Considering how incessantly progressive Disney tries to be, what with pushing for showing gay couples in as many of their media as they can (despite the fact that their works are aimed at younger audiences, so this kind of thing corrupts their minds and souls), it’s surprising to discover this.
 
But it’s true: in a not particularly old Disney Channel show, the Leftist corporation talked about and DISMANTLED communism (or “commonism”, as the show puts it).
 
Disney Channel aired Girl Meets World from 2014 to 2017. For those of you who might find that title rather familiar, the show is essentially a sequel series to Boy Meets World from the 90’s. Girl Meets World follows the adventures of Riley Matthews, who in the show, is the daughter and student of Cory Matthews, the main protagonist of Boy Meets World.
 
In one of the episodes of this show, titled “Girl Meets Commonism”, Riley and two of her friends are caught cheating on a test and embrace the ideas of communism, believing that under that system, everyone is equal, so everyone gets the same grade (and good grades, specifically).
 
Riley and her friends even wear Russian-like attires and enclose their desk in a red rectangle (as shown above).
 
However, instead of pushing this as a good thing, the show gives the kids a reality check.
 
Following these ideals, Riley and her friends went into the next test being allowed to copy off of each other by their teacher (who is Riley’s dad). Upon receiving their tests back, they find they got a perfect score and got an A. However, despite this accomplishment, the three each get a C, because one A divided by three people is a C.
 
The three students are disappointed by this, with one of Riley’s friends asking how they could get a C when they scored 100%.
 
Cory explains that “when you get everything right but you don’t do it yourselves, it makes you average. A divided by three is a C. Look at you, you’re all the same. You’re average. You’re common.”
 
Riley then says: “Commonism. This is why it fell? People didn’t wanna all be the same?”
 
To which Cory responds: “Without incentive, there’s no motivation. Without motivation, there’s no advancement. In a truly free society, we share the best parts of ourselves without cheating. Because we get to learn who we are individually.”
 
I will get to the entire subject of communism in a second, but first, allow me to explain just why it is that I am talking about a show that ended three years ago and an episode that aired roughly four.
 
The particular clip where the events I just described took place recently resurfaced on Twitter, with the person who brought up the clip in the first place saying: “Reminder that Disney is actively giving your children anti-communist propaganda.”
 
The video clip has so far garnered more than 3 million views.
 
I had no idea this had happened back whenever this aired and never knew of it until now (mainly because I stopped watching Disney channel a long time ago). However, this made me think “wow, Disney is pretty cool.”
 
Now, that still doesn’t erase the fact that they have actively been giving children LEFTIST propaganda in the form of showing homosexual couples (usually lesbians, interestingly enough), be it on shows or movies, but this is at least one instance in which I actually side with Disney.
 
This isn’t anti-communist “propaganda.” It’s TRUTH.
 
The students were mad that they got caught cheating on a test and figured that in an ideal world, they could do that and still get good grades (which shows the low intellectual levels that it takes for someone to be a communist). They began dressing the same and push that they be allowed to cheat on a test to get the best results.
 
Their teacher obliged them, but only to teach them a valuable life lesson: communism is far from ideal.
 
Communists often claim that communism is about equality and fairness and justice. They say that it’s about everyone getting the same result regardless of amount of work or anything else. They say that it’s supposed to give the little guy a push and to get them to the top of the food chain, currently occupied by the wealthy.
 
Reality is far different from this, namely due to the very nature of man.
 
In communism, people are equal – equally miserable. Well, that’s not entirely true. In communism, the only people who aren’t miserable are the people in charge – the 1% of the population who dictate what happens and to whom. In communism, there is no fairness.
 
For the three students to have gotten 100%, one of them had to have had all the answers for the others to copy off of them. The person who actually knew the material and did the hard work would receive the same exact grade as the others who didn’t work nearly as hard. Regardless of whether they got an A or a C or even an F, how exactly is that fair for one person to do all the work and everyone to get the same grade?
 
Schools, for a long time, had this sort of system for grading group projects. And since the entire group would share a collective grade, there was no incentive for everyone to work so hard. Often times, one person would end up doing all the work for the whole group, or at least most of it, and the whole group got the same grade due to the one person’s work. How exactly is that fair? How is this just?
 
Everyone gets the same result, so what’s the point in working hard? And that’s the point in which it all begins to tumble down. Like Cory said, if there is no incentive, there is no motivation, and if there is no motivation, there is no advancement.
 
The ONLY reason we have the technology we have today is because there is an incentive to create and innovate. Capitalism gives people, workers and businesses an incentive to do well and be successful. Those who are successful see this in the form of wealth or popularity or both. When there is no incentive to work hard, there is no reason to work hard. When there is no motivation to do anything, nothing happens and no forward movement occurs.
 
In a communist society, the only incentive people have is to not get shot or arrested. In a communist society, people aren’t people, but a collective mass of beings indistinguishable from one another.
 
In a communist society, we are the Stormtroopers from Star Wars: all the same, no individualism. In a capitalist society, we are Obi Wan Kenobi, Yoda, Padme, Luke, Han Solo – individuals with value and worth.
 
The reason communism has killed over 100 million people is because people are not people, but tools, for the elite. And those who are not useful tools to the elite are disposed of. Those who defy the elite are disposed of. Those who even slightly piss off the elite are disposed of. Communism doesn’t value life.
 
It doesn’t value hard work. It doesn’t value individualism. It doesn’t value the things that make humans better, allow them to improve, and help them to grow.
 
Communism, or “commonism,” for the kids of the show, fell because it is outright antithetical to humanity. Communism is slavery. It’s slavery to the state. Humans have within themselves an innate desire for freedom.
 
Our very nature makes the supposed ideals of communism impossible. Not everyone can garner the same result and be content with it and actually make it work. That’s unrealistic. The workers cannot run a factory or a business, sharing the wealth of the business and the people who run it, without running that business into the ground.
 
Communism, by its very nature, is self-destructive to humanity. It cannot work, at least for long. Even the Soviet Union and China have had to allow for SOME capitalism (private property and ownership) in order to even slightly function.
 
I don’t know why Disney Channel chose to air that episode, considering it kind of runs contrary to their Leftist ideals, but I am glad that they did. The writers of the particular episode clearly demonstrated (some of) the major flaws in the ideas of communism.
 
Different levels of work should not warrant equal results, for such a thing destroys incentive. Destroying incentive destroys motivation. Destroying motivation destroys people’s ability and reason to improve.
 
In basketball, there is a saying: “Hard work beats talent when talent doesn’t work hard.” Allen Iverson was talented, but he didn’t work hard, so his stint as an NBA player, particularly at the highest levels of competition, was short. Jimmy Butler is not insanely talented at basketball, but he works hard, so he’s a multiple-time All-Star and the first option on a perennial contending team. Michael Jordan was both talented and a hard worker, so he is remembered as a legend and the greatest player of all time.
 
The necessary ingredient for success is hard work, almost regardless of talent. But if there is no incentive to work hard, nothing gets done. Even taking away all of the other major flaws of communism, that alone destines any country that tries it to failure.
 
Again, I don’t know what the reasoning behind Disney airing an episode on this topic was, but I am glad that they did. It’s not propaganda – it’s TRUTH-TELLING.
 
Ephesians 4:25
“Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members of one another.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

About a week ago, I wrote a similar article to this one talking about how black communities are the ones who suffer the most from defunding (or abolishing) the police. In that piece, I also mentioned a Rasmussen poll that showed black people (and Americans altogether) were afraid of a police shortage as a result of Leftist demonization of police.
 
This article looks at another statistic: what black people (and Americans in general) want police to do in their neighborhoods, specifically how often they believe police should be seen patrolling those neighborhoods.
 
Gallup has a new poll out showing that 81% of Black Americans want police to spend the same amount of or more time in their area.
 
“When asked whether they want the police to spend more time, the same amount of time or less time than they currently do in their area, most Black Americans – 61% -- want the police presence to remain the same.”
 
20% of Black Americans said they wanted police to spend more time in their area and 19% said they wanted police to spend less time, leading to that earlier 81% of Black Americans who said they wanted police presence to either remain or increase.
 
This stands in stark contrast to how the Left, particularly black Leftists, often portray black people. The Left portrays black people as a victimized and borderline hunted group of people, whose entire existence is at risk by the mere presence of police departments, and who essentially wake up every day terrified that a cop is going to burst into their homes and start firing at will at anyone and anything that they can.
 
The Left portrays black people as essentially being a hunted species, not unlike lions or elephants in Africa (which really shows just how utterly racist Leftists are). Furthermore, they portray black people as being of one hive mind that agrees with these sentiments and wants to do away with all law enforcement. They portray black people as standing in direct opposition to police and as desiring for alternatives to policing black neighborhoods.
 
As is always the case, no matter the topic of discussion, the Left is exceedingly wrong and lying through their teeth. The truth of the matter is, while black people tend to be arrested more than other groups of people (as they tend to commit more crimes), most black people would prefer the police to be around as opposed to any possible alternative.
 
The Left will often talk about how it’s racist that police patrol black neighborhoods more than other neighborhoods, but will often ignore the fact that gangs tend to organize in these neighborhoods, which often end up terrorizing and threatening people in those neighborhoods.
 
Such gang activity is illegal and as it’s so dangerous for their neighborhoods, they must be more policed than other races’ neighborhoods (though Hispanic neighborhoods often have to be policed almost as much, because of gangs like the Latin Kings and MS-13).
 
At any rate, returning to the poll, the survey also asked other races if they wanted police to spend the same amount of time, more time, or less time patrolling their neighborhoods.
 
71% of White Americans said “same amount of time”, 17% said more and 12% said less. 59% of Hispanics said they wanted police patrolling the same amount of time, 24% said more and 17% said less.
 
Asian Americans are the ones who wanted less police presence by a good bit, at 28%, but 63% still wanted the same amount and only 9% wanted more police presence in their neighborhoods.
 
As far as exposure to police, 32% of Black Americans report seeing police in their neighborhood “very often/often”, 41% “sometimes” and 27% “rarely” or “never.”
 
For whites, 22% see them frequently, 42% sometimes and 36% rarely or never. 28% of Hispanics see them often, 37% sometimes and 34% rarely or never and 21% of Asians see them often, 47% sometimes and 32% rarely or never.
 
There are quite a few other statistics that Gallup shares, but for the sake of this article, I will only talk about how confident black people are that police will treat them well upon being interacted with by them and how such treatment affects black people’s preferences for police presence.
 
According to Gallup, only 18% of Black Americans feel “very confident” that the police would treat them with courtesy and respect if they had an interaction with them, as opposed to 56% of whites who feel very confident, 40% of Hispanics and 24% of Asians.
 
However, a majority (61%) of black people are either somewhat or very confident that they would be treated with respect and courtesy by police (43% “somewhat confident” + the 18% who are “very confident”). While that is lower than other races (91% of whites, 77% of Hispanics and 78% of Asians are confident), that is still a fairly solid majority over the ones who are either “not too confident” (27%) or “not at all confident” (12%) that they would have a good interaction with police.
 
Despite the fact that the Left is so wrong about their portrayal of black people, their words and beliefs do still have an influence on some people. I imagine at least some of the reason for black people to feel less confident about an interaction with police is because of some Leftist narratives.
 
Gallup themselves theorize that this gap between races in confidence in police interactions could “either stem from Black Americans’ own negative experiences with the police or from their familiarity with people who have had negative encounters with law enforcement.”
 
And these are pretty valid and logical reasons as well. With more frequent policing in these neighborhoods comes a higher chance for interaction with law enforcement. More interaction means a higher chance of poor or negative interactions, especially if they are looking for one’s own friend or relative because of something they did.
 
The second explanation by Gallup makes a good deal of sense to me as well. Someone else’s interaction means they could tell the story to their friends and they might just lie and say that the cops were hassling him “for no reason” even if there actually was a reason and that leaves an impression for his friends who did not interact with the police to believe that cops are messing with folks who are doing nothing wrong.
 
So I think there are a number of valid and logical explanations as to why the gap is as big as it is in confidence levels for interactions with police.
 
These interactions, in turn, can lead to some black people to sway one way or the other about police presence as a whole.
 
According to Gallup, 45% of “Black Americans who report not being treated with courtesy or respect by the police within the past 12 months want less of a police presence in their neighborhood. Meanwhile, 55% want the same or more police presence.”
 
“By contrast, just 13% of those who did feel they were treated respectfully want the police to spend less time in their neighborhood; 87% want them there as much or more often.”
 
What seems to be the biggest indicator as to how much police presence a group of people wants in their neighborhood is not the actual frequency, but rather, the sorts of interactions that they have with the police.
 
While these hardly get featured anywhere in the news, even in my own articles defending police, there are plenty of videos out there of police having wholesome and heart-warming interactions with kids in various neighborhoods. From playing basketball with them to playing some instrument, there are plenty of times when a cop is featured in a video, not as seemingly doing something wrong or excessive (or just their jobs) but rather doing community outreach and having positive interactions with the people of the communities in which they serve.
 
For example, there is this YouTube video showing a local news segment in Greenville, North Carolina of police responding to a noise complaint (kids playing basketball) and deciding to start playing some basketball with those kids.
 
There is also this other YouTube video of a Compton deputy having a bit of a jamming session, rocking out with local teenagers.
 
These stories never get told by the mainstream media and only sometimes get shared on social media, but they show a side to police officers that the Left wishes to totally ignore: a more human, relatable side.
 
The Left wishes to demonize police officers entirely because it is in their best political interests, but black people (and most other people in general) do not want this. They want either the police presence to stay the same or increase, not decrease.
 
Like I said in the previous article talking about this subject, people want to feel safe. For most people, either owning a gun or having a police presence (or both) is how they feel safe. Taking away people’s means by which they can ensure their own safety is not the humane thing to do, let alone the politically savvy thing to do.
 
Not that I expect the Left to be very humane considering they publicly advocate for and support the genocide of children in the womb.
 
But at any rate, it’s good to see, time and time again, that the reality the Left claims exists does not actually exist. Black people want police in their neighborhoods – they want them to be a force for good. They don’t want fewer cops and definitely don’t want defunct and abolished police departments.
 
Psalm 4:8
“In peace I will both lie down and sleep; for you alone, O Lord, make me dwell in safety.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

The last two months have been extremely hectic due to the police-involved death of George Floyd, which sparked a nationwide conversation (as well as numerous violent riots perpetrated by Leftists in Democrat-controlled cities and states) about racism and police brutality (even though racism had nothing to do with the case, even when we first saw the original videos).
 
The Black Lives Matter movement has been at the forefront of people’s conversation as a direct result of this case, but throughout all this time, one aspect of it was still missing: the body-cam footage from the police officers at the scene.
 
We had seen a video from Facebook, video feeds from security footage around the scene, but for the longest time, the body-cam footage of the incident was kept from public eye. Now, the footage was seen by a select few in a Minneapolis courtroom in mid-July – around the time the officers had been charged – but the viewing was restricted to people in the courthouse, under judge’s order.
 
What’s more, the body-cam footage technically has not been released by the MPD – it was actually leaked to the UK Daily Mail, who then reported on it and showed the videos.
 
So we technically still were not meant to see the footage and we wouldn’t have if it hadn’t been leaked. Makes you wonder what sort of agenda the people in charge of the footage have if they didn’t want the footage to be released, especially as it changes A LOT about the narrative surrounding this entire event.
 
At any rate, the footage (below) initially shows two officers – Thomas Lane and Alex Kueng (both rookie MPD officers) – entering the Cup Foods where the call of a suspect using a counterfeit bill to purchase some cigarettes had been made. The store clerk goes up to the officers, waving the counterfeit bill and showing them to Floyd’s SUV, which was parked on the other side of the street from the store, telling them: “Before they drive off, he’s parked right here. It’s a fake bill from the gentleman,” according to the Daily Mail.
 
Obviously, as there are two different officers, there are different perspectives. One of them shows one of the officers (Lane) approaching the vehicle driver-side and the other officer (Kueng) approaches passenger-side, as the vehicle contained Floyd, his ex, Shawanda Hill, and a friend, Maurice Hall, with Floyd at the driver’s seat, Hill at the back and Hall at the front.
 
The officers instruct the passengers to get out of the vehicle and Lane instructs Floyd to put his hands where they are visible and eventually to get out of the vehicle.
 
Where the situation surrounding the entire event changes is at this point, where Floyd is instructed to show his hands. He largely doesn’t for some time, leading the officer to repeatedly order him to show his hands, all while at gun-point (which makes sense since Floyd could have something in his hands which could have harmed the officers, though we come to find out that he didn’t).
 
One aspect of the situation that many have argued is that Floyd wasn’t visibly resisting arrest from the videos that were shown. Again, the Facebook video and footage shown by CBS News (which really should be taken with a massive grain of salt, and this case proves it) demonstrate a George Floyd who did not resist and who was on the ground only because he fell from the sidewalk.
 
The CBS News video cut from where Floyd fell to the footage of the Facebook video, where Floyd was noticeably on the other side of the car and from where he had originally fallen. Something had to have happened in between those two moments, but we were not shown it – and it was MASSIVELY CRITICAL that we would be shown it for necessary context, but we weren’t (likely for political reasons).
 
The body-cam footage shows that Floyd was largely resisting officers’ orders from the beginning, maybe not necessarily to be rebellious or abrasive towards the officers, as he looked more distressed and agitated than aggressive, but he resisted the entire time nonetheless. He was repeatedly told to put his hands either on the steering wheel or on his head and he repeatedly did not listen for some time.
 
Even as he’s being put in cuffs, he’s resisting a bit. Eventually, the officers had him sit against the wall of the building his vehicle was parked next to, where the officers tried to get some personal information from him (name, DOB, etc.) and explained why they were there in the first place (the call).
 
Eventually, they drag him to the squad car that was originally shown when we first saw this situation (the car that was Chauvin’s), where he continues to resist. Once they are at the car and the rear door is opened for him, he continues to resist, telling the officers he’s “claustrophobic” and has “anxiety.”
 
I don’t know about the anxiety part, but I highly doubt he’s claustrophobic for the simple reason that he was in his own car earlier, so what difference would it make to be in the back of a police car and inside your own car when you’re claustrophobic? Aren’t they both enclosed spaces?
 
The entire time, by the way, he was not only resisting, but was acting not only distressed but also very aloof and out of his mind. His friends tell the officers, as the officers asked them about his erratic behavior, that he has mental issues and that he seemingly has had some trauma with police before (seeing as he had committed plenty of crimes in the past, I wouldn’t be surprised).
 
The officers seemingly found a weed pipe and something related to PCP in his vehicle, and the toxicology report in his autopsy said that he had fentanyl in his system and recently used methamphetamine prior to his death. The report said: “Decedent experienced a cardiopulmonary arrest while being restrained by law enforcement officer(s).”
 
In other words, Floyd died of a heart attack, not from neck compressions or anything. Now, the heart attack may have been triggered by the entire situation (being arrested while high, I would imagine, is a highly stressful situation to be in, particularly if you have had bad experiences with police before), but one could hardly consider this to be homicide by the police officers, particularly Chauvin.
 
Now, I never said that this was homicide anyway, as I had said in the first article talking about this that at the least (from what we knew at the time), this looked like manslaughter, but considering the toxicology report and the body-cam footage, I’m not sure if there is even a case for that (it doesn’t help either that Chauvin is being charged with murder. He will likely walk, which will definitely lead the Left to cause more riots, despite the facts given that Chauvin seems to be innocent here).
 
The entire narrative surrounding this incident is that cops killed Floyd by kneeling on his neck and keeping him from being able to breathe. While the incident as a whole may have led to his death, the cops may not realistically be blamed here, since a number of other factors contributed far more to Floyd’s death (his past, his drug abuse, etc.).
 
What makes it even more difficult for officers to really be blamed is that the phrase associated with George Floyd: “I can’t breathe” was stated by Floyd while the officers were trying to put him IN THE SQUAD CAR. The officers weren’t compressing his neck while putting him in the car, and still, Floyd claims to have been unable to breathe in that moment.
 
Now, whether he could or could not is another matter, what my point here is is that the neck compression is not what led to Floyd’s inability to breathe if he reported a lack of breath from being put in the squad car.
 
The video, following the officers trying to put him in the car and struggling, eventually have Floyd on the ground.
 
Like I said before, I’m not a cop, so I do not know standard procedure for something like this. I don’t know if they put him on the ground to further restrain him or to calm him down (though I don’t see the logic of doing that for that purpose), but that is what they eventually decided to do.
 
Following this, the events shown from the original Facebook video occur, basically putting an end to anything else the footage would show us about the situation.
 
Now, allow me to clarify some things about this entire incident. From what we can see, particularly knowing that Floyd was a bit off his rocker, the actions of the officers made sense, for the most part. I still don’t know why they had him on the ground, and the reason was not made entirely clear in the video, but other than that, what the officers did still made sense. Floyd was resisting the entire time. There is no denying this.
 
The events that led to Floyd’s death were not directly caused by the officers. Floyd was visibly distressed, more so than people usually would be in these situations (even given his history with police) and the officers had found paraphernalia in his vehicle. The toxicology report also showed he had drugs in his system (fentanyl) and he recently had used methamphetamine. The situation added to stress, granted, but those drugs are not exactly relievers of stress or help with the regulation of the heartbeat.
 
George Floyd’s death is still tragic, but it now seems to be more his actions that led to it as opposed to the actions of the officers. Floyd’s death never had anything to do with racism, and now, with police brutality (even while I still can’t quite explain why they had him on the ground, but the reasons are probably just). Officer Chauvin, while seemingly innocent on this count, should still not be reinstated because he still had 17 other reports of excessive force that went undisciplined and unpunished. The other officers should probably have their jobs back, however.
 
George Floyd’s death never justified the riots and looting and arson committed by domestic terrorists. Even if the officers did straight up murder Floyd (and the evidence shows they definitely didn’t), that still wouldn’t justify the Left’s behavior in all this (not that they care, since they were using this as an excuse to do it).
 
While I still wish Floyd hadn’t died in that instance, one cannot honestly blame the officers for his death. He overexcited himself from the drugs he took and the past experiences he had with police and suffered a heart attack. Tragic, but not something that should lead to reforming of the police, let alone total defunding of them.
 
Maybe we should now have a national conversation about the egregious behavior of the Left throughout all of this, since the death of George Floyd has been pretty much cleared up and one can safely say it was not murder or manslaughter.
 
Proverbs 12:22
“Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, but those who act faithfully are his delight.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli. 

BLM is a domestic terror organization. Not only are they Marxists, but they are willing to inflict violence for political purposes (textbook definition of terrorism) and in a recent story, have seemingly developed into a Mafia-like organization, or at least, one of its chapters has.
 
In Louisville, Kentucky, the local chapter of BLM has issued a list of demands for local businesses to adhere to.
 
The demands include:

• “23% of Staff is BIPOC” [black or indigenous persons of color]

 

• “23% of inventory is from BIPOC retailer(s).”

 

• “Regular donations to BIPOC organization”

 

• “Dress code policy does not discriminate against BIPOC patrons or employees”

 
 
Additional demands include businesses having the “option” to give 1.5% of their revenue to a local “black nonprofit or organization” in lieu of purchasing 23% of inventory from black retailers, as well as mandated “diversity and inclusion training” for all employees, and displaying left-wing messages and posters such as ones that read: “YOU CAN’T STOP THE REVOLUTION” and things related to “reparations.”
 
What’s more, these businesses would be “inspected” and given ratings of A, C and F, similar to a health and wellness code.
 
The letter attached to the list of demands is, unsurprisingly, chock-full of Marxist garbage and terminology, such as “gentrification,” which the letter asserts is a “process [that] has been happening to black, indigenous, and persons of color at the hands of white, heterosexual patriarchy since the inception of this nation we call home. Black folx [sic] can’t ‘have their own space’ when wealthy white folks see an opportunity to make more money.”
 
Should a business fail to comply with this ridiculous and clear extortion tactic, the following consequences would befall them:

• “Reduction in Racial Index Score/bias report to the Better Business Bureau.”

 

• “Social Media Blast: Notification, via all social media platforms, of non-compliance.”

 

• “Boycott: Public boycott, coordinated through social media and mail announcements, of yours NuLu establishment AND any other business ventures owned by you.”

 

• “Protest: Visible, media-covered demonstration/sit-in outside your establishment.”

 

• “Invasive Reclamation: Placement of booths/tables outside your establishment where competing Black proprietors will offer items comparable to those offered by you.”

 
And, of course, while they would not actually put it in writing, the businesses stand to be targeted for vandalism at the hands of these thugs.
 
These criminals are publicly extorting these businesses, but do you want to know the most ironic part? They’re not targeting white-owned businesses, or at least, they’re not only white-owned businesses.
 
One of the businesses in the NuLu neighborhood where this list of demands was issued is a CUBAN CUISINE restaurant, owned by a Cuban migrant.
 
Fernando Martinez is the owner of this Cuban restaurant, called La Bodeguita de Mima, and he received the same extortion letter from BLM as the other businesses.
 
Martinez publicly denounced the extortion from the radical terrorist group and rightly called them “mafia tactics” meant to intimidate business owners to do their will. What’s more, Latino immigrants showed up to protest at the restaurant in support of Martinez and his business. At one point, Martinez gave a short speech, saying:
 
“La Bodeguita is open to everybody. If you’re gay, this is your home. If you’re black, this is your home. If you’re white, this is your home. If you’re human, this is your home.”
 
He also condemned the criticism his business faced: “How can I be called a bigot and a racist when my family is black? When my son is gay? I’m the proud father of a gay son, and I’m gonna fight for him against anybody.”
 
During the speech, Martinez also told the story of how he got to the States, being an 18-year-old on a raft from Cuba, fleeing communism in search of freedom and a life and hope. “It’s sad that we have to justify who we are as people. We need to come together as a community. We’re not the enemy of the black community. We’re all people and we come in all colors.”
 
Martinez rightly calls out the mafia tactics being used to intimidate and extort money out of businesses by BLM, so unsurprisingly, people associated with the terrorist organization sought to discredit the guy as a whole and accuse him of racism and being a threat to black lives.
 
Sadiqa Reynolds, president and CEO of the Louisville Urban League (so technically not BLM, but they are pretty much associated politically and both are funded by the Left), lambasted Martinez:
 
“Rather than respond to demands tendered, even in the negative, and affirm that he is aware of the pain our people are in, instead he chooses to highlight what he believes is his superiority. I’m not sure why any human, other than a racist, would choose this time to tell us how little our lives matter.”
 
Did it sound, from what I shared of his short speech, like Martinez was “telling” black people “how little" their “lives matter”? Does it sound like he was attacking black people? Does it sound like he was belittling them or insinuating they are unimportant? Does it sound like he believed he was “superior” or that he was displaying “superiority”?
 
NOT AT ALL and this she-demon knows it, but she has a one-track mind that everyone that doesn’t look like her is a racist (and she doesn’t realize the irony of such a line of thought), so she claims Martinez is a racist because he CALLED THEM OUT on their mafioso tactics.
 
See, Sadiqa was expecting Martinez to either bend the knee to them or, if he refused, to at least take the beta male route and mention how black people are “in danger” or “recognize” the “pain” that black people are in. The white liberal always acts like this, either bending the knee or, if they disagree (a rarity) with something, they make sure they do not offend their black liberal masters by “recognizing” black people’s “suffering” in this country.
 
I don’t know Martinez’ politics, but considering he had to flee Cuba as an 18-year-old, I don’t imagine he is all too keen on voting for socialists.
 
This idea of mine is further demonstrated by Luis David Fuentes, writing for El Kentubano, a Latin publication in Kentucky, who writes: “[A]s a minority group and as immigrants,” people coming from Cuba have “fallen in love with this city and nation… to pursue the American dream.”
 
“Although our community has achieved great success in this city, we continue to miss our homeland, our neighborhoods we grew up in and our families we left behind. We did not want to leave all of those, but we had to. We had to escape the socialist government that took away our grandparents’ private businesses in 1959 and continue to restrict our civil and political rights today.”
 
Fuentes, like many who escape Cuba and leave other socialist Latin American countries (and who recognize that those countries are socialist), is not a fan of communism at all. I imagine Martinez isn’t either and what we are seeing right now is a communist organization extorting businesses for political reasons.
 
We are seeing (a minority of) Americans clamoring for the same sort of broken and deadly political ideology that has destroyed countless countries and that these very people have fought hard to escape from.
 
For this reason, Fuentes went on to add how many people risked their lives in pursuit of “freedom, respect and prosperity,” which could hardly be found, if at all, in communist countries, and he noted that these values are under attack “because of the diffusion and expansion of Marxist ideas.”
 
And he is certainly correct. BLM, and other Leftist organizations, are nothing but communist organizations clamoring for things they either know nothing about or things that they believe they will exclusively benefit from, but in all likelihood will not.
 
I have already said in many other articles that those who support socialism/communism are one of two kinds of people: either A) people who don’t know what it actually is and what it actually does to people and entire nations or B) people who know what it is and does but are more than happy to apply it because they believe they will benefit from it via political power or influence, etc. Those at the top of BLM or ANTIFA organizations are usually the latter, though they typically are the useful idiots that serve the people who actually get all the power (usually politicians) and get eliminated (often literally) once their use has run out.
 
The people running these mafia tactics are the useful idiots who believe they will benefit from businesses’ compliance but fail to understand that when a business is unable to operate, or is restricted in its ability to operate, it will either move or close down.
 
If these businesses are extorted like this and cannot pay their costs, they will close down or move, affecting their communities. Businesses that are treated and threatened like this usually don’t tend to do well and when that happens, it’s the people in the community that suffer for it (though not the people in the organizations because they tend to be paid to do crap like this anyway and they generally do not really care about their communities).
 
But regardless of what happens from here on, whether the businesses are forced to comply or are willing to push back on the oppressive rule of the minority, there’s no denying how utterly despicable, and yet, not exactly unsurprising, it is for BLM to issue these criminal demands.
 
They are an organized crime syndicate at this point, or at least, this chapter is. I hope the local police will ensure that the businesses do not suffer from this clear extortion perpetrated by a criminal mob that hates them.
 
Proverbs 25:26
“Like a muddied spring or a polluted fountain is a righteous man who gives way before the wicked.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

The NBA is back and the players are wearing idiotic social justice messages that fall on deaf ears for those who know the disgusting relationship between the league and the nation that can only be described as a modern-day Third Reich.
 
While NBA players kneel for the flag, the NBA makes plenty of money off of slave labor in China (making apparel such as the very jerseys the players wear) and other business dealings that ESPN (of all sources) has uncovered in an investigation.
 
Recently, ESPN released a long article reporting on the human rights abuses happening in NBA China “academies”, which are basketball centers meant to help Chinese youth with talent to have a good future and a potential spot on an NBA roster, while also helping said youth to obtain an education for being part of the program.
 
However, reality is far different from the official story the NBA wishes to tell. While the purpose of the camps has been explicitly stated to be: “Find another Yao [Ming]” (according to two former league employees who spoke with ESPN), the NBA basically had to overlook egregious human rights abuses in order to do that (and they didn’t even succeed in finding another Yao Ming).
 
There were three particular human rights abuse problems the NBA had to ignore entirely in order to profit off of one specific NBA “academy” located in Xinjiang:

• First, and perhaps most importantly, the NBA and the people working in the Xinjiang academy (including coaches and trainers) had to ignore Uighurs being mistreated and outright sent to concentration camps (this province is where the reportedly 1 million Uighur Muslims are being held in these camps).

 

• Second, and more directly, the coaches and people employed directly by the NBA had to just accept the fact that local coaches (those employed by the Chinese government) would frequently physically abuse the kids in the academy (around 13 and 14 years of age) and would force them to live in horrible conditions.

 

• Third, as foreigners, the NBA employees were treated harshly, often being detained for no just cause for hours at a time, being constantly surveilled and harassed, to the point where a former league employee compared the atmosphere in Xinjiang to “World War II Germany.”

 
While the NBA recently announced that the Xinjiang facility was closed (and there is reason to doubt that to be true), NBA deputy commissioner Mark Tatum, who oversees international operations, “declined to say whether human rights were a factor” in the closing down of the facility.
 
Among the reasons given for closing it down were that the NBA had little oversight over what actually happened in those facilities, which would be a likely story, if the facility hadn’t been operating for four years before the league decided to shut it down. What, did their oversight diminish in those four years, or is it just that now, after people have shed some light on the NBA’s dealings with China, that the oversight was deemed insufficient? Either way, I doubt that’s the reason.
 
The NBA employees that were there also decided to report some of the abuses they witnessed to the local NBA offices, but Tatum says that these incidents were “not reported at the time” to the league in New York, including himself or NBA commissioner Adam Silver.
 
One former league coach said he witnessed some of these abuses from Chinese coaches, in one particular instance, with a Chinese coach reportedly firing a ball into a young player’s face and then “kick him in the gut.”
 
I’ll remind you that these kids are around 13 or 14 years of age while the coaches are around 40 – full-grown adults.
 
The former NBA coach is quoted as saying: “Imagine you have a kid who’s 13, 14 years old, and you’ve got a grown coach who is 40 years old hitting your kid. We’re part of that. The NBA is part of that.”
 
In another facility, specifically in Dongguan, Bruce Palmer, then-technical director of the academy – hired by the NBA – said that he repeatedly witnessed Chinese coaches physically abusing the children and repeatedly warned them against it. In one instance, Palmer told a coach: “You can’t do that to your kid, this is an NBA training center. If you really feel like hitting a 14-year-old boy, and you think it’s going to help him or make you feel better, take him off campus, but not here, because the NBA does not allow this.”
 
So, the issue is not that the physical abuse is wrong, but that the NBA “doesn’t allow it”, though they clearly and demonstrably do. THAT is the issue. Not the hitting the kid part, but the hitting the kid in an NBA facility part.
 
I will add another thing about this: the Chinese government workers that abuse these kids will claim that this is “corporal punishment”, but it definitely isn’t.
 
Jinming Zheng is an assistant professor of sports management at Northumbria University in England and he grew up in mainland China, having written plenty about the Chinese sports system. Instead of exposing the human rights abuses of the Chinese government, he opts to excuse them as just being “the old ways” of the older generations.
 
“For most of the older generation, even my grandparents, they take corporal punishment for granted and even see it as an expression of love and care, but I know it might be criticized by people living outside of China. The older generation still sees it as an integral part of training.”
 
What a load of crap. Kicking a kid in the guts is NOT corporal punishment – it’s abuse. Corporal punishment is limited to spankings. Throughout America, specifically where there are riots, I see plenty of people who could have benefited from at least some level of corporal punishment.
 
Throwing the ball at a kid’s face (and the balls are quite heavy and can cause some damage), kicking them in the guts and hitting them in other matters not described in the ESPN report is NOT corporal punishment, so don’t give me that crap.
 
At any rate, moving on, there is the whole issue of the “academies” not being academies at all. Allow me to explain:
 
You see, earlier, I mentioned how the supposed purpose of the academies were to train young Chinese kids to see if they could one day become NBA players while also giving them an education so as to give them a chance at life in China (or elsewhere) if they are not good enough to make it to the NBA. While that is the official story, and might even have been the intention from the NBA, the kids were not actually given any education at all.
 
According to ESPN, the kids would train “two or three times a day and had few extracurricular activities… When the players – some as young as 13 – weren’t training, eating or sleeping, they were often left unsupervised.”
 
“One coach said league officials who visited China seemed to be caught-off guard when they learned that players in the NBA academies did not attend school.”
 
Now, when the NBA employees asked the Chinese officials about whether the kids were attending school, the Chinese officials “reassured” them that they were, which is yet another expected lie from the Chinese – they, in fact, were not attending school, according to multiple reports from league employees.
 
I’ve already shared some of the comments made by NBA employees who were there, but allow me to bring up a couple more: one coach described the NBA facility in China that he worked at as “a sweat camp for athletes,” and considering the other reports about the abuse and poor living conditions, I’d say that’s not only accurate, but widespread in all NBA China facilities.
 
Like I said earlier, one employee compared the situation in Xinjiang to “World War II Germany”, and I’m willing to bet that is fairly accurate for a number of reasons, one of which was the Uighur camps they have in that region, and the other being the authoritarian surveillance by the Chinese government (though that really applies to all of mainland China).
 
Given the little oversight the NBA had over the facilities, one former coach is quoted as saying: “We were basically working for the Chinese government,” seeing as they were the ones who dictated the training regimen and selected the players.
 
One of the worst comments, though, had to have come from Corbin Loubert, who was a strength coach working for the NBA and who went to the Xinjiang facility. What prompted the comment I’m about to share was a story on CNN, which Loubert shared on Twitter, describing the way in which the network’s reporters faced oppressive surveillance and intimidation in the region.
 
Loubert said: “I spent the past year living in Xinjiang, and can confirm every word of this piece is true. One of the biggest challenges was not only the discrimination and harassment I faced, but turning a blind eye to the discrimination and harassment that the Uyghur people around me faced.”
 
I say this is the worst comment because it showed the egregious hypocrisy of the NBA at its worst. In order to profit off of the basketball market in China, the NBA and its employees have to turn a blind eye to blatant discrimination and human rights abuses, all-the-while they will speak about how evil the United States is and all of its past injustices (all of which were perpetrated by Leftists of their era).
 
They will allow players to have jerseys that say “speak up”, or “equality” or “justice” on their jerseys while having those very jerseys manufactured by slaves in China. They will kneel for the flag and anthem as it’s being played while sucking on the profitable teat of the most inhumane regime in the modern era.
 
They encourage people to “stand up” against systems of oppression while forcing their employees to turn a blind eye to that very oppression when in China.
 
Now, I’m not suggesting that the NBA coaches wage a civil war against China while they are there. But as one former employee said: “You can’t have it both ways.” You can’t claim to be a proponent of equal rights for all while sacrificing the lives and rights of a certain group of people just to make a profit. It’s the very type of soulless corporatism they claim to stand against.
 
The NBA cannot claim to support human rights while simultaneously sacrificing those same rights of the people who suffer under Chinese communism.
 
It’s why even Leftists such as AOC have stood against the NBA on this. Granted, she is every bit the hypocrite the NBA is, but that goes to show how utterly unpopular the NBA is on this issue: everyone, Left and Right, will agree, to one extent or another, that the NBA is hypocritical on this issue and is profiting off of human rights abuses in China.
 
Now, sure, the Left might be attacking the NBA on this simply because the NBA is a megacorporation and the Left isn’t exactly fond of corporations, but the point remains.
 
I love basketball, but I loathe the NBA for this. The NBA is the very soulless corporation they claim to stand against.
 
1 Thessalonians 5:22
“Abstain from every form of evil.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

I’ve already noted, time and time again, that the Left has convinced itself that there is no possible way that Trump wins in November. This was echoed in 2016, when they were really wrong, and I don’t expect it to be different this year.
 
The Left relies far too heavily on polls that they can manipulate and rig (and often do exactly that) and determine the likely results of the election from that alone. They look at national and state polls, particularly battleground state polls, and convince themselves that Trump is toast and there is little, if anything, he can do to save himself.
 
I’ve already expressed why this is utter malarkey time and time again, whether you are talking about the 2016 election or the 2020 one, but one writer for Spectator USA (not to be confused with the American Spectator) is not at all convinced that Biden will defeat Trump.
 
The title of his piece is: “Get ready for Trump’s second term,” and the subhead reads: “Much depends on whose hands control each House of Congress.”
 
So this writer, named Leonard Toboroff, is convinced of the exact opposite of what the Left is convinced about: Trump is going to win re-election.
 
He begins by noting who exactly Trump’s opponent is: “President Trump’s adversaries are running Joe Biden, a fallback Beltway lifer who is credibly accused of selling his office, leaking false intel about Gen. Flynn to the Washington Post and handsiness with female political allies. Oh, and it appears that a prosecutor in Ukraine is digging into the potential criminal liability of the one or more persons who gorged on Burisma’s trove of US taxpayer funds. Joe’s son Hunter is named, and so Joe, in a context not yet fully disclosed.”
 
Now, the fake news media will never pay attention to the graveyard that is Biden’s closet, but informed voters will take note of the many illegal dealings of Joe Biden, as well as his questionable character and record of failure as Senator and Vice President.
 
However, the election will be about far more than Joe Biden’s past. Toboroff notes that if there is a criminal investigation in Ukraine, nothing much will come of it, pending a potential Joe Biden plea of cognitive impairment that will allow him to walk (though, if such a plea is made before the election, that would be rather devastating to his campaign because it’s one thing to note he is mentally impaired, but it’s another thing entirely for him to admit it to a court – not that I actually expect anything to come out of Biden’s dealings with Burisma).
 
But Toboroff eventually begins talking more specifically about Trump and brings some much-needed logic to illogical fake news polls. He writes: “How is it possible for Trump to have 54 percent approval on the economy and 70 percent disapproval on the virus – and in the same poll? Nor would 300,000 people have donated a total of $20 million in a single virtual fundraiser by Trump if they believed the near-unanimous propaganda that he’s certain to lose in November. Nor would the ‘peaceful’ (Joe’s word) burning down of a courthouse in Portland, Oregon, cheered on by its mayor, edge Trump into a two- or three-point snap lead over Joe in a solid blue bastion.”
 
And he’s right about this. It makes no sense for so many people to be willing to donate to Trump if everyone and their grandmother believes it’s a lost cause. You don’t donate to a candidate you think will lose just because you might be trying to make a point or because you believe in their agenda or whatever else. You donate because you expect them to win and believe they will win.
 
The Saudis didn’t donate to the Clinton Foundation as much as they did because they expected Hillary to lose. They believed she would win, and when she didn’t, the Foundation saw a sharp decline in donations. The Saudis (and others) were trying to buy access.
 
But with Trump, regular people are donating their money and it makes no sense if they expected him to lose, especially in economic times such as these, when many people’s jobs have either been furloughed or eliminated completely.
 
People do not believe the fake news polls that claim Trump is toast. These polls were claiming the same thing LAST SUMMER, back when even the people RUNNING the polls didn’t really believe the polls and wholeheartedly expected Trump to sweep through reelection. These polls were claiming the same thing in 2016 as well, even up to election day itself, when some people had Clinton’s chances of election to be over 98%!
 
The fake news polls can claim whatever they want – reality will show something far different.
 
At any rate, Toboroff continued, noting the sort of approval ratings he is getting from Rasmussen, which is at around 48% and “trending up.”
 
“Translated logically, this gives Trump a wide lead in all battleground states that would translate into a bit more than 300 Electoral College votes. Let’s take this as grounds for examining what a second Trump term would lead us to expect.”
 
Toboroff notes that a lot will depend on which party gets control of both chambers of Congress. Like Lincoln, he writes, Trump “faces a House divided.” But he expects Trump and Republicans to win back the House, while also keeping the Senate as well.
 
With this expectation, Toboroff says that one of the biggest, if not the biggest focal point for the next four years will be the situation with China, specifically, militarily. “Trump will believe that a military buildup will propel economic growth – and it might, because now ‘military’ encompasses most all of the strands of American energy, from innovation to distribution.”
 
He notes that Trump won’t trust his intel community’s report on the military strength of China and will test and verify for himself just how strong they are, be it through pushing back against the ChiComs at the South China Sea or by possibly protecting Taiwan from a potential invasion (especially since Hong Kong has fallen to the Chinese communists and Taiwan was never recognized by China as an independent nation).
 
Now, I do not exactly want a conflict with China that would escalate into a war, particularly as we are trying to get out of endless wars in the Middle East, which establishment members of both parties have prolonged for as long as possible. But with a militarily-aggressive China, Trump will have to do something, especially if we wish to keep China from growing its influence (which has been a bit shattered by the Chinese coronavirus).
 
On the Homefront, Toboroff writes that “rebalancing the judiciary” aka turning the lower courts away from the radical liberals and towards the Constitutional conservatives, focusing on an American education system that does not promote the failed and dangerous ideology of communism and focusing on punishing the people that tried to undermine Trump’s first term with the Russia hoax are things that Trump will have to keep an eye on.
 
These, I would argue, are some of the biggest issues in America today. The Left’s influence is far too massive and obstructive in the lower (and highest) courts and we need to change that. Regarding education, I have long written about how we need to reform education so that communism does not get promoted and taught (in a positive way) in schools, while also bringing back God into the classrooms (and the atheists who have a problem with that can lick my boot).
 
Toboroff suggests charter schools, which is definitely a good option. Charter schools are schools of choice (not dependent on districting) and are independently run, though publicly funded. The Left HATES charter schools almost as much as they hate homeschooling because they can’t get their filthy paws all over the students to corrupt their young minds and teacher’s unions don’t apply to these schools.
 
They don’t like charter schools because they work fairly capitalistically: if they are better, parents will choose to send their kids there, as opposed to the crappy ones. The Left doesn’t want parents to have a choice as to where to send their kids to school (at least, as long as the parents live in a particular district and don’t move out).
 
Transforming the education system will be crucial for the future of this country, which the Left has had far too much influence in constructing.
 
In any case, to begin wrapping up, Toboroff fully expects Trump to win a second term and expects that second term to be rather full for Trump, what with having to deal with a 21st century USSR, having to ideologically reform the judiciary, having to practically reform the education system so as to not indoctrinate generations into foolishly and dangerously believing communism is not absolute crap, and dealing with American traitors who tried to cheat in the 2016 election, failed, and then tried to undermine Trump’s first term and remove a duly-elected president through the Russia hoax.
 
I, like Toboroff, do not buy into the idea that Trump is finished (as I have demonstrated in numerous articles). The only thing I will add is that no one should buy into the idea that Trump can’t lose and get complacent as a result. The Left will do what it can to cheat in this election; they will pull out every dirty trick they have to in order to ensure Trump doesn’t win again. We cannot afford to get complacent and believe Trump is guaranteed to win. I believe he will, but will go out to vote (IN PERSON) to ensure his victory.
 
Deuteronomy 20:4
“For the Lord your God is he who goes with you to fight for you against your enemies, to give you the victory.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

The fake news media, for the past couple of months, was reporting on the riots as being “peaceful protests”, and only recently have they figured that showing a bunch of violence does not lend credence to their words, so they have just decided to claim they were peaceful while not showing any of the violence that is objectively happening in many places.
 
As always, despite what the media reports, reality is considerably different. However, there sometimes are fairly objective reporters, even in relatively Leftist organizations like the Associated Press, who are embedded in the thick of the stories and have to report what they are actually seeing themselves – or at least, feel compelled to tell the truth instead of denying the reality they themselves might be witnessing.
 
Mike Balsamo is an investigative reporter for the Associated Press who was in the thick of the riots in Portland, and more specifically, the riots attempting to destroy a federal courthouse.
 
Balsamo reports in a Twitter thread: “I spent the weekend inside the Portland federal courthouse w/ the US Marshals. Mortars were being fired off repeatedly, fireworks & flares shot into the lobby, frozen bottles, concrete, cans & bouncy balls regularly whizzed over the fence at high speeds.”
 
He continues: “We wanted to show you a look inside the protests from both perspectives – out in the crowd with protesters and inside the courthouse with federal officers. It was a really eye opening [sic] experience to see it firsthand. I was inside the courthouse & [a fellow AP reporter] was outside the fence.”
 
“I watched as injured officers were hauled inside. In one case, the commercial firework came over so fast the officer didn’t have time to respond. It burned through his sleeves & he had bloody gashes on both forearms. Another had a concussion from being hit in the head w/ a mortar.”
 
“The lights inside the courthouse have to be turned off for safety & the light from high-powered lasers bounced across the lobby almost all night. The fear is palpable. Three officers were struck in the last few weeks & still haven’t regained their vision.”
 
“When we were out inside the fence line, someone fired off a mortar. It exploded inches away from us, but no one was hurt. A large bonfire had been started in the street & people were aiming fireworks through the fire at officers behind the fence. It was almost 2:30 a.m. then.”
 
“The officers outside the Portland courthouse have been hit by an array of objects from canned food to ball bearings fired from slingshots. On Saturday night, a DHS officer was soaked completely in orange paint thrown from one of many paint cans later seized by authorities.”
 
Balsamo also reports that the “tactical decisions” made by the federal agents were “very thought out”, largely in order to avoid escalation and larger trouble. Reportedly, at one point, the rioters had cut a large hole in the fence and decided not to go out to avoid escalation. They only really acted and dispersed the crowd once the entire section of the fence was pulled down.
 
Before I move on, I would like to speak of a couple of things. First, while I can perhaps understand that this is the AP and they have certain “standards” for reporting on these things, it is still a shame that Balsamo referred to these people as “protesters.” They are not protesters; they are violent communist rioters. Many of them don’t even know exactly why they are there other than to spread chaos and try to “take down capitalism.”
 
This has LONG ceased to be about racism or police brutality or whatever else. Those things may be the excuses thrown by some of the rioters if one were to ask them, and certainly, those are the excuses thrown by the media and the Left, but they are nothing more than that: excuses. If this were about racism, black-owned businesses would not have been burned down within the first WEEKEND that this whole debacle started. If this were about police brutality, Nike stores and jewelry stores would not be constantly looted (not that I care one wit about Nike, considering they benefit from slave labor in China. If looting their stores hurts them financially, good).
 
Secondly, while I can understand decisions made by those in charge of the federal agents, particularly to try and protect the agents themselves, I don’t know why they don’t just stomp all over the would-be communist revolutionaries present. The riots in Portland have been happening for two months straight, and this is without taking into account that Antifa riots had been happening rather regularly in Portland for at least the last few YEARS. Granted, their hands may be fairly tied by the local government and the honest-to-God moronic mayor, but one would think they would try a bit more to defeat the riots, considering these are FEDERAL agents. Not sure if federal agents have to answer to the mayor of a city, but these riots are not going to end any time soon until they are UTTERLY defeated.
 
What that means could be a number of things. Maybe arresting the lot of them, but they can only arrest so many people, and not all of them are taking actions that directly harm the officers, so they wouldn’t be in jail for all that long and would quickly rejoin the riots because these people have no lives. Maybe electoral victories, but that would be outside of the agents’ power and it would have to mean a majority of people in Portland voting out spineless people like the mayor, but the riots would still go on (I also do not at all expect Democrats to lose in that city).
 
I don’t know what the solution to the Portland riots are, especially as they had been happening for some time now, apart from a show of overwhelming force that serves to completely demoralize these criminals, and even then, who knows how effective that would be?
 
At any rate, returning to Balsamo, he then goes on to report on what some agents he had spoken to had to say. A Deputy US Marshal had reportedly told Balsamo: “I am worried for my life, every time I walk outside of the building.” Balsamo reported that that sentiment “extends widely. They are offended by being told to get out of Portland. They live here, work daily to take violent criminals off the street & it is their city too.”
 
Eventually, Balsamo reported: “One thing is very clear: there’s no plan for the feds to retreat right now. Those protecting the building feel a personal & professional duty to protect the courthouse. Many raised the same point – the courthouse stands for justice, for all people. And they aren’t going anywhere.”
 
All of this chaos, as moronic Democrats claim that there is nothing violent going on in Portland (and other places) and yell at AG Barr during a Congressional hearing because he has chosen to DO HIS JOB AS THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.
 
Of course, I perhaps shouldn’t be calling Democrats “morons” at least for this. While they are exactly that, they are also evil pieces of crap, who have accused Trump of trying to destroy the country while they are doing exactly that, quite literally at this point. They LOVE the chaos and violence happening right now in places THEY run. Even if their own mayors get insulted and have to have armed body guards protecting them from the violent peasants, those very mayors will still go in front of a news camera and say how “peaceful” the people throwing concrete at police officers are.
 
Meanwhile, they tell you, like mafia gangsters, that all of this violence and chaos (which they do not acknowledge is happening) will all come to an end if we all vote for Biden.
 
Scummier people have hardly been seen before.
 
Ephesians 5:11
“Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

We revisit this topic once again because, while the media is no longer reporting on the violent ANTIFA riots (because they realized they are helping Trump win by showing how dangerous these Leftists are), these riots are still happening and violent crime is still on the rise in Democrat-run cities like New York, Portland and Chicago.
 
One myth the Left often perpetuates is that law enforcement is the embodiment of white supremacy and stands in direct opposition to people of color. This is just not true at all, for a variety of reasons apart from the fact the Left is full of lying lunatics.
 
The simple matter is that no one suffers more from a lack of police funding, let alone a full-blown abolishment of the police force, than black people and black communities.
 
Horace Cooper has a great article at The Daily Signal talking about this very topic. In it, he points out a variety of things that the Left makes up, such as the idea that cops stand in opposition to black people, or present a direct threat to black people, and points out that, opposite to what the Left might claim, black people themselves do not support the defunding or abolishment of the police.
 
Rasmussen released a poll last month, as the riots and chaos were at the forefront of everyone’s minds and source of news, that pointed out just how unpopular the idea to “defund the police” actually was to America itself and to black people specifically.
 
According to the poll, 64% of surveyors (survey size of 1,000 American Adults) were reportedly “concerned that the growing criticism of America’s police will lead to a shortage of police officers and reduce public safety in the community where they live. That includes 39% who are Very Concerned.”
 
I doubt that number is much smaller since then, because despite the fact that the fake news media isn’t reporting it anymore, riots are still happening across the country. I already mentioned Portland, but there have been riots in California and Colorado as well. Even in Texas, there have been “peaceful demonstrations” which have resulted in the death of an ANTIFA rioter who attempted to kill someone in a car, but the driver had a gun themselves and fired back. The driver, thankfully, was completely unharmed.
 
In any case, as I said, riots are still happening and people want to be safe. I’ve already talked about this very notion in an article from a little over a week ago, talking about the increase in gun sales in recent time, particularly from first-time gun buyers.
 
Now, returning to that Rasmussen poll, I would specifically like to point out the numbers by demographics. Specifically, what black people said about this. According to the poll, 67% of blacks, three percentage points higher than Americans overall, said they were concerned about a shortage of police and a reduction in safety.
 
63% of whites and 65% of other minority Americans said the same. This demonstrates that the people most worried about a lack of police presence are BLACK PEOPLE, the same race of people the Left claims is systemically targeted and even hunted down by the police. What does that tell you about the Left’s rhetoric, then?
 
And Cooper made sure to bring this point home: “The fact is that black communities suffer far more form under-policing violent crime than from over-policing.”
 
“In a city like Chicago, the astronomical homicide rate has nothing to do with peace-officer shootings and is instead due to intentional underfunding of law enforcement. This strangulation of the Chicago Police Department results in elevated emergency response times and a mounting list of unsolved homicides. This is a concern across the nation.”
 
Certainly, it is. When the police are not allowed to do their job, crime skyrockets. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand the logical consequence of diminishing the ability of police officers to do their job. Now, of course, not every place is the same. It makes no sense to try and over-police places which are typically more peaceful. It’s about a place’s culture, and unfortunately, danger and violence are a part of the Chicago culture now. That’s not to say that a majority of Chicagoans want this to be the case, but gang activity is so common there and has such a presence, it practically defines the culture of Chicago.
 
Weekends with shooting victims in the single-digits are considered good weekends in Chicago. And in recent time, things have only escalated further, especially with their tyrannical mayor’s insistence of further choking law enforcement and keeping federal agents from being able to fix the problem.
 
Cooper also points out this other fact: despite the fact that black people make up 6.2% of the American population, they also make up more than 11% of law enforcement officers. A common reason for many black people to join the ranks of the police is so that they can keep their communities and neighborhoods safe (though this is the case for many cops of other races). They see how poorly run and dangerous these communities are and wish to take out and imprison the bad elements in those communities in the hopes that the communities will become just a little bit better.
 
People, particularly black people, support law enforcement because a lack of their presence means greater suffering for black people and communities.
 
Black people tend to be arrested more than other groups of people and sent to prison more than other groups of people, not because the system is out to get them, but because they tend to commit more crimes than other groups of people. This is an uncomfortable fact and those who share it tend to be labeled as racists, even though it’s an irrefutable fact backed up by empirical evidence.
 
At any rate, like I just said, black people are particularly hurt by a lack of law enforcement. Part of the reason why so many people have gone to buy guns in recent time, especially first-time gun buyers, is that if the Left succeeds in demonizing the police enough that they get severely underfunded, or outright defunded to the point of being effectively inoperable, or morale is so low that there is a shortage of police because they no longer wish to risk their lives to serve people who call them demons for doing the right thing, people’s last line of defense is self-defense via gun ownership.
 
All people want to be safe. We seek or build shelter to protect ourselves from the natural elements as well as other people who might wish to inflict harm on us and have done this for millennia. We acquire things with which we can defend ourselves, whether they be large sticks, spears, swords or guns. We seek food to eat for our survival and we perform tasks as jobs to be financially secure (to some extent).
 
Humans feel the natural need for safety because safety is a matter of survival. Whether one is a Christian who values the life of people whom God has created or a Darwinist atheist who fully subscribes to the idea of natural selection and survival of the fittest, people understand that safety is NECESSARY for human survival and life.
 
Unless we deem it necessary, we don’t tend to take risks. A mother will risk her life for her child, but if her child is not in mortal danger at all, the mother won’t do anything that would risk her life. So in order to survive – to protect those we love – we find means of safety. When a shooting happens, some will go out in search of police or will immediately call 911. Others will pull out their guns to protect themselves and their loved ones or will go to hunt down the shooter.
 
People want to feel safe, and the communities that most benefit from police presence are the ones who are most at risk when that presence disappears.
 
The Left taking away people’s means of safety is not going to end well for them. As I noted in the aforementioned article, you cannot simultaneously have a defunct police department and extreme gun regulations that borderline strip the law-abiding of their guns. One of the reasons is you need a police department to regulate those gun control laws. Another is that crime lords pop up, mafia style, offering “safety” to people in exchange for things like cash or services or “favors”. Outright warlords, like the one in CHAZ/CHOP can also pop up, who rule with an iron fist.
 
But perhaps the biggest reason you can’t have a defunct PD and extreme gun control is because you cannot back people into a corner and expect them to just give up. When backed into a corner, people will go straight at you, seeing no other means of escape. In this instance, people would illegally arm themselves for the purposes of protecting themselves and their families, or even act as a private police force, bringing vigilante justice to their communities.
 
None of these options are exactly ideal, and yet, the Left is pushing for the contradictory policies of defunding police departments and implementing extreme gun control laws.
 
The Left is a menace to everyone, but especially to black people.
 
Proverbs 29:2
“When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, but when the wicked rule, the people groan.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Truth be told, there are far too many reasons I could list that would answer that question for me to fit into one single article. I have already brought up, in the past, how the polls were showing Clinton would win by a landslide in 2016, and even shown the specific poll numbers and electoral vote predictions from a number of people, so there is no need for me to bring that up again.
 
There exists another reason that is far more contemporary than the 2016 polls: 2019 and 2020 polls.
 
You see, Matt Mayer has an interesting piece on Spectator about how “Predictions of Trump’s demise may yet again be premature.”
 
Mayer begins by showing the following numbers coming out of battleground states: in Arizona, Biden is up by two points. In North Carolina, he is up by eight; 11 in Pennsylvania, 10 in Michigan, 9 in Florida and eight in Ohio.
 
Under normal circumstances, and in a world where the news media is honest and objective, such numbers would spell trouble for Trump. However, we know perfectly well that the latter is not true, as we are literally talking about fake news polls. But that is not the only reason those numbers are suspect, and in fact, are not exactly bad news for Trump at all.
 
You see, those numbers that spell doom for the Trump re-election campaign were from last summer, before the Chinese coronavirus (and subsequently, the administration’s response to it, which some would argue was botched or at least not as good as it could have been (not that I am such a person)) and the “racial” riots we are seeing across the country and subsequently, Trump’s response to that as well. Last summer, just about everyone, Left or Right, was just about convinced that Trump would steamroll through the election and easily get re-elected.
 
Now, the Left is convinced (to an extent) that Biden will beat Trump as a result of the last roughly half year. So, then, those numbers that already had Biden winning in those battleground states have to have gotten bigger for Biden, right?
 
No, actually. Aside from Arizona, where Biden is now “ahead” by six points (a four-point increase), Trump has “closed the gap” in the other battleground states, in some by roughly half or even more.
 
In North Carolina, where Biden was supposedly leading by eight last year, he now only leads by one. In Pennsylvania, where Biden used to lead by eleven points, he now only leads by five. In Michigan, his lead is now only 6 (four-point decrease); in Florida, his lead is seven (two-point decrease); Wisconsin, Biden’s lead is 6 (three-point decrease) and in Ohio, Biden supposedly leads by six (two-point decrease).
 
If Trump truly butchered the response to the Chinese coronavirus and has performed abysmally in terms of dealing with racial inequality in America, and subsequently, dealing with the rioting and the destruction and burning down of places of business, homes, etc., - if Trump is truly as big of a screw-up just in the last half year as the Left says he is, how is it that polls show him gaining ground as opposed to losing it?
 
Like I said, last year, just about everyone was fully expecting Trump to easily win reelection. Despite what the polls said, I don’t think even the fake news media carrying those polls were convinced that Trump would be defeated by any of the 666 Democrat presidential candidates. Despite Biden’s lead early on, he would tend to flounder and he inspired just about no confidence at all, or even any energy. NO ONE is excited to vote for Biden, even now. Bernie was the clear opposition candidate for the DNC establishment and they did whatever they could to ensure Bernie would not be their nominee. Bernie got cheated twice.
 
The rest were a random assortment of lunacy, idiocy and radical communism but little personal appeal or notoriety to get very far in the polls. Warren was a cultural appropriator (not that any on the Left would dare call her that), Harris was a cop and an AG who routinely and unjustly would send black people to jail. Bloomberg’s stint lasted all of a half a movie’s run time and was essentially shot out of the sky after his first debate was over; Buttigieg was just the “look at me, I’m gay but somehow also the only person on here who would dare invoke the name of God” candidate; Gabbard was the only one I could even slightly tolerate because of her seemingly actual desire to bring our troops back and her hilarious attacks on Hillary, and the rest were totally forgettable.
 
Seriously, look up the Democrats who ran for president in 2020 and I can guarantee you straight up have not heard of at least a few of them, or forgotten that some of them ran.
 
My point is, despite the large number of candidates the Democrats boasted, time and time again, they all demonstrated a variety of reasons as to why they would lose to Trump by either a little or a lot. And now, the Democrats are stuck with a rapist with Dementia who refuses to leave the basement or answer any questions to the media because any unscripted engagement is 100% likely to result in him saying something else that demonstrates just how mentally unfit he is to run for president, let alone actually be president.
 
And this is the guy they say Trump is guaranteed to lose to? Again, even in their own polls, Trump has only GAINED support in key battleground states, even amidst a period of time in which one could argue Trump wasn’t at his best.
 
And we are still months away from the election. I have said this many times, but a lot can happen in between now and November of 2020. I have said this before the changing of the calendar took place, back when everyone was super confident Trump would easily be reelected, and I say this now, after the last few months of relative struggle. The events that will determine the results of the election have yet to occur. While one would think that the last few months have destroyed Trump’s chances, such a belief is rather short-sighted.
 
Even my own predictions on certain things have not panned out. I expected the Tara Reade story to be one that would haunt the Biden campaign. And while other things have obviously overshadowed that story because they were more important (namely, the pandemic), the fact that Biden is a rapist and hasn’t suffered the consequences in terms of support from women shows I was wrong with my predictions. Even the “you ain’t black” comment didn’t do much to hurt him with black people and he will still likely pull a majority of black voters to him.
 
So for anyone to believe the polls today, let alone a year ago, to be any indication of the results of the election is simply an exercise in madness. And even still, while I did say I wouldn’t bring this up again, I feel the need to mention that polls in 2016, specifically the day of the election, showed Clinton winning big and that obviously did not happen.
 
Not to mention the Cato Institute survey which showed people to be more reluctant to express their beliefs to other people because of fear of persecution, which could be one reason the polls say what they say: it’s entirely possible Trump supporters are either saying they “don’t know” who they will support or will say they will vote for Biden when they don’t actually plan to do so, and are just saying that to not be judged or punished by the pollsters.
 
The polls are wrong. Simple as that.
 
Matthew 7:15
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

As much as the Left pretends there is no such thing as “cancel culture” (and we will see momentarily why it is that they say this), there really is no denying its existence. If anyone says something deemed “offensive” by people who have some amount of power – be it executive power or the power of pressure – that person runs the risk of being financially and professionally punished for sharing such opinions.
 
There were calls to have Houston Rockets’ GM Daryl Morey fired for sharing a pro-Hong Kong image on Twitter. Whenever a celebrity says something even remotely outside the lexicon allowed by the Left, that celebrity faces incredible pressure to take back what they said, and if they refuse, are threatened with financial repercussions, such as losing business deals. A good example of this is J.K. Rowling, who supposedly is “anti-trans” for sharing beliefs that do not align with the gender-dysphoric nutjobs, but she refuses to cave to the mob, and so, has lost business deals for publications for her popular Harry Potter books.
 
Now, J.K. Rowling has enough money that she doesn’t really have to worry about this. Even if no publisher will ever be willing to print another copy of her series, no book store – online or physical – be willing to sell her books, and no Hollywood studio ever be willing to work with her again or sell more digital or physical copies of the movies, essentially making it impossible for Rowling to profit off of her popular series, she has enough money to be entirely financially independent. She is, for all intents and purposes, uncancellable.
 
However, most people do not have Rowling money. Most people don’t have “screw the mob” money. Most people have to work five or more days a week, for 8 hours or more a day, in order to make a living. Most people need to be able to work and cannot afford to step out of line, saying or doing something that someone, be it an executive or a lowly intern, might find offensive, and risk losing their job as a result of it.
 
I’ve heard stories of people being practically interrogated by their employers for NOT sharing the black square on social media as part of a Black Lives Matter movement event. It’s no longer sufficient to simply be quiet about something, or not expressing one’s own views if they run contrary to the Leftist-approved narrative (and this explains why Leftists were making slogans like “silence is violence”). People are literally not allowed to be silent on an issue and must express the Leftist view, regardless of if they actually agree with it, otherwise they can be considered violent enemies.
 
There are also countless stories of people, such as media personalities, being fired or being threatened with termination for saying “all lives matter”, as though that is an extremely offensive term that is incorrect (though I do legitimately think the Left does not believe that all lives matter, and in fact, KNOW they don’t believe this, considering they are willing to kill babies in the womb and are willing to incite violence and terror against conservatives).
 
It’s no wonder, then, that Cato Institute found that nearly two-thirds of Americans (62%) believe they cannot safely express their views in fear of some form of retaliation.
 
According to Cato: “62% agree ‘the political climate these days prevents me from saying things I believe because others might find them offensive.’”
 
It’s more than just worrying people might find something offensive. If it stopped at that, nowhere near as many people would agree with this. It’s the fact that the “offended” party might retaliate in some form or another, often involving HR or the individual’s higher-ups, and get the individual punished for “offending” someone. And these punishments range anywhere from relatively mild suspensions to outright terminations from the companies.
 
And looking at things in terms of political demographics, one can see just who is more likely to be comfortable expressing their opinions and who is more likely to want to self-censor.
 
According to the poll, 58% of “strong liberals” believe they are free to speak their minds. In other words, uber-progressive, communist liberals believe they can say what they want without fear of repercussions (and this is one of the reasons why Leftists say there is no cancel culture – they hardly experience it). This stands in STARK contrast to everyone else, including even more moderate liberals.
 
According to the survey, 52% of liberals believe they have to self-censor, with 64% of moderates and 77% of conservatives agreeing with this notion.
 
Like I said, it no longer is enough to just be quiet on something. One must express the uber-Leftist view on everything. This, naturally, leads even more moderate liberals, those who might vote for people like Biden but don’t agree with the idea of defunding the police (because it is an asinine proposal) or destroying our economic system in order to fight a naturally-occurring event of climate change, to self-censor in fear of retaliation from people further Left.
 
And, of course, it’s not at all surprising to see conservatives being so willing to self-censor. I have mentioned this in various places, but the pillars of power in this country are largely owned by the Left. Conservatives stand in complete contrast to the Left, and so, are viewed as the natural enemies, and the out-of-power conservatives can only hope to not get in trouble by not expressing their beliefs.
 
Even objective, apolitical FACTS are cause for someone’s termination, such as in the case of Stephen Hsu, who was forced to resign from his position as vice president of research and innovation at Michigan State University after he shared a research paper (from the university itself) that found police were not more likely to shoot African-Americans than other races of people.
 
It’s a straight-up FACT that police are not more likely to shoot and kill African-Americans and last year, more unarmed white people were killed than unarmed black people. And yet, for sharing the findings of a research paper from the university itself and sharing facts about it, he was punished for sharing “scientific racism” and running contrary to the BLM movement and the Left.
 
Simply stating the fact that there are only two genders can get someone fired. Simply stating the fact that there is no man-made climate change can get someone fired or punished at some capacity, particularly for climate scientists. Simply stating that Trump is OUR PRESIDENT can get someone fired.
 
If you want any more proof that the Left does not operate using facts, there it is. Stating facts, if they run contrary to the Leftist narrative, has the possibility to get someone fired.
 
What’s more, the Cato Institute survey found that 50% of Strong Liberals support firing people who donate to Trump, while 36% of Strong Conservatives support firing people who donate to Biden.
 
I have a couple of things to say about this.
 
First, I am not surprised by that number from “strong liberals”. They are extremely intolerant and openly supporting Trump is seen as a crime against humanity itself, let alone making a donation to Trump.
 
Second, I do not see the Strong Conservatives as being equally or remotely as intolerant as the Strong Liberals, not simply because of the disparity in numbers; I see this as Strong Conservatives being willing to use cancel culture, a weapon designed by the Left, against the Left itself.
 
If a conservative can be made to suffer because of cancel culture, there is ZERO reason not to use it against the Left. As I have stated before, conservatives not using cancel culture against the Left is like someone refusing to use their gun in a duel, or like a side of a war refusing to fire against their attackers.
 
Think of cancel culture used by conservatives as a gun: we use it as a self-defense method.
 
Unlike a gun, however, I don’t exactly like cancel culture. Ideally, no one would be punished for sharing their beliefs – except maybe for communists, and we currently have in the law books the Communist Control Act of 1954, which outlawed the Communist Party of the United States and “prevents communists from holding office in labor organizations” according to MTSU. While many of the provisions of this act were eventually repealed, I think we should bring it back with full force to outlaw communist from serving in Congress and all types of offices.
 
Ideally, people should be free to express themselves without fear of retaliation, but we live far from an ideal world for a variety of reasons, chief among which is our very nature as human beings, which is evil.
 
So, since we do not live in an ideal world, we have to do certain things which are not exactly pretty. Such things include using cancel culture, which is largely awful, against the Left, since they have no trouble at all using it against us and it’s asinine not to fight back when one is at war if one wishes to not be defeated.
 
At any rate, we can clearly see the sort of damage cancel culture itself causes to people who simply want to live their normal lives, largely unplug from politics, and do honest work for a living – paying their bills and providing for themselves and their families.
 
People want to be able to go to their places of work without having to worry about what they say or do on their social media during their off-hours. People want to be able to freely express their support for either the Democrat or Republican presidential candidates, or simply abstain from engaging in these discussions, without being worried about being punished for it in terms of their finances or even their very employment.
 
I hope we can one day return to a time when people didn’t have to worry about this stuff. That time, however, will have to be after this cultural war of ours is over and the good guys have won.
 
One final note about this that I wish to quickly make is that this Cato poll really shines quite the light about other political polls. If so many people are afraid to be honest with their beliefs, exactly how many of those people do you think honestly answered a pollster who asked them who they plan to support in this election?
 
Just saying, this is another possible reason for Trump to supposedly be “behind” Biden in the polls, particularly by as many points as he supposedly is (apart from the fact that these pollsters always under-sample Republicans and conservatives).
 
Micah 2:1
“Woe to those who devise wickedness and work evil on their beds! When the morning dawns, they perform it, because it is in the power of their hand.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.