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.
“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.
“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.
I suppose it’s only natural to circle back to some old excuses when you’ve just about run out of them as to why you lost something like a Presidential election. I’ve honestly lost count of how many things Hillary Clinton has blamed her election loss on, but we were bound to return to one of them. In this case, Hillary blames white married women for her defeat… again.
On a panel with the India Today Conclave, having been told that 52% of white women voted for Trump despite the Billy Bush tape, Hillary attempts to explain that “Democrats… have been losing the white vote, including white women. We do not do well with white men and we do not do well with married white women. And part of that is an identification with the Republican Party and an ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son, whoever, believes you should. And what happened in my election is I was on the way to winning white women until… [James] Comey dropped that ill-advised letter on October the 28th and my numbers just went down… All of a sudden, white women who were going to vote for me, and frankly, standing up to the men in their lives and the men in their workplaces, were being told ‘she’s going to jail, you don’t wanna vote for her’… so it stopped my momentum and it decreased my vote enough because I was ahead, I was winning…”
Ok, that’s an awful lot to sort through, so we’ll go little by little.
First, I’m not surprised Democrats have been losing the white vote. Why? DEMOCRATS HATE WHITE PEOPLE! Granted, they hate everyone, but they particularly hate white people. Think about the very concept of white male privilege and white guilt. These are two LEFTIST tools against white people. They say that white men are privileged and their lives are too good and that they should feel guilty over the sins of white people (Democrats, actually) who owned slaves.
You have to be a massive moron to believe attacking that demographic in such a manner will earn you their vote. As it turns out, saying bad things about white people isn’t going to get them to vote for you.
Next, she mentions “an identification with the Republican Party.” What reason do women have to vote Democrat? After all, Democrats are the ones who want illegal immigrant rapists, child molesters and murderers to be here. Democrats want Muslim “refugees” to come here as well. A chart from Statista.com shows recorded rape offences in England and Wales from 2002/03 to 2016/17 according to police.
For a decade, from 2002/03 through 2012/13, the number of recorded cases went up by about 4,000; from 12,295 in 2002/03 to 16,374 in 2012/13. From 2012/13 to THE NEXT YEAR, there was a JUMP in those numbers of about 4,000; from 16,374 to 20,751. IN A SINGLE YEAR, THOSE NUMBERS ROSE TO MATCH A DECADE-LONG RISE!
But that’s not the worst part. From 2013/14 to 2014/15, that jump DOUBLED in size; from 20,751 to 29,300. Then, ANOTHER jump the following year to 35,798 and then YET ANOTHER to 41,150 in 2016/17.
In less than three years, the number of recorded rape in the UK has DOUBLED. Of course, the Muslim “refugees” aren’t the only things to blame here… the U.K. also has a severely strict ban on guns. Interestingly enough, fatal stabbings in England are at their highest level since 2010-11 and rape at knifepoint has risen by 23% in the past year, according to a Breitbart article released February 9th, 2018.
Is it a coincidence that Democrats also support strict gun control laws? I’ve already written another article about this, but I’ll repeat the point made in said article: Democrats are women’s WORST enemy! Why would they vote Democrat?
But returning to Crooked Hillary’s mini-rant about why she lost, she then proceeds to blame married white women for essentially voting against their will. How narcissistic is it of her to believe the female vote should automatically go to her just because she’s a woman? How sexist must you be to believe that? Women didn’t vote for Hillary because their husbands “charmed” or “insisted” they vote for Trump. They voted for Trump because, all things considered, he’s a far better friend to women than Hillary could ever hope to be. He doesn’t want to keep women unsafe and keep them from owning a gun. Hillary does.
He doesn’t want women to be unsafe from illegal immigrants and Muslim “refugees”. Hillary does.
Hillary isn’t a champion of women. Simply knowing what she’s done to Juanita Broaddrick and Monica Lewinsky should be enough to tell you that. What champion of women SILENCES the women that were ASSAULTED by her husband? What champion of women STAYS MARRIED TO A WIDELY-KNOWN RAPIST?!
Once again returning to the crazy lady’s rant, I find it amusing that she blames James Comey once again. While I do believe that Comey re-opening the case against Hillary hurt her numbers, it’s ludicrous to believe one single event like that caused her downfall. It’s not just the case, it’s her very own policy, ideals, her husband’s actions in the past, the Clinton Crime Family, Benghazi and her insulting words towards Trump supporters that snowballed and caused her demise. And that’s just from her part.
You also have to consider the insecurity of the DNC’s servers causing trouble for the Dems, the fact that Hillary rigged the primaries so she’d win (though at the time, there wasn’t as much evidence, it was just murmured and widely believed to be the case by even the Democrat base), and the disastrous 8 years America had to endure thanks to Obama.
Really, there are a multitude of reasons as to why Hillary lost and Trump won. Too many to write for the remainder of this particular article, so I’ll return to the criminally insane woman.
At one point, she went back to insulting Trump voters once again, saying that Trump voters and residents of heartland states are “backwards”, who “didn’t like black people getting rights” and “didn’t like women.”
Right, need I remind her that it’s her Party that fought for the “right” to own a fellow human being? Need I remind her that Lincoln was the FOUNDER of the Republican Party? Need I remind her that no black person was allowed to attend a Democratic National Convention until 1924? Need I remind her that Democrats largely voted AGAINST the 13th Amendment, the amendment that abolished slavery in the U.S.? Need I remind her that her very own MENTOR was a noted member of the Ku Klux Klan who once said “I am loyal to my country and know but reverence to her flag but I shall never submit to fight beneath that banner with a negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see this old glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimens from the wilds”?
And, finally, need I remind her that it was her Party that mounted to the relocation and even EXTERMINATION of Native Americans with the Indian Removal Act of 1829 under DEMOCRAT President Andrew Jackson?
Historically, the Democrats have been African-Americans’ (and all minorities', really) worst enemy. Even Obama was terrible for them with the insanely high unemployment rates and racial division between the black communities and law enforcement.
Hillary didn’t just lose because she was the worst candidate of all time. She also lost because she belonged to the worst political party of all time.
Even the Nazis, when shaping their Nuremberg laws, thought that Democrat laws against slaves were too harsh.
“For they cannot rest until they do evil; they are robbed of sleep till they make someone stumble.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
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.
Danielle Cross and Freddie Marinelli will bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free...