With a little over a week to go before the election, the last presidential debate certainly did no favors for Joe Biden, even as the debate topics and liberal moderators were favorable to the corrupt Democrat (admittedly, the moderator still did far better than Chris Wallace did, by a mile, even if she interrupted Trump far more than Biden and began to debate Trump later on in the night a bit).
There are a number of things that I could point to which likely could lead to Joe Biden’s landslide defeat being even grander, such as his slip up in noting that he would move away from fossil fuels (a remark which will cost him dearly in Pennsylvania), or his outright lie (of which there were plenty) regarding how “not one single person” lost their private health insurance once Obamacare was enacted, but his overall debate performance was outright awful and has led to some eye-opening post-election poll numbers, which I will get to in a moment.
Despite the fact that the Democrats have basically owned the black vote for the last 50 years (pun intended), that little safety net of theirs is beginning to not be so safe anymore.
For 50 years, the Democrats have promised black people economic prosperity, safety, justice reform, healthcare reform, and generally have promised black people that their lives would improve if only they would consistently vote for Democrats everywhere they could. They have been promising this for half a century and things have only gotten worse in places run by Democrats.
Let’s not forget that Joe Biden himself was the author of the 1994 Crime Bill, and his running mate is responsible for the incarceration of over 44,000 black people and almost 2,000 incarcerations were for marijuana-related offenses when she was California’s AG.
Now, if people commit crimes, they have to do the time. That is not my issue here, even with the marijuana stuff since I do not believe for a second that it should be made legal. However, the Democrats go around pretending like they’re doing this massive favor for black people and that they are making reforms and new laws that help black people when that has not shown to be the case whatsoever.
They claim that this country’s laws overincarcerate people and that the system is rigged against blacks and other minorities, when they are the ones writing and enforcing those laws. California has been a deep-blue state for a long time now and Harris was its Attorney General from 2011-2016. Democrats own California and yet, it’s not the socialist paradise that they claim we would have as a nation if we were to consistently elect them.
California is quickly becoming (if it isn’t one already) a socialist dystopia because that is all socialism can bring to anybody. So even if a Leftist were to make the excuse that “the reason things aren’t great for black people is because Republicans still get elected to the presidency and Congress,” it is nothing more than that: an excuse. This is because California has been very solid blue for decades now, their last Republican governor was not truly a Republican, and we can see what the Leftist ideology brings to all people, let alone black people: misery.
In Minneapolis, where George Floyd died during a police-involved event, Democrats have been in total control for ages. Same in Baltimore, where Freddie Gray died in police custody.
Wherever Democrats rule, people suffer, particularly black people. Perhaps that’s why it really shouldn’t be so surprising that Trump has such high likely voter approval numbers from black people. You see, according to Rasmussen Reports, National Daily Black Likely Voter Job Approval for Trump from October 19 to 23 has seen a fantastic rise.
On the 19th (a Monday), Trump’s black LV approval was at 25%, which is still pretty good, but could be better. It went down by one point the following day, but on Wednesday the 21st, it ticked up a good bit to 31%. The day of the debate, it went up to 37% and on Friday, following Thursday night’s debate, it was at 46%.
A good reason for this, in my opinion, is Trump’s Platinum Plan to economically assist black people who were heavily affected during the pandemic (a plan which was brought forth by Ice Cube who is not likely to vote for Biden after Sleepy Joe refused to work with Mr. Cube on this plan). That was fairly big news throughout the week last week, so the tick up to 31 and 37% made sense, as well as the 46% following the debate in which Biden began to slowly fall apart once he began to be pressed on Hunter’s emails.
These numbers ought to terrify Democrats, who have, like I said, enjoyed a safety net with black voters for half a century. LBJ himself once said that he’ll “have those n*****s voting Democratic for the next 200 years,” in discussions with fellow Democrat governors talking about the Great Society plan. As it turns out, he might have been right for the first 50 or so years, but the Democrats are beginning to lose this demographic.
Will a majority of black people be voting for Trump? Doubtful. But considering these are likely voters, if these numbers remain steady for the next week and a half (or at least they don’t drop well below 30%), that will give Trump a huge advantage over Biden and the Democrats.
And while I cannot possibly claim to be able to predict the future, I can say that this trend is not a good one whatsoever for the Democrats. It’s unlikely the GOP will ever see another Trump-like candidate, but if they can embrace Trumpism following Trump’s tenure as POTUS, this sort of trend will continue their way, maybe even to the point where a majority of black people will begin to vote for Republicans again like they did following the passages of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution.
You know, when the KKK began to form and was terrorizing black people because they largely were targeting Republicans and black people were largely Republican back then?
I have long believed that Joe Biden was headed towards an embarrassing landslide defeat (again, no one get complacent here, there is still a job to be done) but if these numbers continue, Joe will lose by an even bigger margin than even I thought he would.
He easily sealed his defeat in Pennsylvania following his fossil fuel comments, but he might lose even worse in many other places.
Here’s hoping Trump will utterly CRUSH the communist Trojan horse and deliver a defeat that will bring Democrats flashbacks of 1984.
“For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
In the current social and political climate, most people largely know where they stand: they are either in support of “anti-racist” or anti-capitalist Marxist organizations like BLM and Antifa, or they are against those terrorist organizations because anyone with at least a solitary brain cell can tell that these are not groups acting in good faith towards a noble and reasonable goal.
BLM and Antifa are terrorist organizations which have no qualms whatsoever about ending the lives of whomever stands in their way, be they people who openly stand against them or the wealthy, even if the wealthy are entirely with them (which will end as soon as they bring an actual working guillotine to the homes of people like Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates).
In social media, you are supposed to “stand in solidarity” with these terrorist organizations or you have a higher chance of accidentally being suspended or banned altogether from Twitter, Facebook, etc.
The Left deludes themselves into believing that what they are doing is brave or courageous, but in reality, when corporate America endorses your ideology, you are not being brave and you are not “struggling”. What takes actual bravery and courage is to stand AGAINST this insanity and one black British Member of Parliament did exactly that recently (video below).
In a scathing retort to Labor MP Dawn Butler’s demands to “decolonize” history (another word for re-writing it to fit the Leftist ideology), Woman and Equalities Minister Kemi Badenoch said the following:
“Our curriculum does not need decolonizing for the simple reason that it is not colonized. We should not apologize for the fact that British children primarily study the history of these islands, and it goes without saying that the recent fad to decolonize maths [sic], decolonize engineering, decolonize the sciences that we have seen across our universities to make race the defining principle of what is studied is not just misguided but actively opposed to the fundamental purpose of education.”
“What we are against is the teaching of contested political ideas as if they were accepted fact. We don’t do this with communism; we don’t do this with socialism; we don’t do it with capitalism. And I want to speak about a dangerous trend in race relations that has come far too close to home to my life, and it’s the promotion of critical race theory, an ideology that sees my blackness as victimhood and their whiteness as oppression.”
“I want to be absolutely clear: This government stands unequivocally against critical race theory. Some schools have decided to openly support the anti-capitalist Black Lives Matter group, often fully aware that they have a statutory duty to be politically impartial.”
“Black lives do matter; of course they do. But we know that the Black Lives Matter Movement, capital “BLM,” is political. I know this because at the height of the protest, I’ve been told of white Black Lives Matter protesters calling – and I’m afraid, I apologize for saying this word – calling a black armed police officer guarding Downing Street a ‘pet n*****.’”
“That is why we do not endorse that movement on this side of the House. It is a political movement, and what would be nice would be for members on the opposite side to condemn many of the actions that we see this political movement, instead of pretending that it is a completely wholesome anti-racist organization. There is a lot of pernicious stuff that is being pushed and we stand against that.”
“We do not want to see teachers teaching their white pupils about white privilege and inherited racial guilt. And let me be clear: Any school which teaches these elements of critical race theory as fact or which promotes partisan political views such as defunding the police without offering a balanced treatment of opposing views is breaking the law.”
Could we please have some more of this everywhere, not just in the House of Commons or British Parliament in general? Could we have some House Representatives in the States, or some Senators, echoing these sentiments (which are right on the money, as anyone who has been paying attention for the last half a year can tell)?
Could we have some more bravery like this? Like I said, when corporate America endorses your ideology, you are not the one who is taking a brave stand. When the mainstream media and pop culture endorses your ideology, you are not the ones who are struggling.
Fighting back against the ideology endorsed by these seculars is courageous because just about everyone would pile on top of them as a result. For crying out loud, we’ve gotten to the point where largely apolitical celebrities like Chris Pratt get cancelled for NOT attending a Joe Biden fundraiser.
In the working environment, you can be scolded for not openly supporting BLM and Antifa on social media. Remaining apolitical is no longer enough for these people: either you stand with them or against the wall. Pushing back on these insane ideas and ideologies takes courage and Minister Badenoch has plenty of it.
And she is so right about everything she is saying!
The push to “decolonize” educational curriculum is a thinly-veiled attempt at restructuring things to fit the Marxist ideology to indoctrinate our children. Yes, they’ve been doing this for years now, but they are beginning to be a bit too comfortable with openly showing their hand for all to see.
The idea of “decolonizing” school subjects is entirely asinine and nonsensical. It’s a push to make those things “less white”, as though facts and being correct are strictly white things (which would be the racist talking point 50 years ago. Funny how woke people today so closely resemble old timey racists).
They want to push the idea that 2 + 2 could, if you wanted, equal 5 or 3 or 666, as long as that is what YOU believe it equals and that there are no right answers IN MATH.
And, of course, they do this kind of crap with race relations in general, pushing the idea, as Minister Badenoch pointed out, that white children are naturally guilty because of the color of their skin and black children are naturally victims for the same reason. It doesn’t matter if a rich black woman comes across a homeless white man, according to these people, the homeless man has more privilege because of the color of his skin and because of his gender (that is, of course, until we begin talking about transgender issues which largely run contrary to feminism and this idea that men have privilege over women, but that is a different ideological train wreck).
As far as BLM goes, I tip my imaginary hat to the minister because she is absolutely right and said something I had been saying myself for a while now: there is a noticeable difference between black lives matter and Black Lives Matter. The former is a logical and obvious testament that the lives of black people matter (because the lives of all people, naturally including black people, matter), and the latter is a self-admitted Marxist organization which seeks not the reparation of race relations throughout the globe but black, and more importantly, Leftist supremacy over everyone else.
Here is how the hierarchy goes in the Leftist mind: Leftist black (or other minority race) person, Leftist white person, conservative person.
Notice that I did not have to distinguish races for the conservatives, because to the Left, anyone who is not with them, regardless of race, is equally an enemy to them. Someone who is black but is a conservative is not really black, as Joe Biden so boldly declared. Such a person is a “race traitor”. Someone who is Latino but voting for Trump is not really Latino and is a “traitor to his Latinx hermanos and hermanas” (brothers and sisters). Someone who is a woman but is conservative is not really a woman and is a traitor to her gender.
The presupposition is that all these minority and “protected” classes have to be Leftist, otherwise they are an anomaly like a defective gene.
I am not the least bit surprised that white BLM terrorists would call a black officer guarding Downing Street a “pet n*****”. These racists have no qualms whatsoever about letting out some of their most racist sentiments (which they would scold others if they did the same to Leftists) against whom they perceive to be a political enemy: a black cop.
These imbeciles don’t stop to think that maybe the police aren’t so racist if they are willing to take in black officers and that black officers would be willing to lay down their lives for their fellow officers if need be, regardless of race.
And yes, I have no issue calling them imbeciles because these are the grunts. The top brass of these communist organizations are not the imbeciles because they get something out of it. They get wealth and power. They get to rule according to how they want. The politicians get elected and the BLM and Antifa chapter leaders get lots and lots of funding and under-the-table deals from which they can profit.
The grunts going out to the streets are the useful idiots, so the distinction has to be made here.
At any rate, like I said before, I just wish more people would be willing to stand against this insanity as openly as Kemi Badenoch did here. What the Left is in pursuit of is a present and clear danger to the lives of the vast majority of people and they must be fought to the death (of the ideology, not the people) on this.
This is the cold war of this century, and sadly, it is being fought on the Homefront in many different ways.
“The Lord will cause your enemies who rise against you to be defeated before you. They shall come out against you one way and flee before you seven ways.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Over the years, I have written plenty about how God-awful colleges in this country are not merely for their Marxist indoctrination programs but simply because they are where education goes to die altogether. And sometimes, colleges do such idiotic and nonsensical things that I cannot help but to point them out and laugh at them.
This is one of those times.
You see, the University of California recently submitted student race and ethnicity data to the Integrated Post Secondary Education Data System (IPEDS), which they (and all other colleges) are required to do every year if they want to participate in federal student aid programs. The university gathered the data, but the data itself is not what I care to discuss here (largely because it’s nowhere to be found in the PDF I wish to talk about). I couldn’t care less about the demographical makeup of the college, since that hardly tells us anything other than perhaps some attempts at forcibly diversifying the campus via affirmative action.
What I care about, however, is roughly the way the college went about gathering said data. For the different races, the school had to sort of identify where each region fits for each race. For example, for those who are Hispanic/Latino, the school understandably pointed out that those who are of Mexican, Cuban, Puerto Rican, Latin American, or other descent are all under the race of “Latino.”
This makes perfect sense and there’s really nothing peculiar about this.
For African Americans/Black, it is a bit more vague: they just have “African American, African, Black Caribbean” and “Other African American/Black.” To be fair, someone who is from Africa is most likely going to be considered Black or African American (if they are Americans), so it still holds up.
In the Asian category is where things start getting a tad bit strange, though not as much as in the White category, but we’ll get to that one in a moment.
In the Asian category, we find some fairly common types of people that we would recognize as being Asian: Asian Indian (this one is a bit of an asterisk since Indians kind of are their own thing, but I will let it pass for this one since they technically are, in some way, Asian), Bangladeshi, Cambodian, Chinese/Chinese American, Filipino/Filipino American, Hmong (a group of people in South East Asia), Indonesian, Japanese/Japanese American, Korean/Korean American, Laotian, Malaysian, Other Asian, Sri Lankan, Taiwanese/Taiwanese American, Thai, Vietnamese/Vietnamese American.
Now, you might be asking yourself: “Freddie, this looks perfectly normal. What’s the weird part?” A fair question. You see, I omitted the weird nationality from that original list for added effect.
The nationality that is in that Asian category that I omitted is: Pakistani.
Yep, Pakistanis are considered Asian by the University of California. Now, I understand that Pakistanis are not exactly the darkest of people (an excuse that will not be usable in a moment), but it’s a bit of a stretch to clump them in with Asians. And while I can somewhat understand including Indians here (though I’ve already kind of explained how they can be a separate ethnicity), the two really aren’t all that similar to the point where one could say that Pakistanis are reasonably Asians.
Pakistan is officially called the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. It’s part of the Muslim world. It’s pretty far east, considering it borders both India and China, but Afghanistan also borders China, as do Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan, and no one would reasonably consider them to be Asian countries.
And while earlier in the PDF file where I found this data it says, “The categories do not denote scientific definitions of anthropological origins,” meaning they are not trying to redefine what each ethnicity is in terms of race, they still decided to organize them the way that they did, for some reason.
Keep in mind, this isn’t the strangest part of the entire debacle, we still have another race to go.
Finally, it’s in the category of White that we find the most head-scratching ethnicities put into this category.
They have the standard “European/European descent”, as well as Caucasian, which makes sense… and that’s where the logic ends because we find the following nationalities under the category of White:
Now, I can excuse a couple of them, such as Georgians since they are pretty light-skinned (and largely associated with Russia because of Stalin), and Israelis for also being rather light-skinned, but what in the world is JUST ABOUT THE ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST DOING HERE!?
Take a look at this picture:
These are Somalis. Yep, definitely look white to me!
Are you really trying to tell me that Ilhan Omar is white, University of California? Is she Elizabeth Warren-ing us?
You’re telling me that Rashida Tlaib, daughter of Palestinian immigrants, is white?
No one in their right mind would consider any of these nationalities to be under the category of White. Look at that picture of Somalis again. Who would classify them as being White? The same goes for the vast majority of the ethnicities in that list. Sudanese are just as dark-skinned as Somalis, and everyone else is fairly dark-skinned as well, up to a point.
Again, I can understand Georgians and Israelis to an extent, but the ENTIRE Middle East?!
Like I said, it’s not like they are trying to redefine what it means to be White or Asian or whatever else and they are not trying to make a scientific argument (yet, at least, considering the scientific fact of two genders is being so heavily challenged because of woke-ism). But they are still classifying such people in such categories and are still gathering this data the way that they are.
In the Legend for the chart, they say that Pakistani was “Collected as ‘East Indian/Pakistani’ prior to 2010,” so they used to have a different section for that ethnicity, but they still decided to add it in Asian anyway and decided to omit an entire section to “Middle Eastern” which would’ve made a good amount of sense and would’ve spared them the mocking that I am delivering.
(As a side note, they have a “Pacific Islander” section as well, and the strangest one there was “Hawaiian”, seeing as it’s a State, but I can understand their logic for that one).
They also do not make any such clarification for all the Middle Eastern nationalities that they put under the category of White, so what’s their excuse there?
Now, one could try to argue that they are just trying to make classifications for race, not for nationality, but there are several problems with that.
First of all, they include, like I said, Pacific Islander and American Indian/Alaskan Native. That denotes to location more than skin color or race.
Secondly, the PDF is literally titled: “Student Ethnicity Collection and Reporting at UC,” with “ethnicity” being synonymous with “nationality.”
Thirdly, again, LOOK AT THE SOMALIS! If this were strictly about classifications of race, someone REALLY screwed up big time somewhere along the way because no one can tell me that those people are white by race.
I have no idea why it is that the University of California decided to make this hilarious list of nationalities according to race, or rather, why they did it the way that they did, but I cannot help but to laugh at them. Again, it’s not that they are trying to redefine what these terms mean or try to make a scientific argument about it, but they still decided to collect their data in this manner, classifying people from the Middle East as either being White or Asian, and that is hilarious to me.
I just hope they aren’t telling their Middle Eastern students, particularly the more dark-skinned ones, that they are actually white according to their own data-gathering methods.
“A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Back in late September, I talked about the bombshell Senate report that spared no detail about the business dealings of the Bidens and the overall corruption of the Obama/Biden administration with regard to Ukraine and Burisma Holdings.
Well, a recent New York Post article drops another bombshell in the form of recovered emails between Hunter Biden and a top Burisma executive named Vadym Pozharskyi.
The details of this one are pretty juicy and Twitter thought them so damaging that they outright have been banning people that simply TALK about it, which only serves to bring more attention to a story which otherwise might not have led very many people to care about it (particularly as some people will vote for Biden no matter what).
According to the NY Post: “Hunter Biden introduced his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, to a top executive at a Ukrainian energy firm less than a year before the elder Biden pressured government officials in Ukraine into firing a prosecutor who was investigating the company, according to emails obtained by The Post.”
This goes against something that Joe Biden had been claiming for a long time now, that he has “never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings.” We all knew for a long time now that that was an utter lie, but this only goes to further prove it, particularly as according to Politico, “Biden’s campaign would not rule out the possibility that the former VP had some kind of informal interaction with Pozharskyi, which wouldn’t appear on Biden’s official schedule.”
For context, the Biden campaign had responded to the NY Post’s piece, obviously lambasting it, but only claiming that the former VP never officially met with the Burisma executive, meaning that the two had met in secret in an informal setting. This, suffice to say, does not look good for Biden at all, and I think this can somewhat be considered an October Surprise, but aimed at the Democrats as opposed to the Republicans.
At any rate, returning to the uncovered emails (which were not hacked, as some on the Left might claim. They were in a computer taken to a repair shop which was never claimed and the shop owner tried contacting the owner multiple times before looking through the contents of the hard drive, as the computer could now be claimed as his own, and found these emails. He then made a copy of the hard drive and set it to various places such as the FBI and Rudy Giuliani’s lawyers), we find some truly juicy stuff.
An April 17, 2015 email from the Burisma executive reads: “Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some time together. It’s realty [sic] an honor and pleasure. As we spoke yesterday evening, would be great to meet today for a quick coffee. What do you think? I could come to you [sic] office somewhere around noon or so, before or on my way to airport. Best, V.”
Like I said, that email points to Joe Biden having met with an executive from Burisma, which Joe had been lying to people about for years.
Less than a year after that particular email, Joe Biden coerced the Ukrainian president and Prime Minister into firing the country’s top prosecutor who had been investigating Burisma Holdings’ executives, which naturally included Hunter Biden. This is something else that Joe is now lying about, despite the fact that there is video proof that he has outright BRAGGED about what he did, saying to the Council on Foreign Relations in 2018: “I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’”
“Well, son of a bitch. He got fired.”
Another email from Pozharskyi, which is a lengthy one so I will share the most important details, reads as follows: “Dear Hunter and Devon,… As previously pointed out on a number of occasions, the representatives of new authorities in power tend to quite aggressively approach N. Z. unofficially with the aim to obtain cash from him… After unsuccessful attempts to receive funds from our side, they proceeded with concrete actions… We urgently need your advice on how you could use your influence to convey a message/signal etc. to stop what we consider to be politically motivated actions…”
A few things need to be made clear about this. First of all, this was an email sent to Hunter and his business partner Devon Archer (whom I’ve talked about at length in that other article) on May 12th, 2014… the same day that Hunter Biden, at least officially, joined the Burisma board.
I see Burisma didn’t take too much time to use their newly acquired influence.
Secondly, this was a bit of a murky period in Ukraine. The Revolution was still ongoing and President Viktor Yanukovych had fairly recently been removed from office in February. The country wouldn’t have elections until May 25th, in which Poroshenko succeeded the former president. So it’s a bit of a strange period and I do not know exactly who was in charge of the country in between the time Yanukovych was removed and Poroshenko was installed (which was in June). However, someone obviously was in charge and their short-lived administration clearly wanted some money from this “N. Z.” fellow, who is most likely Burisma’s owner Mykola Zlochevsky, as he is an oligarch with plenty of money and his name “Mykola” is a Ukrainian version of “Nicholas.”
It is a bit strange that Pozharskyi would refer to Zlochevsky as “N. Z.” instead of “M. Z.” since they are both Ukrainians, but given the context of those initials in Pozharskyi’s email, I can’t think of whom else he could possibly be referring to, as he talks about “the gaz [sic] production business of N. Z. …”
At any rate, the New York Post also noted that this email was sent on the same day that Burisma announced (and has since redacted) Hunter Biden’s addition to the board of directors, though they also say that “Hunter Biden actually joined the board in April 2014, according to multiple reports.”
So that is another possible lie from the Bidens in general, as Hunter was reportedly a part of the board of directors of the gas company a good bit before his official announcement. I wonder what else happened in between the time that he actually joined the board and the time that the announcement was made official.
There is more to this story in the New York Post, though I do not think many other details are all that relevant for me to share here, other than an email written by Pozharskyi and forwarded to Hunter by Archer about a proposed tax law which would have been detrimental to Burisma, but I did not get too much out of that exchange.
Like I said in my previous article regarding the dealings of Hunter Biden and his father, I want you to imagine the outrage from the Left if any person on the Right, such as Don Jr. or Eric Trump, or anyone from the Pence family, had been caught doing the things that Hunter was doing.
Hunter has taken millions of dollars from Burisma simply in exchange for his family name and the position of his father, has taken millions of dollars from other foreign sources such as the wife of the former mayor of Moscow, and has a detailed record of corruption. If a right-winger had done even one of the things Hunter has done, that would be all we’d be talking about for weeks, and all the way to the election.
But because it’s a story which damages the Democrat nominee, it has to be pushed back against and censored on social media, which like I said, only serves to draw more attention to the story. Some people might not care about the actual story involving Hunter Biden and the implications of Joe’s lying butt, but they will care about social media censorship and will want to look into exactly why it is that big tech giants are trying to suppress this story so badly.
Despite the fact that I imagine a decent number of Biden voters have already voted for the guy, I hope some people who were considering voting for Biden but have yet to do so change their minds about it after this. Stories which display the Bidens’ corruption would be shut down every single time if Biden were to win. Even now, we see that happening in large part because big tech bribes Republican congresspeople so that they can get away with this crap.
Here’s hoping this story will help a good amount of people recognize how utterly awful Joe Biden is and how important it is to keep him as far away from the Oval Office as possible.
2 Peter 2:15
“Forsaking the right way, they have gone astray. They have followed the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved gain from wrongdoing…”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
My friend, we all have a worldview that we support. We all have beliefs that we carry with us and affect everything we do and everything we are. Liberals have a worldview in which God doesn’t exist. The Judeo-Christian view holds a worldview where God exists and we’re accountable to Him.
When Christian judges are asked questions regarding their religious beliefs it presupposes a worldview: that there IS no God and therefore if they bring their worldview they cannot possibly be good justices. In other words, we’re expected to go along with their liberal worldview, where God doesn’t exist.
But, you see, our country was founded on Judeo-Christian values. The Founding Fathers may not have agreed on doctrine, but they mostly agreed that God does exist and our rights are given by Him only.
A liberal worldview is mob-rule: if enough people believe it’s OK to kill kids with Down Syndrome, or the elderly or the sick, then that’s what they expect a justice on the SCOTUS to uphold. This way, God doesn’t give us rights, but rather Government. If Government changes its mind tomorrow, and Christians are to be burnt at the stake, then a liberal justice or judge is expected to go along with it.
But that’s not the way this country was founded. In the Judeo-Christian worldview we leave doctrine discussions for our private lives, but we know, for example, that murder goes against God’s law. And Government has the obligation to protect God’s creation – Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Ideas have consequences. If you believe there is a God, you’re going to live a life that honors Him. And you honor Him by respecting other people’s lives and possessions – after all God says “you shall not kill” and “you shall not steal”. God is a capitalist. God approves of the Constitution of the United States.
If, on the other hand, you believe there is no God, then not only will you live as if you didn’t have to respond to Him, but you’re enabling others to do the same. So if someone kills you tomorrow legally, based on your race or your age or whatever other reason, liberals will be OK with it. Your life isn’t protected. Remember, in a mob-rule, if enough people vote to “cleanse” this country of “deplorables” and “undesirables”, you might fall under their category and there’s nobody to protect you.
Let me be clear – only one of these two worldviews has to be correct, from a logical standpoint. Two contradictory statements cannot possibly be both true – either God exists or He doesn’t. But, you see, the God I’m talking about is not some creation in our minds. We’re talking about a Being that exists APART from us – whether you believe He exists or not. He’s self-existent, eternal, immutable, holy, omnipresent, omniscient and almighty. He’s transcendent, in the sense that He’s SUPERIOR to us in order of being. This is God. All theists agree with this proposition. He is a necessary being, without whom nothing else could possibly be. We’re EFFECTS. And He is the CAUSE. Aristotle called Him “the first cause” of things. He knew that nothing that exists today could possibly exist if somewhere, somehow there wasn’t a being with the power of being within himself. If there ever was a time when nothing existed (no space, no matter, no God), what could possibly exist today? Nothing, of course.
Ideas have consequences. The Judeo-Christian worldview is the Western Civilization worldview. We remove God from our way of life, we become barbarians.
Here’s the exchange between Senator Graham and SCOTUS nominee ACB during the Senate Hearings:
"GRAHAM: Let's talk about the two Supreme Court cases regarding abortion. What are the two leading cases in America regarding abortion?
BARRETT: Most people think of Roe V. Wade, and Casey is the case after Roe that preserved Roe’s central holding but grounded it in a slightly different rationale.
GRAHAM: So what is that rationale?
BARRETT: Rationale is that the state cannot impose an undue burden on a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy.
GRAHAM: Unlike Brown, there are states challenging on the abortion front. There’re states that are going to a fetal heartbeat bill. I have a bill, Judge, that would disallow abortion on demand after 20 weeks, the fifth month of the pregnancy. We're one of seven nations in the entire world that allow abortion on demand at the fifth month. The construct of my bill is because a child is capable of feeling pain in the fifth month, doctors tell us to save the child's life, you have to provide anesthesia if you operate, because they can feel pain. The argument I’m making is if you have to provide anesthesia to save the child’s life, ‘cause they can feel pain, it must be a terrible death to be dismembered by an abortion. That's a theory to protect the unborn at the fifth month. If that litigation comes before you, will you listen to both sides?
BARRETT: Of course, I'll do that in every case.
GRAHAM: So I think 14 states have already passed a version of what I described. So there really is a debate in America still unlike Brown versus Board of Education about the rights of the unborn. That's just one example. So if there is a challenge coming from a state, if a state passes a law and it goes into court where people say this violates Casey, how do you decide that?
BARRETT: Well, it would begin in a district court in a trial court. The trial court would make a record. The parties would litigate and fully develop that record in the trial court. Then it would go up to an appeals court that would review that record looking for error, and then again, it would be the same process. Someone would have to seek certiorari at the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court would have to grant it, and at that point it would be the full judicial process. It would be briefs, oral argument, conversations with law clerks in chambers, consultation with colleagues, writing an opinion, really digging down into it. It's not just a vote. You all do that. You all have a policy, and you cast a vote. The judicial process is different."
“The fool says in his heart ‘There is no God’”
Author: Danielle Cross
This year has so far been rather challenging, to say the least, for a lot of people. What with the Chinese coronavirus pandemic, the strict and idiotic lockdowns that came as a result of it, the social and racial unrest that has led to wanton destruction of property and numerous deaths, all leading up to an election which if won by Trump will almost certainly lead the Left to… continue doing the things they’ve been doing so the threat of riots is not quite as effective as it otherwise would have been.
One silver lining in this dark cloud of a year, however, is what I believe to be the potential revival of Christian America. It is often at our lowest point that we seek the Lord for comfort, and while some might be angry at God for allowing these things to happen, many more will come to God in search of refuge from the evil one. Many more people will begin praying to God, or pray more often, that their current situation – both personal ones and larger, social ones – will turn around. As a guest pastor for a church I often watch online said, “If it’s not good, God’s not done.”
This has not been a good year for many of us, but since it’s not good, that means that God’s not done. Good things will come out of all of this. We may not see it now, or understand how it could possibly come to be, but even while we don’t see a way, God most assuredly does.
Undoubtedly, there will be plenty of people who won’t change no matter what. Who will refuse to acknowledge God’s existence (for the most part; they acknowledge Him when they have something to be angry with Him about) and who will foolishly even declare themselves an enemy of God (as I have met one such fellow on Twitter who has outright said that he would kill God if he met Him, as though he had any power at all to stand against the omnipotent One).
Such people will reject and even mock prayer. We often see it whenever a tragic event like a shooting or natural disaster occurs, there are those who offer prayers and those who mock those who offer prayers, declaring it to be a waste of time and effort which accomplishes absolutely nothing and that we must seek evidence-based solutions to the problem.
The thing about prayer is that it absolutely works and multiple studies show it is an evidence-based solution to problems.
For example, one study of older adults found that “the negative effects of financial problems on health were significantly reduced among those who regularly prayed for others,” according to National Review.
In other words, the people who regularly prayed, and prayed for other people, were noticeably less affected by the strains of financial problems than those who did not pray. When you turn your trust and faith over to God, you recognize that your job is not your income source, the economy is not your income source, but God is your income source.
And hallelujah for that because of the following passage:
Luke 11:9-13: “So I tell you: Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened. What father among you, if his son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead? Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? So if you who are evil know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!”
One could say: “Well, Freddie, the context is clearly about the Holy Spirit, not about finances or other things.”
And one would be half right.
The context of the passage is clear: Jesus is talking about salvation and receiving the Holy Spirit. Indeed, whomever asks for forgiveness, they will be forgiven. The Lord is merciful to such people. But recognize that God doesn’t only give His children the Holy Spirit. In the rhetorical questions, Jesus talks about parents giving their children fish or eggs if they ask of it. While, obviously, human parents cannot give the Holy Spirit and Jesus needed an analogy that would be understandable to His audience, God also gives us many other blessings. The proof that God is happily willing to give other things to His children is in the fact that He DOES and we express our thanks to Him as a result.
Why else would we give thanks to God for, say, getting a new job or a promotion, or doing well on a test, or finding the love of someone’s life, if God only gave His children the Holy Spirit? When we ask God for things, a number of things can happen:
1. God gives us exactly what we want.
2. God doesn’t give us what we want because what we want is not what we should have, or God is protecting us from something.
3. Or, God doesn’t give us what we want because He has something even better in store, giving us more than what we even asked for.
God is delighted in giving us things that we ask for when those things help us achieve our God-given destiny. So when praying to God, He is even more delighted by the faith and trust that is placed on Him by us.
We pray not merely to ask for things like children asking for a new toy. We also pray for help, we pray for clarity, we pray for strength, for wisdom and understanding, as well as for others that they might get those things.
And studies have shown, like I mentioned earlier, that prayer is extremely helpful. One research study found that prayer is of great psychological benefit to those who perceive God to be a loving God. They also found that, on the flipside, it caused anxiety and distress for those who perceive God to be distant and uncaring.
Which is why it’s important to also know who God is. I remember seeing on social media a post that quoted someone about how many (too many, according to that person) Christians view God as all-loving, forgetting the wrathful side of God. The thing about that is, while God is wrathful, He is only wrathful to sinfulness which was not forgiven by Him; which was not asked to be forgiven.
God doesn’t express His wrath against His children. His children are forgiven! His wrath is reserved for those who are unrepentant and unsaved – those who deny Christ consciously or subconsciously.
In understanding who God is, putting one’s trust and faith in Him, and having been saved by His Son, prayer is a great reliever of stress and it helps people spiritually, psychologically, and often times, physically.
Like I said, there are a number of studies that show such things, and that National Review article I mentioned earlier talks about many of them.
I hope that in reading this, you will come to better understand (if you haven’t already) just how important prayer is. In terms of both helping people feel better, such as in a group of cancer patients who were instructed to pray focusing on thankfulness and concern for others and were found to have the least symptoms of depression, and in terms of better accomplishing tasks, such as a study which found that those who prayed for 10 minutes about a personal life issue (even those who are less religious) were better able to accomplish focus-driven tasks than those who were instructed to think about the personal issues or were distracted with a puzzle, prayer is a magnificent and efficient way to solve problems.
When ignorant people criticize prayer, they don’t realize that prayer actually has value and effectiveness which has been backed by empirical evidence.
Prayer is extremely helpful, not only for our own souls but also for life in general. I firmly believe that if we prayed more as a country, things would be a lot better than they are.
“Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
In 1980, then-candidate Ronald Reagan asked the American people during one of his debates against Jimmy Carter: “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?” Ever since, polls have begun to ask this question, particularly when an incumbent president was up for re-election. And the numbers we see today are nothing but good news for President Trump.
According to Gallup, 56% of registered voters say that they are better off today than they were four years ago, while 32% said they were worse off.
This is simply astounding for a couple of reasons.
First, consider the climate we are in. This year has taken a toll on a lot of people, with some early worries of a potential global conflict with Iran after the killing of Soleimani (which led to nothing because Iran is all bark and no bite when Trump is in charge) to fires raging in Australia and, most recently, in the west coast (though that’s not an exclusive event for 2020), to dealing with a global pandemic willingly started by the CCP and dealing with the economic ramifications of idiots deciding to shut down the economy for a virus that is only marginally deadlier than the flu for most people.
2020, to put it simply, can go to hell. This is a sentiment many people around the world can agree with, I believe. So to see this many people saying that they are better off TODAY (technically between September 14-28, when the poll was taken) than they were four years ago after eight years of Obama is simply astounding and hilarious to me.
Obama’s tenure as president is seen as a worse event in people’s lives than what has happened this year.
Which actually sort of brings me to the second reason this is so astounding: that 56% is considerably HIGHER than in previous elections.
In 2012, Gallup surveyed this question too (though in December, for some reason), and found that 45% said that they were better off back then than four years prior. In 2004, 47% said the same thing. In 1992 (not sure why Gallup doesn’t include 1996. Guess they just didn’t ask the question that election cycle), only 38% said they were better off, and finally, in 1984, 44% said they were better off than four years earlier.
With the exception of 1992, which was surprisingly low, each of the incumbent presidents in those elections ended up getting re-elected. And, again, look at how massive of a gap there is between 2020’s response and 2012’s. An 11-point difference in Trump’s favor is nothing to scoff at and something that is simply not indicative that the president is headed towards defeat.
Poll after poll claims that Trump is eight to 14 points behind Biden, depending on who you ask. Demographic splits and shy voters can often influence the results of these polls, but such matters are of little importance to the pollsters because the results show things they want to see: Trump losing and badly.
It doesn’t matter that they tried this same song and dance in 2016 and ended up with egg on their faces because of it; they want to see Biden winning, even if they have to delude themselves into believing their reporting is reality.
Well, despite what polls say, this number should absolutely terrify the Democrats. When things are going well (or, at least, people believe things are going well), voters won’t try to rock the boat. Why get rid of the guy that is making so many people believe they are better off today than four years ago? Why mess with what is working so well?
This is particularly the case considering just how many people are saying the same thing. Again, there is an 11-point difference between Trump and Obama in Trump’s favor. Obama was a horrible president – one of the worst – and still, enough people believed he was doing a fine enough job that he should get four more years in the Oval Office. 11% more people than even that believe we are in a better position today than at any point during Obama’s tenure. And yet, we’re supposed to believe Biden is running away with it?
We’re supposed to believe that it’s already over for Trump and there is nothing he could possibly do to turn things around? That Biden is a shoo-in to win the election? I’m sorry, I just don’t believe it.
What’s interesting as well is that another question Gallup asked is whether Trump or Biden has more presidential qualities and whether the surveyor agrees more with Trump or Biden on the issues that are most important to them.
It was fairly close for both candidates in both questions. 44% of people believe Trump has presidential qualities while 49% said the same of Biden. But when it comes to the issues, Trump has a slight advantage with 49% saying they agree with him on the issues compared to 46% who agreed with Biden.
That indicates a base and ideological advantage to Trump, which is one of the biggest reasons Trump always plays to his base. This, as I have stated in the past, is a base election. It’s communists versus sane people, with sane people being largely in Trump’s camp, even if they don’t necessarily like him on a personal level. And as it stands, there are far more sane people than there are communists.
Trump’s base, as a result, gets bigger and bigger. Why wouldn’t he play to his base at every opportunity, then?
At any rate, one cannot tell me that this is not good news for Trump. They can cite whatever heavily biased source they want, but this is a pretty good indicator as to who is more likely to win the election. If people think things are going well enough (particularly this many people) then they won’t get rid of the guy that made this situation in the first place. Even despite what this year has brought, many are of the belief that we are better off today, under Trump’s administration, than we were following eight years of the Obama regime. What does that say about Biden’s chances at winning (particularly considering he was Obama’s VP)?
Of course, as I believe I must remind people, this is not to say that Trump supporters can simply coast this election. We have to go out and vote, yes with the belief that Trump will win but with the mindset that he is as far behind as the polls say he is. We have to come out in droves to get Trump re-elected, or else, we’ll get a Biden presidency and, in all certainty, the installation of a socialist regime which undoes the electoral process as we know it in order to get Leftists into every place of power imaginable.
Trump is winning but we have to ensure that he ultimately gets that victory.
“I can do all things through him who strengthens me.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Much as Leftists might try and delude themselves into believing Kamala Harris is in any way a competent or even likable person, there is no question as to who won the vice presidential debate: VP Mike Pence.
And you know that this is the case because of the various excuses the fake news media is throwing as well as the various distractions they are trying to make, such as attempting to make a huge story about how a fly was on Pence’s head or how one of Pence’s eyes was a little red or how Karen Pence went up to her husband to congratulate him without wearing a mask (because why would she? He is her husband). They have to distract people from thinking that Kamala was utterly destroyed because that is exactly what we saw, so these excuses have to come out in droves.
However, predictably so, the biggest excuse to come out of this debate is that Pence is at fault for debating a woman and that he is a sexist for “mansplaining” things to her, which is code for simply pushing back against the b.s. she was trying to spew. In the mind of the Left, Pence had to take everything Harris threw at him without any sort of pushback whatsoever in order to stave off being called a sexist. Of course, had he done that, they still would’ve called him that for the briefest of moments, but they would’ve focused more on how “Kamala Harris wiped the floor with VP Pence.”
Again, an indication that that is exactly what DIDN’T happen is that that’s not the topic of conversation. Had she won, all the fake news media would be talking about would be about how she won, not about how Pence was “condescending” or “mansplaining” or “sexist”, which is utterly ludicrous considering Mike Pence is one of the politest politicians around.
They levy the same accusations at Pence that they did at Trump in 2016, when Trump was debating Hillary. Back then, they also accused him of “sexism” and utter crap like that (because Hillary also lost her debates) and now, they are just repeating the same thing but about Pence.
Ironically, while you can reasonably claim that Trump is abrasive and that can come off as rude (this is where I should remind people that in the first debate, Joe Biden was the first one to interrupt Trump), you absolutely cannot make the same claim of Mike Pence, who never shows an aggressive side or anything of the sort.
So to say that Pence was “out of line” or was “rude” or whatever else is utterly divorced from reality, not that that’s any surprise considering the people making these claims also claim that a baby in the womb is not a human, that binary gender is not biological fact, and that our air conditioning systems are warming up the planet or cooling it down whenever one argument is more favorable (which is usually in the corresponding seasons).
It actually reminds me of something interesting. I have been recently re-watching The Apprentice, beginning with the first season, and one aspect of the people (specifically some of the women) in the show that I noted is that they are very rude, classless individuals. This was the season where that moron Omarosa appeared, and throughout it, she displayed an utter lack of class (though others did as well). It actually got me to wonder how it was that Trump ever thought of hiring her in his administration in the first place, but I digress.
The reason I bring this up is because one thought that ran around as I was watching the show is that you can completely destroy someone else while also having and displaying class. The fictional character on the show “Dynasty”, Alexis Carrington, is such an example, someone who was often outright called a “superbitch” but who never failed to show class when tearing apart those she considered to be opponents.
That’s not to say that Mike Pence is Alexis Carrington, or that he is a “superbitch”, but that is to say that he destroyed his debate opponent without sacrificing his class or dignity. Keep in mind, I’m also not saying that Trump sacrifices dignity or anything, but his more abrasive style does make one think he has less class than someone like Pence (though if one watches The Apprentice, one can see that he does, indeed, have plenty of class).
Kamala getting decimated should not really be a surprise to anyone. I remember vividly how some idiots on the Left believed Kamala would “destroy” Pence in their debate, which confused me considering the fact that she got so obliterated by Tulsi Gabbard, someone the vast majority of people on the Left really don’t like because they think she was a Republican spy or something, and shortly after suspended her campaign, being the first Democrat to do so.
She is a woman utterly rejected by the Democrat base and someone who was decimated totally by the only Democrat I relatively tolerated in that entire primary, and yet, she was going to destroy Pence? Her, a woman whose sole qualifications for being a running mate, to the acknowledgement of Jim Crow Joe, are being brown and having a vagina? Give me a break.
She went into that debate completely unprepared, ready to spout out talking point after talking point and hoax after hoax, hoping that it would be a 2-on-1 like the first presidential debate was, and when Pence masterfully destroyed her arguments, she began to condescendingly smirk and dismiss Pence, to the point where even an independent pollster (who believes Biden is winning the election) recognized that Harris came off extremely poorly here.
People were reminded, in that 90-minute debate, just why it was that Kamala was the first person to end her primary campaign: she’s a horrible debater and people don’t like her. The first point is the most relevant one out of the two, but it’s worth reminding people how unlikable she is. She is basically the Jamaican version of Hillary Clinton, if Clinton had considerably less power and her family directly benefited from slave ownership.
And because of that, fake news pundit after fake news pundit came out lambasting Pence for debating a woman, as though it’s his fault that Joe Biden chose Harris for no other reason apart from her skin color and gender (something which normal people would consider racist and sexist but liberals consider “woke”). “Mike Pence is a sexist!” screams the ignorant, petulant Leftist child who is so entitled that he believes a man effectively debating a woman is some sort of cardinal sin.
Matt Walsh of The Daily Wire points this out perfectly well: “[A]s we have learned time and again, feminists actually want special treatment even while clamoring for equal treatment.” These rabid Leftists shout “sexism” at Pence treating his debate opponent as a debate opponent and not as a delicate little flower whom should be protected from the evils of the world.
These “feminists” are whining about the very thing that they claim to support: equality. Pence treated Harris as an equal, not underestimating her because she’s a woman or because she has a different skin tone to him. That, in the mind of the hypocritical liberal, cannot be allowed to stand. Leftist women must be treated like queens while conservative women, though they also are women, can be treated like utter garbage. This much is clear in their coverage of women like Kayleigh McEnany, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Melania Trump, Sarah Palin, etc., etc.
They don’t support equality whatsoever. They support Leftist supremacy under the guise of equality. If a black man supports Trump, he is a race traitor. If a woman supports Trump, she is a traitor to her gender. If a Latino supports Trump, he is betraying his Latinx (have I mentioned how much I hate that word?) brothers and sisters. This is their mentality because they believe blacks, Latinos, women and minorities in general all belong to them. They never abandoned the slaveowner’s mentality.
And when they see an old, white man effectively decimating their young, brown queen, despite her own clear faults and lack of preparedness for the debate, they screech about the “patriarchy” and how this is an example of it running rampant in politics.
It’s, yet again, nothing but a massive temper tantrum. Pence destroyed Harris and let me tell you something: if Kamala were Trump’s conservative VP and Pence were Biden’s communist running-mate, aka if the roles were completely reversed, the news media would be attacking Kamala for some of the same reasons I just described: she’s a race and sex traitor.
Their exclamations that Kamala was unfairly attacked by Pence because she is a brown woman are full of crap because we all know what would’ve happened had the roles been reversed.
Pence decimated Harris. This much is clear given the Left’s neurotic and nonsensical response.
“With God we shall do valiantly; it is he who will tread down our foes.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Despite the Left’s best efforts to blame Trump for even the very existence of this virus (and don’t tell me they never did this after Pelosi tried and failed to call this the “Trump virus”), many people across the world view China extremely unfavorably and in many cases, such views are at historic highs.
A new Pew Research Survey interviewed over 14,000 people from 14 different countries to ask them a series of questions, among which was their current views and attitude towards the communist country. The results were not at all surprising if one were looking at it rationally, as China has been demonstrably awful despite the Left’s best efforts to absolve them of any blame.
All of the countries surveyed currently have an unfavorable opinion of China and nine out of those 14 countries have historically high negative views on China, unsurprisingly, largely as a result of this past year.
The countries that have the lowest unfavorable view of China are Italy and Spain, where 62% and 63% view China unfavorably respectively. Which is a tad strange, considering just how badly the virus affected Italy. You would think many of them would express utter outrage towards China, but I suppose the survey found enough people with ties to China (as in people working for a Chinese company) for the survey to not show massive unfavourability towards China. I don’t know, that’s just my guess.
But like I said, those are the lowest unfavorable numbers for China, both of which were on the rise as of late anyway.
More than 70% of people in France, the U.S., South Korea, Netherlands, Germany and the U.K. view China unfavorably, and in Japan, Sweden and Australia, unfavourability is north of 80%.
According to the graphs given by Pew, many countries’ views on China worsened at some point after 2011, which makes sense, considering Xi Jinping has been the ruler of China since 2013. In Australia, for example, more than 50% viewed China favorably around the time that Xi took office and it went plummeting after that, with only 15% currently holding a favorable view. This is not really surprising, considering both the virus and the fact that there have been trade frictions between the two nations, particularly as Australia is practically trying to save Hong Kongers from China’s authoritarian rule.
When it comes to Japan, it’s not a particular mystery, considering that China and Japan are right next to each other and China has been zealous about expanding China’s territory and area of authority around the South China Sea (and yes, I know that Japan is closer to the East China Sea, but do you think China wouldn’t want to go elsewhere once Taiwan is also under their control?). Japan and China have been rivals for a very long time, so it’s no wonder whatsoever why 86% view China unfavorably and only 9% view it favorably.
Finally, in the 80-percent-and-over club of people who hate China’s guts there is Sweden which is a bit strange to me as well. Sweden has done the best out of any country in dealing with the virus, making sure there are precautions in place without stripping people of their basic civil and economic liberties, so to see them be just one point below Japan in terms of hating China is fairly surprising.
Looking at the graph provided by Pew, unfavourability began to skyrocket at some point between 2011 and 2020, most likely once Xi took office. I have no idea exactly why that is, as I don’t know what kind of relationship these two countries have with one another, but it’s safe to say that it’s not exactly an amicable one.
At any rate, moving on, the survey also asked people how they think various entities, including their own countries, did in handling the virus.
73% of people said they believe their own country handled the virus well, which is not particularly surprising. 63% say that the WHO handled the virus well, and THAT is fairly surprising, considering that they were covering for China and lying on their behalf for a while, refusing to recognize the virus as a pandemic for months and refusing to acknowledge that there was human-to-human transmission of the virus under orders of Xi.
But I guess such news didn’t reach that many people’s ears.
At any rate, 60% say the EU did a good job in handling the virus, which is a bit of a mixed bag. I’d say Sweden, which is in the EU, did a good job, but Spain, France, Germany, Italy and the U.K. have done awful jobs in handling the virus. So saying that the EU in general did well here is fairly misleading, in my opinion, since different countries in the globalist group employed different policies and did better than others.
When it comes to China, that is the first entity in the list which receives negative marks, with 61% saying that they did a bad job in handling the virus, which should really be considerably higher, but I’ll take it.
China is the sole reason for this virus having affected the world as it did. Had they been honest and transparent from the beginning, it would’ve given other countries more time to prepare. China refused to tell the truth about anything and refused to let in CDC officials from the U.S. to check things out. They used their ties to the WHO to lie to the world and still continue to lie to this day, having largely stopped counting COVID cases since March because they stopped testing people.
And unsurprisingly, even Pew is going along with the lie that all was fine and dandy in the epicenter of the disease: Wuhan.
“After initial cases of the coronavirus started appearing in China’s Hubei Province in late 2019, many around the world questioned the expediency of China’s response to the outbreak, and others critiqued some of the measures Beijing used to contain the virus within its borders. But in Wuhan, the original epicenter of the outbreak, the strict lockdown has ended and the new case count plummeted to at or near zero by May,” reported Pew.
Don’t act as though this is some great success story for China, Pew. Of course their case count is going to “plummet” when THEY LARGELY STOP TESTING PEOPLE IN AN ATTEMPT TO SEEM COMPETENT AND IN CONTROL! It was an act of deceit and many in the media have willingly gone along with it in order to weaponize the virus against their political opponents and painting China’s strict lockdowns as “the way” to beat the virus.
Truth is that no one outside of Wuhan knows the current situation in that place. Well, no one who isn’t a high-ranking member of the Chinese Communist Party, at least. Things might be better there than they were before, but the real death count is unknown and will likely never be known because of the CCP’s insistence on hiding the truth.
China set the world on fire and the world doesn’t like it as a result. Those unfavorable ratings are perfectly justified and, in my opinion, don’t even go far enough.
Now, I will briefly mention that Pew also showed that 84% of surveyors also said that the U.S. did a bad job in handling the virus, which is definitely much higher than China’s number, but there are some factors that need to be considered.
First, the fake news media was basically acting as though this was the end of the world. Even Chris Hayes recently tweeted something along the lines of “if we survive this” as though this wasn’t a virus with a 99.7% survival rate. They are acting in bad faith to hurt Trump and blame him for this, pretending like if you get the virus you are almost certainly going to die unless you vote for Biden. It’s b.s. and we all know it.
Second, SOME places in the U.S. handled it badly while some not as much. New York, California and Michigan have, I think, done the worst job in handling this virus, with Texas and Ohio somewhat being up there because of the idiotic governors buying everything the media was selling. Other states like Florida and those which have eased up on the lockdowns have, in my opinion, done a bit better (locking things down in the first place was idiotic, so they get bad marks for that, including my own state of Alabama where we STILL have unconstitutional “safer-at-home” orders).
While the Left tries to blame Trump for the handling of the virus, the truth is that Trump did his best with what he had (considering the Obama administration depleted the federal supply of N95 masks and did other things to screw us during a pandemic). He sent plenty of help to New York, for which Cuomo was thankful at the time. He gave them the ventilators they needed and sent them a medical ship which Cuomo didn’t even end up using, opting to send sick people to nursing and retirement homes in all his infinite idiocy.
But when it comes to policy in each state, the governors are at the helm and the ones who did the worst job are the Democrat ones.
This is something many will forget going into the election, particularly as the fake news media keeps trying to pin 200,000+ deaths on Trump alone instead of the incompetence (at best) of various governors and the deceit of the Chinese.
Aside from that, however, this is a good survey to see, in my opinion. A LOT of people have increasingly negative views of China, which is exactly what I want to see following the amount of bullcrap the CCP has been trying to pull as of late. They deserve all the scorn in the world, even beyond just the virus. They are attempting to destroy freedom everywhere they can, having taken over Hong Kong and setting their sights on Taiwan next. They are attempting to commit ethnic cleansing of Uyghur Muslims and silencing Christians by sending them to what can only be described as concentration camps, making China a 21st century Nazi Germany.
China should be viewed as the enemy of the world and many countries, slow as it may be, are beginning to do this. I hope and pray that this will lead to as many nations as possible to cut financial ties with China and seek to either work with one another, work with the U.S. or at the very least, if they still need to find some inhumanely cheap labor, work with India and some Latin American countries.
China must be financially suffocated like the Soviet Union if there is any hope of beating them.
“He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
It is rare for me to discuss the Leftist politicians of countries apart from the United States, but I feel it is fairly necessary here, considering how unbelievable this story is.
You see, last week, The Post Millennial uncovered footage of Trudeau’s Liberal Minister Catherine McKenna eating dog meat and bribing her way into an illegal cockfighting ring during a trip to Indonesia.
That was likely the tamest thing that has been discovered regarding that trip. Most recently, The Post Millennial discovered MORE footage from the same trip, this time around showing McKenna attending an arranged marriage and feasting on some of the buffalo that was used to purchase the bride.
According to The Post Millennial: “McKenna and her friends attend[ed] a wedding where the bride was purchased for three buffalo and $4.5 million Indonesian Rupiah – approximately $400 CAD ($301 USD). McKenna and her friends ate at least two of the buffalo that evening.” This all comes from a documentary titled: “Real Travels: 60 days in Indonesia,” in which the narrator is heard saying: “The male who is the highest bidder, got his bride to be,” and as it turns out, the groom was “the brother of [McKenna’s] tour guide that won the auction for the bride,” according to The Post Millennial.
So this Liberal cabinet member in Trudeau’s administration was discovered to have eaten dog meat, bribed her way into an illegal cockfighting ring, and attended an arranged marriage ceremony in which the bride was bid on as though she were an art piece or a boat, basically dehumanizing her by modern standards.
And these are the kind of people who screech about “ethics” and “morality” and “being on the right side of history”? This is ancient times type of stuff.
According to The Asean Post (not a typo): “According to 2018 figures from the Indonesian bureau of statistics, one in nine children under the age of 18 are married in Indonesia, or 11.2 percent from a total of 79.6 million children across the country. Meanwhile, according to a 2016 report by the United Nations Children Fund (UNICEF), Indonesia has one of the highest rates of child marriages in the world.”
“UNICEF has also noted that Indonesia has the eighth highest absolute number of child brides in the world – 1,459,000,” continued the report.
A large part of the reason for so many child marriages and arranged marriages in general occurring is because of widespread poverty in the region. It isn’t uncommon for a man hailing from a wealthy family to negotiate with the parents of the bride so that they take money, livestock, or both, in exchange for the would-be bride’s hand in marriage. And like it was pointed out earlier, this often happens to girls before the age of 18 (which makes me wonder if the Podestas, Clintons, Obamas and Bidens have some sort of interest in the small island nation).
Not at all surprisingly, McKenna received severe backlash from women’s rights groups. One such person to lambast McKenna was Niken Lestari, who is the Executive Coordinator of FAMM Indonesia (couldn’t find exactly what it stands for). She told The Post Millennial that McKenna ought to “apologize by criticizing the practice and supporting women’s organizations in Flores, NTT province that have been working to organize and empower communities for years. There have been small and big changes happening at the grassroots level and it’s still going on. We need international support to push the national and provincial government to give strong action to this case.”
She continued: “Young women are suffering due to child marriages because they are vulnerable to [the] cycle of violence and they usually cannot access many public services such as education and legal documents.”
She concluded with: “Underage brides and grooms cannot have a marriage certificate unless there is an exemption letter issued by a religious court. If they don’t [have] a certificate, their children cannot have birth certificates and they can’t have a divorce certificate in case it happens. Those are the legal impacts, not to mention the psychological damage done to the child bride.”
It is an absolute nightmare to be a child bride (and seemingly, sometimes, groom) as these girls have no rights or say about the matter whatsoever. This is extremely immoral stuff, things Leftists would usually call “regressive” and “neanderthalian”, and yet, it seems McKenna had no issue with it whatsoever.
Now, I’m not saying that she should’ve stopped the wedding or caused some big scene or something, since that would not be productive. However, if she were at all a moral person, she would have, at the very LEAST, left the wedding as soon as she discovered what exactly was going on.
I don’t know the full context surrounding the event, I don’t know if she knew what kind of wedding this was going into it or if she found out at some point during it, but if she knew that the bride had been SOLD TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER at any point before or during the event, she displayed utter immorality by taking part in it.
Now, like I mentioned earlier, she also ate dog meat and bribed her way into an illegal cockfighting ring (for which animal rights activists are also lambasting her), so even if she didn’t know about what type of wedding this was until after she left, she’s not exactly a saint by any stretch of the imagination.
Which can easily be said of just about any other Leftist you can think of. Even according to the outward morality of the Left (as in, the things they outwardly claim are “moral”), this woman is still far from ethical. Liberals might be getting a tad bit cozier with the idea of eating bugs “to save the planet from climate change” but eating dogs is a bit of a leap from even that. And, of course, any conservative would tell you how stomach-twisting that idea is.
And bribing her way into an illegal cockfighting ring kind of speaks for itself in terms of its very immorality.
But this is just who these people are anyway. They reject God and in doing so, reject the morality that He has created, opting instead for a “man-made” morality which attempts to resemble God’s morality but fails miserably due to our evil nature.
A whole discussion about morality and philosophy can be had here, but that would take far too long and would make this article far too lengthy.
At any rate, it is absolutely fantastic to me to see people who proclaim themselves to be these great arbiters of progress and morality and truth be exposed for the deeply immoral garbage that they are. This point was subtly hinted at by The Post Millennial as they shared two tweets by McKenna about how climate change “disproportionately hurt women” or how “climate deniers target women” and such nonsense. She expresses, routinely, how she is a great champion of women, particularly as it pertains to things like climate change, but in reality, she offers nothing positive for women.
Again, it’s not like I was expecting her to come to that bought bride’s rescue or anything, but that she stayed there throughout the entire thing (and there is little reason to believe she didn’t know what exactly was going on) displays her true feelings towards other women: indifference.
If she truly cared about women, she would’ve either tried to say something or simply left the joint, followed by her making some sort of outraged statement online that pointed to the horrible situation women face in Indonesia. What she displayed, in the end, is utter indifference towards her fellow woman. “Sisterhood” is something that applies only when it is beneficial to the self; if there is nothing to be gained from it, it is dropped on its head.
I feel sorry for the bought bride and for the millions of children who are forced into such a situation in Indonesia alone, let alone elsewhere in the world. Too bad that McKenna couldn’t be bothered to remotely share in that lament, not that it’s in any way surprising.
“But Peter and the apostles answered, ‘We must obey God rather than man…’”
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...