Democrats Seek Civil War, But Will Get Revolution
Democrats conspired with foreign agents, lied, cheated, and denied due process to Donald Trump. If they were willing to do that to a duly elected president in order to obtain power, what should Americans expect them to do to them should they refuse attempts to be disarmed?
Democrats understand that an armed America can say, “No!” And they can’t have that. If they want to radically change the America extant for more than two centuries, they need to first disarm Americans. And they realize asking nicely is not going to accomplish this.
Therefore, the ever-equable Democrats have suffered a recrudescence of their desire for the disease of civil war… a disease that has lain dormant for more than 160 years.
Democrats will do their utmost to create a situation where blood is spilled and lives are lost to engender this war. They believe that only bloodshed will finally get the people on their side, willing to cede to them the control they need to “fundamentally transform the United States of America.”
And they have reached a point where they think they can win.
The solipsist left believes they are on the side of all that is good, just, and reasonable and if Americans must die for them to be in control, it is a small price to pay to attain the country they believe America should be.
In their minds, they have no choice. It is only with solemnity and prayerfulness they make this decision. They, along with their partners in the media, have tried convincing; they’ve tried disguising legislation; they’ve tried imprecation of law-abiding gun owners as un-American. But nothing has worked. Virginia gun laws are about the realization by Democrats that the only way to win is to make Americans the enemy. And the only way to do that is to put blood on their hands.
Finally, with full control of state government, including the governorship, Democrats in Virginia acted with celerity, passing legislation which would result in gun confiscation and negation of our Constitution. Only through a violent and bloody confrontation can they unleash the dogs of war on law-abiding Americans. Virginia may have once been for lovers but after the Democrat machinations, they’re going to need a new tag line.
Virginia is a harbinger of what is to come nationwide. If they succeed in Virginia, they can be expected to try the same tactics in other states run by Democrats.
Governor Northam (most famous for wearing blackface and his positive views on abortion after birth) did his best to provoke bloodshed at the Second Amendment rally held in Richmond this past Monday. He put up fences and declared a state of emergency, illegally banning legally owned and carried guns. He meretriciously dissembled about multiple intelligence agencies warning of imminent violence, even terrorism.
Media, of course, did their part, with serial warnings of violence by the right-wingers and white supremacists the nation was told would comprise the many tens of thousands attending the rally. Their message gleefully warned of inevitable bloodshed deliberately spilled by bad people.
Northam and his minions planned all this. They needed to build enough tension to foment the violence necessary to taint all legal gun owners as illegitimate nuts. Members of his administration have threatened calling out the National Guard to seize guns from people whom they hoped would refuse to obey their new legislation. These threats were in response to more than 100 towns, cities, and counties declaring themselves 2nd Amendment “sanctuary” entities where the new laws would not be enforced.
Obviously, the left only supports “sanctuary” for illegal aliens.
Virginia Democrats don’t realize that making war on Americans who support the Second Amendment while trashing the constitution will not get them the new civil war they think they can win. It will only precipitate a new revolution that will destroy them and their party for a generation.
With the rally having been 100% patriotic and peaceful, with not a single arrest, much less rife with endemic violence, the Democrats have put all their cards on the table. Americans everywhere now understand what is coming. The left is coming for them -- coming for their constitutional rights -- coming for their guns.
Americans are a stubborn and independent people. They are not a passive citizenry; they will never be French. They will never surrender their rights when demanded to by an unholy alliance of politicians, media, and an unelected elite.
They will fight. Americans will never give up their guns. The “left” does not understand what will happen when they task the National Guard and LEOs to take legally owned guns. They live in an echo chamber and can’t conceive of anyone telling them, “no,” much less, “Hell no!”
There will be bloodshed, but it won’t be on their terms. It won’t be civil war, or even civil disobedience, it will be guerilla warfare. It will be revolution.
Some estimate that there are more than 400 million guns in America owned by more than a hundred million citizens. This in a nation of 330 million. Americans are the most well-armed and martially trained electorate to have ever existed in the history of humanity.
Remember, every hunter is something of a sniper.
And with the left concentrated on the coasts and in the big cities, the bulk of America’s landmass is inhabited by hunters and other gun owners who believe owning a gun is a constitutional right.
Discounting the assured defections by LEOs and National Guardsmen -- few people want to kill their neighbors to enforce an unnecessary law -- there are simply not enough men they can deploy to even have a slim chance of success.
Yet, ignoring the aphorism “the enemy always has a say,” the left seems intent on forcing war. They have shown gun owners what they can expect, but are oblivious to the ramifications.
They should expect targeted assassinations of leftist leaders, the targeting of power plants serving the cities and coasts, as well as pipelines and electrical grids. They should expect blockades of cities and the sabotage of telecommunications.
There will be bloodshed and it will probably be widespread. They are foolish in their desires and ignorant of the consequences.
Democrats want this war. Someone should tell them they should be careful what they wish for.
Please follow the author on Twitter @williamlgensert
THE DEMOCRAT PARTY’S BILLIONAIRES’ GLOBALIST EMPIRE requires someone as ruthlessly dishonest as Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama to be puppet dictators.
http://hillaryclinton-whitecollarcriminal.blogspot.com/2018/09/google-rigged-it-so-illegals-would-vote.html
Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders debate in the 2016 election in Flint, Michigan [Credit: AP Photo/Carlos Osorio, File]
obstruction of justice.
Secretary Hillary Clinton and the Deep State: A RICO Criminal Conspiracy
Government
HILLARY CLINTON... still on the lam!
Is it a signal that she's back in the game because she's selling her president-ability to the world's global billionaire crowd and laying the groundwork for more funds? There are all kinds of ways for foreign billionaires to get money to the U.S. without consequences, after all. What's more, it's pretty much the biggest base of support she has, which is at least one reason why she lost the 2016 election.
"In an extraordinary interview published Tuesday, the 2016 Democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, denounced Sanders and refused to commit herself to support Sanders if he wins the Democratic presidential nomination this year."
If the truth were laid bare, it would expose the Obama Administration, Hillary Clinton, the Senate and House, and many executive departments for these abuses of power, corruption, bribery, frauds, and thefts of public funds.
THE DEMOCRAT PARTY’S BILLIONAIRES’ GLOBALIST EMPIRE requires someone as ruthlessly dishonest as Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama to be puppet dictators.
http://hillaryclinton-whitecollarcriminal.blogspot.com/2018/09/google-rigged-it-so-illegals-would-vote.html
1. Globalism: Google VP Kent Walker insists that despite its repeated rejection by electorates around the world, “globalization” is an “incredible force for good.”
2. Hillary Clinton’s Democratic party: An executive nearly broke down crying because of the candidate’s loss. Not a single executive expressed anything but dismay at her defeat.
3. Immigration: Maintaining liberal immigration in the U.S is the policy that Google’s executives discussed the most.
HILLARY CLINTON’S GLOBALIST VISION:
Even though it has gone virtually unreported by corporate media, Breitbart News has extensively documented the Clintons’
THE OBAMA – CLINTON RUSSIA CONNECTION
WITH THESE TRAITORS, JUST FOLLOW THE MONEY!
How President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton aided Russia’s quest for global nuclear dominance.
THE SHADY POLITICS OF HILLARY CLINTON and her PAY-TO-PLAY MAFIA
Had Hillary been elected, the Clinton Foundation would be raking in even more millions than it did before. She would be happily selling access, favors and our remaining freedoms out from under us. PATRICIA McCARTHY
GEORGE SOROS AND THE CLINTON GLOBALIST AGENDA FOR BANKSTERS AND WIDE OPEN BORDERS
“There is no controlling Bill Clinton. He does whatever he wants and runs up incredible expenses with foundation funds,” states a separate interview memo attached to the submission.
“Bill Clinton mixes and matches his personal business with that of the foundation. Many people within the foundation have tried to caution him about this but he does not listen, and there really is no talking to him,” the memo added.
HILLARY CLINTON: Serving the super-rich and filling her bottomless pockets as she does!
Is it a signal that she's back in the game because she's selling her president-ability to the world's global billionaire crowd and laying the groundwork for more funds? There are all kinds of ways for foreign billionaires to get money to the U.S. without consequences, after all. What's more, it's pretty much the biggest base of support she has, which is at least one reason why she lost the 2016 election.
Democratic Party establishment wages war on Sanders
22 January 2020
Top Democratic officials and Democratic-aligned media outlets are engaged in a coordinated offensive against the campaign of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.
In an extraordinary interview published Tuesday, the 2016 Democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, denounced Sanders and refused to commit herself to support Sanders if he wins the Democratic presidential nomination this year.
Clinton was being interviewed about a forthcoming documentary set to premiere at the Sundance Festival and air on Hulu beginning March 6. “He was in Congress for years. He had one senator support him,” Clinton says. “Nobody likes him, nobody wants to work with him, he got nothing done. He was a career politician. It’s all just baloney and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it.”
Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders debate in the 2016 election in Flint, Michigan [Credit: AP Photo/Carlos Osorio, File]
Asked if this characterization still held good, Clinton told the Hollywood Reporter that it did . Asked if she would support Sanders if he won the Democratic nomination this year, Clinton declined to say, adding, “I’m not going to go there yet. We’re still in a very vigorous primary season.”
She went on to denounce Sanders and his core advisers—who include his wife Jane, former Ohio state Senator Nina Turner and other women—as incorrigibly sexist. “It’s his leadership team. It’s his prominent supporters. It’s his online Bernie Bros and their relentless attacks on lots of his competitors, particularly the women,” she said, adding that Sanders “seems to really be very much supporting it.”
With this vicious personal smear, Clinton
reminds the public why she was so hated in
2016. As the embodiment of the corrupt
Democratic Party establishment, she
managed to lose the presidential election to
Donald Trump.
Her refusal to say that she would support Sanders is remarkable. In effect, Clinton is suggesting that she might side with Trump against the nominee of her own party.
Clinton’s statement is the culmination of a week of political provocations and personal attacks. The offensive was set off by the political stink bomb launched with the help of CNN by Senator Elizabeth Warren, who claimed that at a private meeting in 2018—attended only by the two senators, without aides—Sanders told her that a woman could not win the presidency in 2020.
Sanders has repeatedly denied this claim and pointed out its absurdity, since Hillary Clinton actually won the popular vote in 2016. Leading up to that campaign, he met with Warren and offered to support her in a challenge to Clinton for the Democratic nomination. Sanders ran himself only when Warren told him she would not.
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, a long-time media mouthpiece for the Democratic establishment, provided his own contribution Tuesday by denouncing the Sanders campaign for allegedly lying about former Vice President Biden’s support for cuts in Social Security.
Krugman takes a minor campaign incident—a Sanders aide posted an out-of-context video snippet of Biden—as though it was a political crime, describing it as “bad… almost Trumpian.” He adds, “The last thing we need is another president who demonizes and lies about anyone who disagrees with him, and can’t admit ever being wrong.” In fact, Biden did at one time speak of cutting Social Security cost-of-living increases.
These denunciations coincide with the heavily publicized joint endorsement of Senator Warren and Senator Amy Klobuchar by the editorial board of the New York Times, in a statement published in its Monday print edition.
While the editorial was not headlined, “Anybody but Sanders,” that is the essential thrust of it. The Times’ effort to boost Warren against Sanders is deemed particularly urgent by the party establishment, given Sanders’ rise in the polls in both Iowa and New Hampshire, the first two states where voting will take place in early February. With greater enthusiasm, the newspaper also promotes Klobuchar, rather than former Vice President Joe Biden or former South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg, as the candidate of what the Times terms the “realist” wing of the Democratic presidential field.
The joint endorsement of two female candidates, one for each “lane” of the nomination contest (“radical” and “realist” in the editorial’s phrasing) serves the Times’ relentless campaign to inject race and, in this case, gender, into American politics, while downplaying class and economic inequality. Thus the editorial concludes with the injunction, “May the best woman win.”
What do Clinton, Krugman and the Times editors fear? The Democratic Party has two principal constituencies: finance capital and the CIA. Both of these constituencies are opposed to a Sanders nomination. They do not want to run an election that makes an appeal to opposition to social inequality or war. Sanders has returned to the latter theme in the wake of Trump’s assassination of Iranian General Suleimani.
The vicious tone of Clinton’s declaration is revealing. If Sanders were to become the frontrunner for the nomination, the party establishment and the media would seek to wreck his campaign. If Sanders won the nomination, they would try to defeat him, either openly supporting Trump or running a third-party “independent” candidate such as billionaire Michael Bloomberg, who has already entered the Democratic contest for the purpose of blocking Sanders. If, despite such efforts, Sanders were to win the general election, they would seek to sabotage his administration and block any attempt to pass Sanders-backed legislation through Congress.
What this shows is the bankrupt and essentially reactionary role of Sanders himself.
In 2016, when the campaign of the self-styled “socialist” attracted the support of millions, staggering the political establishment and the senator himself, Sanders dutifully wound up his bid for the nomination despite brazen cheating by the Democratic National Committee, which was brought to light through documents published by WikiLeaks and Julian Assange. The senator, who won wide support decrying the influence of the “billionaire class,” turned on a dime and endorsed and campaigned for the chosen candidate of Wall Street, Hillary Clinton.
This year, while Clinton will not pledge to support Sanders, Sanders has already committed to supporting whichever candidate wins the Democratic nomination. This is under conditions where millions of workers and youth have already demonstrated through strike action and protests in the street that they are prepared to go far beyond the political limits prescribed by the Democrats, the second oldest capitalist party in the world.
Sanders portrays the Democratic Party, a ruthless defender of Wall Street and American imperialism, as a potential political vehicle for “revolution” against the corporate elite. In this exercise in mass deception, he has the assistance of an array of pseudo-lefts, from Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the Democratic Socialists of America to Jacobin magazine and Socialist Alternative. They all seek to make sure that the mounting social anger in America does not escape the death-grip of the Democratic Party.
Sanders is not the spokesman of the political radicalization of workers and youth and the growing opposition to capitalism. Rather, his role has always been to contain this opposition within the framework of capitalist politics. His “political revolution” has boiled down to an effort to convince his supporters to support the Democratic Party.
For these services, Sanders is kicked in the teeth, which only demonstrates the futility of what he claims is possible.
To defend jobs, living standards and democratic rights and oppose the growing threat of imperialist war, workers and young people must break out of the straitjacket of the Democratic Party. Not a single step forward can be taken in the struggle against capitalism and imperialism without establishing the political independence of the working class from all the corporate controlled parties.
The list of predicate crimes is extensive
and includes bribery, embezzlement,
fraud, theft, money laundering, and
obstruction of justice.
Secretary Hillary Clinton and the Deep State: A RICO Criminal Conspiracy
We who elected President Trump understood our elected officials and the Deep State were sandbagging Trump and self-dealing public funds. It was no secret that President Trump is no angel, unpresidential, blunt, and crude, and a disruptor. Trump was hired to drain the swamp.
I watched this kabuki theater unfold over the last several years. Through my eyes as a shopworn gumshoe, I will explain what is happening. My investigative curiosity was first piqued by the ATF Fast and Furious scandal and continues through the recent House impeachment show trial. There is a common element running through all of these cons — the actions of an organized crime conspiracy. A group of people either acting alone or in concert with others committed crimes with a common purpose - a criminal enterprise as described in "CRIMINAL RICO: 18 USC. §§1961-1968 A Manual For Federal Prosecutors."
The players acted together – in the usurpation of power, the abuse of power by public officials, bribery, thefts by fraud including federal funds, money laundering, perjury and the obstruction of justice, the violations of fundamental of civil rights, aided and abetted in the commission of these crimes and or to conceal these crimes. Criminals will lie and can't keep their lies straight. Their methods and behaviors are the same, whether engaging in street crimes or elaborate white-collar financial schemes. The only difference is when more money is involved, the perps are more adept in concealing, covering up their sins, and hiding where the money went. Many of these scandals are well known to the American Thinker readers. I will focus my comments on Hillary's home brew sever and the Clinton Foundation as an example of how RICO can be used to prosecute the players.
FBI Director James Comey indicted Hillary Clinton for her home brew server at his press conference. Comey then egregiously concluded that there was no evidence of criminal intent purportedly “required” to prosecute. Comey bastardized the Federal Espionage Act in absolving Hillary Clinton. FBI's investigation of Clinton's emails was low-balled. There was never a real search for the truth. The outcome was preordained. My jaw dropped wide open. I knew the fix was in. FBI Director Comey lied to the people with a straight face. Why?
The chance meeting of Bill Clinton and AG Loretta Lynch on the airport tarmac was no mere coincidence. This chat was not about the grandkids. Bill Clinton was there to convey a specific message to Lynch that there would be no indictment of Hillary. Hillary Clinton's email case must tank. This would have constituted bribery, if AG Lynch was assured she would continue as AG in Clinton Administration. This meeting took place only weeks before Comey's press conference dumping Hillary Clinton's email case.
The Deep State needed Hillary Clinton to win the 2016 presidential election, or the dike holding back the truth would burst. Trump, the disruptor, was an immediate threat to both the Republicans, Democrats, and the Deep State. If the truth were laid bare, it would expose the Obama Administration, Hillary Clinton, the Senate and House, and many executive departments for these abuses of power, corruption, bribery, frauds, and thefts of public funds.
High-level government officials and the Deep State committed many serious felonies either in furtherance of or to conceal the crimes committed in the pay to play scam. In exchange for favorable consideration by Secretary Clinton, those who benefited would donate to the Clinton Foundation. The FBI started and stopped investigations into the Clinton Foundation at least twice as reported by the Washington Post. Peter Schweizer's book, Clinton Cash, is the most damning. Dinesh D'Souza slammed the Foundation in the National Review, as did The Federalist.
The status of the investigation of the Foundation by US Attorney John Huber's is unknown. Rudy Giuliani said there was enough to pursue "Clinton Inc" as racketeering under RICO. The Foundation and its affiliated nonprofits require a real investigation with an in-depth forensic audit to determine where the money went. In financial crimes investigation, the prime rule is "follow the money, honey." Illicit nonprofits have many ways to divert funds by inflating salaries, expenses, and money laundering.
Illegal nonprofit schemes are difficult to prosecute without hard evidence and the testimony of insiders. The motive of Hillary Clinton's use of the home brew server was to conceal emails from FOIA requests that would provide the hard evidence. Hillary Clinton destroyed the data on her server and cell phones with the knowledge of the FBI. It took years for Judicial Watch and others to pry and recover some of these damning emails from the foot-dragging executive departments that were complicit and knew what was going on.
RICO initially was used to target mob families. RICO is also a useful tool to fight white collar conspiracies. They both have the same hierarchy of low-level crooks led by the top players, linked together with a common purpose. RICO has tools to squeeze the low-level operatives to gather evidence to prosecute, jail, and seize assets of the conspirators. The critical element required is a pattern of criminal or racketeering activity. This pattern is proved by showing two predicate crimes were committed within ten years. The list of predicate crimes is extensive and includes bribery, embezzlement, fraud, theft, money laundering, and obstruction of justice. The typical five-year statute of limitations for most federal felonies is extended to ten years from the last criminal act or acts committed to conceal the conspiracy, i.e., lying under oath and similar actions to obstruct justice. The prison sentences are steep. The effect is to cut off the head of the organization and not just the low-level players.
The criminal activity extends back to the ATF's Fast and Furious program through the House impeachment show trial to cover up the illegal acts of the Obama Administration, Hillary Clinton, the Department of State, the DOJ, the FBI, and the CIA. A telltale sign that the DOJ under US Attorney General Barr is willing to play hardball and may use RICO, came when he spoke to the Federalist Society: "Barr accuses liberal 'resistance' of trying to 'sabotage' Trump." AG Barr said this, "shows FBI launched Trump campaign investigation on the 'thinnest of suspicions." AG Barr is the new sheriff in town, he wears a badge, has guns and will travel, can impanel grand juries, indict and arrest people, and is not limited in his jurisdiction, like DOJ IG Horowitz.
The collective actions of the Deep State are and were a silent coup to delegitimize a Presidential candidate. Once elected to impede and resist the duly elected President. The President's law enforcement and intel agencies were corrupted at the highest level and went rogue.
Organized crime can't exist without corrupt law enforcement. As I wrote in a letter to President Trump earlier this year:
. . . I believe you understand the gravity of the situation and of its importance to the very survival of our Country as we know it. If the people involved are not held accountable for their actions, we will be no different than some Third World Banana Republic.
Failure to act will destroy our founding principle of the Rule of Law as stated by President John Adams, "We Are a Nation of Laws, Not of Men" and we cannot allow a two-tiered justice system to prevail.
Ron Wright is a retired detective from Riverside PD, CA. BA in political science CSUF, M. Adm. University of Cal, Riverside. Facebook at Ron T. Cop.
“Our entire crony capitalist system, Democrat
and Republican alike, has become a
kleptocracy approaching par with third-world
hell-holes. This is the way a great country is
raided by its elite.” ---- Karen
McQuillan AMERICAN THINKER.com
Peter Schweizer, author of “Secret Empires:
We Don't Want Globalist
Government
And when I say "we," I don't just mean conservatives or even Americans.
I mean most people around the world.
It's arguable that much of the conflict we see across the planet is attributable to the efforts of a handful of people to foist their worldview on everyone else, and the "everyone elses" starting to push back.
Hong Kong's citizens are resisting efforts by the Chinese Communist government to take away the rights and freedoms they enjoyed while Hong Kong was a British possession. (Interestingly, the Google search "Hong Kong protests violent" produces article after article criticizing the violence of the protesters -- not the police -- shaming Hong Kong's citizens for not using peaceful demonstrations, and reporting "splits" and disagreements among the protestors about the best ways to achieve their aims. The articles read like Chinese communist propaganda.)
The fractures in Europe are just as serious.
In France, for more than a year the "gilet jaunes" have been violently protesting increases on fuel and heating taxes imposed by the Macron government allegedly in pursuit of global environmental objectives.
In Spain, the Catalan independence movement has produced violent protests, which The Nation magazine describes as also motivated by "growing restrictions on the right to protest and freedom of expression, as well as the judicialization of politics and the politicization of the judiciary."
Other European countries, including Germany, Austria, Sweden, Greece and Belgium have been rocked by protests against the "open borders" migration policy pushed by the European Union. In many cases, those protests have resulted in dramatic shifts in the control of parliamentary governments (Hungary, France, Italy, Austria) -- and portend changes in representation at the EU as well.
And then there's Brexit -- Great Britain's exit from the European Union -- which still hasn't happened and continues to roil British and European politics.
People want to be free to live their lives, and -- for the most part -- to be left alone to care for their families, educate their children, perform their job responsibilities and go about the business of their daily lives. They don't want to be cogs in a globalist wheel, told what to do by some distant faceless government bureaucrat enforcing regulations enacted to achieve policy goals grounded in questionable "facts."
That viewpoint is anathema to the globalists among us.
Globalists think that the answer to every human problem lies in government -- and the bigger the government, the better. Why stop at federal legislation and federal courts when you can push for international legislation and international courts? Not only does this remove the Average Joe's control over his own life but also it creates the potential for so much delicious power.
Here in our own country, Hillary Clinton is Exhibit A.
Take for example, the Clinton Foundation, and the millions of dollars Clinton and her husband collected from foreign nations while she was secretary of state. But further evidence is that Clinton cannot let go of 2016. She cannot bear the loss, not only because of her immense ego but because She. Had. Big. Plans. Far bigger plans than her relatively easygoing husband ever did. Clinton is a globalist to the marrow of her bones. People were distressed that Clinton had a stranglehold on the Democratic National Committee in 2016? That was penny ante poker, folks. President Hillary Clinton would be the best friend of the U.N. and the EU and the International Court of Justice. In Clinton's worldview, only a handful of people are brilliant enough to rule the world -- she's one of them. If the "little people" dare to want to run their own lives, they're "deplorables." And as the Tulsi Gabbard kerfuffle demonstrates, anyone who poses a threat to Hillary's hegemony will incur her wrath.
Across the Twitterverse, some conservatives are aghast that Tulsi Gabbard has garnered so much support from the right, warning that it's part of a larger conspiracy to shoehorn Hillary Clinton into the Democratic nomination again in 2020. That strikes me as unlikely. Whether Gabbard intended it or not, her vicious (and deserved) criticism of Clinton sounded like something that could have been said not by Vladimir Putin or Bashar Assad, but by President Donald Trump and the 63 million people who voted for him.
In one of her recent videos, Gabbard says: "If they can falsely portray me as a traitor, then they can do it to anyone -- and in fact, that's exactly the message they want to get across to you. If you stand up to Hillary and the party power brokers -- if you stand up to the rich and powerful elite and the war machine, they will destroy you and discredit your message. But here is the truth: They will not intimidate us. They will not silence us."
When you're a little-known candidate whose chances for the Democratic nomination are viewed as somewhere between slim and none, all you get are slanderous smears by Hillary Clinton, which the press is willing to repeat and even try to justify.
But when you're the president of the United States whose chances for the Republican nomination -- much less the election -- were viewed as somewhere between slim and none -- and you beat the odds, you get slanderous smears dutifully disseminated by the press PLUS the full force of your predecessor's FBI, CIA, Justice Department and the rest of the "deep state" actors intending to take you down.
Trump isn't interested in having America run by the United Nations or the European Union.
For the globalists here and abroad, that is a declaration of war.
No comments:
Post a Comment