Whenever you watch the news, or at least whenever you would watch the news when Obama was President, you could swear that Obama was the greatest thing ever since sliced bread. The way he was portrayed made him look as though he was brilliant, sophisticated and hugely popular. Well, it turns out he was far less popular than we may have thought… even back when he was still Prez.
In a 2014 Quinnipiac poll ranking the best and worst Presidents since World War II, 33% of polltakers ranked Obama as the worst. That is the highest point number, with George W. Bush ranking second worst at 28%.
The third worst President according to the poll was Richard Nixon and the fourth was Jimmy Carter.
In ranking the best Presidents since World War II, Ronald Reagan destroyed all other competition with 35%, with second place being Bill Clinton coming in at 18% and third place being JFK at 15%. Barack Obama only received 8% in the poll.
Interestingly enough, the poll also reported that “45% believe the nation would be better off had Mitt Romney defeated Obama in the 2012 presidential election; 38% say the country would be worse off with a Romney presidency,” according to an article on USA Today talking about the poll.
There was a time, before I knew of the establishment and its wickedness, when I thought the country would have been better off with Romney as POTUS instead of Obama. Make no mistake, Obama was the far worse candidate, but Romney would have been only marginally better. He likely would have passed tax reform, but not much else would have been to the benefit of the country.
And this is without taking into consideration that, had Romney won, Trump would have likely not run for President and we might have Hillary in the Oval Office right now, so I would say that, considering our current situation, the country would be worse off with a President Romney.
Of course, I can’t exactly blame people back in 2014 for believing Romney would have been better. Heck, even I thought that back then. But knowing what I know now, as despicable and evil and putrid as Obama was, I’m ok with the 2012 election results. After all, they are partly what brought us the best President we’ve had since Reagan.
Now, the poll didn’t end there. It also handed out grades for Obama on key issues. According to the poll, Obama received negative grades in his handling of the economy (not topping 3% GDP growth in any quarter and rampant unemployment rates will do that), his handling of foreign policy (giving a terrorist nation billions of dollars to secretly forward their nuclear arsenal and bending over backwards to appease a rogue communist dictator will do that), his handling of health care (Obamacare… need I say more?), his handling of the environment (as it turns out, people can’t change the global climate), and his handling of terrorism (allowing a “JV” team to overrun much of the Middle East and have multiple successful acts of terror in our country will do that).
Now, USA Today tries to somewhat excuse these poor numbers for Obama by saying: “Of course, Obama and Bush are the most recent presidents; historians will tell you that it takes decades to truly measure an individual president’s performance.”
That may be true, but when you have a sitting president who is praised to the hills by the media pulling these kinds of numbers, there’s a problem. The article (and consequently, the poll) were released in July of 2014 – before the midterm elections in which Republicans won back Congress. These numbers are indicative of Republican success in the midterms and likely even success in 2016.
Now, I wouldn’t blame you if this is the first time you’re hearing about these numbers. No doubt, the MSM tried their best to hide these numbers since they go against their narrative that Obama is beloved by most, if not all of America and would (at the time) want a Democrat supermajority in Congress and for another Democrat to succeed Obama in 2016.
But these numbers highlight the truth. America hated the job Obama was doing. Granted, this much was evident in the results of the 2016 election, but it’s clear that even back then, people were tired of Obama’s crap. They wanted change and so, in 2014, voted Republican and gave the GOP control of Congress in the hopes that they would do something good. Alas, not much came of that, but the American people refused to roll over and allow Democrats control of the country. But they desperately needed a leader who would stand up for them, fight for them and return the country to its former glory.
They were tired of Obama saying our best days were behind us and that a regressing America was the new normal that we had to get used to. So when Trump came in with the perfect message: Make America Great Again, the people had their new Jupiter Conservator (Parson Weems reference to the exaltation of George Washington; Washington was a hero). In essence and effect, Trump is the anti-Obama that the country needed and voted for.
Of course, the part about Trump is not part of the poll, as it was taken in 2014. That was my current-day take on the results of the poll. The American people did not and do not like Obama or what he was doing to the country. They needed someone who would be entirely different and found that in Trump.
Looking at these results, it’s easy to tell that Obama’s legacy not only will be marred in darkness, but it will also be largely considered to be marred in darkness. He constantly did evil things, passed evil policy, laws and regulation, and secretly formed a shadow government to keep tabs and control of his successor. The American people noticed this (except the shadow government, of course) and hated it.
I just wonder if Quinnipiac will update this survey at some point in the future, perhaps in the middle of Trump’s second term, to see where Trump ranks among these other Presidents in the same questions.
No doubt, he might be remembered as the best President, even better than Reagan, if he does his job well. He’s on track to doing that only a year and a half in as is.
“When the righteous increase, the people rejoice; but when a wicked man rules, the people groan.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
While I tend not to look at too many polls to gauge a candidate’s favorability or people’s views on a certain issue, one poll conducted by YouGov, a market research and data analytics firm, caught my eye with some of the results on the issue of illegal immigration.
The poll was conducted just a few days ago and it polled 1,500 U.S. adults. The poll found that only 19% of those polled favored “releasing the families and having them report back for an immigration hearing at a later date.”
In other words, only 19% of those polled favored the Obama-era policy of “catch and release”.
According to the Daily Wire: “Even among Democrats, only 30% liked the idea, while 33% of Hillary Clinton voters and 36% of self-described ‘liberals’ favored it. Among Independents, just 17% were in favor of catch and release, as were just 16% of moderates. Among Republicans, only 7% backed it, as did only 7% of conservatives and 4% of Trump supporters.”
This tells me something in particular: people didn’t actually like what Obama’s policies were, they just liked them because they were Obama’s. Similarly, I’ve noticed on occasion that when people are asked what they think of a policy enacted by Trump, but were not told it was Trump’s, people tended to favor said policy (of course, depending on what the policy was).
“Catch and Release” is entirely synonymous with Obama and is revered by the fake news media as the policy we should be using (that is until they start heavily demanding open borders, as they might in the coming days and weeks following the charade of “keeping families together”). But when you get down to it, most people, even Democrats, liberals and Clinton voters, do not like the idea of “catch and release”.
The poll provided four particular policies regarding illegal immigration: “catch and release”, “holding families together in detention centers until an immigration hearing at a later date” (which seems to be the one the Trump administration is leaning towards), “arresting the adults, sending them to jail to await a criminal trial and sending any minor children to shelters run by the Department of Health” (the administration’s previous approach), and “arresting both the adults and minor children, sending the adults to jail and the minor children to juvenile detention centers to await a criminal trial”.
I already mentioned “catch and release” and the results of that poll, but the other ones are quite interesting as well.
In regards to “holding families together in detention centers until an immigration hearing at a later date”, this method proved to be the most popular among polltakers, with a total of 44% backing the idea, 49% of Democrats, 39% of Independents, 47% of Republicans, as well as 53% of Clinton voters, 44% of Trump voters, 48% of liberals, 51% of moderates and 43% of conservatives.
Personally, I agree with this idea. The separation of families is a very bad thing, which is why I bash Obama, Bush and especially Clinton over this since this began in 1997 after the Flores case, as I mentioned in my previous article.
Of course, I can’t say I’m surprised at the amount of Democrat voters who support this idea. It’s a little more humane (though the media will certainly try to make it seem just as inhumane as separating families so they can push for open borders and amnesty) and Democrat voters tend to be fooled into thinking Democrats care about anyone other than themselves. But this idea overall seems better than the previous approach. Not to mention that Trump’s EO exposes the Left as frauds since they will say it’s not enough and will push for no prosecution and detainment at all, which exposes this as not being about the kids, but about open borders.
Stupidly enough, the Left believes they can win on the key issue that got Trump elected in the first place and it’s the reason I believe Trump’s EO is the best move to expose the fraudulent Left on this issue.
Regarding Trump’s previous approach of “arresting the adults, sending them to jail to await a criminal trial and sending any minor children to shelters run by the Department of Health”, that proved to be less popular than even “catch and release”. Of the people polled, only 12% supported the idea, with 5% of Democrats supporting it, 12% of Independents, 22% of Republicans, 3% of Clinton voters, 27% of Trump voters, 3% of liberals, 11% of moderates and 25% of conservatives.
Again, not very surprised at these results. It’s not a very popular policy, at least to me, because it was used and created by Democrats. Of course, the media and Democrats try to make it seem as though it’s strictly Trump policy, and many have bought into that b.s. In a perfect world, people would recognize that this policy was created and used by the Left (yes, I’m counting Bush as part of the Left) and bash those who created it and the ones who employed it but had the chance to end it.
Like I said, Obama had the best chance to do this in 2009 when the Democrats owned Congress and the White House. And don’t tell me that that is only 2 years of majority. That is not a good enough excuse. Trump has been in power for less than 2 years and look at what he’s accomplished so far. And that is with a Republican Party that has been UNCOOPERATIVE for much of it and a Democrat Party that has been OBSTRUCTING everything they possibly could. Obama, with total control of Congress, could’ve done far more damage than he actually did. We must thank the good Lord that he wasn’t as effective as Trump is.
Let’s finally move on to the final policy on the poll: “arresting both the adults and minor children, sending the adults to jail and the minor children to juvenile detention centers to await a criminal trial”. Unsurprisingly, only 8% supported this idea, with 2% of Democrats, 7% of Independents, 16% of Republicans, 2% of Clinton voters, 15% of Trump voters, 2% of liberals, 6% of moderates, and 15% of conservatives.
Personally, I also disagree with that idea. It simply seems like too much, particularly for minors. While there very well could be some minors who are close to 18 years old, most are younger children who are dragged to these places by their parents (for some reason) so sending them to juvie over something they really had no control over is a little harsh.
Now, I can also understand the reasoning behind some conservatives on issues like these. I agree with the idea that we should take care of our own children first, our own homeless people first, our own citizens first. That is part of the reason I voted for Trump, to put America, and thus, Americans, first. Any nation that prioritizes the citizens of another country over their own citizens is a nation that is doomed to be reshaped at best and utterly destroyed at worst.
But it makes sense that this last method is so unpopular.
Now, these were not the only things tracked by the poll. Among many other things such as Trump’s handling of North Korea, people’s view on certain countries as allies or enemies and their opinions on the FBI, the poll asked “Do you think the policy of separating parents arrested for crossing the border into the United States without proper documentation from their minor children will or will not discourage immigrants from crossing the border illegally?”
In other words, is family separation a deterrent of illegal border crossing? A total of 34% said that it is, with 38% saying no and 28% being unsure. Personally, I don’t think it’s a deterrent whatsoever. Think of it this way: families are attempting to illegally cross the border in at least 80 degree heat on a good day, risking capture and deportation, risking separating themselves in the trip alone, risking heatstroke and dehydration (and other things that threaten their lives). If they are willing to go through that, I can’t see how being separated by the government can seem like much of a deterrent.
The only effective deterrent of illegal immigration is a border wall and more security. We need to make it almost entirely impossible for anyone to cross the border illegally. People might be able to climb a fence, but unless they are Spider-Man, they can’t climb a 20 to 30 ft. wall.
Now, looking at these results overall, it tells me that people still tend to side with Trump on immigration issues. If even Hillary voters and registered Democrats heavily disapprove of “catch and release”, what honest-to-God hope do they have to winning in the midterms? Especially on the biggest issue that got Trump elected? Pushing for amnesty and open borders didn’t work in 2016, so what makes them think it will work now? The way they see Trump isn’t the way the majority of the country sees Trump.
“But when anything is exposed by the light, it becomes visible.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
George Soros knows very well that, in order to OWN America, you have to OWN the DNC. And in order to OWN the DNC you must OWN the Clintons. Please don’t forget this premise as you read on…
The IG report that was made public last week reveals a huge number of interesting evidence about the swamp – it confirms Lisa Page and Peter Strzok were biased against Trump. It confirms that ‘we’ in the FBI ‘will stop Trump’ from becoming President – and ‘we’ has to be a group of people CONSPIRING at the FBI. It confirms that then FBI director James Comey broke protocol with one end in mind: to exonerate Hillary from any crime. In doing so, Comey himself may have broken the law by adding to the law something that it doesn’t require in the Hillary case: intent. I think we can all agree that Page, Strzok, Comey, Hillary and all the rest broke the law – and our trust. These were people in positions of power who used that power to benefit themselves and a particular presidential candidate. Hillary herself was way too senior in the Obama Administration not to know that she was breaking the law when she decided to keep an illegal, unprotected server for official business.
Let’s let lady Justice deal with these actors – I have a feeling that somebody will end up in jail over all of this.
But let’s focus on Obama for a moment. We know that Obama lied when he said he learnt about the illegal server when the media reported it and not before. We know it’s a lie because the IG report says that Obama himself was using an alias to write to Hillary when she was the Secretary of State on her numerous email addresses – he, too, was using unofficial Hillary email addresses to conduct official businesses and that’s a crime. So we know that a Hillary criminal investigation would have led to Obama himself and he could not afford it.
Now, let’s talk about the premise of the headline: Was Obama trying to OWN Hillary?
We all know that NOBODY in the Obama Administration back in 2016 thought Trump was going to win. Obama never in a million years thought he could be the target of an investigation – it’s the reason he let Hillary keep that illegal server. Nobody in the Obama Administration thought any of this would come to light.
So, with this in mind, let’s go back to the Comey press conference in October 2016 when he announced the FBI had found 30,000 new emails on the ‘Hillary matter’ that they would investigate, only to announce a couple of days later that there was no intent on the part of Hillary and therefore no ‘reasonable prosecutor’ would indict. Why would he do this, knowing that in May of that year the FBI had decided not to pursue Hillary? They knew all along Hillary was not to be touched. Why would he open and close the investigation like this in October of 2016? And why wouldn’t he just do his job and present the evidence to the DOJ? I’ve heard analysts say it was Comey’s ego that caused him to be on the spotlight, or Hillary may have threatened him and that’s why he closed the investigation and all sorts of reasons why he chose against prosecuting her, even when he didn’t have the power to do that as FBI director.
Well, I have another theory….let me explain.
Obama had already indicated in April 2016 that 'I continue to believe that she has not jeopardized America's national security,' in an interview on 'Fox News Sunday.' He added 'What I've also said is that -- and she has acknowledged -- that there's a carelessness, in terms of managing emails, that she ... recognizes.' So Comey was just following orders: Hillary was just...'careless'.
Now, if you want to OWN America, you must OWN the DNC. And Obama doesn’t own the DNC…yet. He knows this perfectly well – if he’s going to put his own friends in office, he must NEUTRALIZE the Clintons sooner rather than later. Right now, the DNC is divided – and the Clintons have way too many friends for Obama’s liking. For a long time I thought Obama would throw Hillary under the bus on this email case just to get the Clintons out of the way and become the king of the DNC. But now I think he had a better plan…
I think Obama decided that neutralizing the Clintons doesn’t necessarily mean finishing them off politically – it means keeping their skeletons in the closet and owning them personally, like mobsters do. I think Comey was trying to convey the message that, once Hillary was inaugurated, she’d have to thank Obama for her freedom and presidency. And Obama holds the key to her future. She better continue with his legacy or else…
Let’s not forget that Obama is used to Chicago politics – these people are not like you and me. They’re mobsters. And speaking of mobsters, there’s one story in The Godfather Part II that explains what may have happened here (clip at the bottom).
You see, in The Godfather II, there’s this character, Senator Pat Geary, that opposes Michael Corleone, the head of the mobster family. The Senator knows Corleone is a criminal and he wants to find ways to bring him to justice. Corleone needs politicians, law enforcement agents and senior leaders on his payroll in order to conduct his illegal business freely. And this Senator is in his way. What was Corleone’s brilliant plan? To ambush the Senator: the Corleone gangsters find a prostitute for the Senator, who they then kill but making it look like the Senator did it. The Senator had been drugged somehow and he doesn’t even remember what happened to the girl – he thinks he must have killed her, given the evidence. But the Godfather’s saviors come to the rescue and protect the Senator from public shame and jail. The end objective was to OWN the Senator, which they managed to do by PROTECTING him from being INDICTED over a CRIME.
With Hillary it’s the same – except she did commit the crime. So Obama’s objective was to OWN the next President by sending Comey to close the email case to PROTECT Hillary from being INDICTED over a CRIME.
Perhaps that’s the reason the IG didn’t find documented evidence of political bias – Comey and Obama weren’t just rooting for Hillary out of love for her. This was about WHO was going to OWN the DNC…and the country.
'But the LORD abides forever; He has established His throne for judgment, And He will judge the world in righteousness; He will execute judgment for the peoples with equity.'
Author: Danielle Cross
While the Left constantly accuses Trump and his administration of separating children from their families and mistreating illegal immigrants, they fail to recognize that Obama just so happened to not be such a friend to illegals either.
Over Memorial Day weekend, AZCentral.com shared an article about illegal immigrant children being detained by ICE, with a picture (above) showing a couple of kids sleeping on the floor in a cage. Horrifying images for certain, but the Left made the mistake of attributing the pictures to Trump’s ICE, not Obama’s.
Jon Favreau, Obama’s speechwriter, tweeted about it, eventually deleting the tweet upon learning that his old buddy was to blame for the pictures.
Regardless, he still felt compelled to try to spin it in order to blame Trump, saying: “These awful pictures are from 2014, when the government’s challenge was reconnecting unaccompanied minors who showed up at the border with family or a safe sponsor. Today, in 2018, the government is CREATING unaccompanied minors by tearing them away from family at the border.”
Sure, Obama was trying to reunite families, so his intentions definitely excuse such mistreatment of these children. That definitely is a good point.
Seriously, these guys could excuse Obama for a second Holocaust if they felt his intentions were noble.
But let’s move on to other embarrassed liberals. Antonio Villaraigosa, former L.A. mayor and California gubernatorial candidate, tweeted: “Speechless. This is not who we are as a nation.”
The irony lies in that these are some of the words said by Obama regarding many different things. “This is not who we are.”
Of course, he later had to delete the tweet, but people had already noticed, including noted conservative activist Stephen Miller, who replied to Villaraigosa: “Hello, Antonio. Why did you delete this tweet? Is it because this was 2014 and you are no longer outraged because who this all happened under? Are you no longer speechless? Help explain, thanks.”
Villaraigosa made the mistake of actually replying to Miller: “Taking children from their parents whether it’s under a Democrat president or a Republican one doesn’t make it any more right. The key issue is not when it started, but when will it end. It’s wrong. It’s wrong for Democrats. It’s wrong for Republicans. It’s wrong for Americans.”
I doubt he actually believes in what he is saying. His tweet was not necessarily political or even giving blame to anyone. His tweet was relatively objective, so why delete it? It still makes sense under that line of thinking. People should still be speechless by such an inhumane act. So why delete the tweet? Furthermore, if it’s as outrageous as he believes it is, why not bash Obama over it? Or at least blame ICE leadership from 2014?
That’s why I find difficulty believing what he says. He thinks it’s outrageous if he believes Trump is the cause of it, but doesn’t think it’s outrageous if it was Obama’s administration who was in charge during that time.
CNN reporter Hadas Gold, who shared the tweet initially, wound up deleting it as well and sent out this ridiculous explanation: “Deleted previous tweet because gave impression of recent photos (they’re from 2014)”
Here was her original tweet: “First Photos of separated migrant children at holding facility.”
That’s not giving the impression, that’s explicitly saying it’s recent.
Alas, we move on to the next embarrassed liberal. New York Times Magazine’s Editor-in-Chief Jake Silverstein also weighed in, calling the photos “disturbing”, before also deleting the tweet.
He then offered this excuse: “Correction: this link, which was going around this morning, is from 2014. Still disturbing, of course, but only indirectly related to current situation. My bad (and a good reminder not to RT things while distracted w/ family on the weekend).”
What situation? As far as we know, this isn’t happening under Trump’s ICE. As the pictures are from 2014, we only know OBAMA was doing this, not Trump. I’m not saying these illegal immigrant families and children are living in luxury comparable to Trump Tower, but Trump might be treating them better than Obama. Considering these photos, the bar was set pretty low.
Perhaps my favorite embarrassed liberal’s response, however, came from Women’s March co-founder Linda Sarsour, who decided to leave her tweet up but still attack Trump like the crazy woman she is: “No amnesia here. Our immigration system is a disaster and was a disaster long before Trump came along. Now it will become increasingly worse under this White Supremacist Administration who have made their hatred for immigrants crystal clear.”
From what I can see, Obama hated ILLEGALS more than Trump does, so I don’t know what she’s talking about here.
But she certainly gives me a lot to work with here. First, it’s interesting to see her admit Trump didn’t “create the disaster” that is our immigration system (though one can argue that it is a disaster, but for different reasons than the Left would give you). While she does not specifically bash the Obama ICE leadership for this, she’s at least sober-minded enough to realize you can’t flat out blame everything on Trump (though it’s not come from lack of trying).
Second, I can always make the case that white supremacy has always been entrenched in the Democrat Party and continues to be the case to this day, if only through legislative measures and not in speech. But one does not need to go too far to see the effect of the Left’s disastrous policies on black communities.
Lastly, Trump doesn’t hate immigrants. He doesn’t even hate illegals. He’s not deporting them because he hates them. He’s deporting them because they are here illegally and should suffer the consequences of such actions. We are a nation living under rule of law. Someone breaks the law, they suffer accordingly for it. Everyone that is here when they don’t have permission or a right to be here must be kicked out. If they wish to return, they are more than welcome to do so through legal means.
The only people who enact or enforce laws based on hatred is the Left and Democrat Party.
Finally, we have BLM leader Shaun King, the whitest black man to have ever lived, giving his own two cents on the matter: “I saw this photo floating around and didn’t know if it was real. It is,” the radical leader said. “Children of immigrants are being held in cages, like dogs, at ICE detention centers, sleeping on the floor. It’s an abomination.”
Imagine the shock in his face when he discovered that his fellow fake-black-guy of a President was the one responsible for the pictures.
Now, AZCentral, the source for the article, had to issue a clarification, saying: “Photos of children at a migrant holding facility have gone viral on social media. The pictures are from 2014. They were originally posted with this azcentral article about unaccompanied migrant children who were transported to a facility in Arizona.”
I simply can’t keep in my laughter at the ignorance of these liberals. Now, to be completely fair, I can’t exactly expect them to do their own research. They’re Leftists, after all. Really, anyone could’ve been fooled without the appropriate research, but that’s not what I’m most focused on.
I don’t blame them for having been fooled. I don’t even blame them for tweeting their original tweets. I do, however, blame them for trying to pretend it’s not a big deal because it was Obama who was responsible. And I do blame them for still trying to attack Trump, despite the fact that the pictures depicted the way Obama’s ICE chose to treat these children.
It’s their hypocrisy that I have a problem with. They thought those pictures were horrifying and outrageous when they believed they were recent and under Trump’s administration. But upon learning Obama’s ICE was responsible for the pictures, they don’t think it’s as big a deal or anywhere near as outrageous. Despite them saying they do think it’s bad and outrageous, it’s clear that their anger and outrage left them when they discovered the truth.
It was a big deal only when they thought Trump was responsible, and that’s what I have a problem with.
Earlier, I mentioned that they would’ve excused Obama for a second Holocaust if they believed his intentions were noble. Similarly, if Hitler had been a Democrat President, they would’ve excused the first one.
That’s the kind of double-standard they set for themselves. Everything a Republican does is bad and everything a Democrat does is good. If a Democrat does something they would attack a Republican for, they either bury the story, ignore it entirely, or excuse it to the best of their ability. They were ok with sexual assault and harassment until they figured they could attack Trump on it.
Don’t misunderstand, they are still ok with it. Once Trump is done being President, or any sort of problem for the Left altogether, they will go back to excusing the Harvey Weinsteins of the world.
But morality is a different matter altogether. Here, I just want to focus on their hypocrisy, which is painfully obvious.
“You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.”
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.
Remember when you were a kid and would be in trouble for something and you just lied and lied about it? Remember how you would feel about being caught in your own lies? Well, that’s exactly how Nancy Pelosi felt during an interview with CNN’s Chris Cuomo.
The House voted to release a four-page memo outlining Obama’s DOJ and FBI minions abusing a surveillance program so that they could spy on Donald Trump during his transition to becoming President.
This memo presents a MASSIVE threat to the Democrats and Obama himself, so I’m not surprised to see Nancy Pelosi being nervous and stuttering at every sentence while talking with Chris Cuomo about it. Now, if she was this nervous when talking with Democrat-friendly Chris Cuomo, imagine how she would’ve felt talking with someone who might actually put some pressure on her.
To Chris’ credit, he did ask some proper questions about the memo when he needed to (and ignored the lying and b.s. Pelosi would spew, but that’s to be expected of him). But even with questions that make sense, Pelosi still felt nervous merely discussing it.
She would often say that releasing this memo would be a matter of national security even though Obama himself declassified top secret info about Bush’s fight with terrorism. When he did that, the New York Times reported that “exhaustive details about interrogation methods used by the Central Intelligence Agency could lead to a flood of new disclosures about secret Bush administration operations against Al Qaeda.”
THAT actually put U.S. officials at risk and THAT was a matter of national security that the Democrats simply didn’t care about. THIS release of the memo is not a matter of national security, it’s a matter of Democrat security. This memo will largely serve to further destroy Obama’s legacy and standing (with independents, perhaps, but it likely won’t do much with brainwashed liberals). This could lead to a lot of arrests in the future, perhaps including Obama himself.
So you can see why the Democrats don’t want the American people to see this memo. Pelosi claims it’s a matter of national security, even though it’s not. She also claims that people simply won’t understand what the memo means and says. That’s how little she thinks of regular citizens.
No, it’s likely that most people won’t understand all the legalistic aspects of the memo, but we’re smart enough to recognize a general theme: abuse of power and illegal espionage on an American citizen and President-elect.
Besides, it’s only four pages long. Even if it’s filled with all sorts of lawyer talk, I will still likely figure out what the memo is saying.
Back when Paul Manafort was indicted, I read the charges that Robert Mueller presented. I’ll be the first to admit I didn’t understand absolutely everything. I’m not a lawyer, after all. But I could understand what the charges were and that they had nothing to do with Russian collusion.
Once I read the memo, I might not understand absolutely everything it says, but I’ll be able to recognize what it’s talking about and what illegal deeds Obama and his Justice Department did during Trump’s transition to the White House.
And once I read it, myself, alongside a lot of other conservative news outlets, will be able to simplify things if needed. Though, I don’t think the people who will read the memo will be dumb enough to not see what it’s talking about (again, perhaps except brainwashed liberals who will keep their minds closed when reading it and believe it all to be lies).
Regardless, returning to Pelosi, it’s clear as day that she’s very nervous about this memo being released to the public. Just as Ephesians 5:13 says: “But everything exposed by the light becomes visible, for everything that is illuminated becomes a light itself.”
What happens in the dark will come to the light. The secrets of the Obama DOJ will be revealed for all who have eyes to see; for all who have ears to hear.
Now, I should clarify something. It’s not the fact that the American people will see the memo that might lead to consequences for Obama and those involved in the illegal activities detailed in the memo. Punishment would likely occur despite the American people knowing about it.
That’s not what Pelosi is nervous about here. It’s not the fact that Obama and his Justice Department broke the law that worries her. She’s a career politician with a $30 million net worth. Like President Truman once said: “You can’t get rich in politics unless you’re a crook.”
So it’s not the illegality of Obama’s actions that worries her. It’s the fact that people will KNOW that he did it that worries her. It’s the fact that it will be exposed to the general public.
It’s the fact that this memo will severely hurt the Democrats’ chances at retaking Congress in 2018. If it becomes general knowledge that Obama broke the law to spy on a political opponent, it will reflect badly upon Democrats in the future.
This memo can easily become a weapon for Republican candidates to expose the corruption of the Democrats (granted, they have a lot of other examples of this, but this becomes yet another one, and a big one, at that).
The reason Pelosi is so nervous about it is because this will only further destroy the Democrat Party. If used right, no Democrat should even retain a seat in 2018 (except in loony California, perhaps), let alone gain any.
Public opinion about them will likely diminish, even within their own base (Bernie supporters already thought Hillary was crooked, so this certainly doesn’t help anyone in the Establishment).
This memo will largely serve to further rip the Democrat Party to shreds.
“But everything exposed by the light becomes visible, for everything that is illuminated becomes a light itself.”
Author: Freddie Drake Marinelli.
As you know, once Presidents leave the White House, Presidential library plans begin and new buildings flourish in the location desired by the respective President. George W. Bush’s Presidential library is located in Dallas, Texas. Bill Clinton’s is in Little Rock, Arkansas. Ronald Reagan’s is in Simi Valley, California. It’s really no surprise that Barack Obama’s will be in Chicago, Illinois. Specifically, on the University of Chicago’s campus.
The funny thing is that, according to Campus Reform: “more than 150 University of Chicago professors and lecturers are protesting a ‘socially regressive’ plan to build an ‘Obama Center’ next to the school’s campus.”
I don’t think I’ve ever heard such harsh words spoken by college professors about anything related to Barack Obama. Don’t misunderstand, they still want the Obama Center in Chicago, but they do have concerns about where exactly the former President intends to have it built.
In a letter signed by faculty members, the professors write: “First, there are concerns that the Obama Center as currently planned will not provide the promised development or economic benefits to the neighborhood.”
Gee, Obama failing to deliver on a promise? That’s new.
The letter continues: “Because the current plans place the Center next to the Museum of Science and Industry and across the street from the University of Chicago campus, there is no available adjacent land in which to start a new business, set up a new café or restaurant, [or] bring another cultural center to the neighborhood.”
Putting aside the fact that I’m surprised these college professors care at all about the possibility of a new business starting there, it really seems like the Obama Center will really inconvenience the community in multiple ways. After 8 years of heavily inconveniencing the country (and that’s putting it lightly), he seemingly is looking for smaller ways in which he can inconvenience people he couldn’t care less about.
But the letter is not done. “At a time of increasing complexity and pressure in urban life, Chicago should be dedicated to preserving our public parks as open areas for relaxation and play for all its citizens.” This in particular criticizes the intrusion the Center will have on the neighboring public parks: the Midway Plaisance and Jackson Park.
The professors also criticize plans to construct an above-ground parking garage which takes up some of the space of the parks, protesting that although "public lands are being given away, all the profits from this parking lot will go to the Obama Foundation. None of the funds will go back to the City to improve train lines and public transportation infrastructure. Overall, this is a socially regressive plan.”
According to the Associated Press, the Foundation has opted to drop the plans for the above-ground garage. Instead, it will be underground. And, of course, there will be a parking fee.
The letter makes one final criticism of the Obama Center by saying: “Finally, it is the taxpayers of Chicago who are going to be forced to pay hundreds of millions of dollars for this project… The required widening of Lake Shore Drive alone is estimated to be over $100 million.” The entire project is estimated to cost half a billion dollars.
The letter ends by saying: “We are concerned that rather than becoming a bold vision for urban living in the future it will soon become an object-lesson in the mistakes of the past… We would be pleased to support the Obama Center if the plan genuinely promoted economic development in our neighborhoods and respected our precious public urban parks.”
When did any Obama plan genuinely promote any sort of economic development anywhere in the country? We had 8 years of a terrible economy that was on life support. Obama didn’t help the national economy, how could you expect him to help a local economy? How can you expect him to care whatsoever about it?
Of course, these college professors are liberals themselves, so they have certain expectations that Obama isn’t the incarnation of Satan.
Regardless, it fascinates me that even after leaving the White House, Obama can still find ways to screw people, albeit in a far smaller scale. He no longer has Presidential power. He does have power, but not nearly as much as he did before. No doubt that’s a fact that irks him.
Now, the letter only addresses the fact that it will be a massive economic and urban inconvenience. And it is important to establish that. But you also have to look at the very design of the building. Ben Shapiro said that it looks like a Chinese takeout container. To me, it looks like a poorly-designed and borderline-useless candle. It also sort of looks like an ancient Mayan structure.
I’m no architect, but I do have functioning eyes. The Obama Center is an eye-sore. Not only is it economically inconvenient, but it’s honestly rather ugly to look at.
Just another way Obama looks to mess with people he doesn’t care about. And even though the population of Chicago is largely liberal, especially the University of Chicago, I can’t help but feel sorry for them. They made very good points on why it shouldn’t be where it is, but I also feel sorry that it’s something these people will have to look at every time they’re in the area.
Unfortunately, it’s unlikely that the Obama Foundation will care enough to move the site somewhere more economically advantageous for the city.
1 Thessalonians 5:22
“Reject every kind of evil.”
Author: Freddie Drake Marinelli.
If you’re a long-time reader of these articles, you know quite well how I’m not very fond of just about any poll. Often times, polls are inaccurate or misleading and don’t offer a real perspective of the political views of the country. But some polls tend to be more reliable than others and will often show a little (or a lot) less bias than others. While they may still not be insanely accurate, they are at least a bit more trustworthy than many others.
Rasmussen reports that on December 29th, 2009, 46% of the voters approved of the job Obama was doing, while 53% disapproved. They compare these numbers to Trump’s, saying that Trump has a 45% approval rating among likely voters and 53% disapproval rating.
Looking at these numbers alone, you might not think much of them. They’re not very high for either, but not very low. What you do have to look at, however, is their significance.
I’ve mentioned before that I didn’t really pay much attention to the world around me until roughly 2011-2012. But even I, a child who didn’t pay much attention to the world back in 2008-2009, could tell that Obama was very popular. He was arguably at the peak of his popularity in the beginning, when the country was excited to have their very first African-American President.
Obama, particularly back then, was considered a demigod by much of the country, considering he had won by a massive landslide against his opponent John McCain (though who knows how he would’ve fared against an actually conservative opponent. He might’ve still won, but maybe not by a landslide).
So to see that, at least in this poll, Trump’s numbers resemble that of Obama’s after his first year in office is very significant.
Of course, the Left is doing their best to make this insignificant, saying that Rasmussen’s reports include “only likely voters in its polling, a group that tends to skew more heavily Republican, since Republicans tend to vote more regularly.”, according to the Washington Post.
Right, a couple of things. First, it’s not our fault Democrats tend to have the charm of a rotting corpse (and sometimes have the looks of a rotting corpse *ahem* Hillary *ahem*). If Democrats can’t draw very many people to enthusiastically vote for them, that’s their problem.
Polling likely voters doesn’t take away from the value of the poll. It shows you what people who will likely vote in the next significant election think of a candidate.
Second, other polls, particularly those run by the Left, tend to oversample Democrats. Look back at the polls run by the Left during the 2016 presidential election. All of them had Hillary winning the election either by a landslide or by a few points. In the end, Trump beat Hillary by a landslide.
Polls run by Democrats tend to be very biased. They’re not always wrong, as in the case of the Alabama Special election or the 2012 presidential election, but they’ve been very wrong plenty of times.
For any poll that surveys likely voters to view Trump as favorably as Obama in his first year in office is truly significant. Like I said, Obama was a very popular President, particularly in the beginning. And despite all of the negative press (seriously, only 5% of news about Trump is positive) and despite the baseless claims of Russian collusion, likely voters still have a rather positive outlook on Trump. At least as positive as they did 8 years ago with Obama.
A President’s first year in office tends to not be great. An incoming President inherits the rules and regulations put into place by his predecessor and works to either continue working with those rules and regulations or seeks to change them. Even the Left understands this concept (to an extent).
Even they know and freely admit that Obama inherited a very poor economy which was only made to look better through the Dow Jones Industrial Average by the end of his presidency. Aside from that, high rates of unemployment were prominent during the Obama years, the national debt skyrocketed, and businesses were taxed and regulated heavily enough to keep those unemployment rates from coming down.
The American economy merely survived 8 years of Obama. After 1 year of Trump, it’s very much THRIVING. Not that the Left wants you to know that. They certainly don’t need to tell you that the economy is doing the greatest it has in a very long time. You can see it for yourself. You can experience it for yourself.
Even the Left has had to mention that the economy is doing well under Trump, which for one reason or the other, they say credit should go to Obama. Despite the fact that many Leftist entrepreneurs and investors expected the economy to collapse with the mere ELECTION of Trump, the economy is quickly coming off life support. It’s growing at unprecedented rates and can only get better from here.
Remember, the tax cuts have yet to even be implemented. Once they come about, things will be a lot better for middle-class families and businesses.
It’s this thriving economy, alongside seeing the rather quick defeat of ISIS, that is keeping Trump supporters more than happy with Trump. It’s even bringing in people who were previously Never Trump!
He’s having a fantastic first year in office. So far, he’s 100x better than Obama was in all of his 8 years! For Rasmussen to show favorability numbers like these is very impressive. If the media treated Trump the way they treated Obama, who knows what his approval rating would be! Maybe the highest for any President in recent time!
Obama was a terrible President that was popular thanks only to the media, not because of his so-called “accomplishments”, a list that would be easier to fill than a grocery list. Trump is a fantastic President that, among likely voters, is as popular as Obama was in his first year in office largely due to his accomplishments.
I’ve said multiple times that the Left lives in their own little bubble. In an alternate reality where the majority of the country absolutely hates Trump and everything he’s doing. Meanwhile, on planet Earth, Trump is a very popular President and a very successful President so far.
While I am very much aware that he’s highly despised by many in the country, I believe there are more people who support him (at least internally) than who hate him. Otherwise, he wouldn’t have become President.
“For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.”
Author: Freddie Drake Marinelli
On July 26th, 2017, President Trump announced that transgender individuals will no longer be allowed to be a part of the United States military in any way. And while liberals everywhere are going haywire and saying that Trump is a bigot, let me tell you why this decision can help Make America Great Again in a more direct way than you may think.
Think about what comes along with allowing transgenders into the military. It surely costs the military a lot of money to accommodate those few people - after all, living quarters would have to be adjusted, medical treatment including surgeries for people in “transition” would be implemented just for them, and new training methods would also have to be implemented just for the few that are crazy enough to think they’re a different gender from what God created them to be and from what science determines.
Trump banning transgenders from being in the military could SAVE THE MILITARY A LOT OF MONEY long-term! Even Trump brings up the economic side of this issue. In a series of tweets announcing this ban, the president said: “After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you.”
So apart from transgender individuals costing the military more money, they also provide some disruptions. That is, in terms of training methods, sleeping arrangements, and healthcare. And that makes a lot of sense. Today, we don’t allow people whose eye sight could pose a serious problem in military training and missions if it’s bad enough. People have to be within a certain height and weight in order to be allowed in the military. And they have to be physically fit.
A transgender person by definition would look to be of a different gender and would get surgery to do that. Any sort of surgery means that, for a period of time, you aren’t allowed to serve in the military, so it’s truly head-scratching how the military allows for people to get sex change operations, knowing it will put those people out of service for a good amount of time after an unnecessary surgery.
Not to mention the fact that, if someone thinks they are a different gender and wants to be a different gender, there is a clear mental issue with that person. It’s literally called “Gender Dysphoria”! According to psychiatry.org, “Gender dysphoria involves a conflict between a person’s psychical or assigned gender and the gender with which he/she/they identify. People with gender dysphoria may be very uncomfortable with the gender they were assigned, sometimes described as being uncomfortable with their body (particularly developments during puberty) or being uncomfortable with the expected roles of their assigned gender.”
It’s literally a psychological issue for anyone to want to be the opposite sex from what they were born with! And for a year (thanks to Obama), they were allowed in the military! For the most part, the military holds the right to turn away anyone with psychological issues that will clearly make it impossible for either that person or the military to benefit from that person’s service. And transgender people fall into that category by definition! The military was forced to make adjustments for very few people simply because Obama wanted it!
And now, Trump has restored logic to the military. Now, the military won’t have to make adjustments for the less than 1% of the population that literally has a psychological issue with their sex just to appease the “progressive” movement and the Left. And now, the military can go back to focusing on its primary task: Making America Safe Again.
That’s why this decision by Trump isn’t a political decision, as the Left would want you to believe. This is a decision that will save the military a lot of money in unnecessary surgeries and healthcare bills. And this is a decision that will make things easier for the people who assign dorms and training procedures to the men and women who serve this country.
With one less thing to worry about, the military can go back to ensuring the safety of this country, as was their original mission until the likes of Barack Obama came along, whose ideas were meant to appease Man and not God. Whose ideology and mission was to destroy what is logical and what is good about this country. A mission to tear this country down and apart. But now, that man is gone and is replaced by a man who wishes to work for God rather than against Him.
Now, America can be made safe again. America can be made great again. And America can be blessed by God again.
“There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.”
Author: Freddie Drake.
One hundred years ago the Bolshevik revolution brought to Russia what proved to be an evil, dangerous and brutal regime: Communism. Back then, there were two factions among its leadership – on the one hand, the faction led by Soviet Vladimir Lenin, who wanted to focus on limiting communism to the Soviet Union and a handful of satellite nations; and on the other hand the faction led by Soviet Leon Trotsky, who wanted GLOBAL COMMUNISM – or what Obama would now call a ‘liberal international order’.
Like so many of these types of disputes among communists, the triumphant faction eliminated the opposition by, well, eliminating the opposition: Trotsky was assassinated in 1940 by the winning side led by the then brutal Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin.
Let’s face it, the left has a very effective way of eliminating the opposition – you can ask the Republicans who were assassination targets by Bernie supporter James Hodgkinson a few weeks back. Assassination is standard operating procedure for the left.
Now former president Obama, touring the G20 last week, said ‘Democracy is hard. Progress does not move in a straight line. Its gains are often fragile. But the future does not favor the strongman. I believe deeply that the liberal international order […] is the only choice’.
So Trotsky #1 fan Barack Hussein O wants to revamp the 100 year old idea of global communism. Contrast that with Trump’s Warsaw speech, where he encouraged all of us freedom-lovers to fight for our civilization. I don’t think the contrast can be any more clear: either we fight to defend our individual freedoms or we give them up to global communism.
What’s at stake here is the very fundamentals of this country. The left is agonizing about Trump’s staunch defense of the Western Civilization during his speech in Warsaw. After all, it’s OUR civilization. It’s OUR way of life.
It’s the western civilization that has enabled the best country in the world to emerge – not communism.
It’s the western civilization that has enabled true progress, from science to art to human rights – not communism.
If anything communism has DESTROYED every bit of progress that western civilization has introduced in the countries where this regime was implemented. Communism is responsible for the mass killing of at least 100 MILLION people in the former Soviet Union, North Korea, China, Vietnam and Cuba combined.
Communism has invented NOTHING.
Communism has created NOTHING in terms of art or scientific progress.
And yet, many people are still mesmerized by it. I can understand the elites of the world – after all, in Obama’s global liberal vision, he would be the king. He would be the Czar. He would be the boss. And all his friends would have easy lives – that is, so long as they don’t oppose Obama. You can ask North Korea’s Kim Jon Un’s inner circle to see how the supreme leader assassinates anyone even within his own circles who he suspects might not be loyal. Due process? Forget about it!
So I understand the elites – if they can rule over you, they will. But how about regular folks? The millennials? The James Hodgkinsons of the world who are willing to KILL anyone who disagrees with them? Where is this all hatred coming from?
It’s coming from not knowing Jesus Christ.
This problem isn’t new – after all it was the ELITES who killed Jesus as well. Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect, allowed the Jewish leaders to conduct a mock trial in which an innocent man, Jesus Christ, was sentenced to death. Evil will always HATE righteousness. Evil doesn’t want you to be free. Evil doesn’t want you to be creative. Evil doesn’t want you to run your own life. Evil wants to reserve the right to keep you poor, take your liberties away and even kill you if so is beneficial for Evil’s objectives.
This cultural war is real - and this Donald Trump Jr. business is just one front. On the one hand, you have the good guys – those of us conservatives who want to live in the land of the free and home of the brave. And on the opposite side we have the bad guys – liberals who just want your soul and to control you.
But this war has to be fought on many fronts – and ideas is one of those fronts. Keep on educating yourself and those around you. Keep on alerting your friends of the evil that’s just around the corner. We’re very close to losing this battle and we cannot let that happen. Our western civilization is a CHRISTIAN civilization – make no mistake about it.
Without the gospel there would not be any freedoms or artistic creativity or scientific progress. It’s the Christian theology that enables man to fly high and pursue his dreams. There’s no other civilization in the world like it. The western civilization is, in fact, a SUPERIOR civilization – all you have to do to confirm this truth is look at North Korea. Has North Korea produced anything good? Of course not. Or look at Cuba. Has it produced anything good? Of course not. Or look at those areas in the Middle East dominated by ISIS. What have they created? Nothing but DEATH.
There’s no better civilization than our western civilization – it’s worth fighting for.
'And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.'
Author: Danielle Cross
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...