Usually, when a large event such as a terrorist attack occurs, it grabs the attention of the country. Even botched terror attacks still manage to grab most people’s attention (remember the Christmas bomber of 2009?).
But CNN, despite the fact that a terror attack, botched as it was, took place, they still couldn’t talk about anything else other than the President. And it wasn’t even about anything major. They ignored the failed terrorist attack in favor of covering one of Trump’s supposed daily habits: how many Diet Cokes he drinks in a day.
I say supposedly because I don’t know the President personally, so I can’t confirm such mannerisms, but I don’t believe anything the fake news media says about him, no matter how mild it is.
But still, even though 27-year-old Muslim extremist Akayed Ullah planned to blow up a train station because of Christmas decorations, CNN decided that wasn’t worth talking about and instead favored the waste-of-time discussion of Trump’s dietary habits.
I do have to give CNN some points for at least mentioning it before focusing on the diet segment, but much akin to Whose Line Is It Anyway, those points don’t matter.
On CNN’s “New Day”, Alisyn Camerota mentions that: “We do have some breaking news we are following right now because there are emergency crews in New York City. They are responding to some type of possible explosion. We understand it’s near the Port Authority bus terminal.”
And that’s the extent of her coverage on the failed terrorist attack. Later on in the show, she begins focusing on Trump’s diet coke habit:
“This is about his Diet Coke habit. Let me read it to you. ‘Watching cable, he shares thoughts with anyone in the room, even the household staff he summons via a button for lunch or for one of the dozen Diet Cokes he consumes each day’ (A quote from the original story published by the NYT about Trump’s life in the White House)… Corey Lewandowski, his campaign manager, has a new book out about some of these very things. Corey’s book is called ‘Let Trump be Trump.’ Here’s what he writes. ‘On Trump Force One, there were four major food groups, McDonald’s, Kentucky Fried Chicken, pizza and Diet Coke.’ When I read this, I think, this is not what doctors would recommend…”
Why is that trash segment worth more airtime than reporting on a developing story about a failed terror attack? Clearly, if you want to know what’s going on in the world, CNN is not a source to do so. I’ve known this for some time, but this is beyond fake news. This is altogether IGNORING the news.
Now, I know that this was a botched terror attack. According to the U.K. Daily Mail, which at the moment seems to be a far superior news organization: “The taxi driver behind the failed terror attack in New York City told investigators he meant to detonate his homemade pipe bomb in the busy subway station after seeing the walls festooned with Christmas posters – in revenge for violence against Muslims all over the world. While initial reports suggested the crude pipe bomb… had detonated prematurely, suspect Akayed Ullah, 27, insisted he set off the bomb deliberately.”
If you didn’t know the details of the terror attack, that one paragraph served a far greater purpose for you than CNN did. If you have family in New York City and you hear about a potential terror attack and tune in to CNN, you’re likely going to be decently and justifiably annoyed by their reporting of the President’s dietary habits.
CNN, at this very moment, is not just the Most Distrusted Name In News. They’re also the Most Useless Name In News. I don’t know if it’s the fact that this was an Islamic terrorist attempting to kill people the reason CNN avoided the story or the fact that the terrorist was so incompetent that he didn’t do any significant damage to anyone but himself (which at the time of the segment, people didn’t even know about that), but ignoring a terror attack, regardless of the result or damage created is unprofessional.
No, no one died from it and only the evil lunatic suffered serious injuries, but it’s still something worth talking about. Even the President himself talked about the attack, saying that “’lax’ immigration policies were to blame for the attack…” And he “urged Congress to ‘enact legislative reforms to protect the American people.’”, according to UK Daily Mail.
But CNN still decided it wasn’t important enough to steer them away from the ever-so-important discussion of how much soda the President drinks in a day.
Now, I understand that this attack wasn’t as big as, say, the Orlando night club shooting or the San Bernardino shootings or other multiple attacks made against America in New York City because no one died and the only person to get hurt is the devil worshipper himself. But any semblance of a terrorist attack, particularly one that’s inspired by ISIS’ calls “for militants and lone wolves to attack holiday markets”, according to UK Daily Mail, should still be a decently big topic of conversation.
Now, I could probably forgive them if they had been talking about the Alabama Senate Election, or Trump’s sexual assault accusers or anything about the Russia story, but certainly not “how much Diet Coke does Trump drink a day?”
All the other things are big talking points that most people will pay attention to and discuss with others. But who exactly is going to make a big fuzz about how much Diet Coke Trump drinks? Why is that a more important story than A TERRORIST ATTACK THAT COULD’VE GONE FAR WORSE?!
If a reporter asks a Trump supporter about the Russia story or the women accusing him of sexual assault, they are all likely to say that they don’t believe the stories. But if they ask a Trump supporter what he thinks about the President’s soft-drink-consuming habits, they’ll likely tell them: “This is the kind of media opposition Trump faces? He’s got nothing to worry about, then.”
That’s how ridiculous that segment was. Not one Trump supporter cares about how much Diet Coke Trump drinks. Beyond that, since this is coming from CNN, not one Trump supporter even believes he drinks that much.
But even if their credibility wasn’t as tarnished as it is, people are still not likely to care all that much about it. If you’re going to talk about Trump, at least talk about something worth-while.
I mean, seriously. The one time they don’t talk about Trump-Russia collusion but instead focus on something so irrelevant and it’s when there was a potentially catastrophic terrorist attack?
And remember, this was a couple of days ago. The bomb detonated at around 7:20 A.M on December 11th, 2017. Alisyn Camerota made the mention on her show, according to NewsBusters, at around 7:58 A.M. Eastern Time, and at around 8:38 A.M, she began to talk about the Diet Coke story.
THIS WAS A DEVELOPING STORY AT THE TIME OF REPORTING! Literally all she says about the attack is that there was a possible explosion near the Port Authority bus terminal. Presumably, that’s everything she knew about the incident at the time, which is understandable. But it’s HER JOB TO FIND OUT MORE ABOUT IT IF POSSIBLE!
She’s a “journalist”. Journalists are supposed to investigate these things and report them to the public. I doubt she knew how much or how little damage was caused by the explosion. People could’ve been lying dead on the ground while she was talking about Trump’s apparent obsession with Diet Coke.
Now we know that no one innocent was hurt, but we didn’t know that at the time. Alisyn certainly didn’t either.
I can’t decide whether CNN is insanely incompetent or deliberately negligent of real news. And I’m saying this literally one article after talking about how they were wrong about a Trump collusion story. After that story, I learned that David Frum is an idiot. After this story, I learned that Alisyn Camerota is grossly incompetent in her job as well.
And these are the people that are telling me Trump cheated in the election?
These ungodly people clearly don’t follow this bible verse:
2 Timothy 3:17
“That the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”
Author: Freddie Drake.
As we enter the 2018 mid-term cycle, more and more talks about Democrats winning to impeach Trump will occur. They will certainly run on that. They’ve talked about impeaching him well before he even took office and will continue talking about it until he’s finished with his 2nd term as President.
But it seems as though at least one writer from one Mainstream Media source realizes the error in the Democrat Party’s ways. Jeet Heer (yes, that’s a real name), a Leftist writer for the website “New Republic”, wrote an article calling for Democrats to stop focusing on impeaching Trump and start focusing on just beating him at every chance they get.
The article is titled: “The Democrats’ Dangerous Obsession With Impeachment.”
Quite the powerful, Leftist-bashing title, especially coming from another Leftist.
The article begins with: “Amid a stream of revelations, arrests, and plea bargains from Robert Mueller’s investigation of Donald Trump campaign’s connections with Russia, liberals are becoming giddy at the prospect of impeaching the president.”
“Becoming”? They’ve been giddy at the prospect of impeaching him since before he took office! The Russia investigation is almost all they’ve talked about this past year. WHAT DO YOU THINK ITS INTENT IS?! It’s meant to lead to Trump’s impeachment. They want him locked up too, but they’d settle with impeachment, as long as they can also impeach Mike Pence.
But they aren’t just “beginning” to get giddy at the thought of succeeding. They’ve been dreaming about this almost since the election. I say almost because they’ve had to have time to grieve over the fact that their liar of a candidate, Crooked Hillary, was absolutely destroyed in the election.
The article then talks about how Vox’s founder, Ezra Klein, “argued last week that impeachment be normalized as a regular procedure in American democracy… [Ezra] wanted to redefine the rules for impeachment so they apply to Trump, a president who has demonstrated that he is manifestly unfit for office. ‘Impeachment is not a power we should take lightly,’ Klein wrote. ‘Nor is it one we should treat as too explosive to use. There will be presidents who are neither criminals nor mental incompetents but who are wrong for the role, who pose a danger to the country and the world… Being extremely bad at the job of president of the United States should be enough to get you fired.’”
After writing that he subjectively believes “it is true that Trump is ‘extremely bad at the job of president”, he recognizes that such a definition would be a bad idea because impeachment would then be used as a political weapon (or at least a more readily used one than it already is) and that the reasons for impeachment are entirely subjective (which defines every reason the Left currently has for impeaching him).
But let’s go with it for now. If being bad at being president should get you fired, why wasn’t Obama fired within his first 4 years? The Fast and Furious scandal, which even the National Review acknowledges as one of the Obama administration’s “earliest embarrassments”, put around 2000 weapons into the hands of criminals south of the border. One of which took the life of U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry.
If allowing criminals outside the border to get weapons isn’t considered “being a bad president”, then what is? He willingly put border patrol agents’ lives in danger. And he’s not an idiot. He knew the consequences of such actions. He just didn’t care.
Like he didn’t care about the 4 Americans killed in Benghazi. That was as much Obama’s fault as it was Hillary’s. Reinforcements were requested but they were denied. There was no reason to deny reinforcements. They could’ve saved at least one if not all of the Americans in the embassy, but the victims were denied help. And then, an innocent man was arrested for allegedly putting up a video that supposedly insulted the Islamic barbarians enough to kill people. A video which never existed.
Long ago, I wrote an article titled “As Bad As Obama Was, Does He Deserve To Be Jailed?” In it, I delve further into the reasons he should go to jail. But really, you can easily say those were all reasons he should’ve been impeached. If we’re talking about impeaching a president because he’s bad, then why was Obama never even close to being impeached?
Regardless, we move on. The article then talks about how it’s virtually impossible for Trump to be impeached. “The practical problem is that for impeachment to be meaningful, Trump would not just have to be impeached by the House of Representatives (which requires a simple majority) but also removed by the Senate (requiring a two-thirds vote). It’s easy to imagine a scenario where the Democrats win the House of Representatives in 2018 and have the necessary votes for impeachment. But even in that best-case scenario, in which Democrats win every toss-up race for the Senate, they would still be well short of the votes they need in the Senate. Which means that kicking Trump out of the White House by necessity has to be a bipartisan effort with significant Republican buy-in.”
He fails to mention that the Vice President also would have to vote to impeach the POTUS.
Quoting Peter Beinart of The Atlantic, the article says: “the possibility of Republicans co-operating in removing Trump is dropping even as there’s more evidence [emerging] that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians.”
Well, two things about this: First, I’d like to ask: “what evidence?” Believe me, if there was any sort of solid evidence that points to Russian collusion, we’d be hearing about it. We’d definitely know it. So far, the only thing that even remotely comes close to being evidence is the Russian dossier. But that’s all fake as well. It comes close simply because it’s the basis for the entire investigation.
Trust me, it doesn’t take a year for the FBI to find a single piece of evidence of a crime (they usually investigate crimes, not people, but still). It doesn’t take the MSM a year of investigation to come up with nothing if there’s clear criminal activity.
I’ve been saying this for months now and will likely have to continue saying this until Trump’s 2nd term is over, but if there was any solid piece of evidence of collusion, we’d know about it by now. The MSM has been quick to deliver fake news about this. Could you imagine how quick they’d be to deliver real news about this if it were true? They’d be the only thing in this known universe to exceed the speed of light upon delivering such news.
But they haven’t. There’s nothing real about the investigation and the news the MSM reports.
Second, the possibility of Republicans co-operating in removing Trump is dropping not because they will “tolerate just about anything from Trump”, as the article writes. That’s the thing, they DON’T tolerate anything from Trump.
Over and over again, you hear people like John McCain, Mitt Romney, Lindsay Graham and other RINOs blatantly being AGAINST anything Trump does. What this guy is saying is entirely wrong and false. He continues by saying that “[The GOP] continue to stand with him despite his demented tweeting, the political support he’s given to Roy Moore, his repeated expressions of contempt for the justice system, and his cavalier threats to launch a nuclear war.”
That sentence is so insanely wrong I could probably write another article on that sentence alone. We’ve heard multiple times, from the very people listed above, that he should slow down or altogether stop tweeting. They want to shut him down. They don’t want him to be telling the truth to people through social media.
They’ve been adamantly against Roy Moore and Trump’s support of him. They’ve been less vocal about it in recent time because other news have filled the media’s time, such as the tax plan. But they still despise the judge.
“Repeated expressions of contempt for the justice system”? Are you kidding me? Take the Kate Steinle case. Look at the facts and then tell me the verdict wasn’t utter b.s. Who wouldn’t have contempt for such an “injustice” system?
“Cavalier threats to launch a nuclear war”? Why is pushing back against a lunatic dictator considered a threat to launch nuclear war? If a man with a gun threatens to kill you and your family and you point a gun to him to protect yourself and your family, how are you the aggressor in that circumstance? How are you the only one threatening to commit homicide? Kim Jong-un THREATENED US FIRST, YOU MASSIVE IMBECILE! Declaring that there’d be justified retaliation for nuclear action is not threatening nuclear war. THE INITIAL LAUNCH IS!
Regardless, he ends his article by saying the Democrats should look to simply defeat Trump at the ballot boxes instead of chasing a pipe dream. Which tells you just how desperate the Democrat Party truly is. You see, THEY CAN’T HOPE TO DO THAT! Yes, they’ll be looking to win in 2018 and 2020. That’s obvious. But their hopes can’t rest on that alone. They’re desperate to regain power in America. They want him out now. They aren’t very hopeful for 2018. Certainly not after this past year of significant elections going to Republicans.
There have been a lot of special elections over this past year. Some have happened in California, but that’s not newsworthy because it was expected that the Democrat candidate would win. But in others such as Georgia and Montana, the election was a bit more contested. The winner wasn’t going to be very obvious from the outset. Those are elections the Democrats hoped they would win, had a chance of winning but ultimately lost in.
Loss after loss tends to take its toll on the losers. They first thought Hillary would crush Trump or at the very least win, even if it was rather close. That didn’t happen. They then thought they’d crush the GOP candidates in these special elections that were actually significant and that, too, didn’t happen.
If they continue to lose in significant elections, they are right to be worried about 2018. Despite all of their b.s. polls about Trump’s popularity, he’s stronger now than he was when he first ran or even won the presidency. I know that there are certain once “Never Trumpers” such as Mark Levin who have changed their tone about Trump since he took office. He’s proven that he’s a conservative man who is working hard every day to Make America Great Again.
And the more the Left attacks Trump, the more his supporters embrace him. More than that, more and more people JOIN him.
He’s grown stronger while the Democrats have grown weaker. That’s why they’re banking so much on impeachment. It’s their best chance of defeating Trump – which, given what the article of the New Republic tells us, is a rather pathetic chance in and of itself.
“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.
You know the interesting thing about lying? You can often get caught in your own web of lies.
Sure, often times the fake news media will get away (at least publicly) with lying to people, but occasionally, they are so clearly caught in a lie that even other fake news sources have to take some notice.
ABC News’ Brian Ross was suspended for 4 weeks without pay after he “was forced to correct a bombshell on-air report about Michael Flynn”, according to CNN.
In a statement apologizing for Ross’s mistake, ABC said: “We deeply regret and apologize for the serious error we made yesterday. The reporting conveyed by Brian Ross during the special report had not been fully vetted through our editorial standard process. As a result of our continued reporting over the next several hours ultimately we determined the information was wrong and we corrected the mistake on air and online.”, adding: “It is vital we get the story right and retain the trust we have built with our audience – these are our core principles. We fell far short of that yesterday.”
Yeah, when they say that “it’s vital we get the story right”, they really mean “it’s vital we TELL the story right.”
Just so you know, Brian Ross, on Friday, cited a single anonymous source about the Flynn investigation, saying: “Michael Flynn promised ‘full cooperation to the Mueller team’ and is prepared to testify that, as a candidate, Donald Trump ‘directed him to make contact with the Russians.’”
That, understandably, made Leftists everywhere soil themselves with excitement. Unfortunately, and very hilariously, Ross was lying and had to correct his story. Trump didn’t order Flynn to do anything as a candidate. The Trump transition team, however, did order him to speak with foreign leaders. An order that is not illegal. It’s not even unconventional for an incoming administration to do that.
But because of the way Ross reported it, Leftists cheered and called for Trump to be impeached and locked up, and the Dow Jones dropped over 350 points on Friday, before recovering a decent deal.
So Ross’s story was so groundbreaking that it made the Dow Jones dropped like a bag of bricks, costing a lot of people a decent deal of money. You see, liberals, your dumb actions have consequences.
But of course, the fake news media being the fake news media, ABC News “initially attempted to downplay the mistake, referring to its correction as a ‘clarification’ on ‘World News Tonight’ and then online. After a barrage of criticism, the network changed the language online from ‘clarification’ to ‘correction’”.
So even after getting caught in their own fake news, they still tried to pretend it was no big deal.
Saying Trump, as a candidate, ordered Flynn to contact the Russians is MASSIVELY DIFFERENT from saying Trump, as president-elect, ordered Flynn to contact the Russians.
One story gets closer to finding Russian collusion and the other is a story about what usually happens during a transition between one administration and another.
One is massive breaking news and the other is simply standard procedure.
Of course, on Friday, the Left thought they were one massive step closer to impeaching Trump and convicting him. One such example comes from The View’s Joy Behar, who read aloud the false report from Ross and was celebrating the fake news along with her colleagues on that terrible show and the ignorant audience who clearly had nothing better to do that day.
Behar, visibly getting excited as she read the report, clapped and cheered at the news. Her colleague, Ana Navarro said: “It’s beginning to look a lot like Christmas and it’s beginning to look a lot like collusion.” With Meghan McCain, daughter of John McCain, saying that the crowd reacted as though they were in Oprah, saying it was like “you get a car, and you get a car, and you get a car”, with Behar chiming in saying: “No, it’s ‘you go to jail, you go to jail, you go to jail.’”
So you can imagine the grin on my face when I saw the video of Behar apologizing to the audience for delivering the fake news herself.
Regardless, she explains to the audience that Brian Ross was wrong when he gave his report, believing it to have simply been a mistake and not intentional fake news. And you can see the disappointment on each of The View’s hostesses on seeing that their latest pathetic effort to unseat Trump has failed.
They say over and over again (with the slight exception of Meghan McCain) that this wasn’t fake news, just “wrong news” if you will. That they don’t believe Ross intended to mislead people into thinking they’ve found evidence of Russian collusion or that Trump, as a candidate, sought to collude with the Russians.
I, for one, believe he intended to mislead people. They’ve become so entrenched in their fake news stories about Russian collusion that they now believe it to be true. And Brian Ross, having also lied about the Aurora theater shooter’s affiliation with the Tea Party, clearly is eager to bust Trump for anything even remotely shady. And if he can’t find anything shady, he makes things look shady.
Like I said, there’s nothing illegal or unorthodox about an incoming administration looking to make contact with foreign leaders. That’s not shady. What would be shady is what Ross reported. A candidate making such contact with foreign leaders and governments is illegal and very shady. Which is why I’d be happy to point the Left in the direction of a little woman named Hillary Rodham Clinton.
If they’re looking for a story about a candidate colluding with foreign governments, they need not look any further than Clinton. With the Russian dossier, there’s clearly more Clinton-Russia collusion than Trump-Russia collusion. With the Uranium One deal, there’s clearly more Clinton-Russia collusion than Trump-Russia collusion.
And yet, they choose to ignore or flat out deny the truth. They are the ones who are corrupt, shady and criminals. They are the ones who constantly lie to the American people.
Take the Tax Reform bill that (thankfully) passed Senate last Friday as an example. The Left keeps saying that the bill will cost low and middle-income families a lot of money. That the bill is a scam. That it will take from the poor and regular people and give money to the rich. That’s a lie that they always tell about any Republican tax plan.
The Washington Post wrote about the tax plan, and they too say it will hurt low and middle-income families: “The JCT (Joint Committee on Taxation) found that the GOP bill would add nearly $1.5 trillion to the debt over the next decade and that, on average, families earning between $20,000 and $40,000 a year and between $200,000 to $500,000 would pay more in individual income taxes in 2023 and beyond. JCT does not explain why these families see an increase, but it is likely that it’s in part because some tax credits aimed at helping the middle class expire in 2023.”
In other words, the GOP tax plan only hurts families WHEN THE TAX CREDITS EXPIRE! JCT doesn’t need to explain why these families see an increase because IT’S PAINFULLY OBVIOUS WHY THEY WOULD SEE AN INCREASE! THEY WILL PAY MORE WHEN THE TAX CREDITS EXPIRE IN 2023!
But this is the kind of thing I’m talking about. Occasionally, the fake news media gets caught in their web of lies and is publicly mocked and called out for their lies. But there’s lies wherever you look in the media.
Trump, as a candidate, didn’t order Flynn to contact the Russians. Trump, as president-elect, did (indirectly, through his transition team, but you know what I mean).
The GOP tax plan will only hurt families when tax credits expire. There’s nothing in it that will hurt them once it passes and there’s nothing in it that indicates the rich will take money from the poor. The tax credits will expire with or without this bill.
But at least someone in the fake news media world is being punished (though given a rather small punishment) for blatantly lying to the public.
“The righteous hate what is false, but the wicked make themselves a stench and bring shame on themselves.”
Author: Freddie Drake.
Before any liberal readers flip out, no, this is not about race.
Last week, the trial to determine the fate of Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, the Illegal Immigrant who shot and killed 32-year-old Kate Steinle at a San Francisco pier on July 1, 2015, concluded. The Juror acquitted Garcia Zarate of all charges except for felony possession of a firearm.
According to CBS News: “San Francisco Deputy District Attorney Diana Garcia said she didn’t know why Garcia Zarate fired the weapon, but he created a risk of death by bringing the firearm to the pier that day and twirling around on a chair for at least 20 minutes before he fired. She said he then ran away while other people tried to figure out what had happened. The bullet ricocheted on the pier’s concrete walkway before it struck Steinle.”
So the Jurors decided that it was “an accident” because he didn’t intend to hit Kate? WHAT A LOAD OF B.S. THAT IS!
You’re telling me that this guy gets to walk from murder charges because he didn’t directly hit Kate? Ever heard of Voluntary and Involuntary Manslaughter? (The latter being one of the charges this criminal was acquitted of).
Voluntary Manslaughter happens when “the offender had no prior intent to kill and acted during ‘the heat of passion’…” and Involuntary Manslaughter happens when “the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought, either expressed or implied. It is distinguished from voluntary manslaughter by the absence of intention…”
Here’s why I mention both: if you’re in a public space, twirling around a firearm for 20 minutes and eventually fire it, you had intent to either cause harm or kill someone. No sane person would ever do that. What kind of psychopath do you have to be to twirl around a gun for 20 minutes in a public space and fire it at random?
And even if you argue that he didn’t intend to kill Kate, that’s where we get to Involuntary Manslaughter. BUT STILL, HE GETS TO WALK FROM THOSE CHARGES!
An Illegal Immigrant who’s been deported 5 times prior, was wanted for deportation for a sixth time, was in possession of an illegal firearm that he stole from a federal Bureau of Land Management ranger the week prior managed to get away scot-free from any sort of homicide charges. And so far, I don’t see any outrage coming from the people of San Francisco or the American Left.
Remember when George Zimmerman was acquitted in the murder (self-defense) of Trayvon Martin? Remember how outraged the Left was? How Obama said that if he had a son, “he’d look like Trayvon”, in a sort of honor to the delinquent?
Where’s the outrage from the Left now? If Garcia Zarate had been white and Kate had been a minority, would THAT have drawn the outrage from the Left? Or if Kate had been the one to kill Garcia Zarate in that same way and had been acquitted, would that have Democrats saying their son would look like the deranged Illegal Immigrant?
Justice was not served last week. Thanks to San Francisco’s absent-minded “sanctuary city” policies, a deranged Illegal Immigrant criminal is able to stay in the country and kill people without consequence.
San Francisco disgusts me. I had my issues with them before, but now I am blatantly sick to my stomach with the Sodomic city.
And to enrage us further, Garcia Zarate’s Defense attorney Matt Gonzalez chose to bash the President and Vice President for criticism that had yet to even come to the verdict, saying: “For those who might criticize the verdict – there are a number of people who have commented on this case in the last couple of years; the Attorney General of the United States and the President and Vice President of the United States. Let me just remind them: they are themselves under investigation by a special prosecutor in Washington D.C. and they may soon avail themselves of the presumption of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt, so I ask that they reflect on that before they comment or disparage the results of this case.”
Typical Leftist. He simply couldn’t resist to bring something up that has nothing to do with the present case and will lead to nothing the Left wants.
Mr. Gonzalez, let me make something perfectly clear: Donald Trump was VOTED into office by We the People of the United States of America. There’s not going to be a “presumption of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt” because there’s no substantial evidence of GUILT! Otherwise, believe me, we would know about it by this point given how the Special Counsel leaks info like an ice cream cone under the hot sun.
But your client is, beyond a reasonable doubt, GUILTY OF HOMICIDE! He may not have struck Kate directly, but you can’t possibly tell me there was no intent behind the murder just because the bullet ricocheted and hit her. He FIRED a weapon at a concrete walkway. In case your brain is too small to figure this out: PEOPLE WALK ON WALKWAYS!
I don’t know if Garcia Zarate is the biggest imbecile in the world and didn’t know that bullets can ricochet off of solid structures if hit at a certain angle or if he was just deranged enough to think nothing would happen by FIRING A WEAPON LOW ENOUGH TO HIT SOMEONE, but that doesn’t matter.
The fact is that this deranged Illegal Immigrant SHOULDN’T HAVE EVEN BEEN IN THE COUNTRY AND SHOULDN’T HAVE BEEN ON THE STREETS. But thanks to the Left’s insistence on protecting Illegal Immigrants, an American woman lost her life and received no justice for it.
And they dare continue to oppose the building of a wall? Kate isn’t the only person to have been killed by an Illegal Immigrant. I’ve seen stories about Illegals raping and killing children. Stories of them killing other people. They are CRIMINALS WHO SHOULDN’T BE PROTECTED BY ANYONE - THEY CLEARLY HAVE NO RESPECT FOR PEOPLE'S LIVES!
And yet, the Left favors them over the American people.
The Left hates America so much that they’d rather see it turn into Mexico, a country without rule of law, than see it succeed.
This is why we need to build the Wall. To keep criminals and deranged immigrants from coming here whenever and however they please. If we had had a wall at the Southern border, at least starting before 2015, Kate would be alive today. As would many other victims of Illegal Immigrant criminals.
I hope we will get to build the Wall sooner rather than later. Maybe we can call it Kate’s Wall.
“Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge, I will repay,’ says the Lord.”
Author: Freddie Drake.
Do you want to know one of the reasons I like Trump so much? It’s because he deliberately goes out of his way to enrage the media and directs what they report on. His latest effort has been to poke fun at Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s fake Native American heritage.
During an Oval Office event honoring the work of Navajo code talkers during World War II (one of whom actually praised Trump and said the country was in good hands), President Trump went out of his way to call out Warren for her claim that she’s partly Native American.
“I just want to thank you because you’re very, very special people. You were here long before any of us were here. Although we have a representative in Congress who, they say, was here a long time ago. They call her ‘Pocahontas.’”
As you can expect, the media went bananas over this comment, even saying it’s a “racial slur”.
It’s not a racial slur, you ignoramuses. IT WAS A PERSON’S NAME! It’s like saying the name “LeBron” is a racial slur because LeBron James is black. But the media, being the ignorant buffoons they are, decided that this was another instance of the President being “racist”.
Why is it racist of Trump to point out and make fun of Warren for claiming to be Native American but it’s not racist of Warren to baselessly claim she’s Native American?
According to Fox News: “The truth is, Warren is probably not Native American but claimed she was to advance her academic career that eventually landed her a gig at the prestigious Harvard Law School. The university even promoted Warren as a Native American faculty member back in 1996 in a Harvard Crimson piece on diversity on campus.”
And to what does she base her claims? A Boston genealogist’s report that Warren is 1/32nd Cherokee, that her family has told her stories about their origins (though no documentation was ever given) and that her grandpa had “high cheekbones like all of the Indians do”, according to Warren herself.
So being 1/32nd Cherokee means she’s Native American? So if I were to find out I’m 1/32nd African American (or just African) does that mean that I can list myself as a black man? That I can become a member of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)? That I can guilt trip a white man into apologizing for slavery? That my vote for Trump means that he received a slightly higher African American vote count?
Of course not! Being 1/32nd anything doesn’t mean a darn thing!
How about stories with no actual documentation? Does that mean that if my parents had told me when I was little that our family came from Mars that it makes me a Martian? Or if they told me we came from Mount Olympus that I’m part Greek god? OF COURSE NOT! Saying you’re part something doesn’t make it true. I could say I’m part cupcake but that wouldn’t mean it’s the truth!
Lastly, her grandpa’s cheekbones were high like all Indians’? My great grandpa was pretty tall. Does that mean he was Paul Bunyan or came from a family of literal giants? Of course not. A physical attribute doesn’t mean anything.
And yet, she still lives her life as though she’s a Native American with no basis for her claim. Why is that not outrageous for the Left? Why is Trump calling her out (briefly, at that) considered racist? And why is the word “Pocahontas” racist?
To answer those questions, the word “Pocahontas” is not racist. It’s a name. It never has been racist and it never will be racist. Trump calling her out shouldn’t be considered racist but the MSM can’t resist to attack him on anything they possibly can and report on the nickname as a “racial slur”. Lastly, it’s not outrageous for the Left because the Left has no values. They pretend to support things they really don’t.
They pretend to care about people when they really don’t. If they cared about African Americans, they wouldn’t victimize them at every turn, pass legislation that makes it harder for them to get out of poverty and blame police officers’ racism for the few African American deaths that occur at the hands of law enforcement. Seriously, when was the last time you heard of a police officer killing an African American? I honestly can’t remember it happening since Trump became President (not saying it’s due to him winning but that no black person has reportedly been killed by a cop since then).
If they cared about black people, they would try to stop or at least slow down black on black crime.
If they cared about gay people, they would call out the Muslim world for literally KILLING them just for being gay.
If they cared about women, they would unabashedly attack those who actually HAVE assaulted women, not defend them just because they’re Democrats. If they cared about women, they wouldn’t be among women’s biggest threats in society.
They truly don’t care about anyone other than themselves. Selfishness is the reason Warren claims to be Native American. She used that to get a job at Harvard Law School and, according to Warren herself, that she would “be invited to a luncheon.”
So a job and an event to get free food is why she falsely and baselessly claims she’s Native American? And let’s not forget that she’s a 2020 Democrat presidential candidate hopeful as well. She would likely run on being both the “first woman and Native American president” in U.S. History.
It’s disgustingly hypocritical for her to claim such a heritage while simultaneously calling other people racist.
She’s a white woman. Not a Native American woman. Not that she’ll ever admit to her lies. She’s way too deep in it to simply backtrack on that. Not to mention she’s too proud to do the right thing. The Left never does the right thing, anyway.
Regardless, I will enjoy the fact that Trump once again has caused the media to lose a little more of their remaining sanity. I’ll enjoy the fact that he’s essentially directing the media on what they report on.
“In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one.”
Author: Freddie Drake.
One rather major theme this past year has been that the media wishes to portray Trump as a very unpopular and toxic president. That whoever he endorses in elections would be destined to lose, simply because of such an endorsement. However, this past weekend, an ABC network analyst, Cokie Roberts, admitted that “it will be hard to defeat [Moore] in the general election.”
Here’s specifically what she said: “[Trump] doesn’t have to go to Alabama. He’s done plenty for Roy Moore. Moore can put it in his ads, which he’s doing. He’s clearly got the endorsement of President Trump. Without the endorsement of President Trump, he won the primary. I think with the endorsement of President Trump, it will be hard to defeat him in the general election.”
Now THAT I did not see coming. A network analyst for a major fake news source admits that Trump’s endorsement of Moore makes it more difficult for the Democrat candidate to win? THEY NEVER DO THESE KINDS OF THINGS!
In the Left’s own little world, they assume every Democrat candidate everwhere is going to win either in a rather close race or a landslide victory. So for one of these people to admit that TRUMP’S endorsement of a Republican candidate makes things HARDER for Democrats is shocking.
Now, I do agree that Trump’s endorsement of Moore certainly helps. But even without it, I’m entirely confident Moore will defeat his opponent, Doug Jones.
Why? A couple of reasons, actually.
First, with the constant attacks against Moore, all the attention of the voters in Alabama has gone to him. Fake allegation after fake allegation, conservative voters in Alabama are doing with Moore what American voters have been doing with Trump: get even closer to him.
Trump proved himself to be a massive threat to the Left, resulting in the onslaught of attacks made against him before and after the elections. Every time they’ve attacked him, his base and supporters have only grown closer to him. We see the same with Moore.
Moore is proving himself to be a massive threat to the Left as well. In their desire to destroy him, they’ve only made him more powerful. Truth be told, before the allegations, I still would’ve voted for him simply because he’s a Christian and conservative. But now, I’m PASSIONATE about voting for him. And that’s simply because the Left made it known that they do not want him in Congress. And if the Left doesn’t want him in Congress this badly, I WANT HIM IN CONGRESS JUST AS BADLY!
But that’s only one of the reasons I think he’ll beat Doug Jones.
The second reason is that Alabama is a very Christian state. Christians tend to not be in favor of abortion or those who promote or accept abortion. Doug Jones believes that abortion should be an option until A BABY IS BORN!
Meaning that at any point in the 9 month pregnancy, Doug Jones believes it’s ok to kill the child. Even though a fetus can survive outside of its mother’s womb after 5 or 6 months, even then it doesn’t have a right to life according to Jones.
This very issue can boil any Christian’s blood. And as I’ve told you in the past, 86% of people in Alabama as of 2014 identify as Christian. It would be insanely difficult for anyone to run on “I think killing babies inside the womb at any point in time is ok” in Alabama and win a majority vote. Alabama is LIGHT YEARS away from California by that standard.
Now, I can see why Cokie Roberts believes it’s difficult to defeat Moore. Aside from Trump’s endorsement, Moore is basically the Senatorial candidate version of Trump. They both believe in many of the same things and hope to achieve many of the same things in their positions. They both want to Make America Great Again in every way they possibly can.
They both have been viciously attacked by the Left and the fake news media. They both have passionate supporters behind them due to those very attacks. They both wish to drain the swamp. They both want to Make America OURS Again.
They both have faced Establishment opposition who wish to maintain the status quo and keep America for themselves. They both seek to defeat said opposition at every turn they can.
Cokie Roberts is entirely right (something I thought I’d never say of someone from a fake news network). It will be very difficult for Democrats to win in Alabama. But that’s nothing new. Like I said in a previous article, Alabama has voted solidly Republican since Reagan. For the longest time, Democrats have had a difficult time winning in Alabama. It’s no different now.
Of course, I can’t see into the future. I can’t definitely tell you that Moore will win. But I personally have no doubt that he’s in prime position to win. Of course, the GOP will likely look to expel him and deny Alabama voters their preferred candidate, but that’s an issue to tackle after the election.
And I can assure you, I will be on top of that when and if it happens.
But for now, I shall enjoy the fact that even someone from a fake news source comes to the realization that the Democrats will likely experience yet another loss in a significant election.
1 John 5:4
“For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world – our faith.”
Author: Freddie Drake.
Last week, in an interview with Charlie Rose, New York Times columnist David Brooks “argued that tolerating former President Bill Clinton’s behavior had a hand in creating an environment where sexual misconduct was given a pass.”, according to Breirbart.
There’s roughly two things I have to say about this: 1) No, duh! And 2) I’m surprised that he’s saying this.
As a reminder, David Brooks is the guy that said that Trump had three options: “… decide if he prefers to resign, be impeached, or get assassinated.”
So you can see why I’m somewhat perplexed at this MSM columnist’s decision to place some of the blame on Bill Clinton. For the longest time, Bill Clinton has been a sexual predator, and for just as long, he’s been given a pass from the Left and the Mainstream Media.
And yet, a member of the Mainstream Media put some of the blame on Bill Clinton for the sexual harassment environment we live in? That’s honestly shocking. What is not shocking, however, is when he also brings up the allegations made against Trump and Roy Moore.
“He then cited Republicans tolerating what President Trump and Alabama Republican Senate candidate Judge Roy Moore are accused of and argued partisanship is idolized,” according to Breitbart.
But here's the thing: We simply don’t believe the allegations. And wanna know why? Because they’re so obviously fake, they’re hilarious.
This is a point I made in my previous article about Roy Moore: Three weeks before the Presidential election, Trump was accused of sexually harassing and assaulting multiple women. Today, a month before the Alabama special election, Roy Moore is being accused of having an inappropriate relationship with a minor. In other words, they’re accusing him of being a pedophile.
And we know that the allegations made against both of these Republicans are entirely fake. So to compare these two to the likes of Bill Clinton and Harvey Weinstein is ridiculous.
At the worst, Trump has TALKED about the issue, as recorded on the Access Hollywood tape. But again, that’s at the worst. At HIS worst. At Weinstein and Clinton’s worst, they’ve FOREVER SCARRED MULTIPLE WOMEN!
Regardless, Brooks continues: “The uncomfortable thing for a lot of progressives, frankly, is how much did the Clinton thing create this whole environment? How much did tolerance of Bill Clinton create the environment in which the rest of this was given permission?”
He’s worried about what’s uncomfortable for progressives? THEY’RE THE ONES DOING THESE THINGS! The uncomfortable thing for a lot of progressives is not how much Clinton’s case created the environment. The uncomfortable thing for them is the worry of whether or not THEY’D GET AWAY WITH IT NOW!
Now, I’ll be somewhat fair and say that it’s not all Bill Clinton’s fault. IT’S A LOT OF DEMOCRATS’ FAULT!
Before Clinton was even talked about, there was another Democrat legacy in the news: the Kennedy’s. While I can’t quite recall any “sexual assault” cases, I know that the Kennedy’s had extramarital affair problems.
JFK and Bobby Kennedy had both been accused of sleeping with Marilyn Monroe. Ted Kennedy, JFK’s brother, was most likely also cheating on his wife at the time of the 1969 Chappaquiddick incident.
For those who don’t know, let me set the stage up for this case. According to Wikipedia: “… [Ted] Kennedy was at Chappaquiddick Island… hosting a party that he gave for the Boiler Room Girls, a group of young women who had worked on his brother Robert’s ill-fated presidential campaign the year before. Kennedy left the party with one of the women… he attempted to cross the Dike Bridge… Kennedy lost control of his vehicle and crashed in the... tidal channel on Chappaquiddick Island. Kennedy escaped the overturned vehicle… dove below the surface seven or eight times, vainly attempting to reach and rescue [the girl]… He swam to shore and left the scene… He contacted authorities the next morning, but [the girl’s] body had already been discovered.”
That’s a lot of information to take in, so I’ll summarize. Ted Kennedy threw a party for young single women on Chappaquiddick Island, which is on the eastern end of Martha’s Vineyard. Ted Kennedy owned a home in Martha’s Vineyard. If he wanted to throw a party, why not do it at his home? Is it because his wife was there? Not to mention the Boiler Room Girls consisted of 6 women. In total, 6 SINGLE women and 6 MARRIED Democrat men attended the 'party'. Not much of a party, right? And to top it off, Kennedy left the party with one of them.
Now, I ask you, does that not sound like he was looking to cheat? The Kennedy’s are notorious for their affairs and this doesn’t exactly sound like Ted Kennedy was looking to be a Good Samaritan.
Now, there’s a difference between sexual assault and cheating. But my point is that the Kennedy’s have a decent hand in the way our culture is today. Bill Clinton does as well.
When you see another person being accused of sexual harassment or assault, most of the time they’re either elected Democrats such as Anthony Weiner and Bill Clinton, or are Democrat Hollywood celebrities such as Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, George Takei, Charlie Sheen and a myriad of other people.
And whenever a Republican is accused of it, it’s usually b.s. Look at Trump, for example. He was accused of assault THREE WEEKS before the election. And the claims turned out to be b.s. Look at Roy Moore. He was accused of pedophilia ONE MONTH before the state election. And it’s b.s. as well.
What I’m saying is that, looking at the Left, sexual harassment, assault and lust altogether seems to be all they’re about. For people who claim to be “fighting for women’s rights”, they sure don’t respect the fairer sex.
They claim to fight for a woman’s “right” to kill her own baby, and it’s not shocking. Of course they would fight for that. If abortion were illegal, they might be a bit more hesitant to assault a woman. They don’t want to have to pay for child support, or at least go to court over it.
They want to abuse women without repercussions, so they claim to be in favor of their “reproductive rights”.
David Brooks is right to place some of the blame on Bill Clinton. He’s shown Democrats that they can do whatever they want to women and the media will be on their side. But to say that Trump and Moore (or any other conservative) have a hand in this as well is utter nonsense.
The Democrat Party is the party of sexual assault. The party of lust. The party of sin. The party of evil.
I’ve made this point before, but I’ll say it again here: The Left is the second worst thing to happen to women, second only to the rise of Islam. And even then, it’s a rather close race.
“’There is no peace,’ says the Lord, ‘for the wicked.’”
Author: Freddie Drake.
One of the biggest news pieces this week (aside from the seemingly endless stream of Hollywood elites being exposed as predators) has been the hit pieces against Judge Roy Moore (R), who is running for a Senate seat for Alabama in December.
The hit pieces, of course, include the allegations made by the Left that Moore had an inappropriate relationship with a 14-year-old girl 40 years ago. Given just how Christian and conservative Roy Moore is, I can see why the Left feels the necessity to smear him. They are afraid of him.
Let me leave you with some food for thought: if Roy Moore did really do that 40 years ago, how come we’re only finding this out now when he’s running as a Republican for Senate? He was a Democrat before switching to the Republican Party, much akin to Reagan. In those 40 years, I imagine he’s had a share of political opponents. So why now? Why are people saying this now, a month before the Alabama elections?
Because he’s a threat to a Democrat Party that has been almost completely dismantled.
And do you want to know what’s funny? Check out this article published by the Washington Post: “Roy Moore is unfit to serve.”
Gee, where have I heard that before? You’d think that, after Trump’s crushing victory over Hillary Clinton, the Left would at least TRY to adopt different political strategies and attacks. Throughout the election, they called Trump “unfit to serve”. Calling him delusional, crazy and unstable. Yet, he won. So why do they think this would work on other Christian conservatives?
Granted, the Democrat Party is using the same playbook that’s often times won them elections. But with Trump’s victory, that playbook is quickly becoming outdated. It’s the equivalent to running the Triangle Offense in today’s NBA: it just doesn’t work anymore.
And now, a genius at the Washington Post decided to use the same words they used to describe Trump with? Brilliant.
But what exactly does the article say? Well, it begins with this: “Alabama voters will pick a new senator in December, and their choice is between one of the most divisive, counterproductive figures in U.S. politics and a well-qualified, even-tempered former prosecutor. In other words, there is no choice. Former Judge Roy Moore (R) is unfit to serve. Former prosecutor Doug Jones (D) would be a credit to the state.”
Ha! Good one. Notice the specific words the writer chooses to describe Moore. Do they sound familiar to you? “Divisive and counterproductive.” Doesn’t that sound like they’re describing Trump?
And it just keeps getting better. “… electing Mr. Moore would be a sure way to worsen Washington’s problems. His unapologetic extremism would pour gasoline on the already raging fire of partisanship and dysfunction.”
It’s like they’re ENDORSING Moore at this point. They call him an extremist, and you know what that means whenever a Leftist calls a conservative “extremist”. They say he’s unapologetic about it and that it would “worsen Washington’s problems.”
But you see, THAT’S ONE OF THE REASONS WE WANT HIM THERE! Ever since the election of Trump, the Establishment has been trying to essentially put out a fire in Washington. Electing Roy Moore would be like pouring gasoline on it. But that’s the thing: THAT’S WHAT WE WANT!
Now, to any Leftists reading this, don’t misconstrue what I’m saying. I’m not saying I want anarchy and chaos running around in Washington. I’m saying that I want the Washington Establishment to essentially burn to the ground. I want it destroyed. I want for it to cease to exist, or at least be rendered entirely powerless.
Electing Roy Moore would be a step towards Making America Great Again. It would mean that the Washington Establishment has one less vote to kill the Trump agenda. It would mean one more vote towards repealing Obamacare, passing tax reform (in the likelihood that it won’t happen this year), passing a better spending bill and BUILDING THE WALL!
And the WaPo article even dares bring the Founding Fathers into this conversation. The article reads: “[Moore] called for a de facto religious test when he argued that Muslims elected to represent their communities should not be seated in Congress. This would have appalled the Founding Fathers and should alarm believers of all stripes.”
Really? That would’ve alarmed the Founding Fathers? Arguing that members of a death cult should not be in Congress would alarm the Founding Fathers, but outrageous increases in the size of government, increases in government spending, government-funded abortion clinics, gay marriage, transgender “rights” debates and a call for sweeping gun control wouldn't alarm them? Give me a break. Must I remind this ignoramus that our Founding Fathers were CHRISTIANS?!
And the writer of this article thinks that these are reasons to not elect him? Does he even know who the target audience is? Hint: it’s not Leftist Virginia, New Jersey or New York. It’s ALABAMA! A state where, according to Wikipedia, 86% of people in Alabama (as of 2014) identify as CHRISTIAN! A state where Trump won 62% of the vote! A state that has voted solidly Republican since REAGAN!
That’s why I’m saying that the WaPo article is inadvertently making the best case for Roy Moore. He’s solidly Christian! Solidly conservative! And attacking those very things won’t get the Left anywhere.
Why else do you think they’re trying to pin him with allegations that supposedly took place 40 YEARS AGO! Because they can’t realistically try to beat him with anything else, and even this will end with failure.
This is roughly the same tactic they tried on Trump. Three weeks before the election, the Left had women accusing Trump of sexually assaulting them years prior. The details of the accusations are different but the overall message is the same: don’t vote for this guy because he’s a sexual predator.
If that tactic didn’t work on Trump, it surely won’t work on Moore. But I’m glad to see them try. Because it just goes to show all Alabama voters just how much of a threat Moore is to the Left. The more the Left attacks him, the more I like him.
“The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart.”
Author: Freddie Drake.
You’ve read my previous article on this topic. I focused mostly on the Democrat winner of the election and how the Left thinks that this is a major push against the President and his policies and agenda.
I also explained how that is not the case, but I’ll explain that in greater detail in this article.
I usually answer a title question later in the article, but in this case, I shall begin the article with the answer and explain why my answer is correct as we go along, with the help of a Breitbart article I’ve recently read.
Now, who exactly lost on Election Day 2017? Well, the easiest answer would be “Republicans.” But that’s only half right. Yes, Democrats won in Virginia, New Jersey and New York. Even a Transgender “woman” defeated the Republican incumbent in Virginia, which goes to show just how Leftist they are turning.
But why do I say that the answer is only half right? Because the actual loser of the elections is the Republican Establishment, not Republicans as a whole.
Ed Gillespie ran a campaign that didn’t embrace Trump or his policies until it was too late. And by that point, embracing such policies seemed insincere and like he was only doing it for the votes – which he was.
And so, Breitbart published an article titled: “What GOP Must Learn From The 12 Reasons Virginia Went Democrat In 2017.”
According to Breitbart, the 12 reasons Virginia went Democrat are:
The article also covers three reasons why all is not lost for the GOP, saying that “The Left is already overreaching… Most Democrats’ 2018 and 2020 candidates will not resemble Northam” and that “Republicans might be turning the corner.”
But that’s where they’re wrong. All IS lost for the GOP. For a long time now (since long before Trump was even President), I had one concise thought in my mind about the Republican Party: They will never win another election again if their candidate is Establishment. And looking back, I know I was right then, just as much as I am now. After 8 years of Obama, and just one year of Trump, we can see the Establishment for who they are. They pretended to fight for what Americans want, “trying” to repeal Obamacare, knowing that Obama would veto it every time. And now, they have the votes and a President who will sign the same bills they wanted when Obama was President and they just don’t want to do it.
More than that, they’re not even pretending to be on Americans’ side anymore. They are proudly and unabashedly against Trump and his agenda. They will announce ahead of time their plans to kill any effort to repeal Obamacare in any way, any effort to bring about good tax reform and just about any effort that would Make America Great Again. Why? Because they HATE America just as much as the Left does. They don’t want to Make America Great Again. They want to Make America THEIRS Again.
They want America to belong to the Washington Establishment again. To the Elites in Washington again.
They. Want. To. Be. Kings.
Any effort to Make America Great Again will be halted and killed by the Establishment. Do you want to know why I wasn’t sad or annoyed that Democrats won November 7? Because they were going to win no matter what. Their opposition was nothing more than a charade. They had not true opposition.
Obama had no true opposition in 2008 or 2012. McCain is an Establishment lifer. An elite among elites. The head of the Republican effort to impede Trump. Romney is less talked about only because he isn’t in the spotlight as much as McCain. They were both more than ok with Obama winning. They were both HOPING that Hillary would win.
It’s not that they’re spineless. It’s not that they don’t have guts. It’s that they’re evil. They have hatred and evil in their hearts. They put on a show in front of people, pretending they’re opposing the Democrats and promising the American people that they will fight their hardest to repeal Obamacare, smiling as they say those things – not because they’re sincere, but because they’re devious. They smile because they know that they’re tricking people – deceiving them.
The Breitbart article ends with: “… it is possible that enough politicians are figuring out that the MAGA agenda… may be the key to their success in 2018 and 2020.” That’s certainly something to take away from the Republicans’ losses. That people running for office should embrace the MAGA agenda. But Establishment Republicans would rather lose to Democrats (other Establishment politicians) than allow Trump to win any more than he already has.
Come 2018, it’s entirely likely that we’ll begin to see the Republican Party being destroyed. Not because Democrats will defeat them, but because actual pro-Trump and pro-America people will defeat them.
As voters, we’ll do our best to Make America Great Again, and that includes voting for people who’ll strive to do that.
The draining of the swamp has only just begun.
“By your endurance you will gain your lives.”
Author: Freddie Drake.
Over this past week or so, I’ve gone back and forth calling the Left either sick or amusing. That’s because, while most of the time they’re sick, there are times when they’re simply amusing. How they react to certain things such as shootings and terror attacks have been the main focus whenever I talk about them being amusing. Well, these Democrat victories in Virginia, New Jersey and New York are just as amusing.
“How is it amusing if Democrats win elections?”, you may be wondering. Well, consider what elections they’ve won. Democrats won in Virginia, New Jersey and New York in 2016. They won again this year... what a shocker.
And the amusing part is that they’re pretending this is a major victory. One writer in the New York Times titled his article: “Virginia Rejects Your Hateful Politics, Mr. Trump.”
The article begins: “Ralph Northam’s election as Virginia governor amid reportedly high turnout on Tuesday is a stinging and welcome rebuke to President Trump and white nationalism.”
Ok, what’s white nationalism got to do with anything here? This person is simply trying to use the typical Leftist tactic of tying a Republican with something they deem as “bad”. Regardless, this is honestly an intriguing and amusing article.
The article continues: “Having been nearly vanquished in the primary by Corey Stewart, an anti-immigrant conspiracy theorist who played on issues like preserving Confederate monuments, Mr. Gillespie (the loser of the gubernatorial election), at the advice of Republican leaders, took up race-baiting. His ads, featuring menacing tattooed men, accused Mr. Northam of being ‘weak on MS-13’ the gang formed by Central American immigrants in Los Angeles that now threatens Virginia suburbs…”
So they’re accusing Gillespie of race-baiting? Sure! It’s not like Democrats don’t play the race card whenever they deem it advantageous!
What? The Democrats ran an ad that featured a menacing-looking, black pick-up truck with a Confederate flag in the back and with a Gillespie bumper-sticker that appears to be hunting down and attempting to run over Hispanic children? Well… uhh… what does that have to do with race-baiting?
Honestly, it’s like the Left sometimes ANNOUNCES their hypocrisy.
But do you want to know what else is funny? Even the writer slams the Democrat victor to an extent. At one point, the article says: “Mr. Northam was a lackluster campaigner in his own right. Despite mountains of post-2016 evidence that Democrats need to present voters with an inclusive and compelling economic message, he didn’t hone his own until late in the race. Then, he lost support from the progressive wing of his party after he seemed to suggest he’d oppose sanctuary cities and, at the request of unions, omitted Justin Fairfax, his African-American running mate in the lieutenant governor’s race, from the campaign pamphlets.”
Right, three things stand out here: that “inclusive and compelling economic message” part, the part about Northam supposedly opposing sanctuary cities, and that racist act of omitting the African-American running-mate from the pamphlets. Let’s go over each one.
First, the “inclusive and compelling economic message”. Right, what exactly would that entail? An economy that works for everyone? That’s what a capitalist economy is for. That’s what we have. Everyone that has the drive to work and work very hard can become successful. Those who don’t want to do anything are the ones who are not successful. Not even in a socialist economy.
Next, the supposed “opposing sanctuary cities” part. This one is actually pretty interesting. You see, Gillespie ran “an ad that claimed Northam cast a deciding vote on Feb. 22 in favor of sanctuary cities”, according to the Daily Signal. However, Mark Krikorian said that Northam’s stance on immigration changed after that ad: “[Since] Gillespie’s ads criticizing MS-13 and sanctuary cities, Northam has now flipped and said that if some city did declare it a sanctuary, he would act to stop it if he were governor.”
Of course, this is just one guy talking. I mean, who even is this guy, anyway? Mark Krikorian, according to the Daily Signal, is an “executive director at the Center for Immigration Studies, a nonpartisan immigration research organization.”
Right, that’s fine and dandy, but just because this guy says something doesn’t make it true… unless Northam himself confirms it. You see, according to the Richmond-Times Dispatch: “In an interview… with the Norfolk TV station WAVY, Northam said for the first time that, under certain circumstances, he would sign a bill similar to the one he voted against this year, a vote that spawned a wave of ominous ads from the Gillespie campaign linking Northam to the Latino gang MS-13. ‘If that bill comes to my desk… I sure will. I’ve always been opposed to sanctuary cities. He knows that,’ Northam said of Gillespie…”
Well, that changes things. That makes me somewhat more ok with the Democrat’s victory… if he sticks to those beliefs, that is. And since what he said makes me somewhat happier, that can only make the Left somewhat less happy. I guess that’s equivalent exchange for you. My happiness about his victory rose after finding this out, and the Left’s happiness somewhat must’ve declined.
Don’t get me wrong, he’s still a Democrat and he’ll likely still vote according to what his Democrat overlords want done in Virginia. But still, this at least puts somewhat of a smile on my face after Democrat victories.
Lastly: omitting his African-American running mate from the pamphlets. Need I say more?
Now, you’ve seen the title of this article. Why is it sad for Democrats to have won in Virginia, New Jersey and New York? Because they’re pretending this is a major victory and an indicator to how 2018 will go.
They’re acting the exact same way they would’ve acted if they had won in Georgia and Montana. They would write articles that say “State X rejects your hateful politics, Mr. Trump.”
Even the NYT article I’m talking about touts this victory as something more than it really is.
The article ends with: “Mr. Gillespie’s choice to lay his principles on the altar of Trumpism made Mr. Northam’s win doubly important, as a triumph over the politics of racial division, and as a lesson for other Republicans tempted to adopt Mr. Trump’s vile tactics as their own.”
Right, of course this guy’s gonna say something like that. This Democrat win is a shocker to exactly no one. Virginia voted Democrat in 2016. They clearly didn’t learn their lesson and voted Democrat again this year. But it’s sad for them to pretend this expected victory is anything more than it really is.
A Democrat won in New Jersey - who didn’t see that coming? De Blassio was reelected as mayor of New York City - what a surprise. Virginia voted for a Democrat - I’m so shocked.
Let’s not forget that these states have been true-blue for ages. And let’s not forget REPUBLICANS WON IN GEORGIA AND MONTANA - two states where the Democrats expected landslide victories, but were absolutely destroyed in the results.
Let them believe this small victory will lead to anything more. And let them believe that this small victory should be a warning to other Republicans. The guy says this is a “lesson for other Republicans tempted to adopt Mr. Trump’s vile tactics as their own”. Vile tactics, you say? You mean how he partially funded a fake Russian dossier about his opponent… oh, wait, that was Hillary. Or maybe when he paid women to accuse his opponent of sexual harassment and assault… oh, wait, Hillary again. Oh! How about when he paid for the answers to debate questions? No, wait, that was also Hillary.
But I see what this person is writing about. He’s trying to get Republicans to not adopt Trump’s agenda and policies as their own. Hmmm, I wonder why that is. Maybe because HIS AGENDA AND POLICIES ARE VASTLY POPULAR WITH THE MAJORITY OF THE COUNTRY AND WOULD LEAD TO MOST REPUBLICANS WINNING IN MOST STATES?!
Regardless, the Democrats can have their small celebration. Their small victories. Meanwhile, the rest of the country will continue to vote for people who will passionately seek to Make America Great Again.
“But they who wait for the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings like eagles; they shall run and not be weary; they shall walk and not faint.”
Author: Freddie Drake.
Danielle Cross and Freddie Drake 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...