Donna Brazile’s Corrupt Silent Partner

Reading Time: 2 minutes

donna brazile and hillary clinton

Since its revelation in WikiLeaks two weeks ago, Donna Brazile has been justly excoriated for cheating on behalf of Hillary Clinton by passing along a debate question.

However, an important aspect to this story has been overlooked. As the saying goes, it takes two to tango. Yes, Donna Brazile sent a critically beneficial piece of information – but Hillary Clinton accepted it.

Mrs. Clinton accepted it (stealing), used it (cheating), and said nothing (lying). Then, when that moment came, she delivered her perfectly prepared answer to an eager audience in the midst of a hotly contested primary election debate (rigging).

An honest candidate would have immediately refused Ms. Brazile’s illicit offering; perhaps quietly, but certainly firmly.

An honest candidate could have even grandstanded on stage at the debate and said, “Mr. Martin, I cannot in good conscience answer your question, because somehow, I was made aware that you would be asking me that, and so I have an unfair advantage.”

Heck, an honest candidate could have even shared the question with her opponent prior to the debate in order even the playing field.

But none of those things happened.

Two weeks ago, when the revelation of Donna Brazile’s betrayal of democratic principles first came to light, instead of confessing to her wrongdoing and resigning with at least a shred of dignity, she blamed the Russians. It was hard to watch.

And by the way, what did her employers do? Neither the Democratic Party nor CNN did anything. They stood silent – which speaks volumes to their character and trustworthiness.

Today, WikiLeaks fulfilled their promise with the publication of a second wave of Donna Brazile’s corruption in sneaking debate questions to Team Hillary. CNN did what they should have done then, and severed all ties. But the Democrat Party hasn’t (as of this writing).

The friend and allies of Team Hillary – aka the Media – will want to make this story all about “The Dishonesty of Donna Brazile.” But understand that is a distraction.

The villain of this story isn’t Donna Brazile, the sidekick wannabe who offered stolen information. It is Hillary Clinton, the corrupt candidate who repeatedly took the illicit offering, used it, and said nothing.

The bottom line is that once again, Hillary Clinton is empirically proven to be a patently dishonest person who steals, cheats, lies, and rigs. And there is nothing – not a damn thing – that indicates her behavior will change any time soon. Why should it? Up until now, her corruption has consistently been lavishly rewarded by the corporate and political elitists in power.

Americans have had a bellyful of this elitist corruption. On November 8, we will begin in earnest to #DrainTheSwamp.

Seems Like Obama Is Tired of Hillary’s S***

Reading Time: 3 minutes

You might have dated someone who was amazingly good looking. Everything’s great. For awhile. Then you get to know the person. A little too well. Maybe it’s on a weekend trip. Or, God forbid, when you move in together. Then you realize looks aren’t everything.

The same thing can happen in political “marriages.” That surface quality that attracted you—donors, influence, contacts, whatever—sometimes isn’t worth the price.

Just ask Barack Obama.

You probably expected President Obama to jump on the “Comey is Satan” bandwagon. After all, the entire Democrat Nation has been reading from the exact same talking points memo: FBI Director James Comey is trying to throw the election to Donald Trump.

Barack Obama hired Hillary as Secretary of State. Obama defended her throughout the investigation of her rogue email server. He endorsed her. He’s campaigned with her. 

So any logical person would expect Obama to defend Hillary by attacking Comey. Surely, Robbie Mook emailed the President a copy of the talking points memo.

But Obama’s not playing. At least, not yet.

Today, the White House reaffirmed its faith in James Comey’s integrity and professionalism, specifically rejecting the Democrat talking point that Comey is trying to affect the election.

From Presidential spokesman John Earnest via Zerohedge:

“President Obama doesn’t think Comey tried to influence the election.”


“Obama still believes Comey has ‘good character'”

Now contrast that with Harry Reid’s accusation. Reid accused Comey of violating the Hatch Act which prohibits federal employees from campaigning for candidates. (If only that law were ever enforced.)

So what gives?

Some people say Obama is simply being Presidential. He’s taking the high ground in public. Maybe Obama asked himself “What would George H.W. Bush do?” If so, Obama got it right. Establishment Republicans always go all squishy.

But do you remember Obama taking the high ground before? 

This is the same Barack Obama who berated the Supreme Court during a State of the Union address. This is the same Obama who mocked the Tea Party. This is the same Obama who inspired an article calling him “abuser in chief.” You’ll find in that article how Obama used frivolous lawsuits to clear his path to election to the Illinois Senate. And that was just the start.

When confronted with a challenge, Obama drops decorum faster than Anthony Weiner drops his pants.

I think Obama, like you and me, has grown sick and tired of Hillary’s crap. He’s trying to build a legacy, yet the Wikileaks show that Hillary sucked her former boss into her web of crime and lies. Obama corresponded with Hillary using an alias. Obama knew the email server was illegal, but he was afraid to cross the woman. So he gave in.

Now, Hillary is destroying his image along with her own. Obama sees that the Clinton stain runs deep. And it stinks. And he’s sick of it. Like so many who’ve worked with the Clintons, Barack Obama is tired of fixing her screw-ups.

So Obama undermined Hillary’s entire narrative. He told the American people “don’t believe what she’s telling you about James Comey.” In the process, he’s signaled his supporters (i.e., young people and blacks) that “you can’t trust this woman.”

No matter how good Hillary looked in 2008, Obama has grown sick of her crap.


Have Voters Priced In Clinton’s Criminality?

Reading Time: 1

You never expect a candidate’s surrogates to tell you their candidate is a crook. But that’s exactly what Hillary’s surrogates are telling you now.

From Bill Richardson to Robby Mook, Clinton surrogates are reciting a strange and disturbing talking point: Voters have “baked in” Clinton’s life of crime.

[FLASHBACK: I gave James Comey the benefit of the doubt in July]

The talking point seems meant to keep Democrats from panicking over the FBI’s re-opened criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. I guess the talking point’s author thinks voters are like the stock market. When bad news about the economy strikes, analysts say the news was “priced in” to stocks already, so there’s no need to sell.

Democrats are saying that corruption and crime are synonymous with the Clinton brand, and people are okay with that? People who vote for Hillary know they’re voting for a hardened criminal. Apparently, these people prefer crooks over honest candidates.

That’s terrifying when you think about it. It means that voters, especially women, have no morals or scruples. They’re okay with committing felonies to get what they want.

I think Richardson and Mook are wrong. I think American people, including women, reject crime. And I think huge numbers of American voters will turn against crooked Hillary in the next week. A poll shows that 34 percent of voters are less likely to vote for Hillary because of these crimes.

Good people don’t elect crooks like Clinton, and everybody wants to be a good person, don’t you?

Obama Administration Revives Watergate—In Living Color!

Reading Time: 2 minutes

Everyone knows that the White House is interfering with the FBI’s investigation of Hillary Clinton’s criminal conspiracies. We know this because the Justice Department is stonewalling the FBI’s request for a warrant to search the hard drive Huma Abedin shared with her ex-husband Anthony Weiner.

For those of us too young to remember those black-and-white days of Watergate, here’s a brief timeline via

  • July 13, 1973: Alexander Butterfield, former presidential appointments secretary, reveals in congressional testimony that since 1971 Nixon had recorded all conversations and telephone calls in his offices.
  • July 18, 1973: Nixon reportedly orders the White House taping system disconnected.
  • July 23, 1973: Nixon refuses to turn over the presidential tape recordings to the Senate Watergate committee or the special prosecutor.
  • October 20, 1973: Saturday Night Massacre: Nixon fires Archibald Cox and abolishes the office of the special prosecutor. Attorney General Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William D. Ruckelshaus resign. Pressure for impeachment mounts in Congress.
  • November 17, 1973: Nixon declares, “I’m not a crook,” maintaining his innocence in the Watergate case.
  • December 7, 1973: The White House can’t explain an 18 1/2 -minute gap in one of the subpoenaed tapes. Chief of staff Alexander Haig says one theory is that “some sinister force” erased the segment.

That “sinister force” might have been Hillary Rodham. Maybe that’s why the Democrats fired her from the investigation’s legal team. Or maybe those honorable Democrats of yore simply recognized Hillary’s rank corruption, her soulless evil, her selfish paranoia, and decided they’d rather die than risk contracting the virus that plagues her.

In RE: United States vs. Hillary Rodham Clinton, we know now that the FBI has merged the email investigation with the criminal probe of the Clinton Foundation. We also know that Attorney General Loretta Lynch has stonewalled FBI requests for search warrants. It’s pretty clear that Obama is protecting Clinton the same way Nixon protected himself.

Saturday night is over, but if Comey keeps pursuing the Clinton Crime Family, there will be another massacre. Nixon simply fired a meddlesome special prosecutor. The Clintons kill their problems another way. They kill them.

Make Missouri Great Again—Greitens for Governor

Reading Time: 4 minutes

As I pointed out last Saturday, a tiny faction of Missouri conservatives prefers Missouri’s pathetic status quo to true leadership and positive change. Those people apparently approve of Missouri’s horrible economy, weak schools, and declining stature in the country. And nowhere does Missouri’s decline stand out like San Diego, California.

Last week, I spent a few days bumming around San Diego with my son. He is stationed there in the US Navy. Almost every block in downtown San Diego has a sidewalk closed for construction. New buildings are going up. Old buildings are being renovated. It’s like a city coming to life.

San Diege—See the cranes?

I saw the same rejuvenation in Chicago and Atlanta in recent weeks. A constant turmoil of growing into the future. A never-ending rebirth of these cities. Signs of life that are completely absent in the greater St. Louis area. Completely absent in St. Louis.

Sure, St. Louis has spots of construction, mostly funded by huge federal government projects. But there’s no competition for space in St. Louis. None. Even in the city’s most exciting neighborhoods, vacancy abounds.

Democrats who’ve run St. Louis since the Depression deserve most of the blame for the city’s ruin. And those Democrats deserve some blame for the state’s decline. But Democrat incompetence alone isn’t enough to destroy a once-great city like St. Louis. Those Democrats needed help from crony Republicans.

Missouri ranks 47th out of 51 (including DC) in economic growth according to Business Insider. Missouri ranks 49th in education. St. Louis is one of the most dangerous cities in the world, especially if you’re black. And that’s not because of police—that crime is because of the destruction of families. And the family is decaying because our government and our society have replaced meaningful work with meaningless subsistence.

Eric Greitens’s formula for renewing Missouri is the same formula he used to renew veterans through The Mission Continues, a charity he founded. That formula can be reduced to two simple ideas as old as philosophy:

  1. Good intentions do not compensate for bad results.
  2. People need meaning and purpose, not just food and shelter.

Intentions vs. Results

In his masterpiece on living, Resilience, Greitens described the problem of our “morality of intentions” perfectly:

The “morality of intentions”— which would measure our goodness in terms of what we hope to accomplish rather than what we actually accomplish— tells us that our thoughts and feelings count for something in their own right. It’s an appealing philosophy to those who exist, or want to exist, in a world of pure thought or feeling.

But it can also be a selfish kind of morality. It elevates the helper above the one who should be helped. It says, “What matters is the fact that I have the right opinions, not what good my opinions do in the world. What matters is what I hope or intend, not what you deserve or receive.” In fact, a morality of intentions— even the best intentions— can distort your view of the world in a way that leads to great harm.

Greitens witnessed the great harm of good intentions with his own eyes. In Bosnia, the United Nations, with the best of intentions, herded orphaned children into large resettlement camps. These camps became magnets for the lowest child-abusers in the region. Plus, these camps encouraged parents to abandon their children, just as Obama’s open borders for children encouraged Central American parents to ship their babies to Texas.

The road to child molestation is paved with good intentions. Greitens knows that, and he’s determined to demand excellent results for Missouri. Greitens, like you, knows that good intentions are never enough.

Meaningful Work

Meaningful work is more important than money. Far more. Money without work leads to every type of social problem, from drug abuse to crime. And this money for nothing is at the heart of St. Louis’s and Missouri’s problems.

Greitens explained  the intrinsic value of work in his book Resilience:

Maybe you’ve heard this saying: What you work on, works on you. People are shaped by what they do. People who do work that hurts understand this: ask a roofer about his forearms; ask a waitress about her feet. But the work we do has an effect on our minds and our souls as well. A good writer will become more finely attuned to the way people use words. A good rabbi will learn to recognize pain before people say a word.

If your “work” involves watching television or swiping through Facebook, what will your work make of you? Many people in Missouri, and especially in St. Louis, are idle. They receive subsistence allowance from our great wealth and generosity. But our generosity ruins them. The work the world does on their souls eats away the meaning and purpose of their lives.

Greitens is a man of great compassion, but he recognizes compassion often demands emotionally painful action. When we increase benefits to able-bodied unemployed people, we hurt those people but we feel better about ourselves. That’s not compassion; it’s selfishness.

Missouri Needs Eric Greitens

That tiny remnant of conservatives who oppose Eric Greitens are selfish. Think about it. We are on the verge of making Missouri great again—with a conservative philosopher and Navy SEAL as governor, Jay Ashcroft as Secretary of State, Josh Hawley as Attorney General, Eric Schmitt as Treasurer, and Republican super-majorities in both Houses of the legislature. Missouri is poised to zoom from 47th to at least 24th. History has conspired with us to Make Missouri Great Again.

Yet these remnants want to keep Missouri miserable? Why? Why would those selfish conservatives do that? Because they’re afraid they won’t get the credit?


So let’s fix that.

All the great things that will happen to Missouri when we elect Eric Greitens Governor are the result of hard work by grassroots conservatives for decades. You built that Republican majority. You knocked the doors and made the calls. You donated your hard-earned pay to candidates you believed in. And all that work is about culminate in the kind of state you’ve always wanted to live in.

Now, go support Eric Greitens and the rest of the Republican ticket. Happy days are here again.

If you need to know more about Eric, please read Resilience. And share it with someone you know who needs hope.

Everybody Knows It’s Over Now

Reading Time: 2 minutes

My phone was vibrating like a like a sex toy all afternoon. I couldn’t look. I was with a client and teammates working on serious business.

When I got a break, after the client left, I locked myself in a bathroom stall and looked at the messages.

Comey is reopening Hillary investigation

New emails have been found

I didn’t believe it, so I looked at The Gateway Pundit:

As Madelaine Kahn said in Blazing Saddles, “It’s twue, it’s twue!” Hillary’s bodies wouldn’t stay buried.

Some anti-Trumpers are telling themselves, “this too shall pass.” Don’t count on it.

James Comey wouldn’t admit he was wrong unless . . . he had no choice. Overwhelming evidence of criminality. Even Watergate reporter and Hillary fan Carl Bernstein agrees. Comey had to act. Via Breitbart:

On Friday’s broadcast of “CNN Newsroom,” author, journalist, CNN Political Commentator Carl Bernstein stated that the FBI taking another look at Democratic presidential nominee former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails is “a real bombshell.” and that FBI Director James Comey wouldn’t have made the announcement “unless it was something requiring serious investigation.”

Bernstein said, “We don’t know what this means yet, except that it’s a real bombshell. And it is unthinkable that the director of the FBI would take this action lightly, that he would put this letter forth to the Congress of the United States saying that there is more information out there about classified emails, and call it to the attention of Congress unless it was something requiring serious investigation.”

Berstein is dead right. By re-opening the criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton, he admitted that his earlier “all clear” was premature.

No one seriously thinks Clinton can win, now, absent massive fraud and a totally rigged election. Or complacency.

And my sense is that Trump voters can’t wait to vote. They’re lining up around the block in Florida. People are dying to make America great again.

Voters have a clear choice: take a chance on the guy who wants to make America great again, or climb into bed with a criminal. There’s no third choice.

My prediction stands: Trump wins 375 electoral-vote landslide on November 8.