Earlier this week, President Trump held a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, in which members of the media and Democrat Party, for some reason, expected him to address the Russian meddling into U.S. elections following the indictment of 13 Russian entities by the Mueller investigation. (Now I understand the reason for bringing up these charges again: to cause the firestorm we’re seeing).
And because he did not address the issue, even going so far as to say he trusts Putin more than U.S. intelligence, he is being attacked and berated by people on both sides of the aisle.
The media is calling his meeting “disgraceful”, John Brennan is calling it “treason” and more than “high crimes and misdemeanors”, RINOs are joining the Left once again in attacking Trump and even conservative figures such as Ben Shapiro, Newt Gingrich, and others have said it was a disgraceful meeting.
However, I see it entirely differently. Trump did what was best for his presidency in the long-term, even if it draws criticism and ire in the short-term. To even admit or give credence to the Mueller investigation means to give an inch to the opposition. That’s something you never do.
If you give an inch to the Left, they will take a mile. If Trump mentions, at least on camera, to Putin that they meddled in the elections and will be punished for it, not only does that tick off Putin, which is not the aim of Trump, but it gives legitimacy to the insane witch-hunt.
But there’s one thing that really needs to be said, regardless of your political leanings: while there was Russian ENTITIES meddling in the election, we have not seen any sort of Trump-Russia collusion, we have not seen Russia actually hacking anything (in regards to the DNC servers, it was Podesta’s fault for being stupid enough to fall for one of the most obvious scams on the internet), and we have not seen any vote, popular or electoral, be affected by this meddling.
The outcome of the election was not affected by this case, as even Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein has said TWICE now.
But Trump has absolutely no reason to back the same intelligence agencies that have worked and conspired to keep him out of office since his nomination, perhaps even longer. He has no reason to support traitors in the Deep State who literally make up dossiers of urinating hookers to destroy him.
In my mind, the only thing he did wrong was saying he trusts Putin more than U.S. Intelligence. While the Intelligence community is not to be trusted, Putin is a dictatorial gangster who has literally killed his opposition. He runs sham elections and strongly intends to take back the now-sovereign nations who were once part of the Soviet Union.
Putin would love nothing more than to see a destabilized America. The Deep State and the Left are in the same boat. The difference is that Putin goes as far as to kill and imprison his opposition on the regular. I’m not defending the Deep State by any means, but I would be naïve to say that Putin is any better.
That being said, I understand why Trump said what he said. Trump is a negotiator. A deal-maker. You don’t make mutually-beneficial deals by antagonizing the other party. Trump was not going to publicly berate and try to embarrass Putin by calling out meddling that had nothing to do with the Kremlin, as far as we know, and that ultimately did nothing to change the outcome of the election.
Trump is a man who tends to treat people the way he wants to be treated. Unless you publicly attack and berate him, Trump can be your absolute best and most loyal friend. Putin, so far, has treated Trump far, FAR better than people within OUR OWN GOVERNMENT have.
As for the people that attack Trump for this, and I mean people who call themselves conservatives, I cannot honestly understand their rhetoric here. Take, for example, Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro. Even Ben has called this meeting “disgraceful”.
What he calls disgraceful was Trump calling out U.S. Intelligence’s hand in the deterioration of U.S.-Russia relations and saying he supported Putin’s claim that he did not meddle in the elections, saying: “I have confidence in both parties.”
Ben Shapiro responded by saying: “Both parties. One party being a murderous dictator, and the other the intelligence community that works for him.”
He is only half right in this instance. Yes, Putin is a murderous dictator, as I have said earlier, but the intelligence community does not work for Trump. It’s SUPPOSED to work for him, but it doesn’t. If it did, it would not be working 24/7 to try to undermine and destroy him. And let’s not forget that it’s not just his own intelligence community that he’s talking about here.
Do you know what Trump’s intelligence community is? Obama’s intelligence community. The same one that tried to keep Trump from becoming President. Again, why would he support a treasonous community like that?
But do you really want to know what is interesting about all of this. Aside from people like Ben Shapiro and other conservatives, it seems that the Democrat and Republican Parties, as well as the media seem to care more about what Trump did or did not say instead of what PETER STRZOK, LISA PAGE, AND THE FBI TRIED TO DO IN THE ELECTIONS!
People like Paul Ryan, Jeff Flake, John McCain, and other establishment RINOs are more outraged at this subjectively “bad” meeting than they were at Peter Strzok’s narcissistic cockiness in his House hearing. The guy threatened to “stop Trump”, refused to turn over crucial evidence for HIS OWN HEARING, worked in the Clinton email case and the Mueller investigation. But what did we hear from the GOP Establishment? Crickets.
And now they say Trump was the disgraceful one? Thanks for reminding me how strongly I heavily dislike these people.
Then again, it’s not really surprising. What was surprising was conservatives turning on Trump for this. No, I don’t like Putin either and no, I don’t consider him an ally to the U.S., but the U.S. Intelligence community has done EVERYTHING to make me dislike and distrust them. And Trump must think the same.
Supporting the Intelligence community over another country does not make you a patriot if that intelligence community is as rotten and corrupt as it is. Heck, supporting the government altogether, regardless of who is in power, does not make you a patriot. Supporting your country does. Supporting your troops does. Supporting your fellow Americans does.
This attack against Trump, at least from fellow conservatives, is simply asinine. Trump did what he thought was the best thing to do. Now, he has also backtracked on some things, particularly in regards to the intelligence agencies saying he has "full faith and support" in them and accepts their conclusions on Russian meddling in the election.
However, the point remains that no one can honestly blame him for being distrustful of the intelligence communities. Like I said, trusting Putin over them is questionable, but the intelligence community has lost many people's trust in the past few years. You can't trust either.
And let's not forget that the biggest part of all this comes from the DNC servers, which we do not know if Russians actually hacked them since the Democrat Party refused to turn the servers over to the FBI and the FBI was just fine with it.
But with what Trump did, all that would really come of this is people being ticked off at him, as we've seen. The Left is always ticked off at him, so who cares about that? But even the conservatives who are ticked off at him will eventually let go of that anger because they are not emotionally-disturbed liberal crybabies.
They know Trump has been a fantastic President so far and won’t push for impeachment if he ticks them off on occasion. But as for the Deep State and the media, they will always want to impeach Trump. The important thing to consider is that Republicans have to at least have some quasi-legitimate reason for it, which they so far do not have, even with today's backtracking of Trump's words.
Like I said, we have not seen evidence suggesting a single vote was affected in the election and that's all the meddling we have actually seen. Otherwise, the DNC server hack is merely speculation from the Left, as is collusion and everything else.
Overall, while his meeting with Putin was not something that I could say is groundbreaking or helps our relations with Russia all too much, I will say that it was not the apocalyptic and treasonous meeting people might say it is. Actually, I would say it was quite the opposite. I think it was a pretty good meeting. What with Putin and Trump both mocking the collusion narrative and Trump pointing back at the DNC’s servers, I would say it was not a bad meeting at all.
But even if the meeting was just fine, I would not be willing to throw Trump under the bus for it. And I do not think he has a darn thing to apologize for, even if he is backtracking on certain things.
The overall point is that the Intelligence community is not to be trusted in certain matters (not necessarily for absolutely everything). I don't blame Trump for wanting to backtrack on his trust of them. He should try to refocus the attention on the DNC server.. But the fact remains that the Intelligence community is rotten and corrupt and only marginally better than Putin when it comes to trustworthiness.
1 John 4:1
“Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
We’ve gotten to the point where the fake news media has so little to talk about that they will literally turn nothing into something to attack Trump.
Last week, the Huffington Post ran a story titled: “The Hunt For ‘Every Trump Reporter’s White Whale’: The Elevator Tape.” But what exactly brought this supposed tape to light? A Daily Beast story mentioning the possibility of a tape.
“As the Access Hollywood fallout spread, the TMZ tip line received an email from a lawyer in Los Angeles claiming to have another bombshell tape of Trump in an elevator in Trump Tower, seven sources familiar with the matter told The Daily Beast. (The Daily Beast has uncovered no proof that the tape exists after interviews with more than a dozen former and current TMZ staffers and others with knowledge of the situation.)”
And so, despite the fact that The Daily Beast also admits to not having any proof to support the claim of the existence of this tape, the Huffington Post ran with it.
But even the HuffPost has to admit that this is so far nothing but a rumor: “The rumors vary from journalist to journalist, but the common understanding is that somewhere out there, a tape might exist of Trump doing something in an elevator, though exactly where that somewhere is and what that something might be, no one in media can say. That’s because no one in media seems to have seen the tape – or is even confident it exists.”
So if no one knows what the tape shows, where that tape may be, or even if said tape even exists, what’s the point of writing about it as though it will be something damning to the President? Why even mention it at all, let alone focus an entire article around it? At least the fake Russia story, despite showing as little evidence of being the case as the tape does in existing, had a motive for being pushed. They wanted to stain the validity of the electoral process and rile up emotional losers to believe they were cheated out of a President Hillary Clinton.
But this story is mostly, for lack of a better word, stupid. It has no meaning, no evidence, and wastes people’s time… well, not everyone. For me, it gives me the opportunity to show you guys how low today’s standards for journalism are.
It used to be that, in order to run with a story, you needed proof. Whether you were right in the end or not, that’s a different story. But in order to even begin to speculate, you need some semblance of evidence to support your claim. Here, there is not even a claim to be made. They just talk about it as though it’s the Holy Grail or Bigfoot. But even Bigfoot has some “evidence” for his existence, as fake as those pictures may be. But for this? There’s nothing.
When I first saw this story on Twitter, I honestly tweeted at the Huffington Post asking when The Onion, a satire news site, changed their handle. This story is precisely what writers at The Onion would write, but even those writers are fully aware to not take something like this seriously.
But this really shows the mindset of today’s fake news media. They associate any tape of Trump with damning evidence of… something. Like with the Hollywood Access tape, they expect this “Elevator Tape” to have something horrendous on Trump. They expect him to either be saying something vulgar about a minority, about women, about anyone; they expect him to be talking with Vladdy boy about how they will cheat in the 2018 midterm elections; they expect him to be doing something egregious and so, they go to the ends of the Earth to find it.
For what purpose? To continue pushing their narratives, their rhetoric, their agenda that Trump is an evil guy who should be promptly impeached. This is not journalism – it’s a witch hunt. The fake news media has long ceased to be about journalism. It is now about propaganda.
And this has been the case since long before Trump. While Bush was President, the media would attack him for just about everything. While Obama was President, the media would praise him as he destroyed the country. While Trump is President, the media will attack him as he rebuilds the nation, claiming it is not happening. The difference between those three, or at least between the way they treated Bush and the way they treat Trump is that Trump fights back and he does the right things.
How else could you explain the mere fact that the fake news media is talking about some tape somewhere that could be damning to Trump but have absolutely zero evidence for even the EXISTENCE of that tape, let alone what is in it? They are actually running out of things to attack him on.
Remember the new indictments by the Special Counsel this last week? They were virtually the same indictments from February of this year. And like back in February, the Special Counsel found no evidence of American involvement in election meddling, nor any significant effect in the results of the election due to this Russian meddling.
The reason to bring these things back up? To pressure Trump in his, at the time, upcoming meeting with Putin. They brought nothing new to the table, but were just looking to fan the flames of a dying narrative.
That is propaganda. And this story about the possibility of a tape? Same thing.
They can’t even claim to say it really is damning for Trump. For all we know, if there really is a tape of Trump in an elevator, it might just show him picking his nose or sneezing. Frankly, I hope such a tape exists so I can bring this whole thing up again and laugh at their misfortune and embarrassment.
But still, as it stands, there is no evidence of such a tape existing. And the fact that these news outlets (the HuffPo says the NYT, WSJ, the AP and “others” are also looking for this tape), or at least the HuffPo is writing a story even slightly insinuating that Trump might have done something bad in this tape which may or may not exist shows you how pathetic these people are.
They are really running out of things to attack Trump on, what with the economy roaring, ISIS pretty much defeated, North Korea agreeing to denuclearize (though I won’t count my chickens before they hatch), and the country being Made Great Again, what do these people even have to attack him for anymore?
This story is the epitome of fake news. They are basically talking about nothing but making it seem like something to keep an eye on, not to mention something that might make Trump look bad.
You really have to wonder how much longer they’ll be able to spread fake news. Constitutionally, of course, they are allowed. However, there will come a point where people are just sick and tired of all the lies and do something about it. Already, plenty of people are distrustful of the media, if the Axios poll showing that 72% of people in America distrust the media is anything to go by.
I can’t say that I blame them when a non-satire news site is writing an article like that.
As for the tape, I won’t flat out deny or confirm the existence of one. There may not be any evidence of it now, but there could be in the future. But even if it does exist, again, what could possibly be on that tape that is so newsworthy? It’s a few minutes’ elevator ride. What could Trump seemingly do in that time to hurt him? And in an elevator of all places?
Unless he is wiring money to the Kremlin and explicitly thanking them for helping him win the election, I doubt anything would come of this story, even if there really is a tape.
You really have to laugh at the pathetic efforts of the Left sometimes.
“Your tongue plots destruction, like a sharp razor, you worker of deceit.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Last week, running on the fumes of the massive illegal immigration debate centered around children separated from their “parents”, three Democrats in the House of Representatives introduced a bill calling on the abolishment of ICE. The three Democrats were Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI), Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) and Adriano Espaillat (D-NY).
However, House Republicans called their bluff and agreed to bring the measure up to the House floor so the Democrats could be on record supporting the abolishment of ICE. And so, the three Democrat representatives said they would vote “no” on the measure if it is brought up to the House floor.
For their part, they’re also trying to salvage the little dignity they have left, saying: “We know Speaker Ryan is not serious about passing our ‘Establishing a Humane Immigration Enforcement System Act,’ so members of Congress, advocacy groups, and impacted communities will not engage in this political stunt.”
Yeah, it’s not that he’s not serious about such a bill. Whether he is or isn’t is beside the point. The point is that these Democrats wanted to have some good p.r. by seemingly wanting to back the abolishment of ICE but their bluff was called. It’s them who were not serious about the bill, they just wanted some good rep.
Of course, this is not entirely surprising. According to polls, only 25% of Americans think ICE should be abolished (which is still too high, if you ask me). If they were to seriously go for such a measure, while it wouldn’t pass anyway since even some Democrats are against the idea, Republican candidates could use those votes in their campaigns to highlight the damage the Democrats could cause were they to win any seats in Congress.
Now, here’s the thing: we know this is the direction the Democrat Party is headed. Everyone from Keith Ellison to former PP CEO Cecile Richards is insisting that the future of the Democrat Party lies with people like Ocasio-Cortez, the socialist who defeated Democrat incumbent Joseph Crowley. If open socialism is the Democrat Party’s future, the Democrat Party has no future.
Regardless, they believe this is the direction their base wants to go. In this direction lies the destruction of the very fabric of society, as I have said in the past. Abolishing ICE is what socialists like Ocasio-Cortez want and will eventually try to go for, regardless of what the polls say. The only reason these three Democrats even brought up such a bill is because of Ocasio-Cortez’s victory over Crowley. It’s one of the things she’s been looking to do in Congress.
But due to this very act of cowardice on the part of the three Democrats, the Party must face the truth: this kind of rhetoric isn’t going to get them far. As it stands, the Democrat Party is too afraid to actually pull the trigger on supporting the abolishment of ICE. The problem is they’ve been in this kind of situation in the past.
Democrats used to be against gay marriage until they believed people wanted it. Democrats used to be against illegal immigration until they realized illegals mean free votes. As it stands, the Democrat Party is split on the abolishment of ICE, but they will eventually be unified again, likely against ICE and the country.
The only problem for them is that, with the demands the socialists in the Democrat Party are making now, just about any fool can torch them in an election. Let’s review a list I shared with you some articles ago about the demands these socialists are making. These socialists want to abolish ICE, abolish prisons, abolish profits, guaranteed income for everyone, no borders, no deportation of illegals, supposedly free healthcare, supposedly free education, and the complete and utter destruction of the 2nd Amendment, guaranteeing only the government has guns.
In that previous article, I made the case for why these are all terrible ideas (not that it’s not obvious to sane people) and any candidate can use those arguments to destroy these points. Like I said in that article, abolishing ICE means more crime, more drugs, more guns pouring into the country that will land in the hands of criminals and, least of all, more illegal immigrants coming into the country.
The only people who would deny these facts are those who should be considered insane. Which is why I say the Democrat Party has no future if people like Ocasio-Cortez are the future.
Now, don’t get me wrong. The Democrats have wanted a lot of the things they’ve recently been campaigning on for ages. The difference is that they used to lie about what they wanted (don’t misunderstand, they still do in some cases). In the past, in order to get what they wanted, they had to lie about what they wanted.
If Obama had been entirely honest about Obamacare, how likely would it have been to pass? Containing death panels, mandating people to get it or pay a fee and knowing it would increase premiums twice-fold, no one in their right mind would be okay with having Obamacare if they knew about these things.
If Obama had been entirely honest about the Iran Nuke Deal, how likely would it have been viewed as a good thing by the American people and the media? Sending billions upon billions of dollars to an enemy who constantly calls for our deaths in order to help them build the most dangerous weapons known to man? No one in their right mind would say “sign me up!”
But now, with certain things, the Democrats are abandoning any semblance of subtlety. They are, for once, honest with their words. They are looking to do what they say they want to do. Why? Because the emergence of Trump, as well as his sustained popularity, have driven the Left insane. They see Trump as a radical and think their best chance is to fight fire with fire.
They see Trump as far-right, so they believe they must go far-left. The problem is that it’s messing with the formula in a dangerous way. They are exposing themselves as socialists. And while half the Millennial generation may be with them (God knows why), most of America is still sour on the idea of turning into a socialist/communist nation.
We need only see Venezuela, North Korea, China, the Soviet Union, and Europe to see how terrible socialism is. Socialism has amounted to the deaths of hundreds of millions of people and counting. It’s almost too easy to destroy any socialist argument.
Now, I understand that many people vote with their hearts and not their brains. Looking at today’s political climate of Leftist whack-jobs attacking Trump supporters, those people are not very likely to listen to reason when it comes to socialism. But the thing about living life with such unreasonableness is that it can’t last forever.
At one point or another, people are faced with reality and will accept the truth. I’ve used this example before, but I think it’s a good one, so I will restate it.
Picture yourself driving down the road, coming up to an intersection. You see that you have a red light and there’s a big truck about to cross the intersection. Living unreasonably, you theorize that the truck is not actually there, despite all evidence against your theory, and drive through the intersection.
That’s living without reason. But eventually, reason always returns to you, and it can return the easy way or the hard way.
Translating this into political terms, people will realize the horrors of socialism the easy way or the hard way.
The good news is we don’t need to risk learning this the hard way. We have real-world examples that speak against socialism, including simple logic. The other good news is that the people who want full-on communism and socialism and the things written in the aforementioned list are in the minority.
We saw, during the 2016 presidential election, many former Democrat voters voting for Trump because they were disillusioned with the job Obama did and thought Hillary would be more of the same. Recently, we’ve been seeing a quiet movement (which has only been quiet because the MSM wouldn’t dare cover it, as it goes against their narrative) called the “Walk Away” movement in which people expressed their disappointment with the Democrat Party going farther and farther to the Left that they can’t even recognize the Party anymore.
The vast majority of America does not want socialism. It’s for these very reasons that I say the Democrat Party has no future if Ocasio-Cortez is their future. And some Democrats are smart enough to know that.
For the many, MANY dumb things Schumer and Pelosi say, they are actually pretty smart. They have to be in order to survive calls of stepping down. For as Leftist as they are, they still remain somewhat sane and reasonable – particularly compared with Warren, Sanders (although he’s also smart enough, seemingly, to be against abolishing ICE) and the crazy lady I’ve been talking about throughout this article. They represent a Democrat Party that is still not completely screwed. And I think they know that in order to return to power, they need to continue lying about what they want.
So there will be a sort of civil war in the Democrat Party in the near future. That much is for sure.
But returning to the three Democrats “looking” to abolish ICE, it’s quite clear that this was nothing but a political stunt. They want their voters to think they want to go through with abolishing ICE but never had any actual intentions on voting on the measure. Their bluff was expertly called and they were left obliterated.
However, as quiet as this measure was, if things go the way I think they will, there will be another similar measure that will be as loud as any bill could be. Here’s hoping and praying these socialists are soundly defeated and sent home with their tail between their legs.
“If a ruler listens to falsehood, all his officials will be wicked.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Late last month, a sporting goods employee in Tallahassee, Florida, detained a man who was attempting to steal a gun from the store. While this act should seem heroic, or at least the right thing to do for any employee, his employer thought differently and fired him over the incident.
The Tallahassee Democrat (news site belonging to USA Today) reported that on June 29th, Dean Crouch, 32, was working his shift as assistant manager of Academy Sports when suspect Jason White allegedly attempted to steal a .40 caliber handgun and ammunition.
According to the Daily Wire: “The Tallahassee Democrat states that White asked to look at the handgun at the firearms counter; when he was given the gun, he fled toward the front door, where he was tackled and subdued by Crouch and another employee. White was held in an office until police arrived; according to the Tallahassee Democrat, he admitted to stealing the gun and threatened to shoot people with it.”
Now, we can’t possibly live in a world so 180 degrees backwards that stopping a GUN THIEF in a store would get someone fired, right? That can’t be the reason he was fired. Well, you’re right. The reason he was fired, after having been suspended, was because he violated store policy barring employees from placing their hands on customers while they’re in the store.
Yeah, never mind the fact that Crouch possibly saved a number of people AND saved the store a couple hundreds of dollars from a stolen gun and ammo. Never mind that he did the right thing. No, what really matters is he put his hands on the “customer” who most likely did not actually purchase anything and so, one can hardly even define him as a customer. No, Crouch, if he wanted to stop White, should’ve used the Force instead.
Are you kidding me?
We’ll return to this sheer stupidity after I share some more details.
According to the Daily Wire: “Crouch’s attorney, Ryan Hobbs, told Fox News that Crouch, who is married with two young children, was prompted to act by other employees yelling ‘stop that guy’… Hobbs claims Crouch was placed on suspension after the incident… Hobbs noted after Crouch was fired on Tuesday that Crouch had been ‘suspended and terminated for preventing this thief from stealing this weapon.’ He told the Tallahassee Democrat, ‘Academy has decided to, instead of treating him like a hero he is, they terminated his employment effective immediately because he put his hands on Mr. White.’ Hobbs said Crouch and his wife had to put their home up for sale as ‘a direct result of him losing his job at Academy Sports.’”
Hobbs said of the store: “My instincts tell me they are concerned more about people like Mr. White suing them for being stopped in the course of a theft than they are about rewarding or acknowledging in a positive manner that Mr. Crouch may have saved lives… I think he was thinking there is a man running out of the store with a gun in his hand with his coworkers following from the firearm area screaming ‘stop that man.’ Something had to be done and he was the one that was going to do it.”
You really have to be left stupefied to believe a store employee would be fired for STOPPING THE THEFT OF A FIREARM! Now, I understand the need for such policy. These kind of things are put into place to prevent employees from possibly harming a customer in any way and to hold them accountable in the case that they do. However, as with many other cases, there are exceptions to such policy rules.
The thing about implementing and enforcing policy is that it needs to make sense. It needs to be reasonable. Had Mr. White been stealing just about anything else, I still believe it would be best to subdue and detain him, even if the store believes otherwise. But that’s just me. One can easily make the case for just letting them go as well and leaving the police to handle it.
However, we’re talking about a decently high-caliber GUN being stolen with matching ammunition – the type of gun most police officers use today. Despite any intentions Mr. White had with the gun (even if he didn’t admit he wanted to shoot people), the only sane and HEROIC thing to do is to subdue and detain the gun thief. And I honestly think even liberals would agree with me here.
With all the talks about gun control that had been happening earlier in the year, I think even hardcore liberals would agree with Mr. Crouch on this and hail him as a hero. Regardless of political leaning, Mr. Crouch stopped a man with a gun from fleeing the store. Anyone who stops an armed man should be hailed as a hero. And yet, this man was fired over store policy.
How ridiculous is that?! As I said before, there are exceptions to every rule. Those exceptions only exist within reasonable grounds. Stopping a gun thief from escaping your store should be one of those exceptions to that particular store policy. I mean, seriously. What was he supposed to do? Shout at the guy that stealing is against the law? Asking the guy nicely to return the stolen gun? Or use the Force as I mentioned earlier?
Had Mr. Crouch let Mr. White go, the thief would have shot and most likely KILLED some people. The thief ADMITTED to planning as much. Would that have been a more preferable outcome for the store? Not only would one of their employees had allowed a thief to kill people, but the store would have been out quite a few hundred dollars on the gun alone, let alone the ammo.
Tell me, how is any of that preferable to what Crouch did? No sane person can honestly tell me it would be.
Now, even though Mr. Crouch is seemingly in some financial trouble, I doubt he will find it difficult to find a job. If an interviewer asks him for the reason for his termination and Crouch explains it to them, I honestly believe that would nearly guarantee Crouch a new job. Such courage should, and definitely will, be rewarded. Any employer would love to have someone like Crouch on their staff.
I say he will be rewarded simply out of knowing God’s character. He will strengthen Crouch and reward him for such courage, not to mention recompense him for losing his job and his house. I know for a fact that this will set Crouch up for something better in the future.
As for Academy Sports, while I do not live in Tallahassee, I would not shop at that store. Don’t misunderstand, I am not encouraging people to boycott every Academy Sports store. I’m just saying that, for that particular shop, I would hesitate to shop there.
Unfortunately, I don’t quite know what this whole ordeal will mean to other criminals. They might see this kind of situation as a golden opportunity to rob at least that particular store, knowing that their employees can’t do anything about it. Maybe nothing will really come of this, but I wouldn’t be surprised if other criminals were at least planning to do the same, seeing as there would be no repercussions coming from the store.
Then again, while I do not know the exact store policy, if the policy just talks about not putting your hands on “customers”, nothing says you can’t put your boot in their behinds.
I joke, of course, but still. What a crazy world we must live in for someone who would otherwise be seen as heroic to be fired for “violating store policy” in the act of literally rescuing people. Usually, I would try to come up with an analogy, but honestly nothing beats being fired over stopping someone from stealing a gun. You really have to wonder what was going through Crouch’s employer’s mind to arrive to the decision of suspension, let alone termination of employment.
I pray that Crouch will soon find another job with an employer that won’t punish their employees for doing the right thing, even if it violates company policy.
“Knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
The answer to that question is the exact same answer for the question “what’s so wrong about being a black female?”, which is: absolutely nothing. And yet, the Left is always the one to bring up race and gender in every issue. They always have problems with someone’s skin color.
Earlier this week, President Trump announced the nomination for Justice Anthony Kennedy’s replacement for the Supreme Court. Trump chose D.C. Circuit Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh, a solidly conservative judge who would most likely have a hand in overturning Roe v. Wade if the case is brought up again to the Supreme Court. He just so happens to be a white man. GASP! The horror! How can President Donald Trump select someone who is a member of the majority race in this country?! How could he select yet another white man?!
The thing is that, regardless of who he chose, the Left would have utterly trashed that person, if the Women’s March statement opposing the nomination of judge “XX” is anything to go by. Had it been Barrett (my personal favorite), Trump would’ve been attacked for trying to play the “woman” card and she would’ve been attacked for “betraying women” for being pro-life.
So, with the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh, the Left is attacking him for everything (even saying he will kill millions of people), including for his race and gender. If you’re still wondering if the Left is racist and sexist, there’s your answer.
Supposed comedian Stephen Colbert joked about this whole thing, saying that Kavanaugh fills Trump’s BINGO card for nomination. He literally pulled out a BINGO card that only had “white guy” squares.
Fellow butcher of comedy Jimmy Kimmel joked: “[Trump] narrowed his candidates down to three but, in the end, Brett Kavanaugh was the white guy for the job.”
And it’s not just washed-up comedians who are taking a jab at Kavanaugh’s race. The New York Daily News attacked not only Kavanaugh’s race and gender, but the race and gender of those who support and praise him. “After President Trump picked a man who many believe will be the deciding vote on reversing Roe v. Wade, the White House released a list of praise from 34 members of Congress – all of whom are white men.”
I’ve used this argument before, but I believe it to be effective and relevant, so I will use it again here. Replace the word “white” with the word “black” or “Hispanic” and the word “man” with the word “woman” and you can’t help but notice the racism on display.
To better picture it, I’ll rewrite some of the aforementioned statements and “jokes”.
Picture Stephen Colbert pulling out a BINGO book that only had “black chick” on it. Picture Colbert bashing Trump for choosing a black woman for Supreme Court based only on the fact that the nominee is black and female.
Or how about what Kimmel said? “He narrowed his candidates down to three but, in the end, [Judge XX] was the black woman for the job.” I get he’s using a pun, so this doesn’t have the same effect, but picture Kimmel also attacking the nominee’s race and gender.
Or the NY Daily News: “The White House released a list of praise from 34 members of Congress… all of whom are black women.”
So, again, I ask: what is so wrong with being white and a man? And don’t tell me I’m being a white supremacist sympathizer for defending white men or white people in general. Were people who defended black people before the 60s called “black supremacist sympathizers”? No. And considering it’s white people being attacked for absolutely no reason, of course I’m going to defend them. Same way I would defend black people being attacked for absolutely no reason. Same goes for Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, Muslims, gay people, transgenders, liberals, conservatives, atheists, Christians, etc.
It’s not right to attack people for no reason. But the most important thing is recognizing just who are the ones attacking people: those who consider themselves “tolerant” and “loving” and “caring”.
The truth is they only tolerate you if you agree with them. The Democrat Party’s slogan for 2018 and 2020 should honestly be: “Join us in tolerating and loving people who are different or die.” Considering their constant (and sometimes violent) attacks against Christians, conservatives and Trump supporters, I’d say that slogan fits them perfectly.
They don’t tolerate others. They HATE others. Anyone who is different, who thinks differently from them, cannot be tolerated. Their speech must be eliminated and censored. And when they set their sights on a particular group of people, they don’t let up.
Historically, the biggest reason the KKK was formed was not simply to attack and kill black people. It was formed to attack and kill Republicans. When Lincoln freed the slaves, black people had no real reason to vote Democrat, considering they were the ones who fought for their “right” to keep them slaves. So, the KKK formed to attack and kill Republicans and black people were usually Republicans.
Today, while not always necessarily the case, white people are sometimes associated with the Republican Party. And unless they denounce the GOP, like the black people who began voting Democrat to keep themselves out of trouble, those white people will be attacked and/or harassed.
Everything the Left does, historically, is fueled by hatred. They hated black people who would vote Republican (don’t misunderstand, they still do). They hate white people who vote Republican, calling them racists. They hate Hispanics who vote Republican, believing them to be abandoning their “brethren” at the border.
Make no mistake, I do not consider a single person who breaks the law to enter the country a “brother” or “sister”. And it also speaks to the Left’s racism to assume all Hispanics disapprove of Trump’s handling of immigration.
It speaks to their racism for them to assume all black people are Democrats. Even more so to assume they MUST vote Democrat.
The truth is that the Left does not tolerate white people who do not denounce their “whiteness” or the GOP. That is why they excuse their prominent Democrats who are white such as Bill and Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren (go ahead and tell me she’s Native American, I could use a laugh), etc. They are excused of their “whiteness” because they support the Leftist agenda. Same reason they excuse Al Gore’s and DiCaprio’s massive carbon footprints. They support the Leftist agenda as well.
Now, in all of this, you really have to ask why they would attack white people. It’s not like they have to fill some quota of being racist towards a group of people every other century. Well, the reason they attack white people is because they see it as an opportunity. An opportunity to garner more votes. You see, despite the Left having been the ones to most strongly support slavery and segregation, they’ve managed to distort history, in their takeover of the education system, to make it seem like it’s not the Left’s fault, but rather, white people in general. And more specifically, America’s fault.
Their arguments and attacks against black people were that they were inferior to the white man. Their arguments and attacks against white people are that their ancestors thought themselves superior to the black man. You see their tricks? It’s them who attacked black people but make it seem as though it was generally white people (and even Republicans) who made those attacks.
And so, they attack white people today for the atrocities of DEMOCRATS’ past. This is deception at its finest. They are making racism seem acceptable again. For what reason? To create more issues of race so they can continue getting elected. If you lived in the Left’s mind, you would believe America is as racist today as it was in the time before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and before the Emancipation Proclamation.
Race relations in the U.S. can’t be allowed to improve. For Democrats to be elected, people must be divided. They must be divided in terms of race, gender, class, etc. Black people must blame white people for things Democrats committed. Women must believe men are holding them back. The proletariat must believe the bourgeoisie are taking advantage of them.
This is how the Left wins. But the thing is that facts do not support this. White people do not treat black people the same today as in the past. Men don’t have more rights than women do. The working class isn’t being taken advantage of by the rich class.
But this doesn’t matter to the Left. In fact, these things are nothing but a bother to them. They MUST create division. They MUST attack white people to make it seem as though the Democrats have always been on the side of black people.
It’s nothing but a farce.
Regardless, it’s always necessary to point out the Left’s history of racism that continues to this day. They simply can’t help but be racist. It’s in their genes.
“A worthless person, a wicked man, goes about with crooked speech, winks with his eyes, signals with his feet, points with his finger, with perverted heart devises evil, continually sowing discord; therefore calamity will come upon him suddenly; in a moment he will be broken beyond healing.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
If you were to watch nothing but the fake news media, prime-time television and Hollywood movies, you would think today’s America is largely and mostly liberal, and more specifically, secular in its beliefs. You would believe that Christianity is on the decline in this country and slowly being left in our nation’s past. And while this would be a dream for the Left, the reality is the complete opposite.
According to new Harvard research, Christianity in the U.S. is growing, not shrinking. The research brought into question the “secularization thesis”. This thesis holds that the U.S. is following in the steps of other advanced industrial nations in shedding their once vibrant culture of faith and moving towards a secular society. The research found no support of this secularization taking place. Not only that, the researchers also found that religion in America currently enjoys “persistent and exceptional intensity.”
A writer for The Federalist (Glenn T. Stanton) tackles this research as well, asking all the right questions such as why church numbers seem to be on the downswing if Christianity is growing, what kind of churches manage to maintain and even grow their numbers while others see dwindling numbers, what is contributing to this growth in faith, and what do we conclude from data about Millennial church-goers and former Christians.
Stanton concludes that, in regards to dwindling church attendance, these numbers do not equate dwindling belief in Christianity.
According to Stanton: “The percentage of Americans who attend church more than once a week, pray daily, and accept the Bible as wholly reliable and deeply instructive to their lives has remained absolutely, steel-bar constant for the last 50 years or more, right up to today. These authors describe this continuity as ‘patently persistent.’”
In other words, statistically speaking, the percentage of people who attend church once a week, pray on a daily basis and accept the Bible as the Word of God is the same today as it was half-century or so ago. And it’s been constant in that entire time-span.
Stanton continues: “The percentage of such people is also not small. One in three Americans prays multiple times a day, while one in 15 do so in other countries on average. Attending services more than once a week continues to be twice as high among Americans compared to the next highest-attending industrial country, and three times higher than the average comparable nation.”
“One-third of Americans hold that the Bible is the actual word of God. Fewer than 10 percent believe so in similar countries. The United States ‘clearly stands out as exceptional,’ and this exceptionalism has not been decreasing over time. In fact, these scholars determine that the percentages of Americans who are the most vibrant and serious in their faith is actually increasing a bit, ‘which is making the United States even more exceptional over time.’”
So it’s not like a small part of the nation falls under this category. Christianity and its fundamental beliefs are widely believed throughout the nation and no other comparable country can even come close (which is actually sad, when you think about it, but it does explain a lot of things *ahem* Europe is screwed *ahem*).
Stanton also shares some more info: “In 1989, 39 percent of those who belonged to a religion held strong beliefs and practices. Today, these are 47 percent of all the religiously affiliated.”
So not only is Christianity growing in numbers, it is also growing in strength. More and more people are coming to faith, and those who are religiously affiliated say they hold strong beliefs and practices.
Pew research reports that “evangelical Protestantism and the historically black Protestant tradition have been more stable” over the years in comparison to mainline churches, which are dwindling in attendance. Stanton notes that there’s even “a slight uptick in the last decade because many congregants leaving the mainline churches are migrating to evangelical churches that hold fast to the fundamentals of the Christian faith.”
So while there have been diminishing numbers of church-goers, there has been a rise in evangelical churches due largely (or perhaps solely) to the fact that they hold true to the fundamental beliefs of Christianity. In other words, people want the real deal and are, understandably, turned off by fake Christianity.
Stanton writes: “When so-called ‘progressive’ churches question the historicity of Jesus, deny the reality of sin, support abortion, ordain clergy in same-sex relationships and perform their marriages, people desiring real Christianity head elsewhere. Fact: evangelical churches gain five new congregants exiled from the liberal churches for every one they lose for any reason. They also do a better job of retaining believers from childhood to adulthood than do mainline churches.”
I can think of a couple of churches that tend to be rather liberal in their teachings, rather than sticking with the actual word of God. Mainly the Roman Catholic Church and the Presbyterian Church of the United States of America (PCUSA). If you belong to either one of these churches, forgive me, but it’s the truth. The amount of times I’ve seen so-called Roman Catholic clergymen and women upholding the liberal and anti-Christian belief that same-sex marriage should be allowed and that abortion is okay, at least in certain occasions, honestly has me worried.
And having actually attended a PCUSA church in the past and having held conversations with the pastor also gave me the opportunity to see just what they believe: the opposite of what Christianity does. I even had conversations with the church’s youth and they all agreed, back before the 2016 election, that they would rather have Obama for a third term than either Clinton or Trump. OBAMA AKA THE MOST ANTI-CHRISTIAN PRESIDENT TO EVER SERVE OFFICE!
So, understandably, my mother and I chose to head elsewhere. We chose to go to a REAL Christian church that taught REAL Christianity. This is the case for many people in America. Those who wish to be taught real Christianity and experience real Christianity leave the churches that don’t offer that, as well they should. What’s the point of calling yourself a Christian if you don’t actually believe in the tenets of the Christian faith? What’s the point of attending a church that isn’t teaching you valuable things about God, Christ, this world that He has created and the Word that He has spoken written down by His followers?
Regardless, let’s move on. The final item we will be looking at, since I don’t want to make this article too long, is Millennials. According to Stanton: “Pew reports that of young adults who left their faith, only 11 percent said they had a strong faith in childhood while 89 percent said they came from a home that had a very weak faith in belief and practice.”
This is not surprising in any way. If you grew up in a family that had very weak faith, there is little reason to stay in that faith. You either are curious enough to search further in the Bible, go to better churches, and become a stronger Christian than your family or, more often than not, you abandon that little faith altogether and simply attribute it to “growing up”.
I know of a lot of people who have been raised in a supposedly “Christian” household who abandoned their faith and believe their secularism is simply due to growing up and maturing. The reality is that weak faith almost always dies eventually. Not all the time, necessarily, but almost always. Particularly if you grow up in a household of weak faith.
Personally, I didn’t grow up in a Christian household. Quite the opposite really. My father was a devout atheist, if you will, who would honestly mock those of faith and consider science to be the ultimate truth, despite the fact that it can’t answer everything and hardly even manages to fully explain what it already tries to explain. Not to say science is a joke, it isn’t. But it’s not the end-all be-all of the truth of our world. Not to mention it doesn’t get much into the Creator of the world.
As I was saying, I didn’t grow up in a Christian household. I used to believe in the theory of evolution until I started to question its logic. How can a species evolve into an entirely different species, even if given millions upon millions of years to do so? It just doesn’t make sense. A species evolving and adapting to better survive its environment? That makes sense. A species evolving into an entirely different species altogether that acts entirely different from its previous type? Nope, that’s illogical.
But I used to believe these things. I didn’t have faith in Christ, but now I do simply because it’s the most logical thing to do. It’s not that we had weak faith. We didn’t HAVE faith. My father, most likely, still doesn’t. But as for my mother and I, we have faith and it’s a STRONG one.
What I’m trying to say is that those of weak faith could most likely lose that faith altogether. But sometimes, that weak faith, or even lack of faith, can turn into strong faith. Relatively similar to my situation, I also know of some scientists who sought to disprove the Bible who wound up converting.
As for Millennials (and just about everyone else), all it takes is a family of strong faith. Millennials are just another generation not too dissimilar to the previous ones. Strong faith is difficult to kill.
Overall, the research from Harvard is fantastic news that really challenges the Left’s belief that Christianity is on the down-slide and conservatives are panicking over it. Reality, as always, is entirely different from what they claim it is.
Not only is Christianity not on the down-swing, but it’s also growing in numbers AND in strength of belief, at least in the United States. I don’t quite know about the rest of the world but, considering what is currently happening in Europe and Latin America, it’s reasonable to believe things aren’t quite going so well, particularly because of the seeming rise of socialism just about everywhere in those areas.
Although the interesting thing about socialism is that, despite all its efforts, it can lead many to Christ. If socialism and communism managed to do exactly what they wanted, there wouldn’t be people of faith in North Korea trying to escape. There wouldn’t be underground churches in China.
An oppressive government tends to drive people to God, even if those people practice in secret rather than openly. So no matter which way you slice it, the Lord winds up being the winner anyway.
In America, this is exceptionally true.
“Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Another day, another laughable attack from a Leftist directed towards Trump.
Recently, liberal “comedian” Bill Maher further expressed his hate for Trump and Making America Great Again by saying he’d “gladly give Romney $1 million tomorrow if he would take over America. Swear to God! I will become a Mormon, how about that?”
There’s more, but let’s focus on this for a moment. How exactly does Maher believe our government system works? If you could give someone money to take over America, then George Soros and the Left would win every single election. I understand he’s joking, but it’s an unfunny joke. It doesn’t even make sense. A joke, for it to be funny, at least has to make some sense.
But he’s not done: “Although honestly, doesn’t everything about [Trump] scream microd**k? The bragging, and the buildings with my name on it! And the debates. He was talking about his d**k at the debates! That guy is president.”
Really? That is an argument? Maybe in the 7th grade, but not here. But fine, if you want to go down the immature route, let’s do that. Isn’t it more indicative of Maher’s own concerns over his size if he’s talking so much in length (pun not intended) about Trump’s manhood?
Ok, let’s abandon this immature conversation because I’m not a liberal and I prefer to have more mature conversations with people.
Perhaps one rather interesting part of his show is when he had some advice for Democrats. “[Democrats] just gotta win; we cannot blow more elections. So, next time, a little more about ‘We’re going to bring your jobs back’ and a little less about ‘We’re going to make you pee next to a guy in a dress.’”
But here’s the problem with this: Trump has already brought many jobs back as POTUS. Unemployment rates are still near record-lows, with Hispanics setting a record low in unemployment with a rate of 4.6%, according to the June jobs report. Overall unemployment rates have gone up to 4.0%, but that’s still near the record lows we’ve been seeing. Not to mention that June is typically when school ends, and high school seniors graduate and join the labor force, or at least begin looking for jobs.
Billy, do you want to know why the Left’s narrative isn’t “we’re going to bring back your jobs”? Because no one will honestly buy it. People can see Trump is almost solely responsible for these great jobs numbers and Democrats do not have their fingerprints anywhere near these jobs reports. They can’t win on “we’ll get you jobs again” if virtually everyone already has a job.
But this does speak to the larger concept of fighting in the realm of ideas versus using narratives. However, another reason Democrats don’t fight in the realm of ideas is because they simple can’t. Their ideas are dangerous and stupid. Just look at the Democrat Socialists’ desires for this country. Abolishing ICE, abolishing prisons, abolishing profits, guaranteed income for all, no borders, no deportations of illegals no matter what, “free” healthcare, “free” education, no one except the government and police allowed to carry guns or weapons, etc.
There’s not a single item on that list that wouldn’t destroy a nation and an entire system. Abolishing ICE means less secure borders, more illegals coming in, more drugs, more guns, more crime in general. Abolishing profits entirely destroys anyone’s incentive to work or do anything, so an entire system is destroyed. Guaranteed income for all is unsustainable and, frankly, goes against the prior item of abolishing profits. What’s the point of guaranteed income if money holds no value and no one makes a profit?
No borders, as I said in regards to abolishing ICE, means no security at the border, more illegals coming in at record pace. Although, these people are leaving socialist s**tholes and would be entering a newly formed socialist soon-to-be-s**thole. Maybe the Left’s ideas of turning the country socialist is secretly a genius way to keep illegals out, if they’re trying to leave socialist countries anyway. No, what am I saying, there’s nothing genius about the Left. Moving on.
No borders means more guns (which also goes against the idea of only government and police having weapons), it means more drugs and it means more crime. Civilization, thus, would deteriorate and crumble.
No deportations for illegals means allowing terrorists, murderers, rapists, child molesters and such to remain in the country. And since they also want to abolish prisons, there’s nowhere for criminals to go except for the streets. I remember when I was a kid, I would watch this show called The Powerpuff Girls. In one episode where the girls made their own sister (I realize that sounds weird without the context. The powerpuff girls were artificially created in a science lab) and that sister wound up freeing all prisoners and releasing them to the streets, while putting in police and even the mayor of the city in prison. Because of that, criminals ran amok in the city of Townsville (where the show takes place).
Criminals running amok is precisely what abolishing prison alone would bring us, let alone no deportations for illegals.
When it comes to “free” healthcare, we already understand that nothing in this world is truly free. If you don’t pay for something in once place, you do it somewhere else. That somewhere else is through taxation of the citizens. How exactly is it equal and fair to someone who doesn’t get hurt but needs to pay for someone else who does? Same goes for “free” education. People already pay taxes for elementary, middle and high schools. Adding college and grad school means higher taxes.
And, of course, it comes full circle when it comes to guaranteed income. If just about everyone is paid by the government, how do they pay taxes? By lowering the income given by the government? So, in essence, the government needs more money for all of these extra things, but the government pays people a guaranteed income. How is the government getting the money to give people money? Money that goes around in a circle, never being increased, but needing to in order to cover the “free” amenities? That is a government that will go bankrupt within a decade. And that’s being generous.
Do you see what I mean when I say the Democrats can’t fight in the realm of ideas? This is what the Democrats have secretly wanted for ages, but are starting to openly DEMAND for these things. All of these ideas are atrocious that would lead to the downfall of the United States, not just as it was founded, but in general as well. These ideas are killers of society and any form of civilization. And the funny thing is that they can’t possibly all be implemented at the same time. Like you saw with many of these ideas, they clash with one another. Realistically, it’s tough to apply and maintain any one of them without your system getting seriously damaged. But all of them? It’s just not possible.
And now, I’m not saying this because I supposedly “hate the poor” or “hate blacks” or “hate women” or “hate gay people”. It’s because no reasonable person could believe these things would work individually, let alone put together.
Regardless, returning to Maher, it’s interesting seeing the type of “comedy” the Left uses today. I guess the opposite of comedy is still funny? Nah.
“A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Every summer, the Left tries to make the claim that this year’s heat waves have been the worst on record and it is all our fault and we must elect more Democrats and give Democrat organizations more money to combat climate change. Every winter, they claim it’s the coldest winter to date and we must elect Democrats who will change course. If these idiots haven’t realized they’re talking about the changing seasons, there is little hope.
Still, there are some climate scientists who are not paid off by George Soros and the Democrat Party to make outrageous and often scientifically inaccurate claims about the changing climate of our planet. One such noted climate scientist is Dr. Roy W. Spencer, who often tries to put the brakes in people’s climate change hysteria by offering more accurate data.
Most recently, Dr. Spencer wrote an article challenging the message of a memo released by Public Citizen, a George Soros funded “consumer rights advocacy group”. In his article, Dr. Spencer shows graphs about New York’s maximum temperature for every June since 1895 (a figure from the NOAA) all the way to last year. The figure shows that the median temperature from 1901-2000 is 74.9 degrees Fahrenheit. It also shows that last year’s maximum temperature was LESS than 74.9 degrees.
According to Dr. Spencer: “The long term trend is not statistically different from zero.” In other words, New York’s maximum temperature last year is so close to the median, it’s statistically DEAD-SET on the median.
Dr. Spencer then mentioned: “The memo also made mention of the widespread record warmth the U.S. experienced in May, 2018. New York had its 7th warmest May on record this year, and the long-term linear warming trend there since 1895 is weak (0.22 F/decade) and not statistically different from zero at the 95% confidence level. The May warmth in the U.S. was regional, as expected for weather variations, with much of Canada being exceedingly cold.”
And with the Left’s constant talks about this year being hotter than the last, Dr. Spencer makes quick mention of New York’s record high temperature of 109 degrees Fahrenheit. Take a guess as to when the state set this record. Surely, with all the talks about climate change, it must have happened in the last 20, 30 years tops, right? If the world is basically burning, we must be seeing record highs in a small timeframe, correct?
Not quite. It was on July 22nd, 1926 in Troy, New York. Over NINETY years ago. Do you want to know from what year it’s agreed (by the climate change community) substantial human-caused warming began? 1950, 24 years AFTER New York’s record high temperature.
So even they don’t have any argument that humans caused New York’s record high temperature. Thus, the only other possible contributor to the Earth’s change in climate is God. I know mentioning God in any scientific topic is taboo, for some reason, but let’s be honest here: nothing in this universe happens without God’s approval. That includes the Earth getting warmer or cooler.
But returning to New York, what’s more interesting is that the state’s record coldest temperature is far more recent. The state’s record low temperature is -52 degrees Fahrenheit. (If you thought 52 degrees was chilly, try its ONE HUNDRED AND FOUR DEGREES LESS!). This was on Feb. 18, 1979 in Old Forge, New York.
Now, if you want to talk about last week’s heat wave, Dr. Spencer has that covered, using the NOAA’s GFS forecast model for 5-day average temperatures. Dr. Spencer mentions: “… the excessive heat is (again) regionally isolated, which is exactly what we expect for weather… not for climate change.”
What the good doctor is saying here is that weather, even extreme weather, tends to affect specific regions. The concept of climate change only talks about global climate. Meaning that, under climate change, you would not have regional heat waves. You would have global-scale heat waves, which are not happening. The NOAA’s forecast shows that much of the southern states and west coast states are considerably colder.
Of course, that’s just the forecast. Let’s see what actually happened. According to Oregon State University’s Prism temperature analysis for July 1-2 (Dr. Spencer’s article was written on July 3rd) shows a similar picture to the forecast, although more of the southern states were covered in the heat wave and more of the Midwest avoided the heat wave (which was forecasted to hit them). This shows a couple of things.
First, this shows a temporary and localized weather pattern, again, contradicting the idea that we are suffering under climate change conditions (it would be warm everywhere, not just parts of the U.S.)
And second, it shows the inaccuracies and flaws with our current weather forecasting systems. The NOAA’s forecast showed more of the Midwest covered by the heat wave. According to what actually happened, that was erroneous. That doesn’t necessarily discredit the NOAA’s forecasting system, but it does show its flaws and inaccuracies.
What I’m trying to say here is that our current forecasting system can’t accurately predict the weather within a week, or even within a few days. But somehow, we can predict our Earth’s climate and state 50 to 100 years from now? At least when the Left was trying to predict 10 years down the road (still being completely wrong), they could be at least somewhat more believable (except when they would say all sea life would die and the ice caps will melt within that timeframe). But 50 to 100 years? Who could possibly accurately predict that? It’s just wild guesses to profit the Democrat Party and Democrat-affiliated organizations. Not to mention filling George Soros’ pockets.
Dr. Spencer then shows extreme high temperatures for the entire country from 1895 to 2017. The figure he shares (based from NOAA data) shows that there is no trend towards more hot days. In fact, 11 of 12 hottest years happened before 1960. The graph shows that the record high for days spent in a year with temperatures above 100 degrees was in 1935, with the second highest occurring a couple of years earlier and the third highest occurring in 1955. For 2017, we had (statistically) just over 4 days of temperatures over 100 degrees, and that’s the highest in roughly five years.
Finally, Dr. Spencer talks about renewable energy that the Public Citizen memo claims we can achieve with today’s technology (meaning today’s technology allowing 80 to 100% of our energy coming from renewable sources). Dr. Spencer (and logic) informs us that “this is patently false. Solar and wind are relatively diffuse (and thus expensive) sources of energy which are intermittent, requiring fossil fuel (or nuclear) backup. It would be exceedingly expensive to get even 50% of our energy from such sources.”
Of course, this is nothing new to us. We’ve known for ages that renewable energy is crazy expensive that would not get us anywhere near as much energy production as we do now. But it’s always good to see a climate scientist saying that renewable energy sources, as of right now at least, are simply too expensive and would be ultimately detrimental to people (even Dr. Spencer mentions that striving for using renewable energy right now would “worsen poverty” and would ultimately harm a lot of people).
Overall, it’s good to see a climate scientist calling out the Left’s hysteria when it comes to climate change. Usually, things aren’t even half as bad as these people claim they are. But hey, they need voters and the environment is so far the only thing they’ve got going for themselves since the economy is roaring, ISIS is defeated (pretty much), North Korea is looking to denuclearize and people are feeling confident about the future.
Wait, you’re telling me the Weekly Standard reported that greenhouse emissions in the U.S. are falling due to the falling costs of renewable energy and natural gas? And that U.S. carbon dioxide emissions last year plunged by 42 million tons, while “environmentally friendly” Europe’s emissions climbed by 92 million tons?
So, what you’re telling me is that Trump has been more environmentally friendly, despite rolling back green energy policies, than Europe?
Ok, maybe Democrats don’t have the environment card either.
“I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the Lord, who does all these things.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Prior to this 4th of July, former Secret Service agent Dan Bongino appeared on Fox & Friends, where he stated very true and undeniable words: “Socialism is a disaster. The only people who support Socialism are people who don’t know what it is or people who want to win elections.”
This prompted pseudo-celebrity Sarah Silverman to retort, saying: “Forgive me but you are daft. Socialist democrats are for socialized programs within our democracy. Like, education & healthcare available 4 all, making sure all kids have the same opportunities… U don’t like socialized programs? Do you like the police dept? The fire department?”
Thanks for proving his point, Sarah. You’re a real trooper.
Seriously, though, how dumb is that? Ok, one thing I apparently feel must be mentioned: America is not a socialist country. By her definition, socialist countries are the ones that have education, healthcare, police, fire protection and everything a government provides.
Well, I guess my education diplomas are null and void, since we don’t have education here, in a non-socialist country. I guess if I get hurt, there are no hospitals around me because a non-socialist country doesn’t have healthcare. If my house is burning down, I should probably try to take care of that myself, since there is no fire department in a non-socialist country.
Oh, and Black Lives Matter, you guys can go home now. If there is no police department, there is no police brutality. NFL players, you guys can stand for the flag again.
Apparently, socialism is the only form of government out there. If there is no socialism, there is no government and thus, no government-controlled agencies and programs such as police, fire, etc.
You really have to wonder if these people ever actually think before they speak or write anything online.
Sarah, if you want a Google definition of socialism, here it is: a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
In other words, it’s a governmental system in which the community (government) gets to decide just about every aspect of someone’s life. They control how things are made, how they are to be distributed, and how they are to be exchanged. In other words, under a socialist rule, an iPhone would be made by the government to be distributed to whomever the government wants and the government gets to decide what to charge for it.
Now, a socialist might believe that example to be a good thing. The problem is that nothing is ever quite black and white. Nothing is ever quite so simple with the government. And realistically speaking, the government can’t afford to give everyone new iPhones once they come out without risking economic collapse.
That’s why Mark Zuckerberg’s idea of the government giving everyone a set income, even if they do nothing at all, is unrealistic and dangerous. If you can live by doing nothing, what incentive does anyone have to do anything? The reason capitalism is so great is because it gives people a constant incentive to work hard. Because if they don’t, they’ll fall behind and suffer for it. If there is a safety net such as guaranteed government-issued income, no one has to do anything for money.
Sure, maybe some things would still be made, such as art, t.v. shows and such, but that’s only because there are people who are passionate about those things. A socialist government would then decide whether or not the artist can publish his art. But how many people can say they are passionate about building houses and buildings? Not designing them, but building them. How many can say they are passionate about plumbing? About delivering food? About driving people around? About maintaining power plants, water treatment plants and other basic utilities to supply cities? About trash collecting? About mowing lawns?
Take away any incentive to do these basic things, and modern society is severely affected. If I can get paid around the same amount of money for doing nothing as I would for doing menial labor or something I’m not passionate about, I’d rather do nothing.
Which also brings up another point: if no one is doing anything and everyone is dependent on the government, an economic collapse is inevitable and it would lead to chaos. The government runs on tax-payer dollars. If just about everyone relies on the government, including for an income, that system is unsustainable and the government runs out of money. If the government runs out of money, the people run out of money. And don’t tell me the government can just keep printing money. That creates hyperinflation that would eventually make that currency utterly worthless, meaning you still run into the same problem where the government and the people don’t have money.
Such a system leads to chaos. It’s unsustainable by any realistic measure. That’s why I scratch my head at those on the Left who know what socialism really is and leads to. For those people, they know socialism isn’t sustainable. Even without implementing that horrible “fixed-income” idea, socialism relies heavily on other people’s money. If the government grows and grows, that means higher and higher taxes to pay for the bigger government. Eventually, the people are left with such little money that they can’t sustain their livelihoods and have to downgrade. Eventually, they will not be able to give the government much or any money and the big government pops like a balloon because they can’t afford to keep the government so big.
In such a case, unsustainability is the least of people’s problems. In such a system, the government gets so big and powerful that tyranny and corruption are certain. Such power corrupts all human beings. This is why we conservatives keep saying socialism is a disaster. Not only is it unsustainable, but it’s also wildly dangerous for the citizens of the socialist country. Just look at Venezuela for proof that what I say is true.
Socialism’s worst enemy isn’t Capitalism. It’s Socialism. It’s self-destructive. It’s oppressive, even for the people who support it.
Ronald Reagan said it exactly right: “Socialism only works in two places: Heaven where they don’t need it and Hell where they already have it.”
The reason he’s so right is because he takes into account the imperfections and mortalities of humanity. In Heaven, people already have all they need: God. They need nothing else, for He provides everything they need. In Hell, Satan’s reign is pretty much unending (until God throws him into the pit of fire and sulfur, at least). It’s sustainable there because Satan doesn’t need money or anything from the people he rules over.
Outside of Heaven, where there is no imperfection, and thus, no corruption, and Hell, where Satan rules without the need of anyone else, Socialism doesn’t work. It relies too heavily on the kind-hearted nature of one singular figure, or an entire government structure. Man isn’t naturally good; he is naturally evil. Socialism relies on the goodness of its leaders. But when its leaders are rotten and evil, everyone suffers.
And this is without taking into account the unsustainability of it all. Even in the case of a massive government led by entirely good people, the fact remains that a big government relies on tax-payer money. Eventually, as I mentioned earlier, people run out of money. If people run out of money, the government runs out of money. If the government runs out of money, chaos ensues.
Good or evil, big government does not work; it’s not sustainable.
Now, I’ve said what I felt was necessary. Returning to Silverman, she is the precise kind of person Bongino talks about: someone who doesn’t honestly understand what Socialism is. And unfortunately, there are many people out there who are on the same boat. They say ignorance is bliss. But those people forget to mention that ignorance eventually leads to sorrow. That bliss is short-lived. The people who advocate for socialism don’t understand that what they want is not sustainable and has led to the deaths of hundreds of millions of people in recent history. Socialism is dangerous and they are unaware of that fact. Eventually, if they get what they want, they will face the truth. The truth always comes out eventually.
But it is for that reason that we do what we do. We inform people and teach them so that they do not have to learn what we tell them the hard way. We can only hope they will listen and learn.
“Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Fellas, I bring you good news. If you want a woman to like you, a good first step would be being chivalrous. This is true even in the case of feminists who will likely cry “patriarchy!” as you open a door for them.
Jokes aside, this is true according to a recent study from University of Kent and Iowa State University scientists. In this study’s abstract, the scientists inform us that “benevolent sexism” (BS… stop laughing), or well-meaning sexism, despite the “harmful consequences”, shows that these men “are perceived as willing to invest (protect, provide, and commit)” in the relationship.
The scientists note that “women find benevolent sexist [BS] men attractive, not because they are ignorant of the harmful effects, but despite being aware of them. This suggests that the desirable aspects of BS attitudes and behaviors are sufficient to overcome the perceived negative effects.”
Right, just one question. What are the “perceived negative effects”? What are the “harmful effects” of what these scientists call “benevolent sexism”? What is so wrong about being chivalrous? What harm does it cause a woman for a man to hold the door open for them? Does it make the woman believe that she is inferior to the man and needs him to hold a door open for her because she is, in some way, incapable? That’s ludicrous!
Being chivalrous has nothing to do with a man being superior to a woman. It has everything to do with a man wanting to show respect for a woman by doing something nice for her. What age do we live in that doing something nice for someone else is considered a bad thing?
Well, at least even the feminist women who consider chivalry to be sexist are still attracted to men who are chivalrous.
The Daily Mail noted that the research was collected from five study groups full of women, with the largest group comprising of 233 women and the smallest comprising 104. The women were asked to view different scenarios of interactions with men, including “men who were kind but in what is considered a sexist way, and men who treated the women as equals and didn’t offer any special treatment.” In these interactions, the women were asked to rate the men’s “warmth and attractiveness, and how willing they thought they would be to provide for, protect or commit to them.” The women also divulged their own leanings in terms of their feminism.
The scientists noted that “Our proposal is that women approve of BS attitudes and behaviors because they are taken as cues that a man is willing to invest by being protective, providing, and committed.”
And as I have said before, even feminists are attracted to this “BS” behavior. “Evidence shows that many women – even those who desire [equal] relationships – want a man to be chivalrous, by, for example, paying for dates and opening doors for them. Furthermore, the finding that high feminist women, and not only low feminist women, rated a [sexist] potential romantic partner as more attractive despite being more aware of the detrimental effects, suggests that the attraction may be a mate preference for women in general, and not just for women who endorse traditional gender roles.”
I am actually kind of surprised by a couple of things. Primarily, obviously, the fact that even feminist women are attracted to chivalrous men. But also the fact that a man paying for dates is considered “chivalrous”. I just thought it was common sense. What self-respecting man would allow his date to pay for the date, even if it’s just her portion?
Regardless, this is good news for all men out there… well, straight men, at least. This study definitely shows us that, despite it being “2018” as Leftists who are apparently cognitive enough to recognize the year will say, women are still attracted to chivalry, even women who are self-described feminists.
Again, I must call into question why chivalry could even be considered to be sexist in any way, benevolent or not, but these results are actually very favorable to all men out there. In an age when chivalry is not only dying, but being demonized as it’s being lowered into the grave, it’s fantastic news to hear that chivalry is still considered attractive, a positive thing, to all women regardless of political leaning or feminist leaning.
This is the sort of thing that coincides with a UK Daily Mail article about women being attracted to “muscles and money”. I have already written an article surrounding that particular topic, but it does show that the concept of an alpha male, and a chivalrous one at that, is still alive and well. Of course women are attracted to an alpha male. I’ve already detailed the reasons why in that other article, but it makes sense to go over them here as well.
The study mentioned that men who are chivalrous tend to show that they are more willing to invest in the relationship, such as protecting women. Likewise, men who are considered “alpha” show that they are more willing to protect women from potential harm or danger. This has been true since the dawn of time. Since the creation of mankind.
And let’s not forget the hand Hollywood and the media (including t.v.) plays in this sort of thing. In today’s Hollywood, any semblance of masculinity is barraged and attacked. It’s considered sexist to show “toxic masculinity” and it’s something they believe must be changed. Men cannot be allowed to be men, because if they are, that somehow is destructive to women. Nevermind the fact that women have more power and control when it comes to a relationship. Nevermind the fact that women are the ones who have the authority to accept or decline a man’s courtship. If men are men, that harms women.
So, they encourage men to be wussies. They encourage men to be beta males. To show, if not the opposite of masculinity, at least no masculinity at all. Because of this, and because of constant attacks against chivalry, women’s expectations are lowered when it comes to a potential romantic partner. So when said romantic partner shows chivalry and masculinity, women are attracted to it. Not because they ignore the “toxicity” of masculinity, but because they are biologically built that way by the Lord.
In the Left’s attacks against masculinity, they ignore a crucial factor: biology. Not surprising considering they ignore biology when it comes to transgender people. Masculinity, to women, will always be an attractive factor. This is true regardless of whether you call it evolution or God’s Will for the roles of men and women.
Women tend to be attracted to men who are men. Who knew?
“However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Danielle Cross and Freddie Marinelli will bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free...