Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

News

WATCH: Democrat Says Trump’s Ultimate Goal Is to Eradicate People of Color

Tell us how you really feel!

John Salvatore

Published

on

Some people are just born liars, apparently.

Washington Rep. Pramila Jayapal is one of them.

According to her, and probably millions of other Americans, President Trump’s ultimate goal is to make America “pure” and get rid of all people of color.

take our poll - story continues below

Will you vote for President Trump in 2020 if he can’t get the wall built?

  • Will you vote for President Trump in 2020 if he can’t get the wall built?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: Tim Allen Beats Liberal Establishment, Ratings Soar for ‘Last Man Standing’

No joke.

She actually went on MSNBC and said that.

The freshman Democrat said Trump’s “ultimate goal” with the wall and focus on immigration is to “make America pure.”

Jayapal: “This has never been about a wall. He actually could have gotten funding a couple of years ago, or a year ago, for a wall. It was part of a deal that was proposed. Not all of us agreed with that deal, but it was proposed to him and he turned it down because his ultimate goal is, as you said, to make America pure in the sense of not having immigrants, not having folks of color here and shutting down every form of legal immigration, all to throw a bone to those people.

WATCH:

It must be nice to say whatever comes to mind and never get called out for it.

Sure, that’s why the First Amendment exists and yet conservatives are held to a higher standard on nearly every subject.

Hillary Clinton can blurt out that all black people look alike, whether joking or not, and the media doesn’t bat an eye.

But imagine if President Trump said the same thing. Heck, imagine if a Republican candidate said the same thing.

There would be wall to wall coverage.

How about the time Clinton referred to black men as super predators?

The problem is hypocrisy – plain and simple.

Check out where Hillary blasts Trump’s “streak of racism” and “whole package of bigotry” (despite no facts to back her claims)…

Hillary Clinton accused President Donald Trump of having a long “streak of racism” and “the whole package of bigotry” in an interview with The Guardian.

Clinton: “This is a person who believes in very little, but he does have visceral responses to what goes on in the world around him. He does have a strong streak of racism that goes back to his early years. I include his anti-immigrant tirades because he characterizes immigrants in very racially derogatory ways, but he was Islamophobic, he was anti-women, he really had the whole package of bigotry that he was putting on offer to those who were intrigued and attracted to him.

Clinton: “He was, from the very first day of his campaign, raising the [specter] of criminal immigrants and the like. So the anti-immigrant piece coupled with things that he said, the kind of people who supported him, former Ku Klux Klan members and the like, the message that we called the dogwhistle, was incredibly loud. It was: ‘I’m on your side because I don’t like the same people you don’t like. Or at least I’m going to say I don’t and that counts for something.’

Here are the six words Hillary uttered about black people:

I know they all look alike.

WATCH:

It didn’t matter that Google tried propping up Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential campaign.

It didn’t matter that the media was on her side.

It didn’t matter that the Democrat National Committee rigged the primaries in her favor.

Everyone figured all of those things were happening, and she still lost to Trump.

What’s interesting, and sliding under the radar, is that a report claims the Clinton campaign and the DNC laundered $84 million in order to avoid campaign finance laws.

From Fox News:

EXCLUSIVE: The Hillary Clinton Campaign and the Democratic National Committee allegedly used state chapters as strawmen to launder as much as $84 million in an effort to circumvent campaign donation limits, and the Federal Election Commission ignored complaints exposing the practice, a lawsuit filed Monday claims.

The Committee to Defend the President (CDP), a political action committee formally known as Stop Hillary PAC, filed its complaint with the FEC in December 2017 with the claims that the Hillary Victory Fund (HVF) solicited cash from big-name donors, and allegedly sent that money through state chapters and back to the DNC before ending up with the Clinton campaign.

As first reported by Fox News at the time, the CDP alleges in its complaint that about $84 million was funneled illegally from the DNC through state party chapters and back into the war chest of the Clinton campaign. The political action committee claims that even though the FEC acknowledged receipt of the complaint and claimed that an investigation would be conducted, the needle has barely moved.

Hillary probably thought she was safe.

And yet, her private email server fiasco is back in the news.

From Judicial Watch:

Judicial Watch announced today that a hearing will be held in federal court Wednesday, November 14, 2018, on a motion to compel further testimony from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Director of Information Resource Management of the Executive Secretariat John Bentel, as well as make public the audiovisual recordings of the depositions of top Clinton aides and State Department officials, including Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills.

Top aides say Clinton may very well run for the White House again in 2020, despite not being able to walk down a short set of stairs by herself.

WATCH:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IAyrDn7OxM#action=share

Who could forget Hillary tripping down stairs while overseas?

WATCH:

What about her epic coughing fits out of thin air?

WATCH:

How about when Clinton needed help up the stairs at Aretha Franklin’s funeral?

WATCH:

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

News

Democratic Senator Says We’re Headed Toward INDICTMENT of POTUS!

It may all come down to whether or not Mueller is looking to play by the rules or not.

Published

on

Robert Mueller

There have certainly been a number of firsts within this still-young Trump administration.

It may or may not be the first time that we’ve served McDonald’s to a championship team.

And it is certainly the first time that a sitting President might be indicted.  At least according to one Senator from Rhode Island.

Never in thee history of our great nation has something like this been considered, and many on the left are clamoring for it.

Unfortunately for them, there is a longstanding belief in the Department of Justice that a sitting President cannot be indicted, however, he would be eligible to face the music once he leaves office.

According to Rudy Giuliani:

“The Justice Department memos going back to before Nixon say that you cannot indict a sitting president, you have to impeach him. Now there was a little time in which there was some dispute about that, but they acknowledged to us orally that they understand that they can’t violate the Justice Department rules.

“We think it’s bigger than that. We think it’s a constitutional rule, but I don’t think you’re ever going to confront that because nobody’s ever going to indict a sitting president. So, what does that leave them with? That leaves them with writing a report.”

But does that mean that Mueller would play by the rules?

I suppose the only way to find out is to see this out to its inevitable end, whether that be calm, collusion, or calamity.

Continue Reading

News

RED-HANDED! Google’s Anti-Conservative Bias Revealed with SMOKING GUN

Google thought they were too big to get caught. They thought wrong.

Published

on

Google

For months, it has been readily apparent that Google, YouTube, and other mainstream media platforms were actively working to suppress the conservative beliefs of America.

This seemingly newfound animosity toward the right side of the aisle came only from the left’s intense hatred for President Donald Trump.  For what reason?  Seemingly because he was victorious over Hillary Clinton in November 2016, and for few other reasons at all.

With companies such as Google and YouTube, (Google’s video streaming platform), being novel in their gargantuan size, there are no set rules about just how these very public platforms can operate only as private entities, with no regard to Americans’ Constitutional right to free speech.

take our poll - story continues below

Will you vote for President Trump in 2020 if he can’t get the wall built?

  • Will you vote for President Trump in 2020 if he can’t get the wall built?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Now, however, we finally have something resembling a smoking gun in the case.

In sworn testimony, Google CEO Sundar Pichai told Congress last month that his company does not “manually intervene” on any particular search result. Yet an internal discussion thread leaked to Breitbart News reveals Google regularly intervenes in search results on its YouTube video platform – including a recent intervention that pushed pro-life videos out of the top ten search results for “abortion.”

The term “abortion” was added to a “blacklist” file for “controversial YouTube queries,” which contains a list of search terms that the company considers sensitive. According to the leak, these include some of these search terms related to: abortion, abortions, the Irish abortion referendum, Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Waters, and anti-gun activist David Hogg.

The existence of the blacklist was revealed in an internal Google discussion thread leaked to Breitbart News by a source inside the company who wishes to remain anonymous. A partial list of blacklisted terms was also leaked to Breitbart by another Google source.

President Trump has hinted in the past about taking a look at regulations regarding free speech on the internet.  Perhaps this will be the impetus to real action.

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week

Send this to a friend