Multiple times throughout the past couple of years, particularly since Donald Trump became President of the United States, the American Left has insisted that Trump in some way worked with Russia to steal the election away from Hillary Clinton. Specifically, they say, time and time again, that the guy is a “threat to Democracy”. But therein lies an erroneous presupposition: that we are a Democracy at all. However, a Democracy we most definitely are not, given the institutions we have in place and given what the Founders thought about Democracies.
 
First, it is crucial to identify exactly what a Democracy and a Republic are, because both seem to be used interchangeably, which is a detrimental mistake.
 
A Democracy is a system of government in which the entire population or the eligible members of a state, usually elected representatives, rule. In other words, it’s a system where the majority, or the mob, rules. Where the laws are entirely decided by the majority, through a vote, regardless of what may have been there previously.
 
A Republic, however, is a system of government where, yes, people have a vote and they elect representatives, but where the majority does not inherently rule in a nation. The Electoral College is an indication of our status as a Republic.
 
One of the Left’s most recent complaints (of which there are plenty because these are perpetually angry people) has been that the Electoral College is a “scam” and that that’s the only reason Trump won. And while Hillary did win the popular vote, there is a good reason the Electoral College is what is used to decide elections: so that big states with bigger populations don’t choose the president of the entire country.
 
Let’s look at a couple of things. First, the popular vote. Hillary Clinton received 65,853,514 votes as opposed to Donald Trump’s 62,984,828 (granted, many of those Clinton votes were most likely from illegal aliens, so the real number probably isn’t that, but for the sake of the discussion, let’s say they are all legitimate). Rather close, but Clinton is the clear winner here. However, let’s move on to the counties: Donald Trump won 2,622 counties as opposed to Hillary Clinton’s 490. Donald Trump also won 30 states, as opposed to Clinton’s 20. Looking at an electoral map, be it by county or by state, you mostly see red.
 
So while Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, far more states and especially counties voted for Donald Trump. The reason for Clinton winning the popular vote is largely attributed to California and New York, states with some of the biggest populations. California alone has nearly 40 million people living in it (obviously, not all are citizens, but still).
 
The Electoral College allows for states with lower populations to have a say as to who they want to be their President. With it gone, despite how many more counties and states Trump won, Clinton would’ve become President, even though the vast majority of the country (again, by counties and states) wanted Trump.
 
In a Democracy, Hillary would’ve won with the simple majority because that’s all a Democracy does: rule by majority. But since we are a Republic, we have systems in place to keep that from happening.
 
Now, you might be asking why it is we are a Republic and not a Democracy. Well, apart from the reasons I just gave, the Founding Fathers absolutely LOATHED Democracies.
 
Thomas Jefferson is attributed for saying: “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”
 
John Adams said: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”
 
Benjamin Franklin said: “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”
 
And Alexander Hamilton said: “We are a Republican government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of democracy.”
 
Our Founding Fathers understood the dangers of a democracy: mob rules. If the majority wanted, they could have voted to remain a part of the U.K. following the Revolutionary War (unlikely, but there were those who were anti-federalists and loyalists to the crown in the colonies who were against the rebellion).
 
Likewise, a Democracy can vote on just about anything else with impunity. If the majority wanted to arrest people wearing MAGA hats, they would be able to in a Democracy, but not in a Republic where we have basic Constitutional rights pertaining to things like freedom of speech, etc.
 
So every time I hear an idiotic Democrat insisting that Trump is a “threat to Democracy” or that we are a Democracy at any capacity (might I also mention that our Pledge of Allegiance says “to the Republic for which it stands” not “to the Democracy for which it stands”?), I can’t help but think how ignorant one can be.
 
We are not a Democracy by any means. We use facets of Democracy, such as voting, in our Republic, but we are not ruled by the majority. The Constitution is the backbone of our legal system and the Bible is the foundation upon which Western society is built. A simple majority cannot add onto or eliminate an amendment in the Constitution because we are not a Democracy. In order to ratify a Constitutional amendment, it takes two-thirds of the House and the Senate, and then three-fourths of the states in order to change the Constitution at all. A simple majority does not rule here.
 
This is because we are a REPUBLIC, not a Democracy. And thank God for that.
 
Amos 5:24
“But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.”
 
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!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Earlier this week, a Clinton-appointed U.S. district judge dismissed a lawsuit brought forth by the DNC against the Trump campaign “for its alleged role in the hacking and dissemination of internal Democratic Party emails during the 2016 presidential race,” according to The Daily Wire.
 
This is MASSIVE news, and terrible for Democrats, that really should be brought to people’s attention (though I think most of it will go to responses to the 2nd round of the Democrat debates, which surprisingly featured a candidate pretending he was a moderate).
 
Anyway, Judge John Koeltl of the Southern District of New York relayed his opinion on the case after dismissing it, completely destroying the very argument the Democratic National Convention was trying to make in many different ways.
 
The DNC’s lawsuit, according to The Daily Wire, was “filed against Donald Trump, his campaign officials and ‘defendants’ – including Donald Trump Jr, Paul Manafort, Jared Kushner, George Papadopalous, Richard Gates and Roger Stone – WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, the Russian Federation, and various Russian individuals.”
 
The DNC alleged in the suit that the Trump campaign had coordinated with Russia and WikiLeaks to release official Democrat Party emails in order to benefit Trump’s campaign.
 
However, as Judge Koeltl points out, there are several problems with this suit.
 
First, you can’t sue a foreign government in a U.S. court. Koeltl writes: “The primary wrongdoer in this alleged criminal activity is undoubtedly the Russian Federation. [However] under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act…, the Russian Federation cannot be sued” in American courts. They can be sued in the individual country’s court system - provided the countries actually allow for people to sue the government, which, considering this is freaking Russia we’re talking about, I doubt people can (and trust me I tried looking but nothing turned up)-, but they cannot be sued within the U.S. court system. So Russia has to be taken out of the suit for it to even remotely work. Well, that would be the case if it weren’t for one other thing.
 
Second, WikiLeaks, the ones who actually released the information, have a First Amendment right to do so, as any other media organization would have the First Amendment right to expose something for people’s viewing and learning benefit. “The DNC seeks to hold the second-level participants in this alleged activity (that is, the Trump campaign, defendants and WikiLeaks) liable for dissemination of stolen materials. But… the First Amendment prevents such liability in the same way it would preclude liability for press outlets that publish materials of public interest…”
 
So WikiLeaks, in obtaining and releasing the emails, is protected by the First Amendment as any news network would be in publishing, say, emails from the Trump campaign and trying to push the Russian-collusion narrative and getting the dates wrong, or as they would be in publishing the details of a Trump Tower meeting between Don Jr. and Natalia Veselnitskaya, where they discussed Russian prisoners and other things, not dirt on Hillary Clinton.
 
What’s more, even if it had been the Trump campaign who had obtained and released those emails, they would’ve been within their right to do so in a similar manner. Koeltl wrote that Trump could’ve done that because the documents released “allowed the American electorate to look behind the curtain of one of the two major political parties in the United States during a presidential election… [and are] entitled to the strongest protection that the First Amendment offers.”
 
“Even if the documents had been provided directly to the Campaign [and] the Campaign defendants… they could have published the documents themselves without liability because they did not participate in the theft and the documents are of public concern. The DNC cannot hold these defendants liable for aiding and abetting publication when they would have been entitled to publish the stolen documents themselves without liability,” Koeltl wrote in sum.
 
I think this is a good call, particularly considering just what is behind the suit in the first place: the Left being ticked off that Trump won the 2016 election and that he joked about Russia having the Democrats’ emails. That particular Trump rally joke is what has led many people to think that Trump had been colluding with Russia, when all it was was a JOKE at the Democrat Party’s expense because one of their high-ranking officials fell for a phishing scam (and it didn’t help that they didn’t want the FBI to look into the case, giving it to a third-party investigator).
 
The ONLY reason this suit was made in the first place is to further drive the narrative that Trump had colluded, in one way or another, to steal the election away from Hillary Clinton. Whether that way was through influencing votes (though Rod Rosenstein himself said that no votes had been altered, not that anyone on the Left will acknowledge that) or by getting dirt on Hillary Clinton (which is what politicians often do anyway, but when Trump does it, it’s apparently criminal) through Veselnitskaya or through WikiLeaks, the Left was adamant about proving that there was some sort of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
 
But along the way, we only found more and more evidence of HILLARY CLINTON colluding with Russia, whether it be through the funding of the phony Steele dossier or through the Uranium One deal (which was apart from the campaign, but still extremely shady and not something people often talk about). And all that, without even TRYING to find Hillary colluding with Russia.
 
This suit, filed early last year, has thankfully been dropped by a judge (though it’s rather surprising it was by a Clinton judge). Of course, both the DNC and Trump have responded to this, with the DNC saying that this decision “raises serious concerns about our protections from foreign election interference and the theft of private property to advance the interests of our enemies.”
 
Yeah, yeah, cry me a river, why don’t you. You know perfectly well that the election was not interfered with and that Trump won the election perfectly legitimately.
 
In any case, President Trump hilariously responded by saying: “Wow! A federal Judge in the Southern District of N.Y. completely dismissed a lawsuit brought by the Democratic National Committee against our historic 2016 campaign for President. The Judge said the DNC case was ‘entirely divorced’ from the facts, yet another total & complete vindication & exoneration from the Russian, WikiLeaks and every other form of HOAX perpetrated by the DNC, Radical Democrats and others. This is really big ‘stuff’ especially coming from a highly respected judge who was appointed by President Clinton. The Witch Hunt Ends!”
 
This most certainly is “big ‘stuff’”, considering both the ultimate decision of the case and who it was that made the decision. The Democrats likely went to the SDNY because they felt confident they would be able to get this to go through and successfully sue Trump, though it likely would’ve been decimated in actual court, given not only the inability to sue a foreign government and First Amendment rights, but also due to how little evidence they would’ve been able to bring forth to implicate any liability on Trump, who is their main target. They might’ve been able to at least get WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, but the Trump campaign has not been proven at all to have taken any part in this, but again, the First Amendment would be in the way. The fact that it was dismissed is certainly a good thing, and good news in my eyes, but who it was that dismissed it is also rather important (not to mention surprising).
 
As a Clinton-appointed judge, you would’ve expected him to have let the Democrats get away with whatever they wanted. I certainly think that that’s what the Democrats were expecting as well. But it appears that this judge is at least rather aware of how the laws work, including our First Amendment rights, and is not so corrupt as to ignore them. There is nothing criminal that can be proven that the Russians did (and even if they had, they still can't be sued), there is nothing criminal regarding what WikiLeaks did with the information (and the Trump campaign only benefited from it, not took part in it, so there is even less culpability to be placed on them).
 
Of course, this hardly means much to the Left. They will look for other ways to attack Trump and will have to regroup and re-strategize for now (which I think is part of the reason they are so adamant about calling Trump a racist now, of all times, despite how often they’ve used that card in the past anyway).
 
But regardless of what they might throw at Trump and us in the future, I’m confident it will not work.
 
Isaiah 54:17
“No weapon formed against you shall prosper, and you will refute every tongue that accuses you. ‘This is the heritage of the Lord’s servants, and their vindication is from Me,’ declares the Lord.”
 
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!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

As we draw closer and closer to the 2020 election cycle, with all 200 Democrats getting ready for their first debates later on this month, pollsters are running their numbers again and pitting Trump against potential 2020 Democrat matchups and, surprise surprise, he’s “trailing” all of them by a significant deficit.
 
Quinnipiac University released their first 2020 matchup poll on Tuesday which has current Democrat frontrunner former VP Joe Biden leading the President by 13 points. Biden also leads Trump 60-34 among women and 47-46 among men. White voters are also split among them, but Trump leads Biden 47-46 here.
 
Biden also leads Trump among African-American and Hispanic voters, with Biden leading Trump 85-12 among African-Americans and 58-33 among Hispanics.
 
When it comes to the other Democrats, Trump supposedly doesn’t do much better. Crazy Bernie leads Trump 51-42, Kamala Harris leads Trump 49-41, Fauxcahontas leads Trump 49-42 and the Pence-obsessed South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Cory “Not So Smarticus” Booker lead Trump 47-42.
 
Non-college educated white voters are the only demographic where Trump seems to have a very solid lead against every Democrat candidate.
 
But looking at this poll as a whole, one might think that it’s over for Trump, right? That he’s going to get trounced. He’s finished. Done. Caput.
 
Well, there is a very good reason as to why I am so skeptical about polls that show these kinds of numbers, especially from Quinnipiac University. Well, reasons, not just one, but one major one.
 
Despite the fact it seems like Trump’s campaign will be swiftly defeated come November of 2020, there is one big factor at play here: this very same poll had Hillary Clinton winning by EVEN BIGGER MARGINS THAN THEY SHOW FOR BIDEN!
 
In this recent poll, Quinnipiac shows Biden leading Trump by 13 points. A good lead for Biden if that were to be the truth whatsoever. But the problem here comes in the fact that back in May of 2015, so basically the same time four years ago, Quinnipiac had Clinton leading Trump by 18 points (50-32).
 
What’s more, even among demographics like African-Americans and Hispanics, Hillary held more of the support than Biden does. Again, Biden supposedly has 85% of the African-American support. But Hillary had 88%. And when it comes to Hispanics, Trump’s numbers today (33%) are higher than they were in 2016 (28%).
 
So considering how astronomically wrong Quinnipiac wound up being in 2016, this current poll shouldn’t really elicit confidence for Trump haters. I imagine there will at least be some fairly rational Democrat voters who will remember how much of a “lead” Hillary had over Trump in 2016 and will be at least relatively skeptical about polls that show such wide margins between the two candidates. And yes, a decent portion of the Democrats will still likely be blaming the Russians for 2016 and will likely claim they helped Trump win re-election if he were to do so, but I am giving these Democrat voters some benefit of the doubt here. I don’t think they are all quite so stupid as to take these polls at face value, especially considering they’re even lower than Hillary’s were.
 
Now, that was only one of the components that leads me to be skeptical about these numbers. Not only was Quinnipiac SUPER wrong about the 2016 matchup, but these numbers are way too distant (in terms of time) from the actual election for them to hold any sort of meaning. You can run hypothetical matchups for any race even beyond the next one and that will matter very little.
 
And while we knew fairly well that Hillary was going to be the nominee in 2016, the answer is not quite so clear this time around. Sure, Biden is leading the other Democrats by a good bit but you never really know. Like I’ve said before in other articles, Hillary was in Joe’s place in 2007, leading the Democrat field, before she was beaten by Obama. So just because Biden is leading right now doesn’t mean he is a lock for the nomination in the first place.
 
This far out from the election, what these types of polls say don’t really matter all that much. I’ve even said the same of polls that show Trump winning. Like I always say, we’re still less than two years away from the election. A lot of things can happen between then and now and the vast majority of the things that will most heavily influence the election will not occur until a few weeks before the election takes place.
 
If the economy is roaring just as well, if not better, by November of next year, and if Trump can make the focus of the election about the economy as well, then he’ll almost certainly win. If you recall an article I wrote from March, I said that economists calculated Trump’s chances of victory and how many electoral and popular votes he is likely to garner (at least a percentage for the popular vote) and had him winning with a margin of 294 electoral votes, meaning he is likely to receive 416 electoral votes total (if the economists are correct, of course). In the history of the United States, there have been 14 elections where the total number of electoral votes was 538. 416 would be the sixth highest number in the 538 system, with only George H. W. Bush (who was riding on Reagan’s coattails), Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan twice getting more electoral votes.
 
So as far as the Quinnipiac poll (or any other poll) goes this early in the election cycle, to claim that Biden will likely beat Trump is mostly a pipe-dream. Again, Hillary’s numbers were far better than Biden is showing, had supposedly strong numbers all the way to the morning of election day where she was supposed to have like a 99% chance of winning and then wound up getting stomped.
 
What exactly will happen on election day only God knows. Of course, I pray to Him that He will allow Trump to be reelected, but as of right now, no one on Earth knows what will happen for certain.
 
With the way things are going, particularly considering Trump’s approval rating (which even Quinnipiac is showing a decent number at 42%, one point shy of his record in that poll) and given the current state of the economy, where even CNN’s polls show roughly 70% say it’s good, then there really is no reason for Trump to come out of the election a loser, especially considering he’s running on a strong economy and every Democrat is running on “we hate Trump”, which is hardly a unifying or beneficial message for the country.
 
Philippians 4:6
“Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to 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!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

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

No, I have not joined the dark side, I can assure you. The fact that Hillary Clinton might run for 2020 makes me happy not because I admire her or some literally insane nonsense like that. I don’t want her to win the White House, knowing full-well she would be terrible for the country. However, I will explain why I am happy to hear this momentarily.
 
First of all, while nothing’s exactly official yet in terms of the Hillary campaign, the reason this is even being talked about in the manner that it is is because of a Wall Street Journal article titled “Hillary Will Run Again”.
 
I don’t know about you, but when I first saw that, I honestly thought of the phrase “The South will rise again”. Funny, considering it’s Democrats who fought to keep black people as slaves. I even tweeted that that title sounded like it was Hillary’s “The South will rise again” moment.
 
In any case, let’s dive further into the article. The sub-headline reads: “Reinventing herself as a liberal firebrand, Mrs. Clinton will easily capture the 2020 nomination.”
 
Yet another statement that brings a smile to my face.
 
For further context, this piece was written by Mark Penn, a pollster and senior adviser to both Clintons from 1995-2008, and it was also written by Andrew Stein, who was the Democratic Manhattan borough president and New York City Council president.
 
Here is their lead paragraph: “Get ready for Hillary Clinton 4.0. More than 30 years in the making, this new version of Mrs. Clinton, when she runs for president in 2020, will come full circle – back to the universal-health-care-promoting progressive firebrand of 1994. True to her name, Mrs. Clinton will fight this out until the last dog dies. She won’t let a little thing like two stunning defeats stand in the way of her claim to the White House.”
 
To be 100% honest with you, upon reading the subhead and the lead, I honestly thought the writers were trying to roast (make fun of) Hillary to some extent.
 
Let’s go over a few things from the subhead and lead. First, they mention she is “reinventing herself as a liberal firebrand…”, they mention this is Hillary Clinton “4.0” and that she is coming full circle, back to “the universal-health-care-promoting progressive firebrand of 1994”.
 
I’m sorry, I must’ve missed something important, because that’s exactly the same Hillary Clinton I voted against in 2016, will vote against in 2020 should she miraculously “win” the nomination again and the same Hillary Clinton I have seen for quite some time. How do you reinvent yourself into a lunatic liberal when that’s already what you are?
 
The other thing that made me think these two were roasting Hillary was when they mentioned: “She won’t let a little thing like two stunning defeats stand in the way…”
 
Maybe I took it to mean something else, but that sounded a tad bit condescending, don’t you think? Not condescending to Obama and Trump, but to Hillary. It’s like saying “this boxer won’t let a little thing like getting his butt kicked for 11 rounds stop him from winning in the 12th”. It might sound like they’re trying to uplift Hillary, but it also comes off as giving a back-handed compliment. Like saying “she messed up majorly and screwed herself to a post twice before, but now, she’s ready to hopefully avoid screwing herself again.”
 
The article then says: “Hillary Clinton 2.0 was a moderate, building on the success of her communitarian ‘It Takes a Village’ appeals and pledging to bring home the bacon for New York. She emphasized her religious background, voiced strong support for Israel, voted for the Iraq war, and took a hard line against Iran.”
 
“As Hillary 3.0 catered to the coastal elites who had eluded her in 2008, Mr. Trump stole many of the white working-class voters who might have been amenable to the previous version. Finally she had the full support of the New York Times and the other groups that had shunned her for Mr. Obama – but only at the cost of an unforeseen collapse in support in the Midwest.”
 
Okay, I have a few things to say. First, I shall repeat an earlier question: how do you reinvent yourself into a lunatic liberal when that’s already what you were? The fact that they use “2.0” and “3.0” and now “4.0” indicates they believe Hillary is somehow different today than she was as a New York Senator, Secretary of State, or DNC candidate.
 
Second, I thought it was Trump colluding with Russia that cost Hillary the election. How would Trump “stealing” white working-class voters be a factor whatsoever if Trump and Putin were colluding behind closed doors, offering each other gay sexual acts (and that’s something the Left has been saying, ignoring their hypocritical homophobia) and ultimately stole the election from Hillary. We even have an investigation into the matter, don’t we? If that’s not what happened and it was the fact that Trump “stole” the white working-class and others who were legitimately left in the dust by a Democrat Party that is trying to become the Democratic Party of Mexico, then why do we have an investigation into something that didn’t happen and something that even they don’t actually believe happened?
 
(All of that was sarcasm, in case you couldn’t tell. I know precisely why this hoax of an investigation that some on the Left don’t even really believe is still ongoing.)
 
Finally, Trump didn’t “steal” the white working-class. The white working-class was altogether abandoned by the Democrat Party. Though they may have been the party of unions at one time, that’s not something they even care to keep anymore. They hope to ride on minorities’ backs to win them elections (yet another slavery reference?). And if they don’t win them, they can blame the white working-class and white women for their losses, which is the equivalent of touching a hot stove and being surprised that it burned them.
 
Turns out that abandoning an entire class of voters doesn’t exactly encourage those voters to vote for you.
 
In any case, the WSJ article is not done. They still offer hilarity and back-handed comments:
 
“[Hillary] will not allow this humiliating loss at the hands of an amateur to end the story of her career. You can expect her to run for president once again. Maybe not at first, when the legions of Senate Democrats make their announcements, but definitely by the time the primaries are in full swing.”
 
“Mrs. Clinton has a 75% approval rating among Democrats, an unfinished mission to be the first female president, and a personal grievance against Mr. Trump, whose supporters pilloried her with chants of ‘Lock her up!’ This must be avenged.”
 
“Expect Hillary 4.0 to come out swinging. She has decisively to win those Iowa caucus-goers who have never warmed up to her. They will see her now as strong, partisan, left-leaning and all-Democrat – the one with the guts, experience and steely-eyed determination to defeat Mr. Trump. She has had two years to go over what she did wrong and how to take him on again.”
 
That is an awful lot and I don’t think I can go over absolutely everything. This article is plenty long as is and I have yet to even state why this whole thing makes me happy.
 
So allow me to do just that. The reason I am happy Hillary is running again is because after her defeat, she has only gotten worse in my eyes, and likely in many people’s. After the election, she went on a long trip of mental breakdowns and even wrote a book titled “What Happened” to try and reason why she lost. Now, I didn’t read that book, but I take it it mentioned Putin, Russia, racism, sexism, bigotry, and all the excuses she could possibly get out of her hot sauce bag.
 
And this is ignoring the fact that there have been revelations that it was HER campaign that tried to steal the election and still managed to lose somehow. HER campaign hired foreign agents to write a fake dossier about Trump. HER campaign was the one that was helped by the Obama DOJ, FBI and FISA court.
 
She tried to steal an American presidential election. And this is ADDING to her rap sheet of crimes connected to the Clinton Foundation including selling 20% of our Uranium supply to, well, what do you know? VLADIMIR PUTIN! And let’s not forget that she also STOLE the Democrat nomination away from Bernie back in 2016 as well. Now, I’m personally glad she did that, considering the disaster that a possible Bernie Sanders presidency would’ve wrought (I still think Trump would’ve won, but just barely, kind of like in 2000). However, one cannot deny the dishonesty and overall wrongful act that was committed by the DNC to crown Hillary with the nomination.
 
If she runs again, and if she becomes the nominee again as these two writers say she will, then she will be utterly crushed even worse than last time.
 
What Trump didn’t have in 2016 was experience in the field and a record of successful policy, which is natural given he was an outsider at the time. Now that he’s had 2, and by the time 2020 comes around, 4 years of experience, he has only improved his chances of winning in 2020 to the point even Michael Moore legitimately believes he will be reelected if facing against anyone but Michelle Obama (and I think he could even beat her).
 
So I sincerely hope she wins and she becomes the nominee once again.
 
Now, regarding the last few paragraphs that I just shared with you, some of it returns to my earlier question of reinventing yourself into something you already were. They mention she is now left-leaning, partisan and all-Democrat as though she wasn’t in the past. Don’t make me laugh.
 
And one last thing. She didn’t get beat by an amateur. She got beat by TWO amateurs. Here, they were only thinking about Trump, who never held public office and was most definitely an amateur at the time. But we can’t forget that she lost in 2007 against an amateur who was US Senator for only TWO years, after serving in the Illinois State Legislature and was a “community organizer” before that.
 
But in any case, I look forward to the 2020 campaign on the Democrat side. Even if Hillary loses, her running will create some form of divide. If even Nancy Pelosi’s speakership is in peril because of young socialists like Ocasio-Cortez, then Hillary likely doesn’t stand a chance. Ironically, the writers also mention towards the end that Hillary would “trounce” all other candidates, including Joe Biden, but I really doubt the Democrats want to allow Hillary anywhere near their nomination once again… if they’re smart, that is.
 
James 1:17
“Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. While Democrats like Hillary might promise everything for free, you can rest assured that this does not have hidden fees or taxes to be paid at a later date. If I say it’s free, that means it’s free. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

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

I know I’ve said this multiple times in the past, but it’s one of the few things I honestly cannot say enough: thank the Almighty Lord for choosing Trump to be POTUS. He’s truly Making America Great Again, and at even faster rates than any of us could have imagined. But this would not have happened had NeverTrumpers and Democrats gotten what they wanted: another President Clinton.
 
An article on Breitbart News correctly acknowledges this and takes note of the latest Supreme Court cases that have preserved free speech, which would not have happened under a President Clinton.
 
John Nolte, the writer of the article, writes: “Had NeverTrump got what they wanted in 2016… Justice Antonin Scalia would have already been replaced with another Ruth Bader Ginsburg, which ensured an immediate 5-4 left-wing majority… Wednesday’s retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy would have increased that already unthinkable majority to 6-3, ensuring a left-wing court rewriting the Constitution for decades to come.”
 
Looking back, the 2016 Presidential election was probably the single most important election this country ever had. Why do I say that? Let me explain:
 
With the way the Left has been acting, it was only a matter of time until they went full-on socialist. Sure, Trump’s election forced them to rush into this open ideology, but we knew that this is what they were. This election was a huge fork in the road. On the one side, you had Trump, who would Make America more Capitalist Again, cutting regulations, lowering taxes, having a booming economy. It’s no guarantee by any stretch of the imagination, but his work could set up a cultural shift away from socialism, by exposing it for what it is and offering the absolute best solution: capitalism.
 
On the other side, you had Clinton, who would run the country like an auction for the highest bidder to influence, incorporate more socialist policies and effectively run this country into the ground, farther than Obama managed. It cannot be overstated the massive bullet we dodged by not electing her. As the Breitbart article correctly points out, the Supreme Court would have a 5-4 Leftist majority with a future 6-3 Leftist majority.
 
This means that bake shops would have been forced to bake cakes for same-sex weddings or face severe punishment, unions would continue to be able to force non-members to pay fees, pro-life pregnancy centers would be forced to advertise abortion for its customers and religious freedom would be down the drain. America would have effectively fallen, not by any outside threat (though ISIS, North Korea and Iran would make their share of threats), but by an inside threat known as Communism.
 
America under a President Clinton would be entirely unrecognizable from the America the Founders envisioned and founded. And this is without even taking into consideration our 2nd Amendment rights, which might have been done away with shortly after the Parkland shooting, as well as illegal immigration, which she would have opened our borders and turned us into a sanctuary nation.
 
I have to confess something. Prior to the election, I foolishly believed a Clinton presidency would not have been so bad. I foolishly believed she would have maybe run the country like her husband did. As much of a disgusting animal as he is, he was not a horrible President, at least in terms of the economy. I foolishly believed she would have been alright, and considering the standard Obama set for Democrat Presidents in my mind, she would have been better than him.
 
Oh, how wrong I was. Thankfully, this is a lesson I (and the nation) did not have to learn the hard way. Because Hillary is not Bill. She’s not smart, not even a little. If she were, she would not have gotten caught using a private server. She still would have done it, but she wouldn’t have gotten caught. If she were smart, she would not have underestimated her opposition and assumed she would be crowned as POTUS. If she were smart, she would've left Bill after the first rape case and forged a successful career without him. Clearly she felt she needed Bill, so she stayed. Even she knows she's not very smart.
 
She would have likely put the final nail in the coffin Obama crafted for the country. She would have effectively turned this country to complete socialism, maybe not as an official form of government, but more in the shape of Venezuela: sham elections to elect their dictator.
 
Looking back, the country had two choices that day: socialism (even if we didn’t quite know it), or abundant and powerful capitalism (even if we didn’t quite know it, or were skeptical of Trump but still chose him over the nasty woman). Looking back, we can see the massive miracle that Trump’s victory was.
 
What do I mean? Think about it. Think about the obstacles he had to face. Not only did he have to face 15 other Republican candidates, many of whom would make great Presidents themselves, but had to also defeat one of the most crooked and corrupt politicians in American history, defeat an FBI and DOJ who, under orders of then-President Obama, were out to destroy him, and he had to face a fake news media that would lie so much, if they were Pinocchio, their noses would cover all 57 states.
 
Add all this to the fact that, had he lost, America would have gone down a path from which there was likely no return – a path that would ultimately have utterly changed the country as founded, just as Obama sought to do – and you really have to acknowledge the massive miracle God performed for us.
 
He decided that, at least for now, we can have the chance to return to Him, to trust in Him again and to make this country His again. He decided that we would not go further down the socialist rabbit hole. And He has decided that the Left would expose themselves for the evil they are. This is why I keep saying there might not be a Democrat Party in the near future. Socialism is evil, we’re witnessing it, and most people don’t want to follow.
 
Of course, there are those who do wish to follow, and those people are either wicked or weak. They either don’t know the evils of socialism and blindly follow it, or know the evils of socialism and simply don’t care. Worse yet, some could both know the evils of socialism and that’s the precise reason they want it.
 
By “those people” I mean every-day voters, not elected officials. Elected officials almost exclusively know about the evils of socialism and that’s why they want it. They want all of that power that socialism would bring them.
 
This is what we could have had with a President Clinton. What we could have had if the NeverTrumpers had gotten their way, according to the Breitbart article.
 
Now, the article does mention that these NeverTrumpers, while citing morality and principle, chose to be against Trump because of their own vanity. Because of their supposed desire to be on CNN and MSNBC.
 
In the article’s words: “Never Trump is and was only about one thing – a bunch of spoiled, petty, small-minded, bigoted sore losers who desperately want to be on CNN and MSNBC.”
 
While I do agree that they are spoiled, petty, small-minded, bigoted losers, I don’t quite think it was their vanity that made them NeverTrumpers.
 
I believe it’s somewhat multi-faceted. For some, it might be their egos. By which I mean that, at the time of Trump’s nomination, they were against him because they did not want to associate with someone whom, in their mind, was barbaric and uncivilized. And now that Trump has shown to be very conservative and doing exactly what these supposed conservatives wanted out of a Republican President, their egos will not let them admit they were wrong. They still see him as an inarticulate brute, despite his conservative and pro-America accomplishments. They are too stubborn to admit they were wrong about him.
 
This, however, only covers some NeverTrumpers. Those within the media like Jonah Goldberg, David Frum and such. However, there is another kind of NeverTrumper: current and former elected Republicans and former workers of elected Republicans. This includes people like Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell (though he’s playing ball for right now. Still don’t trust him, though), Jeff Flake, John McCain, Mitt Romney, etc. They are NeverTrumpers, not simply because of their egos, but because they are not true conservatives. They belong to an exclusive club known as the Washington Establishment. And this club resents the heck out of Trump not just for winning, but for surviving their attacks, thriving even DESPITE these attacks and effectively showing everyone how much of a scam these Washington elites are. Showing everyone how a government can run right and that these people have been stalling and stonewalling virtually everything, running an ineffective government that was best left up to the executive branch.
 
And THAT is the ultimate desire of the Washington Establishment. To turn Congress into a slow and ineffective branch that would be best usurped by the POTUS, getting us a step closer to actual Fascism and socialism. Funny enough, it’s not too dissimilar to what Germany did under Hitler.
 
This brand of NeverTrumpers are all effectively Democrats (again, putting an asterisk next to McConnell for now).
 
So while Nolte may believe these people are all about vanity (admittedly, that’s a small part of it), it’s also a lot more than that. NeverTrumpers of the Republicrat variety are not necessarily about vanity (thought they love the adulation they sometimes receive from the media when attacking Trump) but rather about furthering the Leftist goal of increasing the size of the government to U.S.S.R levels.
 
In their minds, the U.S.S.R will be succeeded by the U.S.S.A. – the United Socialist States of America. This is why they aligned themselves with Hillary. This is what her legacy would have brought on us.
 
It cannot be overstated how much we owe the Lord for keeping the Clintons out of the White House. We already owe Him our very lives because of the sacrifice of His Son, but now, we owe Him even more than that. A debt that is already unrepayable has become even more unrepayable.
 
Which is why I constantly offer Him my thanks, my worship and my undying faith. It’s really the most I could possibly do for Him.
 
Isaiah 41:10
“Fear not, for I am with you; be not dismayed, for I am your God; I will strengthen you, I will help you, I will uphold you with my righteous right hand.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

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.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

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.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

​Over the year and a half since Trump’s 2016 election victory over Hillary Clinton, the former First Lady has blamed multiple entities for her loss including: James Comey, the FBI, Russian bots, Wikileaks, Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama, Facebook, Twitter, the vast right-wing conspiracy, sexism, white women, women who vote for whom their husbands vote for and many, many other people.
 
This time, however, it’s her husband Bill that is pointing the finger at an entity. And somehow, it may be even more ridiculous than all the others.
 
Bill Clinton blames THE NEW YORK TIMES for Hillary’s loss.
 
Now, you may be thinking that it shouldn’t be insanely surprising. After all, Hillary has already thrown a lot of Leftist entities under the bus. But it’s not just who Bill blames, but also in the way he blames them.
 
He doesn’t just blame The NYT for not praising Hillary enough or support her enough. Rather, he ACCUSES The New York Times of WORKING WITH TRUMP!
 
Let me give you some necessary information. Amy Chozick, a reporter for The New York Times, has a new book called: “Chasing Hillary: Ten Years, Two Presidential Campaigns, and One Intact Glass Ceiling.”
 
Ignoring the eye-rolling part about the glass ceiling, let’s look at what Amy has to say.
 
“After the election, Bill would spread a more absurd Times conspiracy: The publisher had struck a deal with Trump that we’d destroy Hillary on her emails to help him get elected, if he kept driving traffic and boosting the company’s stock price.”
 
Yep, according to Bill, the NYT was working in cahoots with the Trump campaign to destroy Hillary.
 
Here are some of NYT’s articles pre- and post-election: “Hillary Clinton, a Woman Dogged by Men’s Misdeeds,” published on Nov. 10, 2016. “Hillary Clinton Will Not Be Manterrupted,” published Sept. 27, 2016. “How Hillary Clinton Became A Hawk,” whatever that means, published on April 21, 2016. “Some Donald Trump Voters Warn of Revolution if Hillary Clinton Wins,” published Oct. 27, 2016.
 
The New York Times is as pro-Hillary and anti-Trump as you can get. So for Bill to be accusing them of making some sort of deal with Trump to beat Hillary is ridiculous.
 
If you still aren’t convinced that the NYT is very anti-Trump, here are some articles about Trump himself: “Donald Trump, Manly He-Man,” mocks the NYT on Feb. 27, 2018. “Donald Trump Sure Has a Problem With Democracy,” ironically mentions the NYT on March 6th, 2018. “’I Voted for Donald Trump, and I Regret It’”, claims the NYT with people who most certainly did not vote for Trump.
 
And let’s not forget the fact that Trump has repeatedly called them “the failing New York Times”.
 
Now, aside from detailing Bill’s absurd claims, Chozick’s book also gives us some great insights into the Hillary campaign and the mood during and after the election.
 
The Daily Beast shares: “On the night of the election, Chozick describes a dejected Clinton when she was told by campaign staffers that it was over.”
 
“’Of all the Brooklyn aides, Jen Palmieri had the most pleasant bedside manner,’ Chozick writes. ‘That made her the designated deliverer of bad news to Hillary. But not this time. She told Robby there was no way she was going to tell Hillary she couldn’t win. That’s when Robby, drained and deflated, watching the results with his team in a room down the hall from Hillary’s suite, labored into the hallway of the Peninsula to break the news. Hillary didn’t seem all that surprised. ‘I knew it. I knew this would happen to me…’ Hillary said, now within a couple of inches of his face. ‘They were never going to let me be president.’”
 
While that doesn’t necessarily relate to Bill’s accusation, it’s a neat little insight into the Hillary campaign’s mood upon realizing there was no chance Hillary could beat Trump and Hillary’s personal mood about receiving the news.
 
Frankly, it’s pretty overdramatic, as emotional and crushing as it would feel to lose a national election. “They were never going to let me be president”? As though she deserved it? I can see why she would think that. After all, she chose to remain with her predator of a husband to keep the Party unified, and chose to support the up-and-coming hot shot of a candidate that beat her when she had the best chance to become President back in 2008.
 
She’s the most cheated on woman in America, so it’s easy to see why she thought she deserved to be President. However, for every reason she thinks she should’ve been President, there are a million more reasons that she shouldn’t be. That’s a concept that most people in America have agreed upon, given the results of the election.
 
Thankfully, she isn’t President and will almost certainly never become President.
 
Now, returning to Bill, it’s rather hilarious to see him put the blame on a pro-Hillary entity, particularly accusing them of working with Trump.
 
It really depicts the desperation of the Hillary campaign, or at least of Bill Clinton. Beyond that, I think it really depicts just how broken and shocked they were to see Trump win. Next to no one, other than maybe Trump himself, expected Trump to win.
 
We have seen the effect it has had on Hillary’s mind and we now also see the kind of effect it has had on Bill. The Left’s patented victim mentality is at full display with Bill accusing the NYT of being almost directly against them.
 
Isaiah 59:2
“But your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden his face from you so that he does not hear.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.