As Nikitas3.com has said many times over the last two years the Mueller investigation into president Trump and Russia collusion is a giant Deep State fraud that is intended to overturn a free and fair election.
And now as the Mueller probe appears to be wrapping up, that observation seems to be ringing true. The Mediaite website reported:
Speaking on the latest report from the New York Times on President Donald Trump’s relationship with the FBI, ABC’s Jon Karl told George Stephanopoulos people who are close to Robert Mueller tell him the report of the investigation is “certain to be anti-climatic” and not have any bombshells.
The New York Times reported the FBI opened a serious investigation into whether Trump was a Russian agent after he fired FBI Director James Comey.
“But what I am getting is — this is all building up to the Mueller report and raising expectations of a bombshell report. And there were investigations that were building of course over a year on this. People closest to what Mueller is doing, interactive with the special counsel, cautioned me, that this report is certain to be anti-climatic,” Karl said.
“That if you look at what the FBI was investigating in that New York Times report, look what they were investigating, Mueller did not go anywhere with that investigation,” he continued. “He’s been writing his report in real-time though these indictments. We’ve seen nothing from Mueller on the central question of was there coordination, collusion, with the Russians in the effort to meddle in the elections? Or was there even knowledge with the president or anybody in the campaign, with what the Russians were doing.”
Friends, the Fake News media now are going to want you to forget that they panted about Russia, Russia, Russia every day and every hour for two years, confident that Mueller was going to find it all.
On the other hand Nikitas3.com does not want you to forget what I said – that it all is a massive fraud. This shows once again that Nikitas3.com is more engaged and accurate than the New York Times, NBC, ABC, CNN, Washington Post, NPR, etc. put together.
Mueller’s anti-climatic final report will probably be released in the next few months. Thus apparently the media have decided that they must prepare their Democrat voters for the truth very gradually, as the New York Times is apparently doing, so as not to shock them like they were shocked, and are still shocked, over Trump’s election in the first place.
We should also expect president Trump’s approval numbers to go up after the Mueller flop is announced. But the media will do everything they can to keep those numbers down with new allegations, or by downplaying or ignoring the Mueller flop.
But, alas, when election time rolls around in 2020 president Trump will have center stage and a huge megaphone and he will say directly to American voters, including in the presidential debates: “The Fake News media lied to you for two years about Russia. Stick with me. I withstood their lies without flinching. And I made the country better doing it. Vote Trump!”
And Trump will be re-elected. Just watch. After all, you heard it on the reliable website… Nikitas3.com.
4 Ways that Democrats Deviously Spread their Bad Ideas
Here are four ways that Democrats spread their bad ideas:
*They use their wealth. This Nikitas3.com commentary explains in concise language how Democrats are “the party of the rich”.
Nikitas3.com estimates that liberals and leftists control as much as 65% of America’s wealth, largely on the East and West Coasts. This is very alarming to think about as they pump huge amounts of money into Democrat campaigns, tipping many House races in 2018.
Consider the staggering wealth in Silicon Valley, which is 95% liberal. It is more wealth than whole states have. For instance Montana has annual state wealth of $48 billion while Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg alone has a net worth of $73 billion.
Rich Democrats tried once again to buy the mid-term elections of 2018 with hundreds of millions in contributions. Texas Democrat US Senate candidate Beto O’Rourke raised more than $65 million for his Senate bid, much of it from outside of Texas including big bucks from California and New York City. Fortunately O’Rourke lost.
How did he get so much cash? Didn’t the elites in Hollywood and Silicon Valley and on Wall Street have their own local and state campaigns to finance?
The answer is largely no. In many very liberal states like California, Republicans are so weak that Democrats breeze to election and to re-election without hardly putting up a fight or raising or spending much money. So there is lots of spare cash among the left-wing California elites to send to liberal candidates in other states, and it is perfectly legal.
These contributors includes well-to-do upper-middle class donors (doctors, engineers, architects, lawyers, entrepreneurs, etc.) and middle-class people who have solid incomes and who are politically active.
There also are organized groups and e-mail chains that tell activist Democrats where to send money. For instance if a poll shows one of their favored candidates in a faraway state slipping two weeks before the election they can instantly raise lots of money over the internet using credit cards.
For example, out-of-state Democrat campaign contributions – along with voter fraud – probably helped to tip the close Wisconsin gubernatorial election to the Democrat since that race was very well known. Liberals across the country hated incumbent Republican governor Scott Walker for the conservative reforms he made in Wisconsin.
We will never know exactly how much of an impact out-of-state contributions had in that election. And don’t expect the liberal newspapers in Wisconsin to investigate. If Walker were a Democrat we would know every detail.
On the other hand you virtually never will see Republicans in Midwestern states sending campaign contributions to Republican candidates in liberal states like California, Oregon or New York.
This happens since conservatives are generally poorer than liberals and more focused on financing candidates in their own states against an onslaught in financing from rich liberals in their own states and from other states.
Here are three other ways that liberals spread their ideology across the US:
*They exploit internal migration: This refers to Americans moving from one state to another. This migration over the last 50 years has generally been out of liberal states like Massachusetts, California, Illinois, New Jersey and New York and into conservative states like Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, Utah, Florida, etc.
And generally the people who move away are younger and middle-aged people with the wherewithal, education and skills to move, including both Democrats and Republicans, leaving behind poorer, older, sicker, less educated and less politically engaged residents. This leaves these liberal states open to opportunistic Democrats who always want political power. This makes the states even more liberal over time.
Today the exodus from California has become a flood, reported to be hundreds of thousands of people annually. Millions have fled California over the last 25 years including many Democrats who can no longer tolerate the conditions in liberal California.
These Democrats generally go to conservative states like Montana, Idaho, Utah, Texas and North Carolina. But they and other activist liberals do not become conservative voters once they realize how great these conservative states are and how bad the policies were that drove them out of liberal states.
No, they remain liberal and many of them agitate to make these conservative states liberal. And these are often younger and upper-income people who have plenty of money, influence and energy to devote to politics.
Just look at North Carolina and Virginia, which once were reliably Republican states. North Carolina is now a ‘swing’ state and Virginia is largely liberal. These states have attracted many Democrats from liberal East Coast states like New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont and Massachusetts.
On the other hand there is no reverse migration from conservative states into liberal states. Oh, sure there might be some people going from Missouri to California as the “land of opportunity”, or to New York City to pursue acting on Broadway or finance on Wall Street. But those numbers have fallen dramatically over the last 50 years at the same time that the exodus from California grows and grows.
Ditto New York. Today it is places like Texas and North Carolina that are the “lands of opportunity”.
Montana was reliably conservative for more than a century, but it just re-elected Democrat US senator Jon Tester, who is close to the left-wing Democrats in Washington. Twenty years ago he would not have been re-elected but internal migration has changed Montana and made it more liberal.
Montana was built up from a wilderness by rough-and-tumble conservative people who worked really hard, often under very tough conditions. But now that Montana has all of the comforts and conveniences like air and highway connections to the rest of America and the world; high-speed internet service; small cities with “clean” non-industrial economies based on technology; and plenty of nice scenery and recreational opportunities for the spoiled brats from California and New York, it has become a destination for internal migration.
If you wonder why Portland, Oregon is so crazy you just need to look back 40 years when Oregonians adopted the slogan ‘Don’t Californicate Oregon’. This meant that they wanted to keep the radical nuts from California out, but they failed. The disorders in Portland today are the result.
*Liberal retirees move into conservative states: With conditions in California getting worse and worse with ever-rising taxes, increasing numbers of liberal upper-income and wealthy retirees are selling their expensive California homes and moving to conservative states where they can buy a house for half the cost or less. They bank the other half and, along with their retirement accounts, live very well. And since they are retired they have time – and money – to give to local and state Democrat political campaigns.
We do not see the reverse like retirees from Kansas or Iowa moving to California. They cannot afford it.
Ditto New York. Wealthy liberal Democrat retirees from New York City and its suburbs often move to conservative – and warmer – places like Virginia, coastal South Carolina or Florida where they then seek to influence the political climate.
In fact urban and suburban liberals are statistically wealthier than conservatives and are more likely to move when they retire since they can afford it. Poorer Republicans in small towns and in rural areas generally don’t move when they retire. They cannot afford it.
*They vote at their vacation homes: Many well-to-do and rich Democrats from wealthy cities and suburbs buy vacation homes in nearby conservative or somewhat conservative states, like people from the Boston area purchasing vacation homes in New Hampshire or Maine. Or they have second homes in rural and more conservative parts of their own states.
Some of them now are moving their voting address to the vacation home in an orchestrated movement since their votes are not needed in the cities where liberal candidates win easily.
Their votes in another state or a rural Upstate county in New York can tip the balance in state, regional and local races, for instance in congressional races. As an example a far-left black candidate recently won the congressional election in a largely rural white, upstate New York congressional district by almost 3 points, or 7,593 votes.
This is a district long considered reliably Republican. The Democrat was heavily financed by New York City money and some of those winning votes – or maybe all of them – were cast by New York City liberals with vacation homes in the picturesque district.
Other votes were cast by City liberals who have permanently moved Upstate over the last few decades, changing the character of the district.
On the other hand we never see poorer conservative people from rural Upstate New York buying vacation homes in the city and moving their voting address to the city. They detest the city and would never move there and can‘t afford it anyway. Many have never even visited the city.