuse was given is because SHE LOST! If she had won, NO MENTION OF RUSSIAN COLLUSION WOULD’VE BEEN MADE BY THE LEFT! Even Trump was worried, before the election, that there could be Russian collusion against him. And do you know what happened? Obama assured the country that Russia couldn’t possibly hack into our elections and the media made fun of Trump for even suggesting such a ridiculous notion.
Third, we do have a sort of “independent commission” who are “trying to get to the bottom of it”. They’re called the MSM. They’ve been independently investigating Trump and Russia for nearly a year now. Not to mention that aside from the MSM, there’s Robert Mueller’s special counsel who are also investigating this. Though, mostly, they’ve been investigating Trump’s personal and business life than anything else, because they literally have nothing that ties him to Russia during the time of the election. And frankly, they also won’t find anything on Trump the way they’re doing it.
If anything, there’s been more collusion between the Obama administration and Russia than Trump and Russia. The Hill wrote a story on how the FBI has uncovered business dealings between the Obama administration and Russia about American uranium. I won’t go into much detail about it, considering this is a story about something else entirely, but this just goes to show how much more corrupt the Left is than they even claim Trump to be.
If you want to read that Hill article, the title is: “FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration approved controversial nuclear deal with Moscow.”
Returning to the topic of conversation, at this point, you might be wondering “what did Hillary say that was ‘offensive’ as you put it, Freddie?” Well, here it is: “We had really well-respected security, intelligence veterans saying this was a ‘cyber 9/11’ in the sense it was a direct attack on our institutions.”, Hillary said in her speech.
Yep, Hillary’s comparing her election loss to the 9/11 attacks that killed 3000 people and brought down two iconic towers in Manhattan. If you have lost a loved one on 9/11, Hillary is saying that her election loss was just as bad. That the made up Russian attack was just as significant and tragic as the very real Islamic terrorist attack on our nation.
This, I believe, might be a new low for Hillary Clinton. Again, I did not think she could sink any lower than she already has. Maybe I gave her too much credit. Maybe I’ve yet to learn just how offensive, ignorant and insensitive the Left is about our country and just how self-absorbed they are.
You must be a massive narcissist to believe a national tragedy such as 9/11 could even compare to you losing an election. On September 11th, 2001, the whole world stood still as we witnessed evil taking down the twin towers. We lost 3000 souls that day. We vowed that justice would be served. And promised to never forget.
On November 8th, 2016, the whole world stood still as we witnessed God’s glory in making Trump President of the United States. We witnessed America looking to become stronger. We lifted the spirits of true American patriots that otherwise would’ve lost all hope for our country with the election of a crook. We vowed that we would do everything we could to Make America Great Again. And we promised to once again become the world’s hyper power. To become a beacon of light for the world to see. To become leaders of the world, as opposed to followers.
Hillary, your election loss wasn’t a “cyber 9/11”. It was one of the best days of my young life. I wasn’t around to see Reagan be elected and make the country great. And this is the first time I’m seeing a true leader in the White House, after 8 terrible years if ineptitude, incompetence and evil coming from Obama and 8 years of Bush kinda just being there (I was too young to pay attention at the time, and I wouldn’t understand anyway).
On 9/11, we lost 3000 innocent people. On November 8th, THE LEFT lost the America they envisioned. One that was just as impotent and fragile as Obama sought to make it.
“In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in Heaven.”
Author: Freddie Drake.
Free speech is a beautiful thing, isn’t it? We are all free to speak our minds and have others disagree and speak their own minds. Likewise, we are free to say stupid things and have people make fun of us for it. That last part couldn’t be more true for former First Lady and 2016 Democrat Party nominee Hillary Clinton.
Over the past couple of weeks, the biggest story on the news has been the Harvey Weinstein sexual assault scandal that is plaguing the hearts and minds of every Leftist in America. As a part of their defense mechanisms, the Left is trying to make this story about Trump, going back to a tactic that didn’t work near the end of the 2016 Presidential campaign, and that is to call him a sexual assaulter.
Of course, we know that’s not true, but how often do facts actually matter to the Left? In an interview with Andrew Marr of BBC One, Hillary feinted shock and disgust at one of her Party’s best friends. “I was shocked and appalled because I’ve known him through politics, as many Democrats have, he’s been a supporter.”, Clinton said in the interview.
Eventually, she tried to turn this onto Trump, calling him a sexual assaulter. “But it’s important that we not just focus on him and whatever consequences flow from these stories… After all, we have someone admitting to be a sexual assaulter in the Oval Office.”, Clinton said.
Really now? An admitted sexual assaulter? He hasn’t admitted to anything BECAUSE HE HASN’T DONE ANYTHING! The most he’s ever done is TALKED about it the way guys talk in a locker room, as I’m sure you may remember from the Access Hollywood tapes. Beyond that, it’s only been Democrat-payed women coming forward three weeks before the election claiming that Trump did stuff to them, even though nothing ever happened.
So she’s lying about Trump admitting it, because HE NEVER DID ANYTHING TO ADMIT TO!
Now, Andrew Marr, to his credit, brought up the fact that it takes courage for women to come forward and told Hillary that, in her book, she dismissed the three women that came forward to accuse her husband of what they did to them, and asked if it was the right thing to do. And Hillary’s response? “Well, yes, because that had all been litigated. That was the subject of a huge investigation… that was clearly in the past.”
Really? It’s in the past? So if Trump talking about it in the past matters, why doesn’t it matter if her husband ACTUALLY SEXUALLY ASSAULTED WOMEN?! That’s simply more Leftist hypocrisy right there.
But let’s ignore the hypocrisy right now. So, she says that it’s ok because it was in the past? Women that have been raped should get over it then? “Well, it was clearly in the past” is that what she’ll say to someone that was raped, say, 10 years ago? That since it was in the past, that she should get over it?
You know what else is in the past? 9/11. Should we get over that too? Should we forgive the evil terrorists that attacked us because it was 16 years ago? Should Jewish people get over the Holocaust and forgive Hitler, the leader of the National Socialist German Worker’s Party, for killing 6 million Jews? Should gay people forgive the ISIS terrorist that shot up a night club in Orlando because that was over a year ago, therefore in the past?
Saying “it’s in the past” is an insanely pathetic, poor, and frankly offensive excuse, given the subject matter. She’s basically telling the women her husband has assaulted (or any woman that’s ever been assaulted) to just get over it. Some champion of women she is. She defends and stays married to her sexual assaulter of a husband, she’s good friends with a pathetic and disgusting Hollywood mogul and she tries to spin the focus on someone who is the furthest thing from a disgusting creep as you can find in the recent years in the White House.
Sometimes, it’s just easy to bring up the point that Leftism and liberalism are among the worst things for women in the world. The fact that Hillary attacked the women that were brave enough to stand up to the most powerful man in the country at the time, the fact that she’s essentially defending Weinstein now, and the fact that she’s trying to accuse Trump of doing things he never did tells you just how little she thinks of women. And she expected them to vote for her? Don’t make me laugh!
Like I said earlier, I love freedom of speech. It allows ignorant Leftists to spout out ridiculous things that can so easily be refuted and/or made fun of. While sexual assault is no laughing matter, her pitiful attempts at defending her husband and pinning this on Trump is hilarious.
It’s clear to me that Hillary Clinton is one of the biggest enemies for women everywhere. Thankfully, she’s now largely irrelevant within her own sexual-assault-defending Party.
1 Timothy 3:11
“In the same way, the women are to be worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.”
Author: Freddie Drake.
An article on HotAir.com highlighted some comments made by former Clinton supporters and aides about Hillary’s new book titled: “What Happened.”
According to the article: “Even some of Clinton’s allies have grown weary of her insistence on re-litigating the 2016 campaign at a time when the Democratic Party is looking to forge a new identity in the age of Trump.”
One former Clinton fundraiser and surrogate said: “The best thing she could do is disappear. She’s doing harm to all of us because of her own selfishness. Honestly, I wish she’d just shut the **** up and go away.”
Now those are some harsh words! She used to be revered as the smartest woman in America and the greatest thing to happen to the country since the election and inauguration of Obama. And now, this person is saying that they wish she’d shut up and go away? Unbelievable.
But I can understand this person’s sentiments. Hillary (and the entire Left, really) is a very poor loser. And she’s actually spent the time to write a book blaming everyone else around her for her failure to become president, when just about everyone else has already moved on. But she continues to bring it back up. At this point, it’s clearly little more than a poor excuse to be in the spotlight for a few days… and making a bit more money on the election.
But hey, it’s working. I’m writing about her, aren’t I? So are other people in the media.
But let’s get back to the Hot Air article. “’None of this is good for the party’, said one former Obama aide. ‘It’s the Hillary show, 100%. A lot of us are scratching our heads and wondering what she’s trying to do. It’s certainly not helpful.’”
What she’s trying to do is be in the spotlight for a little bit and make money, as I said before. The Clintons want to make money. But that’s not what I want to focus on with that particular quote. Read back to the first thing this Obama aide said: “None of this is good for the party.”
Well, of course it isn’t. Hillary being unable to let go of the past definitely can’t be good for the party. But she’s not the biggest reason the Democrat Party is where it is today. No, that title belongs to the former POTUS.
It wasn’t just Hillary that sunk the Democrat Party in 2016, it was Obama (arguably, Trump had something to do with that as well). Obama is the reason the country is where it was last year. Obama made a mess of the country, on purpose. And the American people were sick of not being placed first. Of seeing their country be torn apart by the very people who should be making it a top priority. So, they voted for Trump. But some people didn’t vote for Trump just to vote for him. They voted for him to vote AGAINST Hillary. AGAINST Obama.
I’ve already mentioned multiple times in previous articles about the time that I met a former Obama voter at the line for the voting booths. I won’t retell it, but I will point to that person as an example of people that were enchanted by Obama’s promises of “hope” and “change” and were disenchanted to find that that “hope” wasn’t for America, but for those in government, and that that “change” was to change the country fundamentally (which he was thankfully unable to do).
So if that Obama aide wants to look for reasons as to why Hillary lost in 2016, he need not look any further than Obama’s actions as President and Trump’s ideas and ideologies for when he would become President.
To an extent, Hillary is right in that Obama was partly to blame for her loss in 2016. But she fails to see herself as part of the reason she failed as well. And even her former supporters are getting tired of her trying to analyze and reanalyze what happened in 2016.
Here’s what happened: Obama was the worst President the country has ever had. Hillary was the first crook to run for office. And Trump was the best candidate the country has seen since Ronald Reagan.
THAT is what happened. It’s a combination of those things that led to Trump being elected President. But at this point, just about everyone has already moved on. The media is more focused on trying to impeach Trump (under bogus circumstances), the Democrats are looking ahead to 2018 in hopes of regaining control of Congress (under the same policies and ideologies that cost them the 2016 election) and Republicans are wasting time and their power in Congress, looking ahead to 2018 to receive more money to do the exact same thing they’ve been doing until now - nothing.
The point is: everyone has already moved on from 2016. Everyone except Hillary. She CAN’T let go of it. Partly because it means that she gets to write worthless books in which she says the same things she’s been saying on interviews since the election in order to both be in the spotlight for a little bit and to make a little bit more money. She’s really milking her election loss here.
But the fact that even her own supporters and aides are saying that they’re tired of her is incredible. A year ago, if anyone of them were to say that they wish she’d “shut the **** up and go away”, they’d immediately get fired from their position as aide to her campaign and be shamed by their peers for attacking the “smartest” woman in America.
It’s obvious that she’s outlived her usefulness to the Democrat Party.
Now, I’m not trying to defend Hillary here. I’ve never liked her. Like other Democrats, she is evil and deceitful. But unlike other Democrats, she’s not much for ideology. She prefers making money. Her greed drives her. It drove her to run for President twice. It’s driven her to remain married to a rapist. It’s driven her to where she is today.
But it’s certainly interesting to see how evil treats evil. Hillary had her use to the Democrats for decades. But that’s no longer the case. She’s no longer an asset to the Democrat Party, but rather a liability. And, like one of her former aides said, they wish she’d “shut up and go away”.
She’s a failure, and everyone knows it.
“For the righteous falls seven times and rises again, but the wicked stumbles in times of calamity.”
Author: Freddie Drake.
Hillary has written a book titled “What Happened”, in recollection of the events that occurred (with biased views) during the 2016 Presidential Election. Some excerpts of the book are available, and CNN has gotten to see a bit of it.
According to CNN: “(Hillary) said that (Bernie’s) attacks against her during the primary caused ‘lasting damage’ and paved the way for ‘Trump’s ‘Crooked Hillary’ campaign’”. In the book, Hillary says that Sanders “had to resort to innuendo and impugning my character” because the two candidates “agreed on so much”.
Well, first of all, Hillary was viewed as crooked WAY before the primaries. The reason Trump started calling her “Crooked Hillary” wasn’t because of what Sanders said, it was because of what Hillary DID. Wiping a server containing well over 30,000 e-mails about her time as Secretary of State for the Obama Administration is simply ONE of the reasons she is crooked. Accepting funds from foreign nations, such as Saudi Arabia, that went straight to the Clinton Foundation is yet another reason she is crooked.
Sanders may have brought up the topics (rarely), but he didn’t create them. SHE DID!
Next, I want to quote an excerpt from the book. She says that the two of them “agreed on so much”. Sure, they’re both SOCIALISTS! Only one of them is an open socialist, while the other prefers the term “progressive”, which means the exact same thing as socialist or communist.
In her book, Hillary says: “Throughout the primaries, every time I wanted to hit back against Bernie’s attacks, I was told to restrain myself. Noting that his plans didn’t add up, that they would inevitably mean raising taxes on middle-class families, or that they were little more than a pipe dream – all of this could be used to reinforce his argument that I wasn’t a true progressive.”
So she knows very well that Bernie’s socialist ideas would be at the expense of middle-class families (and pretty much all of the country, except for Democrats and their donors) and that his ideas were nothing more than “a pipe dream”. SHE KNEW THEY WERE BAD IDEAS, BUT SHE DID NOTHING AGAINST IT! As she says, it would’ve been used to reinforce his argument that she wasn’t a true progressive.
Oh no, I believe wholeheartedly she’s progressive. I also know that she’d rather be popular and well-liked (which didn’t work out anyway) than bring Bernie back to reality, as well as his supporters. She'd rather stay quiet and be liked than reveal that his plans will ultimately cost the American people far too much.
She didn’t want to push back against his plans, for the sake of being viewed as progressive, even though she KNOWS that Bernie’s plans would hurt the American people.
Much of the Democrat base runs on emotion. What FEELS right. How people will FEEL about something. You promise people free stuff, and they will react positively to that. You tell people they can’t have free stuff, they will be angry at you and say you are being mean. She didn’t want to appear as the bad guy, even though she KNEW that no one would benefit from Bernie’s ideas, other than people in the government and donors.
I’ve mentioned this story before, but I will retell it here: I remember looking through Facebook, looking at friends’ posts. This was during the height of the primaries for both parties. Bernie had all the momentum in the world against Hillary, but still would never overcome the rigged system the Democrat party had set up to give the nomination to Hillary. One of my Facebook friends was a Bernie supporter and had shared a post that showed some of Bernie’s objectives once he would become president. I don’t remember all of them, but I certainly remember one of them. One of Bernie’s “objectives” was to “end racism”.
I looked at that and thought: “How is he going to do that as president? What law could he possibly pass to get rid of racism (which lives at the heart of the Democrat Party)?” Furthermore, “How could anyone believe that any president could achieve such a thing? Do they actually believe Bernie will do that?” I guess that was part of the “pipe dream” Hillary was talking about.
Bernie’s supporters didn’t want to hear the cost of Bernie’s ideas. If you told them that his ideas would actually be detrimental to the country and its people, they would become enraged with you. They don’t want to accept reality: socialism doesn’t work.
Bernie promised all these things, with no true idea of how to make them happen, other than have it be at the expense of the American people. His plans were essentially to instruct and deceive people into digging their own graves with gusto. It didn’t matter that his plans wouldn’t work out or that they would be at the heavy expense of the middle-class. It was what his supporters wanted to hear. They wanted to hear that the government would take care of everyone, end racism, end climate change, make Muslims not kill us and bring world peace. In reality, they would all mean the demise of the United States of America.
The government can’t take care of everyone. That’s just not a stable system.
You can’t end racism, since it’s a matter of the heart. Racism is part of Man’s sinful nature. Of Man’s evil nature. And the end of racism certainly won’t be found in any Democrat.
You can’t end climate change. People don’t have the ability to affect the climate so severely. If we did, California would never get droughts and hurricanes would never happen. We can’t control the climate, only God can.
The only way for Muslims to not kill us is to make sure there are no Muslims. If you truly understand the nature of Islam, you know it’s nothing but a death cult. It’s not “the religion of peace”, as the Left would say. It’s not a religion. EVEN MUSLIMS WOULD TELL YOU IT’S NOT A RELIGION! It’s a way of life, in which women are less than dirt, children lesser still, gay people should be killed in horrendous ways, and anyone that doesn’t follow Islam must be either killed or forced to become Muslim.
You want to make sure Muslims don’t kill us? Convert them to Christianity!
And lastly, bringing world peace. Let’s be honest here, there will never be world peace. Because of Man’s sinful and evil nature, there will never be peace in this world. Peace is simply a break from war. Due to man’s very nature, there will always be conflict. There will always be war.
But Bernie’s supporters don’t want to hear that. They refuse to accept reality.
But now to return to the original topic of conversation of this article. Is it really a surprise that Hillary blames yet another person for her loss? Just after the election, it was the Russians. Then it was Comey. Now, it’s Bernie. I wonder who she’ll blame next. Trump? She likely already has. Her donors? No, she won’t risk upsetting the hand that pays her. Millennials? They’re the future of this country, so she likely wouldn’t do that. Debbie Wasserman Schultz? She helped Hillary become the nominee and likely has dirt on Hillary.
Regardless, it’s important to note that she will never point the finger at herself. She will never blame herself for her loss. She’s been touted as “the smartest woman in America”, so there’s no way she could find blame in herself.
That goes along with Man’s sinful and evil nature. They place blame and judgment on others, ignoring their own blame and flaws in the process.
“’Do not judge others, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?’”
Author: Freddie Drake.
Hopefully, he won’t be the last… Democrat Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Shultz’s IT staffer Imran Awan was arrested this week when he was trying to flee the country. Awan is Pakistani-born and is criminally charged with multiple counts of bank fraud and, just so you know, your tax dollars are still paying for his salary – he’s still on the House payroll…
The FBI is said to be investigating several smashed hard drives from Awan’s home – his brother is also under investigation.
‘Breitbart News previously reported that a federal employee with knowledge of the situation told the Daily Caller in May, “A laptop used by Imran was hidden in an unused crevice of the Rayburn House Office Building” and was found by Capitol Police and seized for use in the criminal investigation against him. The Daily Caller further noted, “Wasserman Schultz’s office is in Longworth House Office Building, a separate structure.”’
The laptop was hidden and, much to the surprise of many eyewitnesses, Democrat Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Shultz fought with Capitol Police to STOP them instead of cooperating with them.
Yes, Debbie fought with the police…isn’t that the very definition of OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE? And if so, why wasn’t she arrested on the spot??
In any case, this is great news – particularly amid the twitter storm around the AG and whether or not Jeff Sessions is doing his job.
Donald Trump was elected president to carry out an agenda, and draining the swamp is one of the agenda items. With or without Sessions, Trump has a mandate. It’s good to know that the FBI is actually doing its job. As far as Sessions, let me just say this: Trump needs a wartime consigliere…
Do you recognize the phrase? It comes from the movie ‘The Godfather’, where Michael Corleone, who’s about to go to war against the other families, decides to replace his lawyer Tom Hagen (consegliere) with a ‘wartime consigliere', as the Don didn't think Hagen had the courage or the temper to counsel him appropriately during a war.
AG Jeff Sessions is doing a great job on illegal immigration – he’s the reason illegal border crossings are down by a whopping 78%. The question becomes: why is Trump complaining about him? Perhaps something’s cooking – perhaps, the fact that Sessions isn’t about to resign and Trump isn’t about to fire him, indicates that something is going on behind the scenes. Perhaps something big involving more democrats...
We can only hope…
Whether or not Sessions stays will depend upon what time of ‘consigliere’ he is. If he’s onboard fighting the swamp, investigating the crimes the Clintons and the Obamas have committed, then he should stay. And maybe that’s the reason why Trump is criticizing him – to make Sessions a victim so that the illiterate mainstream media begins praising him (which they have already) and by the time a big announcement comes, there’s no way the MSM can attack Sessions after all the praises. This is, of course, pure speculation.
But if, by any chance, Sessions doesn’t have the desire, or the courage to confront some of the most powerful people in this country, he should resign and let somebody else take his place.
But please understand: this is not about going after PEOPLE. We don’t want to use the power of the State to target PEOPLE, like this special counsel-Mueller-burger is doing. He’s TARGETING TRUMP in the hopes that he can find a crime.
We want to TARGET CRIMES which will lead to the criminals. Note that the FBI in this case seized the computer and investigated a crime…and only after this, it gets an order to arrest the Congresswoman's aide.
In a civil society, the police investigate CRIMES to then arrest criminals.
In a banana republic, the Muellers of the world target PEOPLE to try to find crimes…
Hopefully, this House staffer is the first of a number of democrats who we know need to be prosecuted. When you’re the Secretary of State and you sell Uranium to Russia for profit, there’s no way there isn’t enough evidence there to prosecute. In this country, nobody’s supposed to be above the law…
‘When justice is done, it brings joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers’
Author: Danielle Cross
Danielle Cross and Freddie Drake Marinelli will bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free...