For decades now, we have heard just about everything regarding climate change and that big, ole’, mean chemical compound known as “CO2” (that’s not actually mean at all and is necessary for life on Earth). Everyone from climate “scientists” to politicians to celebrities to fake news reporters have cried about rising CO2 levels in our atmosphere and constantly demand that people living in the Western World give up our liberties and our rights to the government in order to “fight” climate change (yeah, still haven’t heard a solid argument as to why we should do that or how it would actually solve anything. It’s very obviously a communist ploy).
That particular chemical compound, though necessary for life on Earth, has been so demonized that people demand we reduce the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere to 0% (which would kill us) or as close to it as possible. But climate scientists have, for a couple of years now, noted that CO2 is rather negligible when it comes to global warming.
In 2015, a seminal paper was published in Geophysical Research Letters that said that a rising concentration of CO2 in Antarctica causes a negative greenhouse effect aka cooling.
“For most of the Antarctic Plateau, GHETES is close to zero or even slightly negative; i.e., the presence of CO2 increases radiative cooling. Over Greenland, the greenhouse effect of CO2 is also comparatively weak but invariably positive.”
So back in 2015, a couple of scientists were saying that CO2 was actually causing COOLING rather than warming, at least in the southern hemisphere. They also acknowledged that such emissions were pretty “weak” in both hemispheres.
So then why did Greta Thunberg yell at a bunch of white people that they were destroying the climate when CO2 hasn’t actually been shown to be even all that relevant when it comes to climate change? The entire “fight” regarding climate change revolves around reducing CO2 emissions. Multiple parts of the Green New Deal include doing exactly that, and yet, since at least 2015, there are scientists that argue that CO2 was pretty “weak”, at least in the poles?
But regardless of the phoniness of the entire climate change cult, let’s move on to another piece of news (that is actually not all that new) that might intrigue us to some extent:
“Carbon dioxide: sometimes it is a cooling gas, sometimes a warming gas,” according to a research article from 2018.
Here’s what the abstract of the article says: “The laws of physics, namely the gas laws, were applied to the gases in the atmosphere that act as ideal gases. The results show that as air temperature increases from winter to summer, CO2 is a cooling gas and from summer to winter, it is a warming gas regardless of its concentration in the atmosphere. This is contrary to the commonly held belief that CO2 always warms the atmosphere… The effect of CO2 methane and the trace gases on atmospheric temperature and climate change is so small as to be negligible.”
The actual paper also states: “… it is the gas laws that cause CO2 concentration in dry air to fall by 26 ppmv from 403 to 377 ppmv from January to August… from January 1 to July 1 at Hamburg, the temperature rises 19°C… CO2 concentration falls 26 ppmv… water vapour rises by 9033 ppmv… and the H2O/CO2 ratio raises 25.4 units. This is conclusive evidence that from winter to summer, the warming by water vapor counteracts the small cooling by CO2. Conversely, from summer to winter, the warming effect of CO2 tends to warm the air as water vapor is cooling it. But the effects by CO2 each time are so small as to be negligible. This evidence comes to light because the gas laws show that in the atmosphere, CO2 concentration falls as temperature rises.”
Do you know what we call it here in Normalville when it gets hotter during the earlier parts of the year, particularly until mid-summer, and then it gets colder later in the year, particularly around winter? THE CHANGING SEASONS!
Revisiting some 3rd grade astronomy, the Earth revolves around the Sun in an elliptical pattern. The amount of time it takes for the Earth to revolve around the Sun is roughly 365 days, which tends to make up 1 year (it’s a little more complex than that, but let’s keep things simple for the sake of the argument). In that time, the Earth spins on its own axis and it tends to be kind of tilted (if you look at a globe, it’s made that way because that’s roughly how the Earth actually is spinning in space).
In the northern hemisphere at this present time, November of 2019, it’s autumn, or fall and it will be this way until December 21st, which is the first day of winter. In the southern hemisphere, however, it is spring, so it’s warmer.
The reason it’s this way is because of the tilting of the Earth in its revolution around the Sun. When it’s the summer months in the northern atmosphere, the northern hemisphere is “facing” the Sun, if you will. It’s tilted towards its direction. When it’s winter, the northern hemisphere is tilted away from it. This also causes the day to be longer or shorter depending on the point of the year.
As a result of this tilting of the Earth, one hemisphere receives more sunlight than the other and therefore, receives warmer temperatures than the other. It gets colder during the fall and winter seasons and warmer during the spring and summer seasons.
How exactly has it taken these people this long to figure it out? And even then, I’m not entirely sure they actually know this (or at least, they act like it’s a non-factor).
That last paragraph of the recent research paper I quoted talks about what tends to happen during the different seasons, albeit from the perspective of carbon dioxide. The claim here is that carbon dioxide acts as a cooling gas during the warmer months and as a warming gas during the colder ones. And that may be so – I am not one to be able to definitively argue solidly against that – but the paper also mentions that the effect of the gas is so weak as to be negligible, so I don’t know how they don’t connect the dots and say “maybe it’s this way because of WHAT WE LEARNED IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ABOUT THE CHANGING SEASONS!”
And I get that a scientific paper can’t be so bland as to have such a conclusion using such simple words, but that is the conclusion people should be reaching! When we find that we have record highs during summer and record lows during winter, it’s not because of global warming or global cooling. It’s not because of our cars or our air conditioners or our planes or our cows. It’s not because of anything we are inherently doing or not doing to the planet. It’s because of the way God created the planet.
God knows what He is doing and knew perfectly well what was necessary for a planet to be able to harbor life naturally. He CREATED NATURE, after all. He created the planets, the stars, the galaxies and the entire universe, known and unknown. He knows how it all works and goes together, the intricacies of everything as minute as subatomic particles to the vast universe itself and all that exists.
It’s ridiculous that there have to be scientific papers looking into the activity of carbon dioxide to discover something we have known for a very long time about the planet and its seasonal behavior. Even the pilgrims understood the concept of growing your food for the winter. Even animals like bears, squirrels and other animals that hibernate understand the concept of stocking up resources for winter. Even the earliest of humans understood that when it got cold, you needed to put on some more clothes and when it got hot, you needed to wear less clothing or maintain cooler temperatures for yourself.
Even if they didn’t necessarily understand the concept of seasons, they still understood the concept of “it gets hot during a period of the year and cold during a different one”.
And considering what the paper says regarding carbon dioxide, I’d say that it has so little relevance as to require a different approach to the entire field. If CO2 is so negligible and weak, why are people even talking about it as though it’s Earth’s version of cancer? Shouldn’t people be a little more aware of the fact that it just gets hot during the summer months and cold during the winter months?
Rhetorical questions, of course, as we know the reason the climate change cult is even a thing. It’s not about facts or science. Even Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) has admitted that this ought to be considered more of a religion than a science. This is about feelings and believing in something.
Whereas Christians find salvation in Christ, climate cultists find “salvation” in government. They believe the government is capable of “defeating” climate change and that it should have as much power and resources as possible in order to do that. If along the way, all our civil and constitutional rights and liberties are stripped away, then that is an acceptable sacrifice in exchange for “security” against climate change.
Common sense like what I was using in this article makes no difference to these people. In fact, attempting to use common sense like this will brand you a “denier” and a physical threat to people’s safety. The Left is at the point where they think the very existence of dissenters is a threat to their well-being.
But reality has to bite them in the rear sooner or later. Either they wake up and recognize the truth of the Gospel or they stay asleep believing the falsehoods of the climate cult.
2 Timothy 4:3
“For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
With the impeachment hearings trotting out nothing for the Democrats or the fake news media to be able to stick with to attack Trump (they went from Quid Pro Quo to bribery to not letting a foreigner into the WH and are circling back to Quid Pro Quo with Sondland, but that’s not working out either), the Democrats and the fake news media are desperate to find something, ANYTHING, to try and hit Trump with, considering how poorly this impeachment sham is going for them.
In comes a U.N. report that tries to utterly tear into the Trump administration. According to the AFP, who wrote a story on the report, “more than 100,000 children are currently being held in migration-related detention in the United States, often in violation of international law, the UN said Monday.”
NPR also ran with the story, claiming that the Trump administration “is still holding more than 100,000 children in migration-related detention.”
This story was also circulated among Democrats, with U.S. Representative Grace Meng (D-NY) tweeting: “The over 100,000 kids in immigration-related custody are kids the Trump administration has separated from their families, detained in cages, & denied basic necessities & medical care. We can’t let this inhumane treatment continue at any scale.”
Certainly, words of condemnation. And she was far from alone. The Democratic Coalition shared the article and tweeted: “Our National Shame: The United Nations has condemned the United States for having the world’s highest rate of children in detention. #KeepFamiliesTogether #ShitholePresident.”
By the way, I didn’t censor that curse word so you would fully get what it is these people think of President Trump.
In any case, the DNC War Room also tweeted: “This is a disgusting result of Trump’s family separation policies – pushed by Stephen Miller who has cited white nationalist propaganda in promoting his views. It’s also, apparently, a violation of a U.N. treaty, the Convention on the Rights of the Child.”
Ooooh, seems pretty bad. Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY) also tweeted: “#1 is a slot you want to see… except for when it’s a worldwide ranking of detained children. Not only is it wrong & inhuman to endanger the lives of over 100,000 children in immigration-related custody, but it VIOLATES international law.” In a tweet replying to herself, Rep. Velazquez continued: “I urge each & every member of our #NY7 community to read up & speak out bc this is no mistake – this is a direct result of the Trump admin’s racist, anti-immigrant agenda. This is shameful!”
The Latino Victory US, an open borders Leftist organization, echoed Rep. Velazquez’ sentiments: “The United States of America – the richest & most powerful country on the planet – has the world’s highest rate of detained children. Let that sink in. Make no mistake, this is not an accident. This is a direct result of Trump’s anti-immigrant agenda.”
My God, what is Trump to do?! He is detaining children, holding them hostage and reportedly treating them inhumanely! Oh God! OH GOD WHAT ARE WE TO… hey, is that the author of the U.N. report? What’s he doing? Is he… is he saying that the numbers in the report aren’t accurate for 2018, but are actually from 2015, when Obama was president? Huh.
Yep, the AFP, upon finding out about it, tweeted the following: “AFP is withdrawing this story. The author of the report has clarified that his figures do not represent the number of children in migration-related US detention, but the total number of children in migration-related US detention in 2015. We will delete the story.”
Wait, is it not newsworthy anymore that the U.S. was holding so many children in detention now? I get that the story is not new because the figures aren’t new, but the message of the story was supposed to be to take care of migrant children and be humane towards them, right? Or was it just supposed to be a “gotcha” for the Trump administration?
Obviously, these are rhetorical questions because we already know the answer: the fake news media is in collusion with the Deep State to take down Trump and this has been the case since even before Trump won the election.
Reuters similarly deleted their story upon this revelation, Rep. Grace Meng also seemingly deleted her tweet about it, as did the Democratic Coalition upon discovering that, if they had kept the tweet up, they would’ve inadvertently been calling President Obama a “#ShitholePresident”. But you have to ask, if Trump would’ve been considered that bad word if he had done that, why isn’t Obama being considered the “s**thole president”? He’s the one that did it.
Remember all those pictures of kids locked up in cages (like the one above) that the fake news media, like with this story, tried to pass off as Trump’s doing until it was found out that the pictures were from 2014, so it was during Obama’s tenure? Why doesn’t Obama, who was the one that actually kept these kids in these conditions and apparently in violation of international law, get the ire that Trump was getting when these idiots thought it was him?
Again, rhetorical questions, all of them. Rep. Grace Meng said that the Trump administration was separating families, detaining kids in cages and denying them basic “necessities & medical care”. Quite a horrible thing had it been Trump who did it, but all of a sudden, it doesn’t matter because it was actually Obama who was separating families, detaining kids in cages and denying them basic necessities and medical care?
Was it only “Our National Shame” when it was thought that Trump was keeping these kids in cages but it wasn’t “Our National Shame” when Obama was the one actually doing it? And surely, one cannot blame Trump’s “family-separation policies” when Obama was the one separating the families. Furthermore, apparently it was only “wrong” and “inhuman” to “endanger” the lives of 100,000 children when they thought Trump was doing it, but when Obama was actually doing it, it wasn’t “wrong”, “inhuman” or “endangering” the lives of children.
Apparently, it’s only racist if they think Trump did it, but when Obama was actually doing it, it was perfectly fine. These are all things that the people I mentioned earlier charged Trump with. They said he was endangering kids’ lives, that it was racist, that it was wrong, that it was shameful, that he was denying them basic human rights, and they have no problem levying these false charges against Trump, but the minute they find out Obama was actually the one whom they should be levying these charges, they keep utterly quiet.
For the record, I have come around to supporting the “family separation” policies (as the Left calls them) because these “families”, more often than not, are not actually families but minors being accompanied by total strangers hoping to enter the country with essentially a free ticket. Notice how throughout the story, any point where I said “oohh, seems bad” was entirely sarcastic not only because I knew very well that it was actually Obama doing this, but because even if Trump actually had been the one doing this, I wouldn’t have minded.
Better to keep these kids separated from total strangers who could easily abuse them or sell them off to slavery than keep them with these strangers, running these risks, all for the sake of putting up an act of “keeping families together”.
But regardless of what I think about it, these Leftists have made their own thoughts about it plenty clearly, at least when they think it was Trump. When they think it’s Trump, just about every bad story that can come out is pushed to its extreme to attempt to make him suffer for it. But one comes to find that just about every charge they levy against Trump is actually something that Obama did.
Collusion to rig an election? Obama weaponized the intel community to spy on the Trump campaign and sought the services of Ukraine.
Family separation at the border? Obama kept kids in these cages.
Quid Pro Quo? Biden, with Obama’s blessing, threatened to withhold aid to Ukraine if they didn’t fire a top prosecutor investigating Burisma and Hunter Biden.
OBAMA was the one who was separating families at the border, denying them basic necessities and medical care. OBAMA’S administration is what “Our National Shame” was. OBAMA was the “s**thole president”. OBAMA was the one doing what these people considered wrong. But the minute they find out the truth, they go silent. It wasn’t wrong if OBAMA was doing it.
It’s utterly twisted and the reason as to why I cannot take these fools seriously when they try to claim moral superiority on any and every issue. They are completely IMMORAL to the bone.
To them, right and wrong are entirely subjective. Separating families is wrong when Trump does it but right when Obama does it. Colluding to rig an election is wrong if Trump is accused of doing it but perfectly legitimate when Obama does it. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds and it’s pathetic.
“Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Papal infallibility is a dogma defined by the Roman Catholic Church in the 19th Century during the Vatican 1 Council held in 1869-1870. Since then, Roman Catholics around the world have accepted this dogma as absolute truth. The dogma states that when the Pope speaks “ex-cathedra” (about morals or faith) Roman Catholics are to follow his words as if it was God talking. Unfortunately, man is fallible by nature and then, one day, you get a Pope like Francis who actually wants to re-open the Bible, so to speak, to add an 11th commandment that could sound like this: “Thou Shalt Not Sin Against The Environment”.
Pope Francis said on Friday, November 15th, “We have to introduce―we are thinking about it―to the Catechism of the Catholic Church the sin against ecology, the 'ecological sin' against our common home, because a duty is at stake," in a speech he gave to the 20th World Congress of the International Association of Penal Law in Rome. Some Roman Catholic scholars say that, while it’s impossible to sin against inanimate objects, just against God and those created in His image, they do insist that abusing the environment is a sin against God.
“Catholic author Dr. Peter Kwasniewski told LifeSiteNews that when human beings abuse creation, they are sinning against God or their fellow man, not the earth. ‘There is no possible sin against planet Earth,’ Kwasniewski said. ‘All sins are ultimately against God or those who are in God's image. As all theologians have explained prior to the post-conciliar decline of theology, when we abuse the natural world or animals or plants, we are sinning against God their creator, who gave them to us to use for the right purposes and in accordance with their nature and ours,’ he continued. “
I know that, unless you’re a student of the Bible, what Dr. Kwasniewski says seems to make sense: if abusing the environment is a sin against God, wouldn’t it seem right to add another sin to the list of “you shall not’s”?
Let’s think about this for a moment: if it is true that abusing the environment is a sin against God, according to Dr. Kwasniewski, why do we need another sin? Where does Dr. Kwasniewski get the idea that abusing the environment is a sin? That it’s immoral? You would think he gets it from the Bible, correct?
Yes, my friend, he gets it from the Bible.
There are probably more than 100 Bible verses that talk about the environment, one way or the other. Here are a few examples:
Numbers 35:33-34: “You shall not pollute the land in which you live, for blood pollutes the land, and no atonement can be made for the land for the blood that is shed in it, except by the blood of the one who shed it. You shall not defile the land in which you live, in the midst of which I dwell, for I the Lord dwell in the midst of the people of Israel.”
Genesis 2:15: “The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it.”
Genesis 1:26-28: “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’ So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.’”
Psalm 24:1: “A Psalm of David. The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein,”
Deuteronomy 20:19: “’When you besiege a city for a long time, making war against it in order to take it, you shall not destroy its trees by wielding an axe against them. You may eat from them, but you shall not cut them down. Are the trees in the field human, that they should be besieged by you?’”
Job 12:7-10: “But ask the beasts, and they will teach you; the birds of the heavens, and they will tell you; or the bushes of the earth, and they will teach you; and the fish of the sea will declare to you. Who among all these does not know that the hand of the Lord has done this? In his hand is the life of every living thing and the breath of all mankind.”
Matthew 6:26: “Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?”
Deuteronomy 10:14: “Behold, to the Lord your God belong heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth with all that is in it.”
Leviticus 25:23-24: “The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine. For you are strangers and sojourners with me. And in all the country you possess, you shall allow a redemption of the land.”
The bottomline is that this is what the Bible says:
Now, why would we need yet another “sin” when the Bible is clear that the mandate is for us to care for the Earth?
The answer is, naturally, we don’t. The Bible is quite comprehensive and all the commandments have been spelled out. Besides, the Bible is the Word of God, not the word of the Pope. God has spoken through His written word, which is infallible. Man has no authority to add anything to the Bible. The Bible is God-breathed, therefore “adding a sin” by the Pope is NOT binding, because the New Testament, or the New Covenant, was sealed by God Himself. The Pope is not God. He’s a creature. Just like you and me.
There are many issues with this Pope and with the Roman dogma. This is a denomination that teaches that membership to the Roman Catholic Church saves – trust is, therefore, put in the Church itself rather than in Jesus Christ. Since the Pope is the head of the Church, Roman Catholics believe he’s the absolute authority placed by God, and equate him to a semi-god. This is, of course, a violation of the first commandment “You shall have no other gods but me”.
Are we commanded to be good stewards of the planet? Yes. Do we need to add anything to the Bible? No. Not just because the Bible is clear, but because no CREATURE has the authority to add anything to what the CREATOR has already revealed.
“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be under a curse!”
Author: Danielle Cross
A little over a week ago, I wrote an article detailing how phony and fake a “climate emergency” statement was because it claimed that 11,000 scientists had signed on to it, pointing out how only 1% of those “scientists” were actual climate scientists and the rest were either scientists of a different field and therefore were not entirely trustworthy on the issue of climate change or were simply not scientists or NOT EVEN REAL PEOPLE, with Mickey Mouse and Professor Dumbledore having “signed” the statement. What that article has in common with today’s topic is in the theme of fictitious, phony crap.
You see, recently, mayor of South Bend Indiana and 2020 Democrat candidate Pete Buttigieg boasted having a list of 400 “black” people from South Carolina endorsing his “Douglass Plan”, a plan with the supposed aim of helping black people in America.
They boasted about how “hundreds of South Carolinians” were supporting the plan (and made it vague enough to make it look like they subsequently supported Mayor Pete) but there are a number of problems here.
First of all, 42% of the list of “black supporters” are white. The list doesn’t make it easy to find people who actually supported the plan, given that it only puts people’s names in the list and many have fairly common names like “James Wilson” or “Mary Williams”. But of the total 422 names on the list, only 297 are on South Carolina’s voter file. Of those that can be checked in the voter file, 184 of them are listed as “white”, so at least 42% of the entire list is white and 62% of the voter file list is white.
This is extremely similar in nature to what I was talking about before with the climate “emergency” statement. Now, I don’t know if Mickey Mouse is also listed as endorsing the “Douglass Plan”, but a good number of the people listed in the “black” supporters of the Plan are not black.
Second of all, it’s likely that not everyone in that list actually supports the Plan. State Rep. Ivory Thigpen is a Democrat from the state of South Carolina and is listed as one of three prominent endorsers of the “Douglass Plan”. So are Columbia City Councilmember Tameika Devine and SC Democrat Party Black Caucus Chair Johnnie Cordero. All three of them are listed as prominent endorsers of Mayor Pete’s plan, but upon learning about it, they all said they did not endorse it or him.
Councilmember Devine said that she endorsed the plan, but the e-mail was written in a way that made it look like she endorsed Buttigieg, which she did not. “Clearly from the number of calls I received about my endorsement, I think the way they put it out there wasn’t clear, that it was an endorsement of the plan, and that may have been intentionally vague. I’m political, I know how that works… I do think they probably put it out there thinking people wouldn’t read the fine print or wouldn’t look at the details or even contact the people and say, ‘Hey, you’re endorsing Mayor Pete?’”
State Rep. Thigpen, whom Councilwoman Devine says is a supporter of Mayor Pete, has actually endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders for President and said that it was “alarming” that his name would be shown there, because while he had made contact with the campaign, he thought he had made it perfectly clear to them that Crazy Bernie was his guy and was not supporting or endorsing Mayor Pete or his plan.
Dem Party Black Caucus Chair Johnnie Cordero also said that he did not support the mayor’s plan nor the mayor himself: “I never endorsed that plan. I don’t know how my name got on there…”. Cordero explained to The Intercept that he had asked the Buttigieg campaign questions regarding the Plan, such as who drafted the plan and if black people were involved in the creating of the plan, going along the line of thinking that black people should know best what it was that a plan should have to help black people in America, but that ultimately, he did not come to the decision to endorse it.
But regardless, all of them had some sort of issue or another with Mayor Pete’s e-mail and boasting of supposed black support for his campaign as a result of this Plan. The fact that some of them didn’t even know they were “endorsing” the plan brings me to my next and final point:
There was an “opt-out” option in the endorsement, not an “opt-in”, meaning that you automatically are registered as an endorser and supporter if you don’t read through the fine print and specifically reach out to the campaign to tell them you do not endorse the Plan.
This is, interestingly enough, a similar tactic to what Big Unions use to rob employees. The National Right To Work Foundation has an article about this, detailing a complaint an employee of United Airlines had against the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) for requiring that he “opt-out” of paying union dues and fees despite the fact that he was not a member of the union and the union used sketchy tactics of forcing people to respond with little time about not wanting to have their paychecks deducted in “support” of the union.
It’s nothing short of Soviet-style theft and the National Right To Work Foundation is helping the United Airlines employee to sue the union giant for violating Supreme Court precedent regarding union dues and fees and for violating the man’s First Amendment rights afforded to him by the Constitution of the United States.
And this is the tactic the Buttigieg campaign opted to use (pun intended). If you’ve been contacted by the campaign about the Plan, you automatically endorse it unless you specifically tell them you don’t endorse it. And no indication is made that this is how it works, so many people are left officially “endorsing” the plan when they had not actually intended to do so.
I could only imagine the firestorm that would befall the Trump campaign if they employed similar tactics. And while many are, rightfully, bashing Mayor Pete for such sketchy tactics, others, such as The Washington Post, report that “Buttigieg persuaded hundreds of prominent black South Carolinians to sign onto the plan even if they are not supporting Buttigieg himself.”
The lie in this fake news article becomes very clear when you know the truth. Buttigieg FORCED hundreds of South Carolinians, not all of whom are black, to sign on to the plan that makes it look like they are supporting Mayor Pete and the three prominent black South Carolinians on the list either had a problem with the messaging or did not support either the plan or the mayor.
It’s extremely sketchy and very risky, considering he has virtually zero support among black people across the country, particularly in South Carolina. And it blew up on the guy’s face because of how obvious a farce the whole thing was.
Not that I expect anything less from someone who lies about being a Christian.
“For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naïve.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
It might be rather annoying for some people to read headline after headline regarding a natural disaster being blamed on climate change, but it’s personally become a hobby for me to look at them and take some enjoyment out of it (not because of the people affected by it, of course, as that is always the tragic part of the story, but because of the ridiculous crap these unhinged Leftists have to say about it).
And most recently, we have Venice, Italy being hit with what is being considered the worst flood in 50 years.
From the AP: “The worst flooding in Venice in more than 50 years prompted calls Wednesday to better protect the historic city from rising sea levels as officials calculated hundreds of millions of euros in damage. The water reached 1.87 meters (6.14 feet) above average sea level Tuesday, the second-highest level ever recorded in the city and just 7 centimeters (2.5 inches) lower than the historic 1966 flood. Another wave of exceptionally high water followed Wednesday.”
The mayor of Venice, Luigi Brugnaro, said: “Venice is on its knees. St. Mark’s Basilica has sustained serious damage, like the entire city and its islands.”
Suffice to say, many fake news sites (and the mayor himself) are doing their best to blame this on climate change. However, there are a number of problems with this.
First of all, as previously established, this isn’t the first time Venice has flooded like this. Venice itself is a city that is permanently flooded. It’s been like this for centuries. The Wikipedia page on Venice itself mentions that 600 years ago, Venetians “protected themselves from land-based attacks by diverting all the major rivers flowing into the lagoon and thus preventing sediment from filling the area around the city. This created an ever-deeper lagoon environment.” The page also notes that in 1608, Venice produced one of the earliest examples of paper currency in order to offset the cost of flood relief.
Now, I know that Wikipedia is not necessarily the most factual of sites to use, but I cannot find information like this elsewhere that goes into that sort of detail. But even if literally none of that is true, there is no denying the second point:
Just last year, fake news sites were blaming climate change on the Venetian canals RUNNING DRY. From the U.K. Express: “Where’s the water GON-DOLA? Venice’s iconic canals run DRY after weeks without rain.” So it’s climate change when the city overfloods and it’s also climate change when the canals dry up?
Thirdly, Venice tends to get floods every year, between the seasons of autumn and spring. The Guardian has an article, though a tad outdated by this point, that shows pictures of various floods in Venice’s recent existence. They show floods from November of 1927, December of 1933, March of 1964, February of 1974, 1980 (no month given), November of 1996, November of 2001, October of 2006, January of 2010, November of 2011, October of 2012, and November of 2012 (article was published in 2015, so it doesn’t go much further than that).
And even then, those aren’t all the floods the city has endured, as previously mentioned, with the city’s worst flooding having occurred in 1966.
But the point I’m trying to make here is that you cannot seriously suggest that flooding that was a regular occurrence since at least the 1600s, if going by the Wikipedia article, or at least the 1800s (there is a painting from Vincenzo Chilone that shows a flood in 1825) could in any way be due to climate change.
One common theme across all of the fake news articles blaming climate change is that they specifically blame rising sea levels for the floods. But there is a major problem with that. According to the NOAA, sea levels are rising at 1/8th of an inch per year, or 3.175mm per year. But multiple studies suggest that Venice is sinking at a rate of 1-2mm per year, slower than the average that NOAA gives us.
Meaning that rising sea levels cannot be attributed as the culprit of this. Now, I understand that averages don’t necessarily reflect individual cases. However, if sea levels rising are to be blamed, this is something we have to discuss. Venice, a city that is perpetually underwater with canals (that sometimes dry up), is sinking at a lower rate than these Leftists claim the rest of the world is. How exactly does that make sense? If the entire world is at risk due to rising sea levels (which I challenge because the ice caps aren’t melting and even if they were, the water would remain roughly where it is), wouldn’t Venice have to be at extreme risk and shouldn’t the average sinking rate for Venice itself have to be considerably higher than the alleged global average?
Even if you think I’m wrong or I make no sense here, there is no denying the utter hypocrisy the fake news media constantly shows. When it gets particularly hot, they blame climate change. When it gets particularly cold, they blame climate change. When there’s a hurricane, they blame climate change to the point they ridiculously claim there were no hurricanes before climate change “began”. When there is a forest fire in California, they blame climate change instead of the dangerous and idiotic Leftist policies that endanger the State, the wildlife, the forest and the citizens. When there is a flooding in a city that is perpetually flooded, they blame climate change. When the canals in Venice dry up instead of continuing to flood, they blame climate change.
Basically, if LITERALLY ANYTHING AT ALL HAPPENS, it’s climate change’s fault. Lost your job? Climate change. Significant other cheated on you? Climate change. Got a flat tire? Climate change. These people are like Mr. Turner blaming Dinkleberg for everything, only sadder because that is a cartoon and this is real life.
“No one who practices deceit shall dwell in my house; no one who utters lies shall continue before my eyes.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Despite the fact that we recently had the Democrats hosting the first day of the Impeachment Circus, little news came out of it (just like with the Mueller hearings) other than things that are to the detriment of the Democrats (regardless of what people deep in denial might say about this). So, I turn my attention to another piece of recent news: The Salvation Army being defamed by hateful Leftists who pressured a spineless celebrity to threaten to pull out of their halftime show during the Cowboys-Bills Thanksgiving Day game.
Singer Ellie Goulding had initially partnered with the Christian organization that helps the homeless and the poor to sing during their halftime show for the Cowboys-Bills game on Thanksgiving Day. But angry Leftists bashed her for helping out The Salvation Army (Goulding had also been volunteering with them in New York) because they accused the organization of having an “anti-LGBTQ” agenda. In other words, Leftists hate that a celebrity would help out a Christian organization, so they throw out this accusation, which is the same one they use for Chick-fil-A, and just like with the chicken sandwich restaurant, it’s nothing but defamation.
Goulding, like many other celebrities, caved to the outrage mob and gave the following statement: “Upon researching this, I have reached out to The Salvation Army and said that I would have no choice but to pull out unless they very quickly make a solid, committed pledge or donation to the LGBTQ community. I am a committed philanthropist as you probably know, and my heart has always been in helping the homeless, but supporting an anti-LGBTQ charity is clearly not something I would ever intentionally do. Thank you for drawing my attention to this.”
In other words, she did NOT make any research on this and is taking the word of outright liars as the truth, threatening to pull out of the show if The Salvation Army does not quickly make a contribution to the LGBTQ community, aka extortion.
The reason I say she did not make any research is because she herself said that The Salvation Army was anti-LGBTQ when they are not.
The Salvation Army began in East London in 1865. It was a Protestant church and is now commonly known worldwide as an international charitable organization with the aim of ministering to the needy and bringing the Gospel to the streets. The Salvation Army’s website has a whole section regarding their helping LGBT homeless people. They explain how 40% of homeless youth in America identify as LGBT, nearly 33% of homeless transgender people are rejected from emergency shelters (not associated with The Salvation Army) and that LGBT Americans have a higher chance of being poor.
“The Salvation Army USA serves more than 23 million Americans every year. In every ZIP code of America, services are offered without discrimination… When a transgender person seeks help from us, we serve them in the same manner as any other person seeking assistance,” read their site.
Even the Prairie Pride Coalition, a gay rights organization in Illinois, advised locals in their community to go to The Salvation Army for help. The Salvation Army also provides people with shelter, job training, and help with substance abuse and food insecurity.
To say that The Salvation Army is anti-LGBTQ is a despicable lie. It’s a Christian organization and as such, they have the OBLIGATION to serve, as followers of Christ are called to serve, those around us who need help. That isn’t to say that they promote or support the LGBT agenda or anything of the sort. But doing so isn’t necessary for an organization to do good. Not that hateful bigots on the Left will see it that way. In their eyes, if an organization doesn’t kowtow to their every whim, it should be considered illegitimate in people’s eyes and should be defamed and destroyed.
As I have said multiple times in the past, no Christian or Christian organization (at least no true Christian) hates gay people. Why? Because hate is for evil; for Satan. We hate evil because God hates evil. We recognize that homosexuality is a sin and that it’s evil, which is why we do not endorse it or support it. But everyone is a sinner, including Christians, and if we were to discriminate against anyone who was a sinner, literally nothing would ever be done because there isn’t a single person on this earth who isn’t a sinner.
Jesus dined with sinners, not because He agreed with their sin or because He was accepting of their sin. Far from it; He dined with them because He did not want them to sin any longer. He forgave the adulterous woman not because He was okay with her sin but because He called on her to not sin any longer. He healed the blind and the lepers, who were considered to be that way because they sinned, not because He agreed with their sinful ways but because He loved them and called on them to not sin any longer, having them recognize Him as the Son of God and do what’s right in God’s eyes.
One doesn’t have to be accepting of homosexuality to be charitable to a homosexual. One doesn’t have to agree with the LGBT agenda in order to help the LGBT community where help might be needed.
God loves us despite our sin, not because of it. Likewise, we are to love our brothers and sisters in Christ, love our neighbors and even love our enemies, hard as that last one might prove to be. The Salvation Army, being a Christian organization, knows this extremely well and shows that in their good works. For anyone to defame them is utterly shameful, but not something I can be surprised by considering who is doing the defaming.
The Left hates Christians, hates God and hates anyone who would dare disagree with them. The Salvation Army, being a Christian organization, is one of their targets for defamation and destruction.
But The Salvation Army had a very good response to such defamation:
“We’d like to thank Ellie Goulding and her fans for shedding light on misconceptions and encouraging others to learn the truth about The Salvation Army’s mission to serve all, without discrimination. We applaud her for taking the time to learn about the services to the LGBTQ community. Regardless of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity, we’re committed to serving anyone in need. Every day, we provide services such as shelter for the transgender community and resources for homeless youth…”
The Salvation Army knows that they are not what the hateful Leftists claim they are and are not afraid to fight back against such shameful defamation and ludicrous accusations.
As Christians, we are called to witness the Truth of the Gospel to everyone. I don’t know for certain if that is what they do in these shelters still, but I certainly hope they do, as that is what they are supposed to do.
But to reiterate, as Christians, we are called to serve and not to judge or discriminate against those who sin. We are, ourselves, sinners and we will be measured by the same rod with which we measure others. When it comes to LGBT people, we are called to rebuke them for their sins with love and try to help them to receive Christ. Same as we would adulterers or criminals or other kinds of sinners, we are to rebuke and help them receive Christ if possible.
2 Corinthians 5:21
“For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
One of the many lies the fake news media often tells is that suburban women in America are approving less and less of President Trump, leaving the fake news reporters to believe that Trump is “finished” and will be soundly defeated come next November. Considering how wrong they have been about so many other things and considering how many other news reports should have “finished” Trump long before any of this, I’m surprised they still buy the crap they are selling. Drug dealers aren’t supposed to use their supply, but these people are constantly inundated in the garbage that they spew, so they believe it.
But in any case, fake news polls have tried to suggest that Trump is losing ground fast with suburban women, a demographic that usually leans Republican. However, this is far from the truth.
According to a recent report from OpenSecrets.org, President Trump has more suburban women donating to him than any of the 2020 Democrat candidates.
As you can see, President Trump tops the list of both Suburban Women Donors at 10,534, with Kamala Harris coming in behind him with almost 3,000 less donors, then Joe Biden, Mayor Pete, Booker, Warren, Klobuchar, Beto (who is no longer running), Crazy Bernie, Andrew Yang, Julian Castro and finally, Tulsi Gabbard.
He also tops the list of total contributions from suburban women donors at $8,293,135. Grace Haley, a researcher working for a research group that tracks money in American politics, wrote: “Suburban women, who power a significant electoral battleground, are a key demographic for 2020. Since Trump’s inauguration, more than 7,000 women in suburban districts have given large-dollar contributions to his campaign. That totals $8 million, the most of all candidates.”
Paul Bedard of the Washington Examiner noted that in 2016, 28% of Trump’s “itemized contributions” were from women. For 2020, that number stands at 35%.
Now, when it comes to women in general, the President ranks 5th in donations out of all candidates at $15.1 million, behind Crazy Bernie ($17.1 million), Fauxcahontas, Mayor Pete, and Kamala Harris. But that’s just on paper.
According to OpenSecrets.org, “Campaigns are not required to itemize donations of $200 or less, so we do not have demographic information about Trump’s small donors giving to his joint fundraising committees with the Republican National Committee, Trump Victory and the Trump Make America Great Again Committee. An estimated 59% of Trump’s donations are from small-donors, so Trump’s contributions from women are most certainly higher than $15 million. Trump’s totals are underestimated more than the other candidates. Because Democrats are relying on ActBlue and the Republicans are not relying on the Republican equivalent WinRed as significantly, we only have most (not all) donor demographic data for Democratic small-dollar donors.”
In other words, while the President’s total from large-donor contributions puts him in 5th place, that only contributes to about 40% of his total contributions. He easily could be far higher, maybe even number one among women, if small-donor contributions were taken into account and recorded.
But even if we don’t know for sure just how much more money women have been giving Trump, one thing is for sure: he is not in 5th place and he has accrued more than $15 million from women in America.
Amy Kremer, chairwoman of Women for America First and co-founder and chairwoman of Women for Trump PAC, told Breitbart News that it’s “no surprise that women are contributing to the president’s campaign” because many women in the suburbs have families to take care of. “Women are focused on issues that impact our children and our families and President Trump is delivering results.” She also added that when women donate to him, “it’s an easy donation when you know what you are going to get in return and this president has followed through on his promises, and his policies have been good for women and their families.”
Open Secrets also made sure to mention that the Trump campaign acknowledges that suburban women often support the President more than reported because “the polling data does not account for suburban women who favor Trump but do not feel comfortable publicly saying so.”
This is generally true about many other things and within other demographics. Often times, people believe that Trump is such a polarizing figure that they do not wish to express support for him to media pollsters out of fear of shaming or persecution, so they withhold that support, either saying they are undecided, do not support him at all or say they support him but not too strongly.
This tends to happen because the media and the Democrats have been so toxic about anyone supporting Trump that people figure it’s better to keep your mouth shut or not express outward support for Trump and stay out of unnecessary conflicts. Most people just want to live their lives undisturbed by hateful people, so they support Trump because he’s not a nutbag like the rest of the Democrats, but won’t publicly admit it out of fear of being verbally or physically attacked or maligned.
But while people might be fearful of publicly supporting the President, they certainly show their support come election time or when it comes to donations. It’s part of the reason some ill-intending Leftists have tried to dox Trump donors because many won’t outright state they support Trump but still support him anyway and these hateful bigots can’t bear the thought of living next to a Trump supporter.
However, regardless of the circus that the Democrats orchestrate in the impeachment hearings (and oh boy, are witnessing some prime circus material here with Schiff establishing different questioning rules for Democrats and Republicans and with one of Schiff’s star witnesses admitting that he thinks Burisma should be investigated, which is what Democrats are trying to impeach Trump for), regardless of what the media tries to spin out of it and what the media tries to report (it started with quid pro quo but when there was clearly no evidence to support it, they shifted to “bribery” which is equally as lacking in evidence), many people support President Trump.
And one couldn’t blame them when the alternatives are a decrepit old man yelling at clouds, a communist pushing for the increasingly unpopular Medicare for All (Rasmussen reports that only 39% of likely voters support the plan, which is far lower than it was just a couple months ago), a fake Indian, and a self-righteous fake Christian who blames God for “making him” gay. One can’t blame them when all of these people have no issue with giving free healthcare to ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND DECRIMINALIZING BORDER CROSSINGS!
Like Kremer said, suburban women want what’s best for their families and will vote and donate accordingly. Back-breaking tax increases to pay for everything on the socialist wish list is not what’s best for families and children. Reduction of civil liberties and constitutional rights of free speech and bearing arms are not what’s best for families and children. Putting America Last is not what’s best for families and children.
Trump delivers the opposite (where he can, considering the little support he gets from Congressional Republicans) and advocates putting America First.
Doing that, and more importantly, returning to God, are what’s best for families and children, not to mention the whole of the country.
“Jesus answered, ‘My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.’”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
The Mainstream Media believes it holds a monopoly on public opinion, being able to shape it in whatever way they wish. They couldn’t be more wrong, as example after example shows, such as public sentiment regarding President Trump (they wish America hated him as much as they do). But within their highly-biased reporting is the desire to be as “woke” as humanly possible, despite how much of a detriment to civilized society that may be.
So when they come out in favor of “woke” things such as allowing for biological males who identify as females to compete against biological women who actually are women, they expect most people to fall in line with that thought and those who do not ought to be publicly shamed as being “transphobic” and “bigoted”.
However, according to a recent Rasmussen poll, public sentiment is not with the media on this matter.
According to the poll, 51% of U.S. adults opposed “allowing athletes compete on the basis of their gender identity, including biological males who participate in women’s and girls’ sports.” Only 29% supported the idea of transgenders competing in sports teams of the gender they identify with and 20% said they were undecided.
This is fairly similar to a poll back in June that showed 28% supported the idea of transgenders competing in sports teams of their “identified” gender and 54% were opposed.
I do have a problem with the fact that it’s not quite as big a margin as I think it should be, but it’s still nowhere close to what the Left would want it to be.
Simply put, it gives men an unfair advantage to compete against girls simply by pretending to be women. Men are, on average, physically superior to women and develop stronger bodies as they grow up.
Most people recognize this biological fact, including former tennis player and openly gay activist Maria Navratilova. I’ve already written more extensively about where she stands on the issue of transgender sports players, but she acknowledges the inarguable fact that men are physically stronger than women and have an athletic advantage.
It’s not “transphobic” to think this way. It’s pure science. Watch any NBA game versus any WNBA game. Watch any men’s soccer game versus any women’s soccer game. You will find that the men tend to be faster than the women, are capable for more athletic feats than women (most male basketball players can dunk to some degree or another while I can count on one hand the amount of female basketball players that can dunk to any degree) and are overall physically superior to women.
For NBA rookies, one of their biggest challenges is to put on enough muscle to be able to finish at the rim against NBA-level competition, aka against strong and fully-grown men. Players have to be able to put on some muscle and strength in order to compete. Look at the following pictures of current NBA MVP Giannis Antetokounmpo:
One picture shows Giannis when he was a rookie. Pretty skinny, right? The guy is pretty athletically-gifted, pretty tall and lengthy. But he needed to bulk up a little to be able to compete at the NBA level against other giants. So, he hit up the gym and is now the reigning MVP and a top-3 player in the NBA.
Do you sincerely think that there is any woman in the WNBA who would be able to beat Giannis 1-on-1 if Giannis is actually trying? I even remember one of the WNBA’s biggest stars, Brittney Griner, who while she is 6’9” but only weighs 205 lbs., claimed that she could beat NBA star Demarcus Cousins, who is 6’11” and 269 lbs. on a 1-on-1 game.
When that news circulated, fellow NBA stars laughed at the idea, not believing Griner to be able to beat Cousins whatsoever. They laughed not because they are “transphobic” or “bigoted” but because they knew that the WNBA star couldn’t hold a candle to the NBA star. He is bigger, stronger and one of the best centers in the NBA (when healthy).
And even in actual cases in which men competed against women, we find tennis matches where men won most of the matches rather handily, as I have noted many times in the past.
But we don’t have to look at professional competitions to know how much of an athletic advantage men have over women. There are many examples in school sports of guys pretending to be girls, competing against girls, and obviously beating said girls.
There is good reason that girls have their own division of sports. There is a reason there is a WNBA, because female basketball players would get destroyed by male basketball players 99 times out of 100. There is a reason there is a Women’s soccer team, because female soccer players would get destroyed by male soccer players 99 times out of 100.
Girls have to have their own divisions to compete against other girls because they have next to no prayer to be able to beat guys in athletic competitions. That’s not to say it doesn’t happen, of course. Even when discussing men vs. women tennis matches, there was one instance in which the woman won. But in every other instance, the male competitor won and pretty easily.
Again, Serena and Venus Williams, some of the best female tennis players of all time, lost to a guy who was ranked outside the top-200 one after the other. That’s not because the guy was more talented than the Williams sisters. I don’t think anyone would argue that that was the case. It was because he was physically superior. Serena Williams herself acknowledged that she hit the ball in ways that would usually be winners against other women but that he got to with rather ease.
Men can kick soccer balls farther and harder than women can. Men can finish at the rim better than women can (this is something even I have done when playing against girls, even though I have zero talent for basketball). Men are physically superior to women. So when a guy competes against a girl, it’s no surprise that he would win. It becomes utterly unfair to the girls in the competition to work so hard and yet fall to someone who is naturally more athletic and physically superior.
Men who compete against women are complete and utter failures and cowards who are too afraid to compete against other men because they know they would fail against other men. I don’t care what they “identify” as, they aren’t women and they shouldn’t be allowed to compete against women.
“If favor is shown to the wicked, he does not learn righteousness; in the land of uprightness he deals corruptly and does not see the majesty of the Lord.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Veteran’s Day has come and gone, with many of us remembering the heroic struggles our soldiers have had to endure throughout the history of our country in the various wars that America has participated. So, Campus Reform’s Eduardo Neret went to Howard University in Washington D.C. to ask various students if they could think of any war the U.S. has participated in that could be considered a “just” war or a war that we could find justifiable reasons for entering and fighting (video below).
Not one student could come up with any war that they viewed as justified of their own merit. And even when asked if they thought WWII was a justified war for the U.S. to get involved, some students still believed there was no justifiable reason for having entered the conflict.
One student argued: “I don’t believe America fought [WWII] for the just reasons.” Another student said: “I don’t think [WWII] was necessary.”
Although a few students recognized World War II and the Civil War as being justified wars (once they were mentioned after previously having argued that there were no wars that were justified), many still held their ground and argued that no war was justified.
However, I know exactly why it is that many think this way: ignorance.
Now, I’m not trying to insult these kids. I’m not calling them dumb. But they are lacking in knowledge, which is what ignorance is. Why do I think this way? Well, one of the students who actually came around to the idea that World War II was justified gave the following response to having changed her mind:
“[WWII] [was] a good cause for the greater good because at the end of the day we got our freedom, and we are no longer under Great Britain.”
The poor girl is confusing World War II with the Revolutionary War. Either that or she thinks that Great Britain was in Nazi Germany’s place in World War II and we were under their control at the time, but I think the former is more likely.
The ones that continued arguing that WWII was not a justified war, when Pearl Harbor was brought up, said that that was a reason for having entered the war, but not a justified one. Again, I gotta blame ignorance here.
During the early 1940s, the general sentiment regarding World War II was that we shouldn’t enter the war. We had no reason to. Hitler was not a direct threat to us and we were supplying Great Britain with weapons and equipment.
The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum has in their records public opinion in the U.S. about joining the war. When World War II began on September 1st, 1939, Gallup asked the following question: “If it looks within the next few months as if England and France might be defeated, should the United States declare war on Germany and send our troops abroad?” 42% said “yes”, 48% said “no” and 10% said they didn’t have an opinion.
The poll was close between the two answers, but the more popular idea was to stay out of the war, even if England and France were defeated over the next few months. I think the reason for it to have been this close is because if Germany had defeated both so quickly, it might’ve sent people in the U.S. into a panic, considering we were at least friendly towards those two countries, so the next target could’ve either been us or the Soviet Union.
On October 6th, 1939, when Poland was conquered by the Nazis and divided between them and the Soviets, Gallup asked the same question: if Germany defeats England and France, should we declare war on Germany? This time around, we found that only 29% of those surveyed said “yes” and 71% said “no.” We didn’t want to get ourselves involved in what was mostly seen as a European conflict.
On May 10th, 1940, when Germany invaded the Netherlands, Belgium and France, Gallup asked if we should declare war on Germany. This time, only 7% said “yes” and 93% said “no”. It should be noted that our military wasn’t exactly in tip-top shape before we entered the war. We only had a little more than 450,000 total military personnel in 1940. In 1941, with the draft having been passed by Congress in late 1940, that number jumped to 1.8 million, then to 3.9m in 1942, 9.1m in 1943, 11.6m in 1944 and 12.2m by the end of the war in 1945.
Our military was in poor shape but once drafting and more spending was implemented, we created the most powerful military the world had ever seen by that point.
By June of 1940, when France surrendered to Germany, public sentiment was still largely against going to war, but those who wished to enter the war and help became more numerous. 35% said they wanted to help England win against Germany, even at the cost of entering the war, and 61% said they should stay out of the conflict altogether.
By the time the draft was implemented in September of 1940, more people wanted to help (52%) than not do anything (44%). By November of 1940, when FDR was elected to his third term as POTUS, 60% wanted to help England and 40% wanted to keep out. In March of 1941, when Congress passed the Lend-Lease Act which authorized Roosevelt to provide Britain with weapons, vehicles and equipment, 67% wanted to help England and 33% wanted to keep out.
On June 22nd, 1941, when Hitler decided to turn his armies towards the Soviet Union, 62% said they wanted to help England and 33% said they wanted to keep out. Even on September 4th, 1941, when a German U-boat submarine attacked an American destroyer, the USS Greer, prompting FDR to authorize US ships to attack German vessels on sight, 64% wanted to help England and 30% wanted to keep out.
By November of 1941, when relations between the U.S. and Japan were at some of their most tense (pre-war, of course) and it looked as though we would fight them, 68% said they wanted to defeat Germany and 28% said they wanted to stay out of the war.
However, on December 7th, 1941, when the Japanese orchestrated a surprise attack on the U.S. naval base in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, where 2403 people died, mostly military personnel and 68 civilians, this served to ignite the spark of war in the American engine. Gallup asked: “Should President Roosevelt have declared war on Germany, as well as on Japan?”, 91% said “yes”, only 7% said “no” and 3% said they didn’t have any opinion.
This was the 9/11 of 1940s America (and the only attack of this scale on American soil until 9/11) and our country cried for war, cried for justice against Japan. And so, we officially declared war on Japan, which prompted Germany to declare war on the U.S., leading us to join World War II against the Axis powers.
No, we didn’t enter the war out of the kindness of our hearts to help Great Britain to defeat Hitler. Why would we have, when FDR’s New Deal was so similar to Mussolini’s fascism, wherein the welfare state was created and capitalism was put into the hands of the state, instead of the private sector? FDR was every bit the Leftist that Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin were and sought to socialize our economy. The eventual matchups of FDR-Stalin vs. Hitler-Mussolini (and Hirohito) were matchups of convenience for the time being. They were all Leftist, “government is God” type of leaders. Mussolini praised FDR’s book titled “Looking Forward” and the official Nazi newspaper, “Volkischer Beobachter” praised the New Deal.
We entered World War II not because FDR saw much or any threat in the fascists and Nazis in Europe infecting the rest of the world (he had his own brand of fascism that he was already implementing) but because we were attacked and over 2000 of our servicemen died at the hands of an Imperial Japan that we weren’t exactly getting along with.
When you are attacked, you have to respond. And that’s what we did. Those who would argue that we entered WWII without justifiable reasons are ignorant of history. For the most part, Americans wanted nothing to do with World War II, or to at most help out England without getting involved in the fighting if at all possible. But once it appeared war was imminent, and especially once it was brought to our shores, sentiment changed and we wanted to join and win the war.
Now, don’t get me wrong. Generally speaking, I’m anti-war. If it can be avoided, I would like to not get ourselves involved in wars, particularly in endless wars, which is why I hate that pro-war Republicans and Democrats are in Congress.
However, there are wars that we simply cannot avoid and wars that can be easily justified. The Revolutionary War was a war in which we sought our independence from a tyrannical monarch in Europe. That was justified. The Civil War was a war in which the North sought to both free all slaves in the country and reunite the Union after Southern Democrat States seceded following Lincoln’s election. That was very much justified.
And World War II most certainly can be justified considering both the threat that Hitler posed on the world and the attack that we suffered in Pearl Harbor.
Again, there are wars that are not justified and simply make no sense. But there are those that are essential and there are justifiable reasons for entering. I couldn’t imagine telling Poland that they weren’t justified in fighting Germany when they were being invaded by them.
These children, the ones that said no war was justified and stuck to it after being reminded of World War II, should be educated regarding history. But it’s a sad state of affairs when they are attending a college and have such minimal knowledge of the history of this country.
Ignorance is the real problem here. I would like to mention that every single one of the students asked were African-American, so you would think at the very least, they would’ve brought up the Civil War, since if the North had not done anything about the South, most black people in the country would be slaves (or at least would’ve been for a longer period of time).
But nope. Not one instance could they think of a just war. These kids aren’t being educated; they are being indoctrinated. They were taught that war is generally bad and that America is at fault for most of the conflicts we see today and the world has seen for some time. That no war America gets involved with is justified because we are the bad guys.
This is the sort of nonsensical and untruthful garbage being taught in our education systems today. How is it that these kids, or at least one of them, thinks that World War II was a war where we gained our independence from Britain?! The fact that there even is one person who thinks this is a damning statement about our education system.
“If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
In a statement published by the journal of BioScience, 11,000 “scientists” sounded the alarm about the emergency that is climate change and called on governments and people to take action.
The statement read: “We declare clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency… An immense increase of scale in endeavors to conserve our biosphere is needed to avoid untold suffering due to the climate crisis… The climate crisis is closely linked to excessive consumption of the wealthy lifestyle… To secure a sustainable future, we must change how we live…”
Boy, does that sound like a huge warning and boy does that sound like a massive pile of crap. Funny enough, whoever thinks this is, indeed, a massive pile of crap is absolutely right.
Feel free to explore literally any of the other articles I have written over the last few years regarding climate change to see how utterly ludicrous this is. But for this article, I will allow for others to (sort of) make the arguments for me.
You see, apart from the fact that this statement is ridiculous on its face, clearly only serves the Left’s desires of obtaining and retaining power, and offers little in terms of accurate scientific evidence, there are a number of problems with just about everything surrounding this statement.
First of all, 15,000 “scientists” signed a similar statement back in 2017, giving the same warning about climate change. What happened to the other 4,000 “scientists” this time around? Were they unavailable for comment? Were they on sabbatical? Did they change their minds? I don’t know, but the fact that there are thousands less “scientists” to sign this nonsense is quite telling.
Second of all, a decade ago, over 30,000 American scientists signed the Global Warming Petition Project, which was a warning that there was NO convincing scientific evidence to suggest or prove man-made climate change was real. The Project also insisted that global pacts like the Paris Climate Accord (such as the Kyoto Protocol) were counterintuitive to science and people’s very lives.
Funny how a petition signed by more than 30,000 American scientists didn’t get any airtime from the cable news networks but 11,000 signatories from across the world received MSM attention.
Third of all, out of the 11,000 signatories of the most recent climate warning, only 156, or 1% of them, had a job title that included the field of climate research. The rest includes a list of the following:
I am not even joking. That’s how bad and outright funny this list is (which is now inaccessible since it was discovered that the talking mouse had signed it). Not only are an extremely low amount of people who have any sort of experience in the field of climatology the signatories, but some of the signatories are outright FICTIONAL CHARACTERS!
I honestly don’t know what’s funnier: that these people are desperate enough to credit a scientist’s MOM or fictional characters.
Have a look at the following pictures to find the sort of colorful cast this list includes:
This list is beyond parody and the titles that this list includes is a major reason I say that these are “scientists”. Yes, there are many here who actually are scientists, but not people who are qualified to sound the alarm over climate change in this manner. That 11,000 number may sound like a lot, which is its major intention, but 99% of it is filled with people who are either not climatologists, not doctors, not scientists or not even real.
Even one of the Zoologists on the list says that they are from the University of Neasden, UK. There is no University of Neasden, UK. The University of Neasden, UK is said to be a fictional university created by a British satirical magazine.
To put it into perspective, it’d be like giving credence to someone who was featured in a “The Onion” article.
The entire statement has a lot of problems, from bad graphs (no graph used shows historical data past 1980, so the lines are very sharp and diagonal when throughout the history of the world, what we have now might be considered fairly normal) to less signatories in just two years to the fact that there was a similar warning only two years ago to the fact that far more than double the amount of just American scientists argue AGAINST the idea of man-made climate change to the hilariously unqualified signatories ranging from scientists that have nothing to do with the climate to other professions to family members of a scientist to fictional people from fictional places.
Anyone who would even for a minute take this statement seriously is severely lacking in any sort of information about the topic at hand. Worse still, they would have to be severely lacking in this sort of information about who the signatories actually are or would have to be extremely dishonest to push this as any sort of significant evidence that there is a climate crisis and we must act with haste and in extreme ways.
Again, I invite you to read over any of the other articles I have written over the years surrounding the topic of climate change. Regardless of what you may think of them, or even me, I can guarantee I’m more qualified to talk about climate change than MICKEY MOUSE.
“A faithful witness does not lie, but a false witness breathes out lies.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Freddie Marinelli and Danielle Cross 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...