I’m a little bit late to the party in talking about the latest cop-related shooting death of a suspect, but I feel like being late to these circumstances is actually beneficial to getting all the important information that is out there and understanding the situation as best as possible.
First, to give context for those who are fairly unfamiliar with this story, Daunte Wright, 20, was shot and killed at around 2 p.m. on Sunday after resisting arrest and attempting to flee officers. He was originally pulled over for expired tags on his plate and was asked to step out of the car and arrested due to an outstanding warrant regarding an illegal possession of a firearm and fleeing from police.
There is a narrative out there that he was stopped because of air freshener in his vehicle, which is ridiculous and unsubstantiated.
Initial reports seemed to indicate that Wright had gotten in his vehicle, at which point officers began to open fire on him, eventually striking him and killing him, but recently released bodycam footage (below) depicts a different story entirely.
Police bodycam footage shows three police officers at the scene, two male officers and a female officer, whose bodycam footage is being used. In the minute-long video, we see Wright being asked to step out of the vehicle, which he did, and a male officer beginning to place him in cuffs. What is strange about this is that the male officer appears to be having some sort of difficulty with placing Wright in cuffs. Typical police procedure for an arrest is that an officer will search the suspect before placing them in cuffs, so as to ensure that the suspect does not have anything that could poke, stick, hurt or otherwise inconvenience the arresting officer.
I mention this because, from the looks of it, the male officer was in the process of placing Wright in cuffs and sort of hesitated, possibly because he was asking about what Wright was carrying. I say “possibly” because the video doesn’t have good audio quality, so it’s very difficult to understand what people are saying. I could only really make out one thing that was said later on by the female officer, but that’s because she shouted it, while the rest was spoken in a normal tone of voice.
At any rate, at one point, the female officer begins to approach Wright, possibly to try and keep Wright from performing motions and actions that would be a threat to the officers, and seemingly reaches into something that was on Wright’s back. From the angle of the camera, I can’t tell what exactly it is that she was doing, and appears to hold something on her left hand which looks like some sort of business card, though, again, I can’t really tell what it was.
It was at that point, when the female officer was reaching for something behind Wright, that Wright had managed to free himself from the officers’ grasp (for the most part), and attempted to get in his vehicle and flee the scene. He was still somewhat being held by the male officer, who was trying to pull him out of the vehicle with little success, while the female officer repeatedly warned Wright that she would tase him.
At that point, the female officer pulled out her gun, seemingly believing it to have been her taser, and shouted “Taser! Taser!” as officers tend to do when they are about to taser someone, and only realized that it was her lethal pistol once she had discharged it.
Now, again, the audio quality is bad, which brings me to an issue I have: It kind of sounds like multiple shots (no more than two or three) were fired. It could just be the reverberation of the audio waves that makes it sound like it’s more than one shot, but it does sound like it’s more than one. Given how I don’t know for sure, I won’t hard accuse the female officer of actually having tried to kill Wright, but allow me to at least say this: It becomes a LOT more difficult to claim it was an accident and that she thought it was a taser if she fired multiple times.
Tase guns use prongs that deliver a shock of electricity to immobilize a suspect. They can only be fired once, and if an officer misses, they have to reload the thing. If she, indeed, pulled the trigger more than once, she likely knew it was her gun and not her taser.
However, like I said, the audio quality is bad and I can’t definitively tell if it was one shot or a maximum of three. We will have to wait for an autopsy report to see if there is more than one bullet hole on Wright’s body (entry holes, that is) to see what exactly happened.
Now, with that being said, it’s hard to say that the fault doesn’t lie in both parties present.
Daunte Wright had an outstanding warrant and he was about to be arrested. If he was intending on fleeing from the police, why did he step out of his car in the first place? Even from a criminal’s perspective, what he did made no sense. And from a civilian’s perspective, it makes no sense that he would try to flee. He shouldn’t have attempted to escape police because that only leads to further problems.
So the fault definitely lies on Wright for his idiotic, at best, actions.
But the fault also lies with the female officer. Let’s assume that she did, indeed, think her gun was her taser and it was all accidental, as appears to be the case from the evidence we have. How, exactly, did she think her gun was her taser?
I get that, in the heat of the moment, things can be a bit of a blur, which can facilitate accidents like this one appears to be. But a police officer, especially as senior an officer as the female cop is reported to be, should be able to tell very quickly if she is holding her gun or her taser. A loaded firearm and a taser gun do NOT weigh the same and definitely don’t look the same. Even arguing that she might have been paying more attention to the suspect than what she was holding, so she might not have seen that what she was holding was a black pistol and not the usual yellow taser gun that cops tend to have, she still should’ve been able to tell that what she was holding FELT DIFFERENT from a taser.
An article on Daily Kos puts this well: “[A] taser weighs about eight ounces. Eight ounces is a large bag of chips… In physical terms, picking up a weapon that weighs eight ounces, would take 3.57 newtons of force. A standard police issue 9mm semi-automatic pistol with a full magazine, weighs about 2.6 pounds. A loaded Glock .22 about the same. This takes 11.57 newtons, or a bit over three times the amount of force.”
In other words, a taser gun is FAR lighter than a loaded standard issue police pistol and a pistol takes more force to draw and aim. This matters because officers ought to be knowledgeable of things like these, as they are TRAINED to use their guns and their tasers, so they know best how they feel in drawing and aiming, especially as the female officer was aiming her gun with a single hand, which would make the weight of the pistol more noticeable.
So there is little real excuse for the officer to not have known she was using her pistol as opposed to her taser, especially for someone who, again, reports say is pretty senior.
Daunte Wright was an idiot for doing what he did, but he should still be alive. In jail, absolutely, but alive. That he isn’t is partly his fault but more so the fault of the female officer, who should have known better than almost everyone how a pistol feels in her hand as opposed to her taser.
Now, again, I won’t hard accuse the female officer of having tried to kill Wright. It is entirely possible that this really was just an accident. However, there is also evidence that suggests it wasn’t, which is HORRIBLE. At best she made a MASSIVE mistake which should cost her her job (She has resigned, which I think is good) and at worst she sought the opportunity to kill someone who shouldn’t have been killed.
Again, Wright was an idiot for resisting arrest and attempting to flee, but unless he was a physical threat to any of the officers, he didn’t deserve to get shot and killed.
I generally prefer to defend the officers in these situations either because the circumstances clearly show they are innocent or at least because they deserve due process and presumption of innocence, but when a cop messes up, they have to be called out on it. No one can tell me that the female officer didn’t make a mistake or that she did everything right. She messed up, accidental or intentional. Accountability for her actions, either way, is necessary.
At the same time, it’s even more idiotic for people to go out on the streets and loot and riot, but Leftist pawns will do as their masters tell them, so that’s a different topic in itself.
But both Wright and the female officer are at fault for what transpired. Had Wright not blatantly broken the law and resisted arrest and tried to flee from the scene, he would still be alive. Had the female officer not been at the very least highly incompetent and been able to tell the difference in weight between a taser gun and a lethal gun, Wright would also still be alive and she wouldn’t have been placed on administrative leave with her job on the line.
The fault lies with both of them. Maybe to different extents, and one can argue one way or the other for both, but both definitely are at fault here.
“To do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice.”
In my last article, I briefly mentioned two big red flags surrounding the Chinese coronavirus vaccines that ought to worry anyone with a functioning brain: Namely that people insist one has to get more than just one dose of the vaccine (literally all other vaccines require a single dose, unless it’s the seasonal flu shot, which is suspect in itself) and that people still have to wear a mask (or two, insanely enough) and social distance even after getting two doses of the vaccine.
As if those things in themselves weren’t enough to get people to at least question the effectiveness of the vaccines (as well as the fact that these are experimental vaccines, further bringing its effectiveness into question), there is a new study from Tel Aviv University which found that a South African variant of the Chinese coronavirus affects people vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine more than it affects those who are unvaccinated.
According to the study, this South African variant was found eight times more frequently in people who were vaccinated as opposed to those who were unvaccinated (5.4% against 0.7%).
Adi Stern of Tel Aviv University said: “We found a disproportionately higher rate of the South African variant among people vaccinated with a second dose, compared to the unvaccinated group. This means that the South African variant is able, to some extent, to break through the vaccine’s protection.”
The Epoch Times reports: “The study looked at 400 people who received at least one shot of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and had contracted the COVID-19 variant and compared them to the same number of people who were infected and unvaccinated. Moderna’s vaccine is also used in Israel, but it was not included in the study.”
Stern told the Times of Israel: “Based on patterns in the general population, we would have expected just one case of the South African variant, but we saw eight. Obviously, this result didn’t make me happy. Even if the South African variant does break through the vaccine’s protection, it has not spread widely enough through the population.”
So not only is there reason to distrust the effectiveness of the vaccines due to the apparent need to get more than one dose of it, and due to the apparent need to still wear masks and social distance as though the vaccine was not administered to oneself, but there is also reason to distrust because, at least when it comes to the South African variant, one of the vaccines (which is reportedly 91% effective, so not a small number) does not appear to help in any way and actually seemingly puts people at greater risk to get the disease.
And it’s not like this is a small deal by any stretch of the imagination. Though there are few cases of the South African variant in Israel, there are A LOT of such cases in the U.S. According to a map by NBC News (so take it with a grain of salt) which tracks the Chinese coronavirus variants in the U.S., 35 states have the South African variant of the virus.
While I don’t know the exact number of cases of the South African variant in the United States, the fact that it has been found in no less than 35 states means that it’s at least decently spread out in the country, and if people have that variant and get the Pfizer vaccine, the vaccine won’t work. And if people get the Pfizer vaccine before they had the virus, it seemingly makes them around eight times more likely to get the South African variant, thereby negating the vaccine’s very reason for existing.
So then, what is the reason for getting the vaccine in the first place? Sure, this study was just the Pfizer vaccine, but given it’s supposed to be 91% effective and Moderna is 94% effective (statistically much better, but not worlds apart), the South African variant seems to be able to bypass the vaccine’s protection. And if it was just that, that would be bad enough. It would just require Pfizer to revise their vaccine and seek to make it effective against this variant. But no, it’s also the fact that, statistically speaking, one is more likely to get the South African variant if one gets the Pfizer vaccine than if they don’t get the vaccine whatsoever.
How backwards is that? The vaccine straight up puts people at greater risk of getting this variant of the virus (seemingly a stronger and worse one, if the vaccines can’t do anything against it, which is definitely bad), and yet, we are still advised to get it despite how relatively widespread this variant is in the States.
Even the CDC and FDA recommended a pause of the Johnson and Johnson vaccine because six people got blood clots after taking them, so if the bar is that low for the J&J vaccine, why would there not be similar disclaimers surrounding the Pfizer vaccine, particularly as it is more likely to make people sick with the South African variant than for those who don’t get the vaccine?
Not to mention that, as I have written previously, miscarriages in the U.K. skyrocketed some 366% as a result of the vaccine, and no disclaimers or warnings really came out of that.
So there is precedent for these health organizations to find a problem with a vaccine and begin advising against using that vaccine (admittedly, the J&J vaccine is not as effective as the other ones, so that likely had an effect in the making of that decision), which should lead one to believe that problems like skyrocketing miscarriages and increased likelihood of getting a seemingly worse and stronger variant of the Chinese coronavirus would lead these organizations to try and give warnings about it.
Well, that would likely be the case in a sane world, but there are those who seek to benefit from experimenting with people using these vaccines, so it’s unlikely that a whole lot of noise will be created as a result to news like these.
Still, for those who have the ability to not get these vaccines, it’s perfectly obvious that one should not get them. There are far too many red flags surrounding these things for it to be worthwhile, considering there is a 99.9% survivability rate for most people.
“In peace I will both lie down and sleep; for you alone, O Lord, make me dwell in safety.”
The fake news media is altogether biased and only operates within the bounds of their established Leftist agenda. I don’t think I really need to repeat that, but the MSM continues proving this day after day with report after report, regardless of subject.
Recently, with many states having made the logical decision to reopen (after having made the originally illogical decision to lock down) and seeing Chinese coronavirus cases dropping, NBC News has tried to cast doubt on how good reopening states is as an idea, attempting to credit anything apart from the basic reopening to why the number of cases dropping in such states (and also trying to explain away why states that continue lockdowns are seeing rising cases).
Nothing but dishonesty abounds, but this is the fake news media, so it’s to be expected, unfortunately. We do not have an honest, unbiased media in this country, so we have to discern the truth of reality from what quackery these deceivers try to sell us.
NBC News reporter Sam Brock began by declaring, “Call it a COVID conundrum. In states with the strictest measures in the country, like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and much of New England, cases are on the rise, while in the South, states like Arkansas and Texas that have reopened businesses and ripped away mask mandates are seeing their numbers drop.”
“So what might explain the apparent contradiction? One theory: differences in testing rates. Alabama has experienced one of the biggest dips in infections, more than 52% in two weeks. But it’s also dead last in the U.S. for COVID testing.”
“How much does the lack of adequate testing have to do with the numbers we’re seeing right now?” Brock eventually asked an NBC guest, who is a doctor at Florida International University, whom replied: “When you don’t test you’re blind, and when you’re not testing you have a false sense of what the real problem is in your community.”
There is plenty of information now available about the Chinese coronavirus that it makes no sense for people to make these kinds of assertions or theories, especially as we have seen that over-testing can result in false positives. For example, we know that the virus has a higher rate of infection when indoors. That was actually one excuse given when states were locking down and unconstitutionally and illegally shutting down businesses. However, we also now know that the virus has an extremely high rate of survivability for most people.
Back early in the pandemic, we heard of survival rates around 97%. Still decently high, but considerably lower than things like the flu. There was at least some reason to be wary of this virus back then because we knew so little about it. But now we know a lot more, such as the fact that the survival rate is 99.9%+ for most people. What’s more, one idiotic thing this country did (and all countries which went with lockdowns, really) was that we decided to lock down people who were HEALTHY as opposed to quarantining those who were sick.
Remember phrases like “flatten the curve” and “slow the spread”? The original purpose of those things was to allow hospitals to not be overwhelmed by cases, since that would lead to catastrophe. Well, we flattened the curve and we slowed the spread as much as we could, with almost everyone in the country routinely wearing masks where they needed to, but bad-faith actors with PhD’s, as well as members of the fake news media, moved the goal posts.
The original purpose of taking a lot of these safety measures was to not overwhelm the hospital systems with virus cases and with normal, daily problems hospitals have to deal with. But at no point did the hospitals even come close to being overwhelmed, so much so that when Trump sent a Navy hospital ship to house patients in New York (back then, the epicenter of the pandemic in the U.S.), it was hardly used.
And now, we have states like Florida, one of the most populous states in the country with a notoriously old population (being a retirement spot and all), which reopened back in the late summer of last year and NOTHING catastrophic has happened since. Cases varied, but at this point, like NBC reported, they are going down, as are cases in Texas.
Speaking of Texas, Brock persisted with another theory: COVID fatigue. “Michigan, where people are just coming out of lockdown for the first time in months, cases are up more than 100% as demographics shift. Texas, on the other hand, began opening its doors months ago and just jammed 40,000 people into the (Texas) Rangers’ ballpark, many without masks.”
Dr. Neil Gandhi of Houston Medical Hospital posited that “A lot of individuals in the southern U.S. and especially here in Texas have already been exposed to the coronavirus, so many individuals already have coronavirus antibodies.”
While that is a sound and reasonable argument from Gandhi, he then proceeded to negate that with a very stupid argument, which I will get to in a second.
First, some context for that stupid argument. Brock eventually stated: “That leads us to the risky behavior that we’ve seen in places like Miami Beach, Florida, where numbers have only increased slightly. Theory number three: where young people are acting as carriers, as doctors are saying they’re returning to other states carrying the virus with them.” A dumb argument in itself, seeing as they’d be infecting other people in Florida along the way to their home states, yet Florida is not seeing cases skyrocketing.
In any case, he eventually said: “Bottom line: health experts say the falling figures in the South might be giving a false sense of security. Do medical experts worry this is emboldening those leaders who said this is a good idea to loosen restrictions?”
Which is when Gandhi gave his stupid argument: “We worry about if there’s a perfect storm brewing. If we remember, this virus always takes 10 to 14 to 21 days to develop. We might just be seeing the early effects of that right now.”
This is a stupid argument because Texas lifted its mask mandate and began to reopen more than 40 days ago, well past the point where one would see this virus act up and develop.
Not to mention that, again, FLORIDA HAS BEEN OPEN FOR MORE THAN HALF A YEAR! And, of course, this is completely ignoring the fact that there are states which NEVER closed, like South Dakota, and there are COUNTRIES which also never closed, like Sweden. And none of them are on the verge of collapse at any capacity – if anything, reopening/never closing ended up HELPING those places.
In any case, it was clear that the people at NBC News were throwing whatever they could at the wall to see what sticks, offering no less than three theories as to why locked down states are seeing surges in cases and why reopening states are seeing drops in cases. Anything to not give credit to the idea that reopening is the best option for ALL states.
Even if one wants to argue that reopening isn’t what’s leading to drops in cases, the fact of the matter is that locked down states have seen surges in cases. The prevailing reasoning behind lockdowns is that they help to slow the spread, flatten the curve, and prevent more and more people from getting sick. And that clearly hasn’t worked.
All lockdowns have achieved is financial and economic strain, mental health issues, surges in child suicide and depression, and a myriad of other problems that wouldn’t be there without lockdowns. And the ONE thing lockdowns are put into place to do – slow the spread of the Chinese coronavirus – they haven’t been able to do. It is evidently clear that lockdowns offer a false sense of security at best (not surprising that commies are trying to say that reopening states are the ones offering a false sense of security, since projection is a commie trait) and crippling, devastating, and often utterly fatal problems at worst, including potentially making the spread of the virus even worse.
Immunity is what people are hoping for, and locking things down only prolongs the issues. Not to mention that I have zero trust that the vaccine is in any way effective in fighting the Chinese coronavirus. That people say you have to get MULTIPLE vaccines is already a red flag. That Fauci has insisted that people who get BOTH vaccines still have to wear masks and social distance is another red flag.
If the vaccines actually worked, surely only one dose would be enough, and we wouldn’t have to continue wearing masks and social distancing since we would be immune.
“Oh, but the vaccine and the masks/social distancing is to protect other people, not ourselves,” liberals might argue. Bull. A vaccine is meant to protect the person GETTING IT. A mask is supposed to protect the person WEARING IT. The idea that they are supposed to protect other people is communist bullcrap meant to coerce people into submission. After all, “you’re doing something good for other people.” That is the appeal that these Leftists use to get people to wear masks and get vaccinated. At no point since the beginning of modern medicine have masks and vaccines been created and used for the purposes of protecting people apart from the person wearing/getting them, apart from surgeons performing surgery on someone with an open wound.
When one gets a tetanus shot, it’s to prevent one getting tetanus and being sick by it. When one gets a hepatitis shot, it’s to prevent one from getting any variant of hepatitis. When one gets ANY shot, it’s for the sake of the person getting it. Seemingly, except for the Chinese coronavirus vaccine, conveniently enough.
And even accepting the premise that those things are, indeed, meant to protect other people, how does it make sense for those WITHOUT THE VIRUS to adhere to this? Someone without the virus can’t spread the virus, and you can tell when someone has it because they will show symptoms. It has been shown that there is no asymptomatic spread of the virus, so why would PERFECTLY HEALTHY PEOPLE have to either wear a mask or get the vaccine if the purposes of those things are for protecting OTHER people from getting sick and not themselves?
If masks are meant to protect others, wouldn’t it make more sense for those who have the virus in their system to have to wear them? But no, it’s the healthy people as well as the sick people that have to wear them.
It’s this contradictory bullcrap that infuriates me about this entire situation, particularly as many insist that what doesn’t make sense actually does make sense and that the measures put into place which clearly haven’t worked are argued to have worked and to continue to work, or at least that getting rid of them would only make things worse when the evidence points to the contrary.
We are told to defer to the “health experts” who hide behind their degrees and pretend as though they are nearly infallible and any challenge to their illogic is nothing but a conspiracy theory created by someone who doesn’t have a prestigious medical degree (though that excuse doesn’t hold up when people with such prestigious medical degrees make similar challenges).
We are told to “follow the science”, as though science was Jesus, by people who, themselves, do not follow scientific reasoning or data. We can EVIDENTLY SEE that lockdowns don’t work, and this has been clear for nearly a YEAR. And yet, these people insist that what “science” tells us is the opposite of what reality and empirical evidence tells us.
Either these people are utterly incompetent morons or have a malicious and nefarious agenda to push, and we can only hope that it’s the former.
“A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”
Two supposedly “conservative” governors have recently shown their pathetic, cowardly true colors for all to see when they both vetoed legislation which would protect children from sexual predators and pedophiles who seek to destroy their bodies for their own sexual and social pleasure and satisfaction.
Kristi Noem and Asa Hutchinson are the two pathetic and cowardly “conservative” governors who have failed to perform government’s first job.
But while there are plenty of stories out there about Noem, and since Hutchinson is the more recent example, I would like to talk about him as opposed to Noem.
Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson vetoed the Save Adolescents From Experimentation Act, which would make it the first state to ban doctors from administering hormone treatment and puberty blockers to children (other similar legislation will soon be passed and signed into law in other states). Thankfully, the Republican-led state House of Representatives overrode his veto on Tuesday, so the bill will become law. But that Hutchinson vetoed it is still a travesty. Even more so that he went on Tucker Carlson’s show and DOUBLED DOWN on his veto, claiming his reason was that the bill was “government overreach.”
The guy even went so far as to claim that William Buckley and Ronald Reagan would both support his decision: “I go back to William Buckley, I go back to Ronald Reagan, to principles of our party, which believes in a limited role of government. Are we as a party abandoning a limited role of government and saying we’re going to invoke the government’s decision-making over and above physicians, over and above health care, over and above parents?”
This is nothing more than an asinine appeal to conservatives, invoking the name of Buckley and Reagan, and pretending as though this is a conservative, libertarian value. It’s bullcrap and he knows it.
First, neither Buckley nor Reagan would EVER support child genital mutilation, unlike Hutchinson. Both believed in limited, but not absent, government. Buckley, in his 1990 book “Gratitude”, put forth the idea of “national service” for children to serve American interests. In other words, he believed in the idea that government ought to be used to protect moral civic institutions to the best of its ability, provided that it can be, itself, a moral and just government. And Reagan is pretty famous for saying: “Government’s first job is to protect the people, not run their lives.”
I even mentioned that both Hutchinson and Noem failed to do government’s first job because I recalled REAGAN when using that term. So the idea that either Buckley or Reagan would support this moral decadence is a flat out lie.
Second, Hutchinson’s line of thinking could be taken to its logical conclusion that NO crime ought to be punishable and no action ought to be barred.
According to his line of thinking, people ought to be allowed to kill one another, rape one another, steal from one another, and do insidious other things to one another. After all, these are the blessings of liberty, right? For a government to use its decision-making power over and above a free people who wish to annihilate one another and perform cruelties and evil against one another would be overreach, right?
If a physician wants to abort a baby, are we to invoke government’s decision-making power over them? That’s Hutchinson’s argument, almost verbatim. If healthcare workers want to physically abuse and kill their patients, are we to invoke the government’s decision-making power over them and get them to stop? If parents want to physically and/or sexually abuse their children, are we to invoke the government’s decision-making power over them?
Somehow, Hutchinson believes the answer to those questions is “no,” which is a ghoulish response that I would expect from the Left, but not from someone who claims to be a conservative and even attempts to justify that through a conservative lens.
Limited government doesn’t mean absence of government. It means getting out of people’s way of living the life they want to live so long as that life is not an obstruction on the life of another. It means protecting the people both from foreign and domestic threats. It means protecting and CONSERVING moral institutions which we know come from God.
Hutchinson’s view of “liberty” is the same kind of liberty that Satan adheres to. “Do what you want, whenever you want, no matter how immoral and how evil.” The freedom to do evil is not a freedom people ought to have. The freedom to do evil is not a freedom conservatives ought to be defending.
We have prisons for those who break the law. We have court systems to judge those who have broken the law. And for the most part, while this isn’t necessarily always the case, law tends to protect what is right and just. Again, not always, as abortion is legal and as child genital mutilation is legal in most states and as slavery and segregation were once legal. But the point that conservatives like Buckley and Reagan were trying to make is that a moral and just government will protect civic institutions which are moral and just. We don’t exactly have a moral and just government, and arguably never have, but to argue that that means everything that is evil ought to be permissible is arriving to the worst possible conclusion.
For anyone on the Right to assert that government has no place in the protection of children is absolutely insane. Hutchinson even went so far as to tell Carlson that “conservatives” ought to retreat from this kind of cultural battlefield so as to “not invoke ourselves in every societal position out there.”
If conservatives do retreat in any area (and we ashamedly have), that means the Left gets to take more and more. If one societal position is not worth defending, we will find ourselves defending absolutely nothing. And then, what’d be the point of being a conservative? What’d be the point of fighting back against the Left? What would we even be fighting back against if they have taken everything?
If defending children from sexual predators, even if those predators are their own parents, is a social and civil position that conservatives ought to retreat from, then burn the entire ideology to the ground, for it is utterly worthless.
But no true conservative will give even an INCH on this matter. Children shouldn’t be subjected to life-altering and life-destroying surgeries and hormone “therapy”. Any conservative that won’t defend children in an area where they ought MOST be defended is not worth their GOP membership; any conservative politician who won’t defend children against an evil and predatory Left in this culture war is not worth people’s vote; and any government which won’t defend and protect children from those who will cause them irreparable harm is not worth existing at all and should be torn down.
Again, thankfully, the Republicans in Arkansas’ House of Representatives have considerably more compassion for children and overrode Hutchinson’s veto, but the governor himself ought to be impeached and removed for this betrayal of Arkansas’ youth.
Trump taught GOP politicians how to win. Noem and Hutchinson are not Trump GOP politicians, clearly. That assertion that conservatives ought to “retreat” is indicative of the Bush, McCain, Romney GOP, which has conserved nothing, started endless wars and have utterly betrayed the founding principles of not only the party but the country, as well as betrayed the people of this country in general.
The Bush GOP is self-serving, elitist, Washington Establishment crap which has largely been thrown into the trash. Post-Trump, seemingly, some are rearing to go back to those dark ages when the only thing we could hope for in a Republican presidency is a decent tax cut, while society crumbles around us. No more. Any Republican who stands in the way ought to be rid of, for they are worthless and useless at best and a total liability at worst.
Thank God that Republicans hold a super-majority in the Arkansas House of Representatives, with 76 seats out of 100. Were the gap between Democrats and Republicans far closer, it is possible that Hutchinson’s veto would have remained, dooming the youth of Arkansas until the next elections (likely, the 2022 midterms, at least). Someone like Hutchinson, for such an action, ought to be removed entirely and replaced with a true conservative who wouldn’t even THINK, let alone argue, that we ought to retreat on any social position.
I hate useless Republicans and traitors. So does any sane and patriotic American who has had enough of the Left’s decadence of our society.
“And give no opportunity to the devil.”
Allow me to share with you something relatively personal about myself: Ever since it became clear that the Left had succeeded in illegally and unconstitutionally stealing the presidency away from Trump, I have asked God through prayer that He would curse the Left and the Washington Establishment, and that He would foil their wicked schemes.
With them in illegitimate power and with the desire to utterly ruin this country, I believe such a prayer is called for. And the good Lord listens to our prayers and delivers what He knows to be best. Sometimes, that means we don’t get what we want, but other times, it means we do get what we want, at least to an extent. That is, in some way, what He has done recently, as there are reports that the Biden administration will look to continue constructing, and likely ultimately finishing, President Trump’s border wall as they attempt to curve their own manufactured border crisis.
Biden DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said in a conversation with ICE employees last week that the administration would consider finishing “gaps in the wall.”
“It’s not a single answer to a single question. There are different projects that the chief of the Border Patrol has presented and the acting commissioner of CBP presented to me. The president has communicated quite clearly his decision that the emergency that triggered the devotion of DOD funds to the construction of the border wall is ended. But that leaves room to make decisions as the administration, as part of the administration, in particular areas of the wall that need renovation, particular projects that need to be finished.”
The Washington Times reported that Mayorkas specifically mentioned that those “particular projects” included “gaps,” “gates,” and areas “where the wall has been completed but the technology has not been implemented.”
There was a time, a little over five years ago, when even Democrats at least talked about the need for border security and often talked about fencing and even walls, as well.
“The bill before us will certainly do some good… [it would provide] better fences and better security along our borders [and] help stem some of the tide of illegal immigration in this country.” This is what then-Senator Barack Obama said of the Secure Fence Act of 2006, a bill which saw support from 26 Democrat senators including Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Chuck Schumer.
“I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in, and I do think that you have to control your borders,” Hillary Clinton said at a town hall in New Hampshire back in November of 2015 (so well after Trump first began to talk about building a wall).
But with President Trump’s insistence that we build a wall to keep out people who wish to break the law to enter our country, the very idea of securing our borders in general became reprehensible to the Left. There is even an article on southernborder.org, a site run by The Southern Border Communities Coalition which is an umbrella organization for 60 other organizations regarding the southern border, that the Biden-Harris administration ought to tear the wall down, but they express hesitance that Biden would do it, as even he and Barack Obama had “built more than 100 miles of new wall along the southwest border.”
And what’s more, during an NPR interview, Biden said that “not another foot” of the wall would be built. That is particularly delicious for me to hear, given the aforementioned report of “closing the gaps” in the wall.
Whether or not one interprets Majorkas’ comments to mean that they are finishing the wall, the fact of the matter remains that that means several more feet of the border wall would be built, which is a clear breaking of that promise that Biden made in that NPR interview.
The wall has, to the Left, come to symbolize idiotic things like “racism” and “oppression” and whatever asinine charge they can throw at it to sway public opinion (which hasn’t even worked, as 53% of Americans support construction of the border wall). And while Biden would never likely come right out and say “we’re finishing the wall” and any questions from the media (unlikely to be brought up by the fake news media anyway since Biden takes pre-approved questions) would be answered with unequivocal denial of such a thing happening, the truth is that they at the very least are considering finishing the wall where it’s needed (and there are few places it needs to be finished).
There are only a few miles left of the wall to be built, and if Biden is going to allow construction companies to “fill in the gaps”, that would likely mean that the wall would be completed. Which would, of course, be a big blow to the Left.
Granted, the damage from Biden’s promises to open up our borders has been done, and his catch-and-release policies are not going to make the situation at the border much better (the wall can’t do everything, after all), but finishing the wall would at least get us closer towards a secure border with Mexico.
Would I praise Biden for doing this? Ordinarily, I would. But we don’t live in an ordinary world, do we? Had Biden become the legitimate POTUS and had the fake news media not attacked Trump for absolutely everything that he did, whether or not they would have considered those things to be generally good, then I would offer Biden praise for this (and then, only if he actually does it. Talk is cheap).
But because Biden is an illegitimate president and because the Left spent the last four years attacking Trump for everything and pretending everything he did was bad, why should I give Biden any sort of praise or grace for this? If he finishes the wall, it will be a good thing, certainly. That’s what I want. But I won’t give Biden any credit for it. I won’t praise Biden for finishing the wall. If anything, I would take the same kind of tone that I did in this article: one in which I mock and ridicule and laugh at the Left because ONE OF THEIR OWN finished the same border wall which they have tried to malign for four years.
I hope that Biden finishes the border wall not only because it would at least help regarding the border crisis (which he created) but also because I could hardly contain my laughter if it happens. Trump or not, the wall would have gotten built, and that would demoralize Biden voters so much.
“The Lord will cause your enemies who rise against you to be defeated before you. They shall come out against you one way and flee before you seven ways.”
Throughout the pandemic, there are a number of phrases that we have heard time and time again which have stuck in our minds. Phrases like “wear a mask” or “stand six feet apart” or, because people love telling others what to do, “wear your f**king mask”. The phrase “trust the science” or “follow the science” is another one which we have often heard.
As I have stated in the past, science has become something of a religion for a certain group of authoritarian people. You are supposed to “trust the science” like one would trust God. You are supposed to “follow the science” like one would follow Jesus. You are supposed to “listen to the experts” like they are all-knowing prophets delivering the gospel to broken people. Scientists have become prophets and science has become a religion of the Left to spread whatever political narrative they wish to spread.
Biology details the differences between a man and a woman (as those are the only two possible options)? Heresy! There are a billion and one genders! There is no discernible evidence to suggest that mankind is even close to a primary driver in climate change? Sacrilege! We are killing the planet! We are the virus! There is no evidence that suggests that lockdowns are in any way effective? Bahumbug! Just lock yourselves down forever because there are things out there that can kill people at a rate less than 0.01% for most people!
Anything the Left says is “science” is junk science and real scientists like the one I will soon discuss understand this.
And, by the way, in case PragerU (who brought in this scientist) gets accused of bringing in a “biased” politically conservative scientist (as if the Left never brings aboard highly biased Leftist scientists), I think you should know that this scientist believes that mankind does at least somewhat contribute to the warming of the planet, so not a particularly conservative opinion, politically speaking.
I won’t argue against the scientist here as I have a lot of other articles pointing out how anthropogenic climate change is a communist hoax (to be fair, the guy didn’t necessarily say that mankind was the primary cause of climate change, just that “humans play a role in the warming of the planet” which is a more reasonable stance), so I’ll just get to the PragerU video.
Brian Keating is a relatively famous professor of physics at the University of California, San Diego, and who claims that science is his life, but “when I hear someone somberly intone ‘science says’ or ‘follow the science,’ I get very nervous.”
“Science doesn’t belong to any ideology. Science is the never-ending search for new knowledge. That’s what science means in Latin, by the way – knowledge. Not wisdom. Not morality. Not social policy. Knowledge. What we do with that knowledge is where wisdom, morality, and social policy enter the picture.”
This is generally what I have been saying for years now. The “science” that the Left uses or brings up isn’t actual science. The “science” that says we have less than 12 years before the world is doomed from climate change, or that the planet will become uninhabitable in around 100 years, is a load of crap. None of it is tested and, because they rely on models, they can’t really even be tested to begin with, as Prof. Keating will explain in a moment.
Keating continued: “Knowledge, it turns out, isn’t so easy to come by. And sometimes what we think we know for certain (the earth sure does look flat when we’re standing on it) turns out not to be so certain.”
“Of course, I trust in basic scientific truths – those things for which there is overwhelming evidence like, say gravity, even that humans play a role in the warming of the planet. But scientists – even the best ones – can get things wrong.”
“The brilliant astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle believed the universe existed in a steady state forever and had no beginning. But his view, once held sacrosanct by all astrophysicists, no longer holds. It’s been superseded by the Big Bang theory that the universe had a beginning and is still expanding.”
Certainly, it is more observable that the universe had a beginning. I just find it jarring how scientists generally accept the theory of the Big Bang, a giant explosion which brought into existence everything that currently is, and seem to generally ignore what would cause that explosion. After all, an explosion is an effect, and all effects require an antecedent cause. There is no such thing as an uncaused effect. Now, scientists might debate what may have been there before to have caused this, but they don’t seem to come to what is perhaps the most logical conclusion that God was the one to have created that Big Bang.
For crying out loud, the Bible literally begins with: “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. And God said, ‘Let there be light’, and there was light,” – Genesis 1:1-3.
Literally the third verse found in the entire Bible could be interpreted as describing the Big Bang event.
But in any case, Keating continued:
“In the 20th century, some of the most respected scientists in the world, including Nobel Prize winners believed in eugenics – the reprehensible idea that the human race could be improved by selective breeding. The National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the Rockefeller Foundation supported it. By the middle of the century, it had been thoroughly rejected as quackery. No reputable scientist would have anything to do with this idea.”
“So, we all need to get over this notion that just because someone – be it a politician, a bureaucrat, or even a scientist – employs the phrase ‘science says’ means whatever they’re saying is right. It might be right. But it might also be wrong. And if it’s wrong, it won’t necessarily be a bunch of scientists who say it’s wrong. It might be one guy.”
“Ask Einstein. One hundred scientists wrote a book explaining why his theory of relativity was wrong. He quipped, ‘If I were wrong, then one would’ve been enough.’”
And in the end, Einstein’s theory of relativity was proven right by an expedition led by Arthur Eddington to the island of Principe off the coast of Equatorial Guinea in West Africa, where a full solar eclipse was scheduled to take place on May 29, 1919.
100 German scientists wrote an entire book about how Einstein was wrong about his theory, and those 100 were proven wrong themselves following that expedition.
So let no one tell you that there is “scientific consensus” regarding anything, from anthropogenic climate change to anything else the Left claims. “Scientific consensus” means squat. All scientists in the world, past, present and future, could say that the sky was red and write thousands upon thousands of papers talking about how it’s definitely red, but their own observations and beliefs, even if agreed upon in a consensus, doesn’t alter reality. The sky is blue, not red.
It doesn’t matter how many scientists the Left brings on to try and “prove” that their agenda-driven junk “science” is correct. Consensus by definition isn’t science.
At any rate, Keating eventually brought up a quote from Richard Feynman, one of the most eminent physicists of the 20th century, who said, “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts…” This doesn’t necessarily mean that the experts are wrong, but it does mean that any good scientist will have some amount of skepticism in their own findings.
There is no such thing as “case closed” in science. Science means the search of new knowledge, and new knowledge is always obtained. Scientists used to think the earth was flat. Then, new knowledge was obtained and we observed that it was round. Scientists used to think the earth was the center of the universe. Then, new knowledge was obtained that the earth wasn’t even the center of the solar system. Scientists used to think, after proving that the earth wasn’t the center of the universe, that the sun was the center of the universe. That, too, was disproven with new knowledge, the discovery of our Milky Way galaxy, and what we have come to know about the universe itself.
Heck, over the past decade, scientists have found that we know astronomically little about what makes up the universe. Only 4% of the universe is made up of known forms of matter and energy, the rest being classified as “dark matter” or “dark energy.”
Good scientists will have a healthy level of skepticism in their own theories and findings. Bad scientists proclaim theories that cannot be falsified, or proven wrong. Keating explains that this is one reason as to why we can’t put too much faith in models (such as models that say how many people will die of the Chinese coronavirus if nothing is done, or that say that the planet will become uninhabitable in a century). Such models, which are attempts to predict the future, can’t be tested precisely because the future that they predict has yet to happen.
If I said “in 10 minutes, I will grow a second butt”, that can’t be tested at all because those ten minutes have yet to occur (though the chances of that happening are so astronomically low as to be virtually impossible). Now take that prediction and have me exclaiming that people have to do something drastic and irrational like giving up their freedoms, and you have what the Left does with climate change. Well, to be fair, the dynamic climate is more observable than my chances of growing a second butt, but it’s not too dissimilar to what the Left does.
They make a wild, unprovable and untestable “scientific” proclamation and follow it up with a demand from people (usually people outside the 1%) that they make great sacrifices “for the sake of the planet.”
In any case, there is more to this video than what I have shared, so I suggest you check it out for yourself (below). It is a good refutation of the insane and irrational demand that we “follow the science” as though science was God and as though the people who bring up this “science” are omniscient beings who are entirely infallible. Scientists are people, after all, and people are flawed. People err, make mistakes, and draw incorrect conclusions. More importantly, people can be corrupt, and use unscientific garbage and sell it as scientific like snake oil salesmen.
Science is the search for knowledge, and that knowledge is what we learn from the reality that God has created. Scientists don’t have to believe in God to study in their fields, but it is no coincidence that their fields exist in conjunction to God. They exist BECAUSE of God, and they are so observable.
Take genetics, DNA, proteins, cells, etc. and try to tell me that there isn’t intelligent design behind those things. Chance couldn’t have caused them because chance is not something that has power, but rather, is the mathematical calculation of probability. Everything around us can’t have come from nowhere or from nothing, because ex nihilo, nihil fit, or “out of nothing, nothing comes.”
Science is about understanding the creation that God has built. It’s not about advancing an ideology, certainly not an ideology that refutes scientific truths like biological sex for the purposes of political agendas.
Good scientists understand this. Bad and fake scientists – corrupt scientists – do not.
“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.”
In essence, there are two things that I will talk about in this article: First, the failed attempt Fake Doctor Jill Biden made at speaking Spanish during an event for farmworkers (few people showed up, unsurprisingly, as she and her husband are not popular figures in America) which drew mockery. Secondly, the suspicious-looking flag that was propped up behind her as she was making that speech.
Let’s begin with what I mentioned first.
Jill Biden made that failed attempt, like I said, during an event speaking to farmworkers on the birthday of Left-wing labor leader Cesar Chavez (who is rather well-known for making bigoted remarks towards illegal immigrants, whom he viewed as repressing American workers, a stance I am not disagreeing with, necessarily, but it’s notable that the Bidens seem to revere the guy). The Spanish phrase Jill Biden tried to say was “Si se puede”, which is Spanish for “Yes, it can be done,” likely meant as a call-back to Obama’s “Yes we can” slogan (that, in itself, is a bit of a botch, since the direct translation would be “Si podemos”, not “Si se puede”).
What the fake doctor and fake First Lady actually said was “Si se pwadueh,” which means nothing. If anything, that sounds closer to “Si se padre”, which means “yes is father”, which also means nothing, at least coherently.
Naturally, because of this botch and because it was particularly unnecessary since the audience was not necessarily a primarily Spanish-speaking one (even then, it’s just pandering to try and speak Spanish in such a circumstance when it’s not expected of one to speak the language), Jill Biden was mocked online.
RGA Deputy Communications Director Joanna Rodriguez tweeted: “It’s ‘Si se puede’ (Yes you/we can) not ‘Si se pwadueh.’ I can’t even imagine what word she was trying to say. Seriously why even try pandering if you’re going to butcher it and not practice before?!”
Journalist Dania Alexandrino tweeted: “Si se what???? I’m sure some one will surely tell Jill Biden ‘puadray’ is NOT a word in the Spanish dictionary. For those who are celebrating her effort, yeah NO! Very far from ‘Si se puede’ which means ‘Yes (we) can.’ We in parenthesis because it can also be yes you can!”
It’s not surprising that there would be those who simply applaud her efforts, as there is no doubt were any person on the Right to make this mistake, they would likewise be lampooned by the Left. But since it’s a Leftist making this mistake, all the excuses are brought up.
Another person mocked: “It’s wild that in the course of three months we went from a supermodel First Lady who spoke five languages, to fake Dr. Pwadway.”
Certainly, I miss First Lady Melania Trump and President Donald Trump. FLOTUS Melania was easily the best First Lady we had in a long time and had President Trump been a Democrat president, the fake news media would have gone out of their own way to highlight how classy she is and her life story, as well as her ability to speak five languages, which is roughly four and a half more than the current Occupier can muster.
At any rate, after the clip of Jill Biden’s failure to speak three Spanish words, people began to take notice of the strange flag that was propped up behind her because it resembles the Nazi flag so much.
That flag was the official flag of the United Farm Workers of America, which was created from the combination of two worker’s rights organizations, one of which was led by Cesar Chavez. Interestingly enough, it was Cesar Chavez who commissioned his brother, Richard, to design that flag.
Smithsonian Magazine gives more context to the reasoning behind the design:
“The story of the black eagle, the movement’s symbol, exemplifies Chavez’s skill as a tactician. He researched emblems, including cigarette boxes and Nazi flags, and concluded that the most potent color combination was red, black and white. He picked the eagle and directed his brother to draw the bird so simply that anyone could easily replicate the symbol.”
So it’s a United Farm Workers of America flag which was designed, in part, by Cesar Chavez himself and this was an event that took place on Cesar Chavez’s birthday. The flag, while strange to use given that it’s so close to the Nazi flag (the union was created in 1962, so there is no excuse for Chavez to not know what the Nazis did), makes sense for this event.
However, we have seen the fake news media searching for Nazi symbolism in everything Trump was associated with, from the stage on CPAC 2021 to an “America First” shirt which simply featured an eagle resting atop the American flag and claiming it was the Nazi’s Iron Eagle. The Left sought to push the narrative that Trump was Hitler or dog whistling to secret Nazis in America through these symbols, despite how utterly ridiculous those ideas are, so I have zero reason to be merciful to Jill Biden.
She stood in front of what looks like a Nazi flag and which was designed to resemble a Nazi flag. It was created by Leftists who at least had the courage to basically admit that Nazis were socialists (not only does their name mean “National Socialist German Workers’ Party” but their entire ideology and policies were centered around strong central government and government-controlled industries – a socialist/communist ideology) and a Leftist fake doctor and fake First Lady used it as a background during one of her speeches.
Jill Biden is a Nazi, confirmed, and has no issue with speaking in front of Nazi-looking paraphernalia. Even if she knew exactly what that flag was, and I believe she does know what it was, you would think someone who’s been on the side of “fighting Nazis” for the last four years would have a bit more common sense than to speak at an event in front of a flag that even remotely resembles the flag of the Nazis and was created with practically that intent.
Now, someone might argue that we don’t treat the Hindu swastika the same as the Nazi swastika, despite their obvious similarities, but the thing about that argument is that the Hindu swastika was used in ancient Hindu and Eurasian religions for FAR longer than how the Nazis used it. And while the Chavez flag doesn’t feature a swastika, the color scheme is clearly reminiscent of that ideology, which is very close to what Chavez’ own ideology was to begin with (again, “National Socialist German WORKERS’ Party”).
And like I said earlier, there is no excuse for Chavez to not have known what the Nazis had done by 1962. He very consciously and specifically implemented that color scheme and design for the flag.
Furthermore, even though it was an event that took place on Chavez’ birthday, there really was no need to have that flag in the background anyway. A background was not really needed, and if it was necessary for the (few) attendants to understand what this event was about, I imagine someone could have just put up a banner that said something akin to: “Celebrating farmworkers on Cesar Chavez’s birthday” or something that would indicate what the event was about and to whom it was tailored.
That they chose to have the flag there, in my mind, means that Jill Biden wants to be as close to a Nazi as she can be. Jill Biden, of course, being a socialist herself, follows the Nazi ideology anyway, but now she is practically showing to everyone that she is a Nazi almost outright.
And given the treatment the fake news media gave to Trump regarding any sort of shapes or designs that he was associated with, why would I give Jill Biden a pass for giving a speech in front of what looks like a Nazi flag?
Jill Biden is a Nazi. No one can dispute me on this, no matter how you slice it.
“A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”
Cancel culture is, as it is largely used, nothing but a horrible tool for censorship of those whom are in the social minority (or are made to look like in the social minority) and it ought to be reined in as much as possible, as it stands to take away a lot of people’s freedoms.
That being said, cancel culture cannot be said to be a new thing. The term might be new, but the practice of “cancelling” someone, that is, mob rule playing judge, jury and executioner to one extent or another for someone, is as old as human conflict.
The French could be said to have “cancelled” their royal family and the entire monarchy during the French Revolution. Joseph Stalin could be said to have “cancelled” Leon Trotsky and just about anyone whom he desired (he even had a man arrested for being the first to have stopped clapping following his delivering of a speech in 1937), with the number of political prisoners being estimated to have been at least 1 million (historian Roy Aleksandrovich Medvedev estimated that Stalin had 1 million political prisoners executed during the Great Terror of 1937-38 alone).
Queen Mary I is known as “Bloody Mary” for having 300 protestant Christians burned at the stake. Even 2,000 years ago, one could say that the Romans and Pharisees “cancelled” Jesus Christ, and Saul of Tarsus, before he became the Apostle Paul, essentially tried his best to “cancel” followers of Christ.
These are all extreme examples of “cancellations”, of course, and today’s cancel culture is more akin to censorship than outright political or religious execution, but it is still, nonetheless, political and, often, religious persecution.
To play up the idea that racism is still a big problem in America, Leftists “find” some amount of racism in just about everything from Dr. Seuss books to most recently “Captain Underpants”, as well as other things. People like Piers Morgan, who simply expressed his opinion that he didn’t believe Meghan Markle’s unproven accusations of racism from the Royal Family (I say that to defend truth, not the Royal Family, as they are just a bunch of Leftists as well), was cancelled from his program on ITV. JK Rowling, the Leftist author of the hugely famous “Harry Potter” series was also cancelled for not forsaking girls and women to the transgender agenda which de-womanizes them and destroys their athletic opportunities.
The Left pretends that racism and bigotry in general are as big a problem today as it was decades ago, namely during the Civil Rights Movement, because they want to divorce themselves as much as they can from their history of racism. Well, that’s at least one of the reasons. They also want to play God in general, and being able to cancel people like this and put fear into people’s hearts to not screw anything up is their own way of playing God.
It isn’t a surprise, then, that a recent Harvard/Harris poll found that 64% of Americans believe that cancel culture is a threat to their freedom.
64% said that “there is ‘a growing cancel culture’ that is a threat to their freedom, while 36 percent said they did not view it as a threat to their freedom,” said the poll.
It’s interesting that 36% did not view it as a threat to their freedom, though this is perhaps because such people are those whom are most likely to attempt to cancel someone and generally view cancel culture as a tool for “social justice” as opposed to censorship. Or at least, they view censorship as a positive tool for “social justice.”
What such people fail to realize is that, Christian or secular mentality, the following bible verses are universally true: Matthew 7:1-2: “Do not judge, or you will be judged. For with the same judgment you pronounce, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”
And while these verses are mainly directed at Christians so that they do not judge their brothers for the sins they commit (people have a misconception that this means Christians are not to judge evildoers, but this is about the hypocrisy of a Christian judging his or her brother for something that they do themselves), we all know that this general line of thinking also tends to apply for secular issues.
What I’m trying to say here is that it is rather amusing that 36% do not view cancel culture as a threat to their freedom, likely because they themselves use it, probably believing they could never end up on the receiving end of cancel culture.
If you were to judge someone harshly and thus demand they be cancelled (particularly for the dumbest of reasons), you allow yourself to be subjected to the same judgment measures. These people are quick to cancel Piers Morgan, JK Rowling, Dr. Seuss, etc., etc. yet fail to understand that they could be subjected to the same harsh judgments that they deliver to others.
At any rate, the poll also found that 36% of respondents said cancel culture was a “big problem”, 32% said it was a “moderate problem” and 20% said it was a “small problem”, while 13% said it was “not a problem.”
Again, it’s likely that those who do not view cancel culture, at least as it is currently used, in a negative way do so because they use it themselves and are misguided in their thinking that they couldn’t possibly be subjected to it.
Such people will face the toughest of realities when they inevitably are subjected to such cancellation. You see, as they judge people from the past according to standards of the present (namely, progressive Leftist standards), they fail to realize that future generations will judge them similarly, if that is what they teach their children to do (and they will).
A tranny joke made five or ten years ago could net someone some sort of social punishment today and that person would be forced to apologize for it.
An interesting example of something akin to that is the way in which the TV show “Friends” is treated by today’s youth. Even though it was extremely progressive for its time (though it wasn’t the first show to do so, they were among the first to depict a lesbian wedding and have a transsexual character be the parent of one of the main characters), today, it is considered to be “homophobic” and “transphobic” because they dared to crack jokes about gay and transgender (transsexual) people back in the mid-1990s.
Even though, again, they LITERALLY featured a lesbian wedding scene and often depicted a lesbian couple being parental figures for Ross’s son, Ben, they are called “homophobic” for making jokes about gay people.
But this is the kind of harsh judgment that this line of thinking produces. I can’t say that the show “Friends” or its cast were seeking to cancel people or be a part of cancel culture necessarily, but cancel culture takes even older liberal and Leftist thinking, which was progressive for its time, and harshly criticizes it according to the standard of today and not its own day.
I wouldn’t be surprised if, years from now, they come to outright hate that show and demand it no longer be streamed on any service or run on any tv network. This is the threat that cancel culture, as it is currently used, poses to many people: it takes away their freedoms because these people don’t believe people ought to have such freedoms.
And thus, people are naturally going to perceive cancel culture to be a threat to their freedoms; because that’s precisely what it is.
Now, you might have noted that I said “as it is currently used” earlier. The reason I say this is because I don’t completely dislike cancel culture on principle.
A couple of articles ago, I talked about Lil Nas X and his Satanic shoes and music video. I think he should be cancelled for that not only because I want to judge them by the same measures they judge others. I genuinely think that such promotion of Satan should not be allowed at any capacity.
Some will compare that music video with something like an episode of South Park where Satan is in a gay relationship with Saddam Hussein, but the comparison doesn’t work because South Park is mainly about comedy and that episode was clearly for comedic purposes. The idea of Satan being in a gay relationship with Saddam Hussein of all people is a funny one, in my opinion, and I have no problem with that seeing as it doesn’t outright promote Satan or Satanism. Matter of fact, it MAKES FUN of Satan, which is what Christians did a long time ago to depict him as a red-skinned, goat-legged freak (he literally is supposed to look like a beautiful angel, but he’s evil, so Christians centuries ago wanted to make fun of him to fight against his temptations). Lil Nas X’s video was a PROMOTION of Satan in an unironic and uncomedic manner.
As a result of such actions, I believe Lil Nas X ought to be cancelled. This would be a GOOD use of cancel culture. So cancel culture is, on principle, not a necessarily bad thing. The problem is that it can be used in a bad and censorious way, and that’s how it is being used currently, for the most part.
Dr. Seuss was literally a beloved children’s book author. What sin did he commit in print that would get him cancelled? The Left says “racism” but they find anything they remotely dislike to be a proponent of “racism.” Piers Morgan literally just stated his opinion that he didn’t believe Markle’s unproven claims that the Royal Family was racist towards her. What sin did he commit to get him cancelled? Not believing a black woman when she victimizes herself and claims, again, without proof, that the Royal Family was racist towards her.
JK Rowling created one of the most popular fictional novel series of all time and has long been an ardent Leftist in just about every cause. What sin did she commit to get her cancelled? Not going along with the false claim that transgender “women” (men who believe are women) are actually women, because such a thing is unscientific and ludicrous.
These are all examples of cancel culture being used to simply censor dissenters, which is nothing short of the kind of communism one would find in the Soviet Union or in China. Which is why so many people find cancel culture to be a huge threat to their freedoms: because that’s precisely what it is. Again, at least as it’s currently used.
I hope far more people come to the same belief and do something to stop such blatant abuse of censorious power by a woke mob which foolishly believes is invulnerable to their own tactics.
“Woe to you, O destroyer never destroyed, O traitor never betrayed! When you have finished destroying, you will be destroyed. When you have finished betraying, you will be betrayed.”
The Chinese coronavirus vaccine is simply unnecessary for the vast majority of people, seeing as there is roughly a 99.9% chance of survival for those with the disease, at least if they are not too old and don’t have comorbidities, though there is also a very high survival rate for those who are old and have such health issues.
So it is absolutely unnecessary to go through the trouble of basically everything we have seen. From lockdowns which have accentuated poverty to incessant mask-wearing and self-righteous bullying of those who do not wear one (or sometimes two, bafflingly) to closure of schools which have led to a massive rise in mental health issues and child suicide and everything else that we are told is the “new normal”, which I completely reject.
Among the extremely unnecessary things involved with this virus is the supposed “need” to get a vaccine and the push by some on the Left to play Satan and force people to get a “COVID vaccine” in order to be allowed to travel or do just about anything, ala mark of the beast.
Though that last one is a topic for another day. Right now, I just want to talk about the vaccines themselves, as they clearly are ineffective if they require multiple doses and people still have to wear masks and social distance even after taking the vaccine, and that is on the positive side of things to say about the vaccine. On the negative side, they carry with them detrimental, sometimes fatal, side-effects which devastate those who have taken them.
According to official data released by the UK government, the number of miscarriages occurring to pregnant women has skyrocketed since December 9th, when the government began their data collection.
The first report was of data taken from December 9th to January 24th, and their seventh report was of data from December 9th to March 7th. As this is a weekly report, only six weeks passed between the release of the first report and the seventh, and the results show increasing numbers of miscarriages and other pregnancy problems.
The latest Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency’s (MHRA) Yellow Card Scheme Report reveals a 366% increase in the rate of miscarriages as a result of pregnant women receiving the Chinese coronavirus injections.
Women are still getting the shot in the UK despite this and despite the UK government’s own warning following the emergency approval of the Pfizer vaccine:
“There are no or limited amount of data from the use of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2. Animal reproductive toxicity studies have not been completed. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is not recommended during pregnancy.
For women of childbearing age, pregnancy should be excluded before vaccination. In addition, women of childbearing age should be advised to avoid pregnancy for at least 2 months after their second dose.”
Despite the threat the vaccine poses to pregnant women, the UK government has not disallowed pregnant women from taking the vaccine, even despite their own warnings regarding it.
And miscarriage is not the only potential threat to pregnant women, women who have had a baby recently, and women who are hoping to get pregnant:
“It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is excreted in human milk. A risk to the newborns/infants cannot be excluded. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 should not be used during breast-feeding.”
“It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT 162b2 has an impact on fertility.”
Again, despite this, pregnant women are being given the vaccines. In the first report, a total of 4 women had reportedly suffered a miscarriage after taking the Chinese coronavirus vaccine (Pfizer) and another 2 losing their child after taking the AstraZeneca vaccine. According to the latest report, for March 7th, in the six weeks following the first report, there’s been an increase of 475% of women taking the Pfizer vaccine losing their child, bringing that total up to 23, and there is a report of one baby being born prematurely and dying as well.
Meanwhile, there was a 150% increase in miscarriages for pregnant women who took the AstraZeneca vaccine, with 5 women losing their babies as of March 7th, with another woman having a stillbirth.
While the actual numbers may not seem like a whole lot, it’s important to note that those pregnancies would not have likely ended without the taking of the vaccines. Roughly more than one in five pregnancies end in miscarriage according to The UK Miscarriage Association. So while it’s statistically possible some of those miscarriages would have still happened, they definitely would not have happened as a result of the vaccine had the expectant mothers not taken the vaccine.
Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly than that, the fact that the vaccine may be the leading cause of these things and the numbers are increasing at such a frantic pace is concerning nevertheless.
British news outlet The Daily Expose reported: “We are still unable to answer why these women were given one of the Covid vaccines against the government’s own advice,” which is what makes it even more shocking and outrageous.
A massive percentage increase in miscarriages like that in just six weeks is inconceivable for something that is marketed as being a healthy countermeasure against the Chinese coronavirus, but the fact that the UK government even went so far as to practically discourage pregnant women from getting the vaccine but still allowing them to get it is infuriating.
Well, actually, that was only their original advice. Due to not disallowing pregnant women from taking the vaccine, they probably felt like they needed to update their advice on this, not based on the science behind what the vaccine is causing for some pregnant women, but based on their little contradiction that people were likely pointing out.
Their new advice reads as follows:
“There is limited experience with use of the [Pfizer vaccine] in pregnant women. Animal studies do not indicate direct or indirect harmful effects with respect to pregnancy, embryo/foetal development, parturition or post-natal development. Administration of the [vaccine] in pregnancy should only be considered when the potential benefits outweigh any potential risks for the mother and foetus.”
Well, which is it? Are there no direct or indirect harmful effects to the baby? So why add that little warning about considering the benefits against the risks?
They updated this likely to try and get people more “comfortable” and less confused about the vaccine, but all they did was practically deny their own government department’s data of the increase in miscarriages since they began collecting the data, and simply went with a MORE confusing “get it but think about it” message, which doesn’t make things any easier or clearer.
Whatever the case may be for this updated “advice”, the data still shows an uptick in miscarriages and potential for great harm for the baby, let alone the mother.
While I would personally not have any such issues were I to receive a vaccine (for whatever reason), seeing as I am a man, this is just, in my mind, yet another reason as to not get the vaccine whatsoever.
Apart from the fact that it is completely unnecessary medically speaking (socially, one would argue otherwise, as clowns and bad-faith actors have hijacked the science on this and are basically forcing people to get it or be considered outcasts), the fact that it is clearly leading to an increase in miscarriages is only further proof that there is very little known about these vaccines, what’s in them, and what they lead to.
I, and anyone else with some amount of sense, refuse to be a guinea pig at best and a casualty of Leftist science at worst, and thus refuse to take the vaccine. And if anyone asks me if I’ve been vaccinated, I’ll simply flick my arm and say “yep, just did it,” because that’s about all that crap is worth right now.
“And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.”
Perhaps this shouldn’t come as a surprise, seeing as everything the Left promotes is unhinged and outright evil, from promoting the mutilation of children’s genitals to the murdering of such children within and without the womb and every other evil and perverse thing they have promoted, but some on the Left within pop culture, at least one person in particular, is straight up promoting Satan now and trying to make him mainstream.
Controversial black gay rapper Lil Nas X, who back in December encouraged a fan of his to get an abortion and proceeded to taunt a pro-life group about it, recently did two things to promote Satan: release a music video in which he visibly gives Satan a lap dance and releasing a line of shoes bearing all sorts of Satanic symbolism, even including a drop of real blood somewhere within the shoes.
The line will also only include 666 exclusive pairs, further going into the Satanic theme.
And what is perhaps one of the most disturbing aspects of all of this is that Lil Nas X (real name Montero Lamar Hill, so that’s what I will address him as henceforth) has even said that his core audience is children, and he has appeared on “Sesame Street” with one of its characters, “Elmo”, and has written a children’s book called “C Is For Country.”
The music video reportedly depicts Hill being sexually seduced by Satan in his serpent form in the Garden of Eden, after which the camera cuts to the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Etched onto the tree bark is an ancient Greek quote from Plato’s “Symposium” which reads: “Now when our first form had been cut in two, each half in longing for its fellow would come to it again,” a passage which is in reference to the pagan views of sexuality and dualism, claiming that humans were originally male, female, and androgenous, and which also claims that homosexuality is an attempt to recover one’s primal nature.
Given that homosexuality was running rampant in ancient Greece at times, it’s no surprise that ancient Greek people sought to justify their clearly evil and unjustifiable actions.
At any rate, the video then depicts Hill being stoned to death for his homosexuality, then ascending toward an angelic being before sliding down to hell on a stripper pole, at which point Hill meets Satan sitting on a throne as though he was some sort of king, and is encircled by Latin words which translate to: “They condemn what they don’t understand.” After which, Hill gives Satan a lap dance and proceeds to snap Satan’s neck, assuming the horned crown.
One little sidebar to address the Latin phrase there, these sins are condemned not by people, but by God. It’s not that they are condemned because we don’t understand; we understand perfectly that what they are doing is sinful and evil. But even then, it’s ultimately God who gives out such condemnations, judging them to be evil and sending them to Hell for their evil. Do they claim that God is the one who doesn’t understand? Wouldn’t be surprising if they did, but would only further show their own ignorance.
Another thing to quickly address, Hill said in an interview with Rolling Stone following the release of that music video that the dethroning of Satan is symbolic of “dismantling the throne of judgment and punishment that has kept many of us from embracing our true selves out of fear.”
Well, two things. First, it’s not Satan who delivers judgment and punishment. Like I said in a recent article about Don Lemon claiming that God wasn’t about judging people when it came to things like homosexuality, God 100% is the judge and judges people according to their disbelief in His Son Jesus Christ.
John 3:18, among other verses, displays the judgment of God: “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” So that also addresses that first issue about condemnation. It is not ourselves who condemn, for we cannot condemn ourselves nor absolve ourselves of condemnation. So to believe that it is Satan who gives judgment and delivers punishment is attributing to Satan that which comes from God. Whether this is what he meant to do or not, that is characterized as the unpardonable sin.
And secondly, symbolism or not, Hill will be judged and punished (unless he repents, though if he has committed the unpardonable sin, no amount of repentance would even help him) for such things. Snapping the neck of Satan (which Satan would not exactly approve of because he is a narcissist and believes himself a perfect being, enough to challenge God, so I have no idea how Satanists believe this action is in any way Satanic. I know that Satanists don’t worship Satan and just worship the self, but they don’t really know Satan’s character if they think that is a positive symbol) to symbolically “dismantle” the “throne of judgment and punishment” doesn’t actually get rid of the judge or the one who delivers punishment, namely because it’s God, not Satan, who delivers such judgment, but also because symbols don’t do crap.
Whether Hill knows this or not, he will be judged and punished for his evil. He hasn’t freed himself or all other willful sinners to disregard God’s Word. He hasn’t freed people from their bondage to sin. Jesus did that around 2000 years ago, and even then, only to those who believe in Him. Hill is FAR from Jesus in practically all respects, and his actions and intent signify someone who wants MORE people to embrace and be proud of their sin.
We are at a point in our country where pop culture not only subtly pushes people towards Satan, but now, does so bluntly. They WANT people to walk with Satan instead of Jesus. They want to bring Satan into mainstream popularity, not as the real antagonist that he is, but elevated to a symbol of GOOD and FREEDOM.
And it’s not like this kind of mentality came out of the blue, either. For quite some time now, famous celebrities have indulged themselves in Satanism, most famously attending dinner parties called “Celebrity Cannibal Dinner Parties” hosted by long-time Satanist Marina Abramovich, who has plenty of connections with Hollywood. In these dinner parties, as the name would lead you to believe, the celebrities (such as Will Ferrell, Gwen Stefani, Lady Gaga, etc.) all gather in a large party to simulate the eating of human flesh and meat.
Given that ancient religions have notoriously offered human sacrifices to their gods and these fake cadavers are served up as “sacrifices” for the celebrities to eat, it goes in line with the Satanic beliefs that the “self” is “god”. The man in the video below documents a little of what happens in these Satanic dinner parties, though tries to not outright say that the footage he shows is conclusive proof that these people are Satanists. While he may not believe so, it is pretty clear that they are. What human being, if not embracing Satanic and occult crap, would so willingly and proudly participate in dinner parties which simulate the sacrificing and eating of human beings?
But at any rate, this kind of garbage has been occurring for some time now, and it seems at least one of the people in Leftist pop culture is seeking to bring Satanism into the mainstream, particularly targeting children as well.
This is the kind of thing conservatives and Christians ought to be using cancel culture for. The devil is trying to gain ground (has been trying this for some time now, though, but still worth pointing out) in mainstream American culture, receiving help from demons like Hill and others. These people ought to be cancelled to Hell, no pun intended. Their merchandise ought not to be sold, their products not purchased, and altogether they ought to be castigated for this sort of behavior and mentality.
Satan should have no place in American society apart from the clear enemy which has long ago been defeated. He might claw and fight back as much as he wants, but his defeat is already delivered to him. He will be burned in the lake of fire and sulfur, alongside all of his little demons like Lil Nas X. We’ll see if Hill feels liberated when he burns in Hell.
“The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.”
We bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free...