Equal Justice Under Law (unless you are a Clinton)

Equal Justice Under Law (unless you are a Clinton)

Hillary SCOTUS

Well folks, the fix is in for Hillary Clinton.

On Monday, Attorney General Loretta Lynch met privately with former President Bill Clinton aboard his private plane, for about a half hour. According to the Attorney General, it was an unplanned, spontaneous meeting where the two of them talked football, grandchildren and the weather, but not about the two criminal investigations of Hillary Clinton, concerning her illegal use of a private e-mail server while she was Secretary of State, and her selling of favors to foreign governments in exchange for cash contributions to the Clinton Foundation.

If such claims by the Attorney General were not so laughable, anyone with half of a brain would know fully well that the two met specifically to plan a strategy on how to handle (or, as it should be said, not handle) any criminal referrals coming from the FBI. Since the Attorney General has the choice to refer, or not to refer, such a referral to a federal grand jury, it has become obvious that such a referral will not occur, regardless of an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that such a referral should take place.

Media and “insider” claims that Attorney General Loretta Lynch is a straight-shooter, devoid of political influence, are just as laughable, as evidenced by her remarks during a June 22nd post-Orlando press conference where she proffered that our best weapons against terrorism are “compassion, unity and love.”

Her appointment, subsequent to her predecessor’s (Eric Holder) resignation as the nation’s chief law-enforcement officer, was predicated on nothing else but her ability and willingness to selectively enforce the law, subject to the wiles of the Obama administration. That fact, along with the undeniable and inexorable truth that the Clintons have never had to face justice, despite decades of a well-documented and infamous record of criminal activity on both of their parts, underscores the reality that the application of justice in the United States depends strictly on who you are and who you know…

…and if you happen to be a Clinton, you can get away with anything and everything, without fear of having to answer to the law.

So much for the concept of “Equal Justice Under Law,” or some such rot.


-Drew Nickell, 30 June 2016

© 2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

The Considerable and Ponderous Stretch to Support Hillary Clinton

The Considerable and Ponderous Stretch to Support Hillary Clinton


Setting aside the ignorant, the naïve, and the sycophantic souls who dwell amongst us, one has to hand it to those who still support the candidacy of, and intend to vote for, Hillary Clinton. To do so requires a backward bend that would truly break the spine of most ordinary mortals. To wit:

  • To support Hillary, one must accept the fact that one is supporting a woman who has besieged and attempted to destroy a very lengthy list of women who have been sexually and, in some cases violently assaulted by her husband, William Jefferson Clinton…and this from a presidential candidate who purports to support “women’s causes.” One must also accept the fact that she giddily laughed during an interview while bragging about the fact that she used a flimsy loophole in criminal law to exonerate a serial child rapist who she knew was guilty of brutally raping a twelve-year-old girl.


  • To support Hillary, one must accept the fact that Hillary Clinton intentionally and illegally set up a private e-mail server in order to control the dissemination of e-mails she sent and received while she was Secretary of State, and that she did so to hide the fact that she was indeed selling State Department favors to foreign governments, many of which harshly treat women, homosexuals and non-Muslims, in exchange for millions of dollars of cash contributions to the Clinton Foundation and its Clinton Global Initiative.


  • To support Hillary, one must accept the fact that in order to withhold evidence from the Congressional Investigative Committee, she intentionally and illegally deleted over 33,000 e-mails from her server and directed the State Department to slow-walk FOIA requests pertaining to the use of her private e-mail server while she was serving as Secretary of State.


  • To support Hillary, one must accept the fact that, during the night of the Benghazi raid and while it was still in progress, it was Hillary Clinton who led a meeting of State Department officials, Defense Department officials and White House operatives where the focus was, based upon five of the ten action items ordained at the meeting, on how to cloak the cause of the attack on a bogus narrative that the attack was the result of a spontaneous protest against an anti-Mohammed internet video, as opposed to the fact that it was a pre-planned terrorist raid by an Al-Quaida affiliate group Al-Shabaab on the eleventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. At this meeting there were no action items regarding any attempt to rescue the American personnel under attack at the Benghazi consulate.


  • To support Hillary, one must accept the fact that Hillary blatantly lied to the families of those killed in the attacks, while standing behind their flag-draped coffins, promising to get the man who made the video when, it has been documented that she knew from the get-go that the attack had absolutely nothing to do with the video, and was instead a planned and coordinated attack by the Al-Quaida affiliate group Al-Shabaab, as evidenced by an e-mail she sent to her daughter, Chelsea, that very night and an e-mail she sent to the Prime Minister of Egypt the very next day following the attack.


  • To support Hillary, one must accept the fact that there have been numerous accounts from a host of sources going back to her years as first lady of Arkansas, of her hot temper, vile outbursts and, in some cases, violent tantrums, as most recently enumerated in a book Crisis of Character by a former Secret Service officer, Gary J. Byrne assigned to protect President Clinton during his term of office…and this temperament on the part of a candidate who alleges that it is Donald Trump who lacks the temperament of one who would be President of the United States.

It is even more of a stretch to arrive upon a single, logical reason why anyone in their right mind would support such a candidate- discounting, of course, the fact that, at the end of the day, Hillary has a vagina.

Some reason to vote for a President.


-Drew Nickell, 28 June 2016

© 2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

Pundits and Pollsters Can Wish, Can’t They?

Pundits and Pollsters Can Wish, Can’t They?


Now that all of the mainstream media has practically declared that Hillary Clinton has already won the 2016 Presidential election, Americans will have to take this with all of the same degree of seriousness that our British counterparts took when that country’s mainstream media had declared that the British will vote to remain part of the European Union.

These same pundits would have us believe, as stated in the most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll, that Hillary Clinton has opened up a 12-point lead over Donald Trump, and that Barack Obama is enjoying a 56% job approval rating.

Ahem…not so fast, folks.

What the pundits have conveniently not disclosed about this poll, conducted by Langer Research Associates, is that the sampling ratio used in the poll favored Democrats by a 2-to-1 margin over Republicans. In other words, for every Republican polled, two Democrats were polled. Based on that reality, it is little wonder that Clinton would be leading Trump in that particular poll, and that in the same poll, Obama’s job approval ratings are right up there with Ronald Reagan’s, in June of 1988.

In other words, the poll that is being talked about all over the mainstream media has about as much credibility as the content of rose petals in a dump truck load of horse manure.

More credible polling, conducted in battleground states, indicate that Clinton and Trump are virtually tied- within the margin of error, and it is those states that the election will teeter, and ultimately decide who will succeed Barack Obama in January.

This is what the media does. They spin the truth to suit a narrative which supports a pre-determined outcome that is completely divorced from reality. It happened in Great Britain when the final “leave/remain” poll got the percentages “bass-ackwards,” and the same thing has happened in this country, based upon the polls that would have us believe that Donald Trump has already and irretrievably lost the race.

Notice that the news cycles are filled with the poppycock that there is a movement within the Republican Party to release the Republican delegates from their commitment to vote for Trump on the first ballot- a commitment based upon actual primary and caucus voting that gave Trump an undeniable nomination win. This is merely the wet dream of mainstream, elitist Republicans who are miffed that the GOP is on the verge of nominating someone outside their micro-managerial control…the familiar types like Mitt Romney, Lindsey Graham, Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer and the members of the Bush family, one of whom barely registered in this year’s nominating contests.

Add that to the news that the so-called Republican pompous ass-in-chief, also known as columnist George Will, has left the Republican Party because of the presumptive nominee, and it would seem that “the Donald” is headed for an electoral defeat in all fifty states. It should be remembered that George Will routinely assailed Ronald Reagan during his presidency and it was only after “the Gipper” passed away that Will started singing his praises.

So, while Democrats and their nominee, Hillary Clinton, the entire mainstream media who work at their behest, and the “Republi-can’ts” who have trouble building up enough testosterone to oppose the President on practically anything, for fear of offending their own opposition, can all be united in celebrating Hillary Clinton’s ascendancy to the nation’s highest office, the only thing that stands in their way is… the will of the people.

Until then, November 8th, we look forward to all of the stories of how Trump cannot possibly win, and we look forward to November 9th, when the mainstream media assails Americans for being racist, xenophobic and intolerant (just as they have in Great Britain) because of all of the eggs on the faces of those who could not see the forest, for the sake of all of the trees standing in their way.


-Drew Nickell, 27 June 2016

© 2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

Rule Britannia- Britain Votes to Leave the European Union- a Parallel Across the Pond

Rule Britannia- Britain Votes to Leave the European Union- a Parallel Across the Pond

Union Jack 

As a rule we refrain from commenting on foreign political movements, for the reason that we believe it to be a bit “cheeky” to insert our nose into the affairs of others, as it were. Back in 1980, we spent four months as an exchange student at the University of London, so we’ve always held an affinity for all things British, and have abided a keen interest in the affairs of our British allies, nevertheless. 

Ironically, one hundred years following the Easter Rising in Dublin which inexorably led to Irish home rule six years later, Great Britain voted today to assert its own “home rule,” leaving the European Union more than forty years after having joined the union in 1973. 

In an April 23rd essay, http://www.drewnickell.com/?p=694 , we discussed the arrogance of President Obama’s assertion that, if Britain went against his wishes that they remain in the EU, he indicated that their doing otherwise would move them to the very back of the line when it comes to future trade negotiations. 

In spite of Obama, the wishes of Britain’s Labour Party, the strong advocacy of Prime Minister David Cameron that Britain remain part of the European Union, and polls predicting a win for the “remain” vote, Britons on the whole rejected the globalist agenda (one also supported by Hillary Clinton, among others) and voted to leave the union, instead. It is interesting to note that the political classes in both countries all favored the continued membership with one notable exception… Presumptive Republican nominee, Donald J. Trump, favored what was billed the “Brexit” vote, instead, and urged the British to leave the European Union and thereby reassert and regain their own national sovereignty. 

The voting also revealed a deep divide within the United Kingdom. Those in England’s largest cities, those in Scotland and Northern Ireland voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU. Conversely, those in the surrounding areas of England and in Wales, were able to parlay enough votes to leave the union as the referendum to do so narrowly won out, overall. Contributing factors in the win for leaving included anxiety over unemployment, concerns of lost national sovereignty, and uncontrolled immigration (sound familiar?). Essentially, the concept of subjugating British law and jurisprudence to the whims of non-English speaking bureaucrats on the continent, proved too much for the largely independent British people, who had also decided some years back to reject the Euro and retain the British Pound as its own currency, instead. The vote in England also revealed a degree of divide between whites, who largely favored leaving the union, and non-whites who largely favored remaining within the EU. Similar stratification exists here, in the United States, as well. 

As a result Prime Minister David Cameron, whose own Conservative Party largely favored the “Brexit” vote, announced today that he would be stepping down as Prime Minister, indicating that Britain’s exit from the EU would require the leadership of someone other than himself. He did so despite the urging of his own party’s Members of Parliament that he remain in his position, and it is the early odds-on favorite that Boris Johnson, the Conservative MP and former Lord Mayor of London, will be elected Prime Minister in a national election to take place sometime in the autumn of this year. Johnson, who fiercely advocated Britain’s exit, has often described himself as a “One-Nation Tory” and has been called by many as Britain’s version of…Donald J. Trump. 

If ever there was a suggestion that wholesale populist rejection of political correctness in a foreign country like Great Britain might be an indicator that this same rejection could well take place in the United States, certainly this surprise vote indicates a very real possibility that such nationalist sentiments “across the pond” might well prove to be a harbinger of change in these United States. 

Advantage Trump. 


-Drew Nickell, 24 June 2016 

© 2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.


Naiveté, Stupidity or Deception- It’s the Wrong Approach to Islamic Terrorism

Naiveté, Stupidity or Deception- It’s the Wrong Approach to Islamic Terrorism

Lynch Redaction


“We stand with you to say that the good in this world far outweighs the evil, that our common humanity transcends our differences, and that our most effective response to terror and to hatred is compassion, it’s unity, and it’s love,”

– Loretta Lynch, Attorney General, 22 June 2017


Yes, it’s true. The nation’s top law enforcement officer says that the best way to respond to terrorism and hatred is with “compassion, unity and love.”

Yeah, right.

Imagine, just for a moment, if the following had been said…

  • “Speak softly, and carry a big heart.” Not said by Theodore Roosevelt
  • “Yesterday, Sunday, December 7th, 1941, a day that will live in love, The United States was suddenly and deliberately attacked by airplanes because the United States hasn’t shown compassion or unity towards the Japanese Empire.” Not said by Franklin Delano Roosevelt
  • “Let every nation know, whether they love us or not, that we will offer any compassion, accept any attack, bear any hardship, love any friend, and embrace any foe, to assure that we will not be offensive to anyone, ever.” Not said by John F. Kennedy
  • “Mr. Gorbachev, if love and peace is what you seek, then we want to show you unity and compassion by begging you to rethink your position on the Berlin wall.” Not said by Ronald Reagan

So if we are to believe Attorney General Lynch, the best way to respond to those who rape women, mutilate children, sever the heads of Christians and Jews, throw homosexuals off of the tops of buildings, and target unarmed, defenseless and innocent civilians is to shower them with compassion, unity and love.

Assuming that she really believes this, then she is either woefully naïve or as dumb as a box of rocks. In either case, she has no business being Attorney General of the United States.

Assuming, on the other hand, that she knows better, then she is part and parcel of the deception that the Obama administration is parlaying on the American people that Islamic Terrorists will cease and desist their atrocities, if we will only drop our Islamophobic bias, and show them compassion instead…and, in order to do this, we should all be willing to give up our rights to defend ourselves and submit our very lives to the wiles of those who hate us.

And, by the way, we are also supposed to believe her when she says that the FBI’s criminal investigation(s) of Hillary Clinton is something that she has not discussed with the president, and that it will be handled no differently than any other investigation.

Does anyone really believe this?

Not this writer…not ever.


-Drew Nickell, 23 June 2016

© 2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

Obama and Islam – an Action of Redaction

Obama and Islam – an Action of Redaction

Lynch Redaction

The time has come for America to face the truth, and the truth is that President Barack Obama doesn’t want to admit that Radical Islam is behind the growing threat of terrorism around the world. So determined is he and his administration to scrub any mention that Radical Islam is to blame for hundreds of terrorist acts around the world, that he has directed his Justice Department to redact any reference to ISIS and Radical Islam, in the transcripts of the telephone calls made by Orlando gunman Omar Mateen, while he was in the process of killing forty-nine innocents at the Pulse nightclub, last Sunday morning. By redacting these references, Obama is openly trying to change the narrative from his own failure to protect the American people from Radical Islamic Terrorists, to a false narrative on gun control and anti-LGBT bias, instead.

It’s not the first time that Barack Obama has suborned the truth to drive a false narrative, when it comes to Radical Islamic attacks in this country.

  • When Nidal Hasan killed thirteen people and severely injured thirty others, in a November 2009 attack at Fort Hood, Texas, the Obama administration blamed the massacre on workplace violence, despite the fact that Hasan had been in regular contact with Anwar al-Awlaki, whose involvement with Al-Quaida and multiple terrorist attacks is well documented.


  • Following the September 11, 2012 attacks on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, the Obama administration tried to blame the attack on an anti-Muslim video when they knew all along that the attack was a pre-meditated, planned attack by Al Quaida-affiliated Radical Muslims on the eleventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington, DC- an attack that this administration did nothing to either prevent or provide any level of defense for the four Americans killed in that raid.


  • When the Tsarnaev brothers perpetrated the Boston Marathon bombing in April of 2013, the Obama Administration went out of their way to minimize the influence of Radical Islam, despite the fact that the Tsarnaev brothers both admitted that they were motivated by Radical Islamic Ideology and their resentment of America’s involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq.


  • When fourteen people were killed, and twenty-two people were critically injured in the San Bernardino attacks in December of 2015, the perpetrators of the attack, Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik, were undeniably influenced by Radical Islamic ideology and indicated they were acting on the behalf of ISIS/ISIL. Instead, the Obama administration blamed the attack on the lack of gun-control legislation, just as the Obama administration has put forth the idea that the Orlando attack was the result of a lack of gun-control laws, rather that Radical Islam.

On Sunday, June 19, 2016, Attorney General Loretta Lynch toured the Sunday morning talk shows to discuss the redaction of the references that Omar Mateen made to ISIS and Radical Islam, because these references are not compatible with the anti-gun narrative driving the Obama administration in the wake of this, the latest attack by Radical Muslims on American soil, and the fact that this administration does not want the American people to associate these attacks with Radical Islamist ideology…

…and we are supposed to believe that this same Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, is going to allow FBI Director James Comey to conduct an unfettered, criminal investigation into espionage and racketeering on the part of Hillary Clinton and her surrogates, related to her use of a private e-mail server and her selling of favors for contributions by foreign governments to the Clinton Foundation?

Yeah, right.


-Drew Nickell, 20 June 2016

© 2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

Obama’s America – a House Divided Against Itself

Obama’s America – a House Divided Against Itself

Obama Lectures

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

– Abraham Lincoln, Springfield, Illinois, June 16, 1858

On being nominated to run as the Republican senatorial candidate, Abraham Lincoln delivered in what was then the Illinois State Capitol, the most important speech he would offer prior to his being elected the nation’s sixteenth president. He said so, indicating that the country could not “endure, permanently, half slave and half free.” Sadly, Lincoln’s speech proved to be prophetic. Within three years, the country was ripped apart by the bloodiest war ever fought in the Western Hemisphere. Nearly three quarters of a million men were killed in the American Civil War, and its ramifications reached well into the lifetimes of those born one hundred years later.

Never since that time, 158 years ago tomorrow, has the United States been so divided as it is today. While it can be argued that the seeds of this division reach back into the multi-faceted upheavals of the late 1960’s, the ugly truth is that the reason for this division lands squarely on the President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama.

Since his inauguration in 2009, Obama has intentionally divided America along racial, religious, cultural and partisan lines, like no other president ever has. The reason he has done this is quite simple, and his modus operandi can be traced back to King Philip of Macedonia who, in the fourth century B.C., first said, “Divide and rule.” This stratagem has also been known as “divide and conquer.” It has been used by Machiavelli, Napoleon, Lenin, Hitler, Mao and a host of bad actors stretching back across the centuries, as a means to seize, solidify and sustain political power.

Never has Obama’s clear intent to divide the country been on display than it was yesterday, when he parlayed what was supposed to be an announcement by the Treasury Department to block funding of ISIS/ISIL, into a pathetic and partisan rant against Republicans, in general, and Donald Trump, specifically.

At the very moment the United States needed most, a message of reassurance and a call for national unity following the murder of forty-nine people in an Orlando, Florida nightclub, Obama instead went on a self-indulgent and petulant rant about the words “Radical Islamic Extremism” he stubbornly refuses to use when describing the nature of the terrorist threat he has helped to foment worldwide. With a condescending tone altogether fitting for an arrogant megalomaniac, he launched into an angry diatribe against critics who have taken issue with his reticence to use the phrase, saying that doing so would achieve nothing, and only worsen the situation unfolding around the world.

Nothing could be further from the truth, as it is axiomatic that an unnamed enemy cannot possibly be defeated, and history has borne this out, time and time and time, again.

What Obama presumably fails to understand is that the use of the phrase “Radical Islamic Extremism” codifies and identifies the precise nature of the threat the world faces from radical and fundamentalist Muslims who seek to wage jihad in order to achieve a caliphate of world domination, based upon strict interpretation of Sharia law as contained in the Qur’an. Comprised of 23% of the world’s population, roughly 1.7 billion people, it is estimated that 10-15% of Muslims ascribe to this radical interpretation which seeks to force its belief system on the entire world. Every single, despicable act perpetrated by these radical Muslims has been done in the name of Allah, and yet the president insists that such heinous barbarism has nothing to do with Islam, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Such is the lie with which Barack Obama seeks to divide this country at a time when national unity is needed most. After seven and one-half years of his feckless and tepid response to a plethora of militant Islamic attacks around the world, it has at long last been made painfully clear that Barack Obama is aiding and abetting Islamic terrorism. In heaping his infectious invective in such a manner, he is attempting to portray the presumptive Republican nominee, Donald Trump, as a far greater threat to America and the world, than the real threat of Islamic extremism. A simple comparison in the tone of his diatribe bears this out, and it has become duly and painfully obvious that he seeks America’s ultimate destruction as a result.


-Drew Nickell, 15 June 2016

© 2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.