Amazing True Facts: Emails Actually MATTER Now To Vile Democrats (That’s ‘DEMOn-possessed bureaCRATS’)

I have to go somewhere, but I just can’t resist shouting this from my rooftop:

For over two years now, emails didn’t matter one tiny bit to the vile people otherwise known as Democrats.  They just weren’t morally capable of even the tiniest and most trivial level of honesty, integrity, decency, virtue, character or morality necessary to care about the fact that their candidate for president is as dishonest, corrupt and fascist as they come.

It just got openly revealed to the world that every single thing Hillary Clinton said about her emails and the secret, unauthorized server that she installed to fascistically control access to those emails and keep the public from having any transparency in their leaders, was an outright lie.  The woman is a pathological liar, right down to the tiniest details.

But Democrats no more care about Hillary Clinton’s emails than they do about the fact that they will soon be screaming in the eternal fire of hell for a trillion to the trillionth power years for every single nanosecond they murderously stole from every single one of the sixty million babies that every single Democrat has participated in through their vote for the party of abortion.  Just as the God of the Bible has declared that homosexual perversion is an abomination and a detestable act that will guarantee the wrath of God against any nation that approves of it.

Democrats couldn’t care less that Hillary Clinton treated the national security of the United States like disgustingly-soiled toilet paper so she could hide her corrupt Clinton Foundation shenanigans.

But all of a sudden we find that some Democrats actually care enough about emails proving the Democrat Party is as corrupt and as fascist and as created for insiders as they come.

Everyone who votes for the Democrat Party is already voting to scream in hell, and this is just another proof of that:

Wasserman Schultz sidelined from convention as more emails show Sanders slams
Published July 24, 2016
· FoxNews.com

PHILADELPHIA –  Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz was sidelined from her party convention just hours before the Monday start of the Philadelphia gathering, after leaked emails indicating an anti-Bernie Sanders bias in her operation inflamed the left flank of the party.

The controversial party boss will no longer preside over the convention, and reportedly does not have a speaking role.

The fallout was swift, as even more emails surfaced Sunday showing Schultz personally blasting the Vermont independent senator’s insurgent primary presidential bid against Hillary Clinton.

In one, she practically laughed off Sanders after he vowed to replace her as DNC chairwoman if elected.

“This is a silly story. He isn’t going to be president,” she wrote in the May 21 email.

Following the release of this and numerous other emails in a WikiLeaks document dump, Fox News confirmed Sunday that Wasserman Schultz will not preside over the Democratic convention. The decision was reached amid pressure from the White House and Hillary Clinton campaign.

The latest headlines on the 2016 elections from the biggest name in politics.
See Latest Coverage →

Rep. Marcia Fudge, D-Ohio, the former chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, will instead preside over the Democratic proceedings as convention chairwoman.

The rapid-fire set of developments ahead of the Philadelphia convention kick-off indicate a party in crisis management mode as officials try to prevent anger over the email leak controversy and other issues from disrupting proceedings. The emails only bolstered claims from Sanders – and Republican nominee Donald Trump – that the system was rigged against the Vermont senator.

Sanders himself blasted the DNC and Wasserman Schultz in interviews Sunday, demanding her resignation as party chairwoman to boot.

“I think [Wasserman Schultz] should resign. Period. And I think we need a new chair who is going the lead us in a very different direction,” Sanders told ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday.

Sanders said “these emails reiterate that reason why she should not be chair.”

Sanders is himself set to speak on the opening night of the Democratic convention, securing an A-list position after a hard-fought, ideological primary battle with Clinton.

But he hasn’t forgiven Wasserman Schultz for an alleged pro-Clinton stance during the campaign. He repeated those claims in the wake of WikiLeaks’ release of roughly 20,000 Democratic National Committee emails.

The leaks, which include emails from January 2015 to May 2016, purportedly came from the accounts of seven DNC officials. In a May 5 email, a DNC employee asked a colleague to collect information on his religious beliefs – claiming it might sway voters in West Virginia and Kentucky. In that particular email, Sanders’ name was not mentioned, but he was the only other candidate in the race at that time against Clinton.

DNC chief financial officer Brad Marshall wrote, “This would make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.”

Others from Wasserman Schultz herself contained very strong language, raising questions about her status as an ostensibly neutral party official.

Responding to Sanders’ complaints the party hasn’t been fair to him, she wrote to a staffer in an April email: “Spoken like someone who has never been a member of the Democratic Party and has no understanding of what we do.”

Responding to the same staffer a month later regarding Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver blaming the Nevada state party for a raucous convention, she wrote, “Damn liar. Particularly scummy that he barely acknowledges the violent and threatening behavior that occurred.”

Sanders will be joined Monday night on stage at the Wells Fargo Center by first lady Michelle Obama and several other speakers, according to the Democratic National Committee.

CNN reported that Wasserman Schultz, however, would not have a speaking role in Philadelphia. Wasserman Schultz is not on the list of speakers released by the DNC.

A Democratic source told the network that she had been “quarantined.”

By contrast, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus delivered an address on the closing night of the GOP convention in Cleveland.

The Democratic National Committee and Wasserman Schultz already were facing internal unrest over party rules, but the email leak aggravated pro-Sanders Democrats even more.

Sanders, a self-proclaimed democratic socialist, had argued all along that Washington Democrats favored Clinton. Among other decisions, he pointed to Wasserman Schultz’s decision to limit the number of primary debates, which he argued was meant to protect Clinton.

Sanders — who railed against what he called a “rigged” system throughout his campaign — has since endorsed Wasserman Schultz’s primary rival in her re-election bid, in another sign of the acrimony between them.

Clinton chief strategist Joel Benenson, on “Fox News Sunday,” defended the fairness of the primary elections and said the DNC would conduct a full review of the emails. He said people should not jump to conclusions.

“The DNC’s impact in these things is minimal compared to the results. What candidates and campaigns spend and do on the ground, talking to voters day in and day out, that’s what determines who wins,” he said.

That Sanders gets a prime-time speaking spot is also significant, considering the rival campaigns for weeks negotiated his primary exit strategy, with Sanders insisting that at least some of his progressive agenda — including free college education, better international trade deals and more social and economic equality — be included in the party platform.

He ultimately endorsed Clinton a few weeks ago.

Fox News’ Chad Pergram, Garrett Tenney and Jennifer Griffin contributed to this report.

We find through the Wikileaks release that if you are a mainstream media “journalist,” you are nothing but a fascist propagandist the way Joseph Goebbels of the Ministry of Propaganda was a propagandist.

Hillary Clinton is a national disgrace.  The entire PROCESS that led to this unelectable paranoid fascist control-freak winning the Democratic nomination was a fraud controlled by party insiders.

But what a damn surprise that finally, after YEARS, emails DO matter, after all.

Meanwhile, last week I wrote an article about the sheer dishonesty of the mainstream media coverage of the Republican National Convention.  They demonized the open-carry laws of Cleveland and predicted mayhem that never happened; they predicted a giant wave of Republican protest that never happened; they tried to milk every single protest event outside as a narrative to tarnish the convention going on inside to the extent that there would be eighty media surrounding 20 protestors.  They claimed that every time a negative remark was said against Hillary Clinton, that it was reminiscent of a “climate of hate” that forced the “journalists” to remember the rise of the Nazis.

And which party just got busted hating on Jews???  You got it, the REAL Party of Lucifer, the Democrat Party.

And as there are tens of thousands of protesters rightly protesting the fascism endemic to the Democratic National Convention and the entire Democratic Party, as you see all the hateful remarks that will spew out of every speakers’ mouth toward Donald Trump, just know that the media is as dishonest as the sun is hot.

Just another something to chew on: the Clinton campaign is blaming this email leak on Russia.  You mark my words, if you are fool enough to vote for Hillary Clinton, Russia will also have in its database all the thirty-two thousand emails Hillary purged from her secret server beyond the FBI’s ability to recover that will prove her criminal corruption through her corrupt Clinton Foundation.  Russia will blackmail Hillary Clinton into being Vladimir Putin’s slave.  And the United States will be sold down the river by a woman who long ago proved that she was all-too-willing to sell America down the river if the price was right or if it was convenient for her.

MSNBC Adds Bigoted To Its Bias: ‘You’re Ignorant Because You’re White’

This is just absolutely stunning.

MSNBC‘s Lawrence O’Donnell shows us how totally over the top rabid liberal non-Fox News networks truly are.

Here is a transcript of what this fool passes off as “journalism” today:

O’DONNELL: Perhaps all of Michele Bachmann’s staff come from her district, which may be the most ignorant Congressional district in America. In 2010, 52 percent of that district voted for Michele Bachmann to represent them in Congress. Now, she had already proven time and time again to her district and to America that she is unworthy of representing any Congressional district in America. But 52 percent, the same percentage in that district who voted for John McCain for president, voted for Michele Bachmann in 2010.

What makes those voters so ignorant? Well, for starters, they are whiter than the average district. 92 percent white in fact.

Noel Sheppard at Newsbusters continues to take the “sane” out of O’Donnell’s insanity:

What? They’re ignorant because they’re white? Are you kidding? O’Donnell continued:

O’DONNELL: But that explains nothing. Missouri’s 8th Congressional district is 91 percent white and has been represented by Jo Ann Emerson since 1997. We do not have a litany of imbecilic comments by Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson. In fact, we have none. If we’ve missed any, please submit them to our website, thelastword.msnbc.com, and we’ll see if they compare to Michele Bachmann’s.

Well, if that “explains nothing,” why bring it up? It’s almost like O’Donnell and his staff knew they were going too far with the 92 percent white remark, and felt they needed to soften it a little by bringing up Emerson’s district.

But the damage was already done. After all, imagine for a moment Bachmann was black, Emerson was black, these were black districts, and the commentator was a conservative:

What makes those voters so ignorant? Well, for starters, they are blacker than the average district. 92 percent black in fact. But that explains nothing. Missouri’s 8th Congressional district is 91 percent black and has been represented by Jo Ann Emerson since 1997. We do not have a litany of imbecilic comments by Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson. In fact, we have none. If we’ve missed any, please submit them to our website, thelastword.msnbc.com, and we’ll see if they compare to Michele Bachmann’s.

You think that would have gone over well in the black community, or would there be calls Tuesday for said conservative commentator’s immediate termination?

I guess along with feeling comfortable attacking white women as long as they’re conservative, O’Donnell now feels it’s acceptable to go after all white people.

I am so sick and disgusted with liberals.  They are completely depraved people with a completely warped view of the world.

Liberals like Lawrence O’Donnell are totally committed to postmodernism, multiculturalism and pluralism.  It’s not that they are intellecutally brainless idiots as much as it is that they have totally committed themselves to totally false theories about the world.  Like the whole “Emperor’s New Clothes” story, these “intellectuals” have convinced themselves that their theories are the stuff of genius.  Only the more they try to explain their genius theories, the more utterly idiotic they start sounding.

Let’s talk about liberals and God; more specifically about MSNBC, Lawrence O’Donnell, and God.  Said O’Donnell on his MSNBC soapbox:

The book of Revelation is a work of fiction describing how a truly vicious God would bring about the end of the world. No half-smart religious person actually believes the book of Revelation. They are certain that their God would never turn into a malicious torturer and mass murderer beyond Hitler’s wildest dreams. Glenn Beck, of course, does believe the book of Revelation.

There is a reason why the Bible says, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God'” (Psalm 14:1).  And that is because any worldview which does not begin with a divine worldview is already wrong, and can only go more and more wrong as it continues to postulate bad answers to fundamental questions.

Our founding fathers understood this, and their understanding enabled them to found the world’s oldest democratic republic.  They realized that democracy – a limited government of the people – demanded that people be able to govern themselves.  And that only a moral and religious people could pull that off. 

They fought a war over this principle encapsulated in the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” – Declaration of Independence

And so we have the words of Adams:

“We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” — John Adams

And Washington:

“Of all the habits and dispositions which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.  In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars.” — George Washington

But liberalism fundamentally denies this principle, and constantly seeks for the results of the French Revolution rather than the American Revolution.   They refuse to realize that the atheism-based French Revolution inevitably resulted in first chaos and madness, and then a dictator (Napolean seized power within a decade); and that France has had 11 separate Constitutions since 1793, and at least fifteen different governments.  Thomas Jefferson rightly said that, “With all the defects in our Constitution, whether general or particular, the comparison of our government with those of Europe, is like a comparison of Heaven with Hell.”

But multiculturalist, pluralist, postmodernist secular humanists that dominate liberalism like Lawrence O’Donnell literally seek hell.

Can a white man be an anti-white male-bashing bigot?  You’d assume not, until you realize that people like Lawrence O’Donnell are so damn arrogant that they view themselves as transcending their own race and gender even as they claim that everyone else beneath them is a slave to their own.  But the fact of the matter is – to quote Barack Obama – “yes, we can.”  We can believe a theory that necessarily makes us hate ourselves.

Take Karl Marx.  The man was profoundly anti-Semitic.  He was also a Jew.

Here are some quotes from the VERY Jewish “intellectual” Karl Marx:

“The Jews of Poland are the smeariest of all races.” (Neue Rheinische Zeitung, April 29, 1849)

“Ramsgate is full of Jews and fleas.” (MEKOR IV, 490, August 25, 1879)

“What is the Jew’s foundation in our world? Material necessity, private advantage.

“What is the object of the Jew’s worship in this world? Usury. What is his worldly god? Money.

“Very well then; emancipation from usury and money, that is, from practical, real Judaism, would constitute the emancipation of our time.” (“A World Without Jews,” p. 37)

“What was the essential foundation of the Jewish religion? Practical needs, egotism.” (Ibid, p. 40)

“Money is the zealous one God of Israel, beside which no other God may stand. Money degrades all the gods of mankind and turns them into commodities. Money is the universal and self-constituted value set upon all things. It has therefore robbed the whole world, of both nature and man, of its original value. Money is the essence of man’s life and work, which have become alienated from him. This alien monster rules him and he worships it.

“The God of the Jews has become secularized and is now a worldly God. The bill of exchange is the Jew’s real God. His God is the illusory bill of exchange.” (“A World Without Jews,” p. 41)

And what about the most rabid anti-Semite of all time?

Hitler ‘had Jewish and African roots’, DNA tests show
Adolf Hitler is likely to have had Jewish and African roots, DNA tests have shown.
By Heidi Blake 6:25AM BST 24 Aug 2010
 
Saliva samples taken from 39 relatives of the Nazi leader show he may have had biological links to the “subhuman” races that he tried to exterminate during the Holocaust.

Jean-Paul Mulders, a Belgian journalist, and Marc Vermeeren, a historian, tracked down the Fuhrer’s relatives, including an Austrian farmer who was his cousin, earlier this year.

A chromosome called Haplogroup E1b1b1 which showed up in their samples is rare in Western Europe and is most commonly found in the Berbers of Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, as well as among Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews.

“One can from this postulate that Hitler was related to people whom he despised,” Mr Mulders wrote in the Belgian magazine, Knack.

Just as Caucasian and male “journalist” Lawrence O’Donnell is clearly related to people he despises.

Can you be of a certain race and yet actively despise that race?  I think we’ve established that you most certainly can, if you’re vile enough.

So yes, we’ve got Lawrence O’Donnell, anti-white bigoted man-despising white male.

Lawrence O’Donnell is a pathological liberal ideologue.  Progressive liberal pseudo-intellectualism is rabidly anti-white and anti-man.  And so O’Donnell is those things, too.  And the fact that O’Donnell is the very things he despises is at best a minor detail to him.  Because liberals NEVER worry about inconvenient things like facts.

I would add one other element to the mix: the ingredient of self-hatred which is so necessary to liberalism.

Understand: liberals constantly agitate for policies that will bring about their nation’s certain destruction.  You don’t do that sort of thing unless you hate yourself, hate the next generation, hate your country, and literally embrace your own extinction.

At some deep subconscious level, liberals like Lawrence O’Donnell recognize that they are swine, that they are nasty, nasty people.  And from that point forward everything else just sort of oozes out of them like toxic slime from a poorly-designed container.

MSNBC has the right to broadcast.  Unlike the fascist liberals who constantly agitate to force Rush Limbaugh and Fox News off the air with oxymoronic legislations such as “the fairness doctrine,” I accept that right.  But that doesn’t mean anyone but fools need to watch it.