Connect with us

Conspiracy Theory

Bombshell audio reveals corruption, Ukrainian assistance to Hillary in 2016. Media ignores.

Published

on

Glenn Beck’s recent exposé of Ukrainian collusion with Democrats is an important video to watch this weekend as all Americans, regardless of political affiliation, should inform themselves of everything that has been going on. We’ll discuss the whole thing soon, but there’s a bombshell tidbit from the report that changes everything in the Ukrainian scandal, yet it’s been buried by mainstream media for a long time.

Listen to this audio. It brings to light some of the reasons why Democrats are so desperate to keep the narrative focused on whether or not President Trump should be impeached. He asked the Ukrainian government for help with CrowdStrike and investigating Hunter Biden’s involvement with allegedly corrupt energy company Burisma. For this, Democrats are trying to remove him from office while ignoring their party’s own involvement that runs much deeper and for much longer than we’ve been told by the press.

In this audio, Director of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau Artem Sytnyk discusses the 2016 election and how he helped Hillary Clinton. He went so far as to note Clinton was better for their own interests in Ukraine but President Trump was better for America.

This image from the video says a lot:

Bombshell audio reveals corruption Ukrainian assistance to Hillary in 2016 Media ignores

As mainstream media continues to peddle the Democrats’ talking points, Glenn Beck and his team are busy exposing the real corruption and collusion that has been going on in Ukraine for years. It all points back to the Democrats.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Conspiracy Theory

The real reasons ‘The Squad’ endorsed Bernie Sanders

Published

on

The real reasons The Squad endorsed Bernie Sanders

I’ll admit I didn’t see this coming. In retrospect, it makes sense, but I guess I was blinded by too much common sense and not enough radical progressive machinations. Reports are coming in that members of “The Squad” in Congress – Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib – are endorsing Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nomination. No word on the fourth member of the new Beatles, Ayanna Pressley. Then again, she’s also the least influential of the radicals in the group.

My money would have been on them backing Elizabeth Warren, but only because I didn’t put much thought to it before. Now, I realize Warren does something “The Squad” hates: She pretends to be a capitalist. Even though she believes in Medicare-for-All, open borders, and several other hyper-leftist pipe dreams, she does so with a false allegiance to capitalism that Sanders has disavowed. Their policies might be very similar, but the way they label it is important. At least it’s important to “The Squad.”

Perhaps a more accurate attribution would be to say labels are important to the Justice Democrats, the far-left organization that’s behind everything radical from the Green New Deal to AOC’s recently unveiled “A Just Society” proposal. And they may also be behind this latest endorsement for reasons (CONSPIRACY THEORIES!) I’ll propose below.

But before we get conspiratorial, let’s state something for the record. AOC and her team allegedly own the mind share of radical progressives. Their brand is one that some believe supersedes Warren’s and possibly even Sanders’s because they are more demographically similar to the target audience – young, rebellious, and “women of color,” as they often say about themselves. If this is true, Sanders should be able to jump up quickly in the polls as a result of these important endorsements.

If not, then their brand is not nearly as developed or powerful as some seem to believe. Now, let’s put on our tinfoil hats…

Bernie and The Squad: Conspiracy 1

Of the two conspiracy theories, this one actually has some plausible supporting facts. The Justice Democrats were bouncing back and forth for a while promoting Warren AND Sanders. On the surface it seemed like they were hedging their bets, but in reality I surmised three months ago that they were shooting for a Warren-Sanders or Sanders-Warren ticket. The timing of this endorsement makes perfect sense in that context because it will theoretically boost Sanders back near the top.

If the Justice Democrats can keep both of them in the running, they’ll have a better chance of staving off Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Andrew Yang, or anyone who emerges in the moderate lane. By keeping both radical progressives in the race, they have a better chance at getting their dream ticket.

As the conspiracy goes, a Warren-Sanders ticket in 2020 would set up a Warren-AOC ticket in 2024 when the Congresswoman turns 35. That’s assuming 82-year-old Sanders will not want a second stint as VP.

That’s also assuming the nation could survive a single term under President Warren. I’d put our chances at 50/50.

Bernie and The Squad: Conspiracy 2

This is similar in reasoning for the first conspiracy theory, but a bit more practical. That’s why it makes less sense for the Justice Democrats to be employing it. They’re cunning, but they’ve never been practical. Otherwise, AOC would never have been their pick in 2016. She’s too much of a wildcard for practicality, but she’s perfect for them in their cunning attempt to take over the Democratic Party.

In this theory, their goal really is to help Warren by keeping Sanders in the race as long as possible to gather voters who may not be inclined to support Warren for whatever reason. Keeping Sanders in now and then having him shift support to Warren later would give her the nitro-boost she’d need at the right moment against whoever leads in the moderate lane.

It’s possible both plays are in mind for the Justice Democrats, but as ideologues I imagine the first theory is the most plausible.

The Justice Democrats don’t think in terms of today. Their strength is in using today to build for tomorrow. This makes them dangerous. If they’re ever allowed to get their candidates in the Oval Office, God help us all.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Conservatism

They don’t want your guns, they want your doctrine

Published

on

They dont want your guns they want your doctrine

Beto O’Rourke may in fact be the most honest of the Presidential candidates. He may have gone full Swalwell in an attempt to revive a disastrous campaign; however in recognizing his present shortcomings, Beto O’Rourke has gone the AOC route of revealing the poorly hidden secrets of the Democrat Party. For years, the right was (falsely) accused of using a straw man fallacy with gun confiscation, but Beto O’Rourke has now been unabashed in championing the policy. O’Rourke merely confirmed what we already knew: the socialists want to confiscate our guns. They want the monopoly on force, so they can upend our way of life.

But this upheaval, revolution, is not about redistributing the wealth, fixing the climate, or reducing violence. Beto O’Rourke’s latest Freudian slip is all the more telling. At the gay town hall hosted by CNN, Beto O’Rourke said that the government should strip away tax exemption from churches that refused to partake in the gay agenda, which includes but is not limited to the performing of marriages, removal of ministry standards that prohibit (blatant) non-Christians, and permitting men to pee with little girls. Put more concisely, Beto O’Rourke wants to use the government to coerce the doctrine of the church.

Blatant unconstitutionality aside, if the socialists have their way, we will be at the mercy of the courts, legally speaking, who have an entrenched precedent of conjuring their own law. There have long been talks by atheist about taxing churches, a less unconstitutional means of persecuting the church. The atheist Freedom From Religion Foundation erroneously claims that we pay more in taxes because churches pay nothing, ignoring the history of the income tax in America. The Supreme Court touched on this issue in 1970, ironically close to Roe v Wade. The Supreme Court maintained in Walz v Tax Commission of the City of New York that:

Obviously a direct money subsidy would be a relationship pregnant with involvement and, as with most governmental grant programs, could encompass sustained and detailed administrative relationships for enforcement of statutory or administrative standards, but that is not this case. The hazards of churches supporting government are hardly less in their potential than the hazards of government supporting churches; each relationship carries some involvement, rather than the desired insulation and separation. We cannot ignore the instances in history when church support of government led to the kind of involvement we seek to avoid.

The exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state, and far less than taxation of churches. It restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other.

Even a Supreme Court devoid of Christians would have agreed that the Establishment Clause is best maintained through the financial insulation of church and state, that history showed that when the church supporting the state was as threatening to freedom as the reverse. But what Beto is suggesting is a next level takeover. He wants to use government to manipulate the doctrine. So after he has taken your guns, he will use “civil rights” law to target the church. But remember, nothing about Beto O’Rourke is original. He’s just trying to be AOC while also trying to be Eric Swalwell. The Equality Act that Taylor Swift loves to promote would also place churches in the cross hairs of the law, should they remain faithful.

This isn’t a new ambition. Socialism is atheist by its nature and has never existed with a thriving church. In similar fashion, socialism has corresponded with the direct persecution of the church, often with genocidal purposes. An ideology that lumps people in with the collective dismisses the individual pursuit of a relationship with God.

The Second Amendment is a defense mechanism against various forms of government tyranny, among them the aforementioned scenario. Pacifying civilians is never an end but always a means to an end. A disarmed people are neither safer nor freer. In this case, Beto O’Rourke, by the progression of his rhetoric, wants to disarm the populace and coerce doctrine. This is the exact reason to refuse disarming. The socialists want to control our doctrine, by extension, what we think. They ultimately, as Beto O’Rourke’s policy suggestion explicitly demands, want to command us to disobey God, to rewrite doctrine to appease the latest whims of society.

The socialists aren’t floating confiscation just for the sake of confiscation. Institutions that have historically rejected collectivism and adhere to an objective morality standard are natural adversaries to the modern socialist movement. Therefore socialists would see strategic gains in undermining these institutions. This logic is not new or surprising, but is becoming increasingly obvious and less conspiratorial. The words of Beto O’Rourke corroborate the suspicion that gun confiscation is a means to enact religious persecution among other tyrannies.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Conspiracy Theory

Alexandra Chalupa, the woman nobody (other than Glenn Beck) is talking about in the Russian hoax

Published

on

Alexandra Chalupa Glenn Beck Russia Investigation

Have you heard the name, “Alexandra Chalupa” or the political and communications consulting group she founded, “Chalupa and Associates”? Probably not. Well, if you’ve been paying attention to the news at all for the last three years you’ve probably heard of the DNC, Russia investigation, Clinton Foundation, Ukrainian scandal, and CrowdStrike. All of these are separate organizations or events that are loosely tied together with some being closer to others. But they all share a common thread: Alexandra Chalupa.

Of all the players in the ongoing series of strange circumstances surrounding President Trump’s 2016 election and on through his presidency, Alexandra Chalupa appears to be the one connected to just about all of them. It’s a testament to the weak, biased nature of mainstream media that she hasn’t really made the news at all despite all of these connections.

Where does she fit in? Right in the middle. But nobody has been talking about her for three years other than brief mentions here and there. That all changed this weekend when Glenn Beck and his team tied the strings together to paint the first clear picture of how this lobbyist and progressive activist has been squarely involved in efforts to take down the President since before his big election.

Our investigation into Chalupa starts now, but it’s through the efforts of Glenn Beck and his team that we get a head start on it all. What role has Alexandra Chalupa played in the Russian and Ukrainian scandals? We’ll soon find out.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending